An Award Winning New Unit

[series]

I decided to post the unit that won the Axis and Allies Unit Design Competetion. Now, if you have nothing nice to say, don't even post here, after all, you can say "Series, your idea is crap" "It would never work" "What are you, stupid?", but the fact that this unit is award winning proves you wrong... you know who I'm talking to

With that said, I give you... the 2004 Uncon: Winning A&A Unit

New Component: The “Fortifications” Unit



The “Fortifications” unit represents the various means to slow down enemy advancements, such as bunkers, pillboxes, minefields, hedgerows, coastal mines, and etc. Fortifying capitals, victory cities, and strategic positions will help give you the edge when you are invaded. It could mean the difference between life and death.



With that said, I present to you, the “Fortifications” Unit:

Fortification

Attack: N/A

Defense: N/A

Movement: None

Cost: 12 IPC



Special Abilities:



Construction: When you place a fortification during your “Place New Units” phase, you may place it on any land territory that you have held since the start of your turn, or any sea zone which you had at least 1 friendly sea unit since the beginning of your turn. This counts towards the territories production limits if there is an industrial complex in the territory.



Strategic Bombing Raids: If your opponent performs a bombing raid, the damage is halved in territories containing a fortification. However, if any 6’s were rolled by the bombers, a fortification is removed per 6 (the damage is still halved regardless of whether or not any fortifications remain). Your opponent may attempt a bombing raid on a territory with fortifications and without an industrial complex in an attempt to remove the fortifications, however, no IPC damage will be dealt.



Support: In a territory with fortifications, all defending units defend at +1. However, there are limits to this:

Defending AA guns do not defend at +1.

The +1 is not cumulative, it is only +1 no matter how many fortifications you have in the territory.



Fortifications in Combat: After combat is over, if a new power owns the territory, all fortifications are removed. After you roll for defense while having a friendly fortification present, roll a 6 sided die. If you roll a 1, a single fortification is removed.



The piece itself would be nation specific. The Germans would get pieces shaped like "Blockhouses", the Japanese would get pieces shaped like "Pillboxes", the Allies would each get pieces shaped like "Mines".



If you would like to give suggestions or opinions, it is okay, but flaming is not appreciated at all.. you know who I'm talking to...

[sking500]

I brought this suggestion up in the A&A Med discussion a few months ago. Do I get partial credit?

(By the way I'm kidding...you can have all the credit, and take all the blame for this one).

[DocD]

What the hell is this crap about!!!! Totally Junk Man!!!
I'm TOTALLY Against this MESS!!!

[series]

What the hell is this crap about!!!! Totally Junk Man!!!
I'm TOTALLY Against this MESS!!!
\/3r'/ p}{|_||\||\|'/ '/0|_| ||4/\/\4

[DocD]

What the hell is this crap about!!!! Totally Junk Man!!!
I'm TOTALLY Against this MESS!!!
Hey Series...I was only kidding ok... No harm intended ok.

Actually, Not bad. I'm impressed...did you do this on your own or did your parents help you with this project?

LOL, kidding again ok!

Seriously though...this is quite workable. I like everything including the SBR idea against fortifications.

I like everything EXCEPT the +1 for ALL defending units. That could be alittle harsh on attackers, who are already overstretched due to the limited amount of IPCs that need to go around.

I understand the need for the fort to be powerful due to its 'high' cost...but maybe the cost could be lowered also.

OK, that's doc's 2 cents...I will post more as my pennies come in.:)

[series]

Hey Series...I was only kidding ok... No harm intended ok.

Actually, Not bad. I'm impressed...did you do this on your own or did your parents help you with this project?

LOL, kidding again ok!

Seriously though...this is quite workable. I like everything including the SBR idea against fortifications.

I like everything EXCEPT the +1 for ALL defending units. That could be alittle harsh on attackers, who are already overstretched due to the limited amount of IPCs that need to go around.

I understand the need for the fort to be powerful due to its 'high' cost...but maybe the cost could be lowered also.

OK, that's doc's 2 cents...I will post more as my pennies come in.:)You continue to make a funny! Do you know what I posted (in "l33t)? I actually said that I knew it was a joke :p Anyway, I do like your comments.

[D.DonDDo]

hey series ... I like ideas for new units... wehre can I see the non award winning units? can you post a link?

[series]

hey series ... I like ideas for new units... wehre can I see the non award winning units? can you post a link?
I'm afraid you cant see the award winning units. I wish I could see them as well, but they are 100% confidential unless they post them themselves.

[GROGnads]

And here it is at this LINK:

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2838

It's the 6th response down, so scroll for this, okay?;)

[Attila the Wolf]

What's with the fonts?

