Proposed Mission Statement

Sharpe · **Sharpe**

In response to a request:

MISSION STATEMENT

Instead of creating a new game, we intend to refine Axis & Allies Miniatures. Drawing on the collective talent of the Forumini, our game will be an accurate and highly playable simulation of WW2 tactical combat. We hope that any present AAM player will be able to pick up the rules, look at the cards and begin to play in a few minutes.
_________________

Eric Marino · **Eric Marino**

Sounds like what I signed up for.

lotharlutjens · **lotharlutjens**

Ok, now that the goal has been made clear to me, I have to be honest and say it's not really what I hoped for, so please disregard some of my suggestions on some of the other threads such as the "card" initiative system, that is definitely out of the goal guidelines and I certainly don't want to distract from the pursuit of this goal. I will still help where I can on technical data because I truly love discussing these things anyway. No hard feelings fellows, I wish you well on this goal, but for me I would not be satisfied with this project without some major, major overhauls. Like I said, I'll still help where I can. Merry Christmas All.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.

Field Marshal PF · **Field Marshal PF**

So, will this system be adopted for online games and tournaments while the "WotC Style" rules are thrown into the compost bin?
_________________

Angel of Death · **Angel of Death**

I was also thinking it to be a bit more fundamental. But no problem. Refined, accurate and playable are quite high standards already.

I take it this means we will -not- try to adjust the actual rulebook. Since doing that will require the player to read the new rulebook first and try to spot the small and large changes that have been made ?

And that by the actual rulebook we mean and use the Expanded Rules (with Enfilade fire and single hex file overwatch) , supplemented by the revised rules ?

Or do we bring out our own little rulebook that is so brief, insightful and clear that it will be a novum in wargaming history Smile

(by which I mean : this can be hard).

Would this be the end of -top armor- , side armor and 200 meter hexes ? I hope not.

Sharpe · **Sharpe**

Let's try this again, guys. This is a suggestion for the mission statement. I should have made that more clear.

I don't see where the "card" system is out of line and I don't want to disregard any suggestions. I hope for some sort of blend where current AAM players can easily pick this up whatever we do. Whatever it takes to make this better is however much we have to change the game.

The rulebook will change. We want the change not to be so radical as to be offputting.

I'd also like to include some things as optional rules.

I think the player will have to read one rulebook, but a current player should be able to adapt to the changes without confusion.

I am starting a thread to list major overhauls so that we can deal with them. I only have my vision. I am studying everyone's responses to try and understand theirs.
_________________

lotharlutjens · **lotharlutjens**

Ok Sharpe, but let me get through Christmas and I'll PM you what I'd like to see done. I am just afraid that what I want is too ambitious for what the players want, and I expect that, especially from those who so gallantly defend a system that they are OK with. After you read my PM, and only if you find that my suggestions are worth risking a little disruption, I'll post them. For me, I want a game that doesn't feel as ackward as AAM, that reflects more historical accuracy then AAM, but remains "easy" to understand and play. I'll get with you on this after Christmas.
To you and yours, Sharpe. Have a wonderful Christmas.
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.

Buzzkill · **Buzzkill**

I understand lotharlutjens position. I understand the desire to wipe the slate clean. That being said, I also have a game that I have invested a considerable amount of time, and money into and overall have enjoyed playing it and hope to be able to continue enjoying it for a long time. Unfortunately the game has come to the point where something has to be done, or it is time to find a new hobby. The breaking point for me was the new cards. I have always been resistant to custom cards, I was satisfied with the ones that came with the game. Yeah some of the stats were wonky or just plain wrong, but it was still a fun, visually appealing game. Now, I am being told that I need to print "revised" cards to correct all the errors, but they still release cards with the new set, in the old style, disregarding the revisions that were made. I paid for those cards, I have boxes full of cards, but those are all obsolete. Now I have to pay again to have the correct cards. If I have to go down to the Staples and pay to have them print the "new and improved cards", why shouldn't I just make my own cards that really reflect the way these units should have been portrayed in the first place. And since I am doing that why not formalize all these house rules I have been using anyways. Since WOTC is forcing me to make my own game materials, why not make them the way I think they should be! I think Sharpes OP sums up how I feel about what we are trying to do. I think the bones of AAM provide enough structure to support a much more historical and accurate game while still being fun and intuitive and easy for the novice or expert alike. Sort of an "Advanced AAM".
_________________
Nuts! - General Anthony McAuliffe

NeuralDream · **NeuralDream**

When we started this project I was considering scrapping the AAM system and starting from scratch. Now, it has become quite clear that there is no need for that. Elegant modifications of the AAM system can make it a great game that AAM players will pick up easily. Up to now some of my favourite suggestions include:
* Ranges are not the same for all (no need to stick to 0-1/2-4/5-8 wherever they are not representative enough)
* Addition of separate anti-air value. Aircraft are not infantry whatever way you look at them Razz

* Defense+1 instead of cover rolls
* New Air system
* Front/Side/Back/(Top) defense. This is probably my favourite addition.