[tactical]

I may be the only one who has enough guts to say this but I don't like this idea at all. Regardless of what people think, it's the Axis who have to take risks in this game( for the most part). Every time you go through a turn, it's the Allies(usually) who will (combined) earn more per turn than the Axis(among equal players). By having a blockade you allow Russia to dead zone immensly and have UK and USA to attack Germany. Not to mention, you will slow Japan down to without as much of an effort. And what would Japan do with this unit? defend the islands? Defend their starting territories? If Japan is wasting ipcs on blockades instead of tanks,ics or transports, they could be in trouble.
As far as Germany using the same unit, I don't know, it just looks like a completly bogged down Europe that will turn the game into a crawl until the allies have outproduced the Germans enough to invade.

[DocD]

I may be the only one who has enough guts to say this but I don't like this idea at all. Regardless of what people think, it's the Axis who have to take risks in this game( for the most part). Every time you go through a turn, it's the Allies(usually) who will (combined) earn more per turn than the Axis(among equal players). By having a blockade you allow Russia to dead zone immensly and have UK and USA to attack Germany. Not to mention, you will slow Japan down to without as much of an effort. And what would Japan do with this unit? defend the islands? Defend their starting territories? If Japan is wasting ipcs on blockades instead of tanks,ics or transports, they could be in trouble.
As far as Germany using the same unit, I don't know, it just looks like a completly bogged down Europe that will turn the game into a crawl until the allies have outproduced the Germans enough to invade.
I see where you are coming from tactical, but I still like the idea. The buggs would have to be worked out for sure but it is worthy of a playtest if you ask me.
As far as who is going to use it....let's see....
Russia definitely could, but the price might be a hindrance for them.
Germany, should be able to afford one for the Weur or the Baltics.
UK's India would be a most have.
Japan...maybe in Japan...but maybe not.
For US, China or Hawaii or any Pacific seazone they deem strategically vital.

Some countries could use this more than others for sure and some would be able to afford it more than others, but that is the nature of the beast.
Everything is NOT for everybody....I mean we would all like to see a Russian battleship right. It would due wonders for the Allies Atlantic fleet defense.

[Der Panzinator]

I've been using fortification units in my Advanced Axis & Allies Europe game for a long time. One of the best additions I came up with for that game. Makes the Atlantic Wall a truly formidable barrier and creates some strongholds along the Russian front.

Fortifications:

· Fortifications cost 2 IPC each.

· They may be placed on any territory that was friendly controlled at the beginning of the current players turn.

· A maximum of one fortification can be placed per turn per territory.

· There must be at least two infantry units in the space to build.

· Building a fortification does not inhibit Infantry movement/combat.

· Fortifications do not attack or defend but can be used as causalities.

· Each fortification increases one infantry to defend with a 3.

· An unlimited amount of fortifications can be built in any space.

· Fortifications can be captured if the defending space is unoccupied by enemy units.

[Vollick1979]

Series, I don't like your idea that much either. A Fortification seems extremely powerful. A few of those in Russian or captured German territory will stop Germany dead in the waters on the way to Moscow. Could you imagine trying to take Moscow with 50 infantry defending at 3? Not even mentioning the 7 allied fighters in there defending at 5!

I think this opens up a nasty can of worms. Fortifications aren't really a unit it's a quality of the territory. But then we could include island bases, air fields, etc. etc. This is not a door i want to open in Axis & Allies. Maybe in a RTS computer game but not a board game. Besides aren't we assuming that units are fortified to begin with? Units aren't just sitting out in a field waiting to be attacked, and how exactly do fighters become fortified?

The fact these fortifications can be destroyed after rolling for defense on a die roll is ridiculous. It would make sense to throw a single inf against a fortified area that is heavily defended for the off chance the die is rolled and comes up a 1.

This Fortification unit does nothing other than make stacking easier especially for Russia and Germany and they stack quite well as it is.

All in all series not bad, not great but definately not bad.

[pagan]

Der Panzinator's Fortifications in AdvAAE work well.

I could go along with a max FORT build of 10, but what happens is that the FORTS are great but the IPCs spent don't give you another moving/attacking piece. The game is based on each round build up of FORTS at specific areas. As you can only build 1 per turn and you must have to standing INF on the spot its a slow build-up.

Works nicely in AdvAAE by Der PAnzinator. I have, perhaps played that game more than anyone. Best part of FORTS are to increase damage costs to your opponent, such as on Initial placemment IPCs being spent on FORT (basically for AAR youcould consider starting Sudan with 2 FORT placement or filling up India.)

Anyway, I like FORTs as they are in AdvAAE. Not too powerful ; you have to plan early on defenses (if you want to) ; reminds me of breaching gaps

[cousin_joe]

"Series, your idea is crap" "It would never work" "What are you, stupid?"Hey, you said it, not me :D Besides, someone's gotta keep your ego in line, otherwise, your head will become so big, it'll explode, and who's supposed to entertain us then? :confused: Just remember what uncon stands for though, unconventional, as in bizarre, freaky, irregular, outlandish, quirky, spaced-out and unorthodox. Yep, you got that covered :)

Seriously though, congrats on winning. I will agree with the others though that I generally don't like it on the basis that the game is defensive enough as is.

[Attila the Wolf]

Fortifications are tactical in scope, not strategic. That's why they aren't part of the game. No war was ever won with minefields, barbed wire, etc.

[DocD]

Well series...there you have it. I'm still for it if that makes you feel any better.

[series]

And what would Japan do with this unit? defend the islands? Defend their starting territories? If Japan is wasting ipcs on blockades instead of tanks,ics or transports, they could be in trouble.
I see where your coming from, but let's be realistic. You wont buy battleships with Russia, but they still include the option. Just because you can buy something doesn't mean you should.

As far as Germany using the same unit, I don't know, it just looks like a completly bogged down Europe that will turn the game into a crawl until the allies have outproduced the Germans enough to invade.
If the Germans fortify, say, Western Europe, Germany, and I think Eastern Europe, they will be near invincible from an amphibious assault as long as the allies don't destroy them. However, it will be an investment. It could give Germany a major advantage, however, when they can afford it. Perhaps, for starting unit placement, they could get a few...

Series, I don't like your idea that much either. A Fortification seems extremely powerful. A few of those in Russian or captured German territory will stop Germany dead in the waters on the way to Moscow. Could you imagine trying to take Moscow with 50 infantry defending at 3? Not even mentioning the 7 allied fighters in there defending at 5!

The fact these fortifications can be destroyed after rolling for defense on a die roll is ridiculous. It would make sense to throw a single inf against a fortified area that is heavily defended for the off chance the die is rolled and comes up a 1.

Well, that is a strategy with the single infantry... many times were small forces sent to destroy defensive positions. And trust me, if russia has 3 or 4 fortifications, they may have 5 infantry, not 50. It needs to be a healthy balance.

Hey, you said it, not me Besides, someone's gotta keep your ego in line, otherwise, your head will become so big, it'll explode, and who's supposed to entertain us then? Just remember what uncon stands for though, unconventional, as in bizarre, freaky, irregular, outlandish, quirky, spaced-out and unorthodox. Yep, you got that covered

Seriously though, congrats on winning. I will agree with the others though that I generally don't like it on the basis that the game is defensive enough as is.
I don't know if your post is even worth reading, since if, say, I cured world hunger, you would still say my ideas are crap ("If there's no world hunger, farmers may lose their jobs!") But anyway, it wasn't my ego, it was just me knowing that you would flame my idea at a first chance. Yes, you know who you are.......

Ok, but on a different note, I added the bombing raid thing to help make it less defensive, and not only that, but to make bombers even more useful.

No war was ever won with minefields, barbed wire, etc.
No war was ever won without minefields, barbed wire, etc. Think of how easy it would have been for the allies to capture france without german foritifications. The barbed wire on the beaches alone slowed the guys down.

Anyway, thanks to DocD for supporting me at least :D

[cousin_joe]

I don't know if your post is even worth reading, since if, say, I cured world hunger, you would still say my ideas are crap ("If there's no world hunger, farmers may lose their jobs!") But anyway, it wasn't my ego, it was just me knowing that you would flame my idea at a first chance. Yes, you know who you are.......

Ok, but on a different note, I added the bombing raid thing to help make it less defensive, and not only that, but to make bombers even more useful.

Bit of a stretch there comparing coming up with a unit to make a defensive game more defensive, vs. curing world hunger :rolleyes: Rest assured, if you actually do ever come up with anything good, I will be sure to compliment you :) As of now though, I'm still waiting :D

[GROGnads]

...but maybe we should have had a "People's Choice Award" for their 'favorite' NEW one, huh? Yes, I agree that some would Vote for anyone else's besides some of 'ours', but at least there could be a variety of them to choose from. I also felt that in some regards there are appropriate types that can add to the game's strategy while others are better left for the likes of the "Europe', "Pacific", or even "D-Day" ones. One suggestion that I haven't heard anyone make, except for myself at one time, was taking TERRAIN, SEASONS, or even WEATHER into consideration, especially for the non-global games. There should have been 'Major Rivers', 'Mountains', 'Marshes', 'Rough', 'Jungle', 'Monsoon', 'Snow', 'Mud', 'Sandstorms', etc. with their attendant penalties to Movement, Attacking, Flying, etc. These did affect some Campaigns significantly in either postponing them, or prodding them onward before the onset of such as one of them was approaching.