In my opinion, even if we adopt only a few them, it will still be a better game.
_________________

My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today).

Sharpe · **Sharpe**

Eric Marino · **Eric Marino**

Yeah one thing about the A&A community, this isn't your regular interwebs forum. you won't be beaten with sticks for having an opinion.

Sharpe · **Sharpe**

Buzzkill · **Buzzkill**

HHRgamer · **HHRgamer**

Armor. I agree the differential armor ratings for front, side, back, and top should be done because Neural Dream has shown how it can be done easily and realistically. I also have to agree, despite my earlier comment to the contrary in another thread, that putting the numbers on the vehicle silhouette is better than just listing them. However, in view of the space problem on the cards, wouldn't it be best to get two for one and just use a side profile of the specific vehicle to both identify the vehicle and show the f/s/b/t armor?

Flexible ranges. I agree with N.D. that fitting range bands to the weapon is much more realistic. The extended range and Sindor's indirect fire SAs do this already, but we can improve. I prefer to avoid using SAs and just plug the appropriate range bands into the line above the attack values. Simple, elegant, and space-saving.

rules. I agree with Sharpe-- we need a rule book. The historical house rules folks have had to limp along with an assumed set of basic rules (which has not been particularly stable or definite) and an assortment of added on house rules. To avoid putting off AAM players, and to make changes easy to absorb quickly, we could retain the same basic layout of the old AAM rulebook. Within that format, we should cut or modify those rules which are broken or inappropriate, retain the ones that are not, and add what we think is needed for a historical version.

I also agree with Sharpe that we should have an appendix with optional rules that players can pick and choose from. One such optional rule that I like would be a card initiative system, as suggested by Lotharlutjens. I experienced a card initiative system playing Look Sarge No Charts at a convention, and I think it works very well.

Having gone through the rule re-drafting exercise myself already in order to create a more historic version of the game for 3-D play, I would be glad to volunteer to help in the drafting of Forumini Armies Rules. I am fine with Word documents and with English, but would have to rely on the graphics folks to put in the great illustrations.
_________________
HHRgamer

lotharlutjens · **lotharlutjens**

Good morning everyone and Happy New Year, they say they will release my father from the hospital today, a very happy New Year indeed.

My vision by the way, is very bad.............. I've been wearing glasses for 45 years now.

Seriously, I want a fun game but I also want a game that depicts "tactical" World War II combat, I know that to do this involves compromises and a lot of hard work by all involved.

I have a multitude of problems with the AAM system and it pretty much involves the whole system, from the sequence of play to the stats themselves, I have been involved and played with many World War Two systems in my lifetime and I have to say that this system at the "rules" level rates at the very low end of the "Lutjens" game barometer. I don't want to turn this into a critique thread and systematically point out each and every flaw, I just want to go on the record ( as if there was any doubt ) as to what I think needs to be done and that is, "wholesale" revision of almost every aspect of this game. ( Keep the minis, keep the idea of some sort of card for stats, keep some sort of hex map, keep some dice).

I know many of you have fondness for this game and I wish I had that as well but I have been at this hobby of wargaming for a very long time and when I look at a system it is through the eyes of one whom has digested a lot of rules and systems pertaining to this subject matter over the years. AAM falls way short of what I want in a tactical game.

So far this project has been a battle between two mindsets, the gamey guys, who seem to want a quick , fun, easy game that they can play with minimum changes to the system as is, and the history guys, who seem to want a more historically accurate "simulation" and can accept a more complex system for the sake of historical accuracy. Neither are wrong, neither are right. I just hope some sort of compromises can be struck that all sides find acceptable and that, in itself, will take a lot of work.

I do not mean to offend anyone with my continous suggestions, objections, observations and pontifications. If I did not truly love both history and gaming I would not be here, but as I do love it so, I cannot sit idly by without interjecting what "I" percieve would make this "game" a better one. After all, how often do you get to discuss this subject matter without someone's eyes glazing over in the "real' world. Here, in this forum, military discussion is the norm, and the audience is here because they want to be here. In short, it is a place where peers in this hobby can discuss and debate pertinent subject matters to their hearts content. I love it so.

Ok, in summation, my vision is a totally revamped system, thats just the way that I think it needs to be done. Sorry, but there it is.

Happy New Year Ya'll
_________________
Gaming for 36 Years.