[DocD]

Well grog...I'm against the weather in AandA. The scale is to big...besides...if you use your imagination, then high rolls that caused you a sure victory could be considered bad weather and the such.
Am I the only one with a wild imagination for this game or what?

[series]

Well grog...I'm against the weather in AandA. The scale is to big...besides...if you use your imagination, then high rolls that caused you a sure victory could be considered bad weather and the such.
Am I the only one with a wild imagination for this game or what?
heh heh... I think the same way. Once my opponent invaded alaska with japan. He had like 3 infantry and a tank and i had like 2 infantry and I won, so I said "I guess you forgot how cold it was up there, eh?"

[Lobo]

Hey congratulations series! I like your fortifications unit. Out of all the new pieces that could be added fortifications top the list as the most needed.

Way to go.

[Lobo]

Weather effects do NOT belong in Axis & Allies as separate calculations.

[Drax Kramer]

With that said, I present to you, the “Fortifications” Unit:

Fortification

Attack: N/A
Defense: N/A
Movement: None
Cost: 12 IPC

Special Abilities:

Construction: When you place a fortification during your “Place New Units” phase, you may place it on any land territory that you have held since the start of your turn, or any sea zone which you had at least 1 friendly sea unit since the beginning of your turn. This counts towards the territories production limits if there is an industrial complex in the territory.

What's the purpose of putting "fortification" in the sea zone?

Strategic Bombing Raids: If your opponent performs a bombing raid, the damage is halved in territories containing a fortification. However, if any 6’s were rolled by the bombers, a fortification is removed per 6 (the damage is still halved regardless of whether or not any fortifications remain). Your opponent may attempt a bombing raid on a territory with fortifications and without an industrial complex in an attempt to remove the fortifications, however, no IPC damage will be dealt.

I don't see any purpose in making relations between strategic bombing and fortifications (whatever they suppose to represent). Why should any kind of fortification hinder strategic bombing? Are we talking about underground factories here? Why the introduction of new concept such as removal of an installation in case of specific die roll? There's no such thing with complexes or AA guns.


Support: In a territory with fortifications, all defending units defend at +1. However, there are limits to this:

Defending AA guns do not defend at +1.

The +1 is not cumulative, it is only +1 no matter how many fortifications you have in the territory.

What's the purpose of having multiple immobile fortification units in the same territory, then?

Fortifications in Combat: After combat is over, if a new power owns the territory, all fortifications are removed. After you roll for defense while having a friendly fortification present, roll a 6 sided die. If you roll a 1, a single fortification is removed.

Again, new concept. Complexes remain, AA guns remain, but fortifications dissapear. And more die roll specific actions included!

I see no benefit for the game with inclusion of such unit, especially given several new concepts introduced. If that proposal won the award, how bad were the others (I asked for the inclusion of holding trays for the units)?


Drax

[GROGnads]

Weather effects do NOT belong in Axis & Allies as separate calculations.Maybe not in the 'Global' games, but at the smaller scales it could. "D-Day" at the very least. Any others along this 'scale' certainly should have them included as it would greatly affect everything to do with conducting a 'Campaign'. Didn't the 'Mud' greatly inhibit the German's 'Movements' during the "Russian Campaign"? Even in the game of the same name, it is given it's due, and the units in that are at 'Corps' & 'Army' levels as well. :confused:

[Lobo]

Well as DocD pointed out, the dice account for unpredictable events like the weather. 6's represent when your tanks/trucks/horses got stuck in the mud or <<insert hard luck story here>> or <<opponent's good fortune here>> and where less effective.

I agree that in a game on the scale of D-Day weather should be a factor.

[series]

What's the purpose of putting "fortification" in the sea zone?



I don't see any purpose in making relations between strategic bombing and fortifications (whatever they suppose to represent). Why should any kind of fortification hinder strategic bombing? Are we talking about underground factories here? Why the introduction of new concept such as removal of an installation in case of specific die roll? There's no such thing with complexes or AA guns.




What's the purpose of having multiple immobile fortification units in the same territory, then?



Again, new concept. Complexes remain, AA guns remain, but fortifications dissapear. And more die roll specific actions included!

I see no benefit for the game with inclusion of such unit, especially given several new concepts introduced. If that proposal won the award, how bad were the others (I asked for the inclusion of holding trays for the units)?


Drax
1. The fortifications represent all types of defenses, including underground factories.

2. The fortifications are removed because they are destroyed in combat.

3. There is very little reason to have multiple fortifications. However, the main reason is so that when some are destroyed by bombers and such, you will still have some. You are aloud multiple AA guns in a single territory with no additional effect after all.

4. The idea wasn't playtested 5000 times like you seem to think it was. Maybe the fortifications should stay. I just thought that letting them remain would give them too much of a disadvantage.