GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
10,268 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
14 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Unconditional Surrender! World War 2 in Europe» Forums » News

Subject: Pacific Version rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pavel Benc
msg tools
I'm thinking about buying this game, but the think which discourages me a bit is the time. I'm not sure how often I'm gonna find several free days for this game as whole campaign (maybe once every three or five years?). But if epic than epic cool. So how about the pacific version? Is it gonna come and how long it could take? If it is really coming and it could be somehow combined with the original, than I'm buying this game instantly!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Catanzaro
Italy
Palermo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I cannot answer to your question about PTO, but as regard the playing time I have played many wargames at this grand-stategic level. Putting aside Hitler's War (AH) none of them is meaningfully shorter than USE.

Also note that USE is probably the one that has more scenarios, if you cannot manage the Whole campaign. Scenarios range from mini-one-turn- didactic, to really huge and long, although much less long than the full campaign. Any portion of the conflict is included in the scenarios. France '40, Early stages of Barbarossa, Full Barbarossa 41-44, Mediterranean, the liberation of Europe, Balkans etc etc.

Besides if you use VASSAL or Cyberboard you can play anything a little bit at time, when you and your opponent have time. Or also play PBeM.

Playing Time is the thing should discourages LESS any potential USE player :)
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salvatore Vasta
United States
Woodstock
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have started some work on a Pacific version of the game. However, there are several elements of the design that need serious consideration to determine if it would be reasonable to put in the design effort.

It is intended to be combined with the original. However, based on prior design experience with Totaler Krieg and Dai Senso, there will be very little direct interaction between the games. Play balance between the games is greatly affected if forces (primarily the Allies) can be quickly and easily switched between theaters.

It would likely be at least several years before it would be ready to appear on GMT's P500 list. From there assume a minimum of one more year, so it won't be for 3 more years at the earliest.

I've also started some work on a WW1 version. Again, it is still very early in the feasibility stage.

Sal
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Catanzaro
Italy
Palermo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
svasta wrote:
I have started some work on a Pacific version of the game. However, there are several elements of the design that need serious consideration to determine if it would be reasonable to put in the design effort.

It is intended to be combined with the original. However, based on prior design experience with Totaler Krieg and Dai Senso, there will be very little direct interaction between the games. Play balance between the games is greatly affected if forces (primarily the Allies) can be quickly and easily switched between theaters.

(...)
Sal


I agree! Strict home defense policy in PTO Regions should prevent wild Strategic Redeployments.

Besides only naval and air units should be able to redeploy in another theatre in a reasonalble time (one or two months of delay). Ground units could be put on the turn track 1d6 months after the redeployment, and at least after two months. We know that very few ground units changed emisphere during War, most of them only once, and were ready for first line after a pause of months. (see for example the "Siberians").
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I largely depends on the U.S. theory for prosecuting the War. If a combined game included War Plans, the U.S. would have to adopt a "Japan first" or a "Germany first" strategy . . . and that would affect how many units it would/could shift between the theaters.

Though, I remember reading from Mark Herman's comments about Empire of the Sun that the PTO was fought by the U.S. with a very small amount of its available manpower relative to Europe - in other words, Japan's loss was not a matter of "if" but "when".

That's hard to model in a global war game . . . do you go with victory conditions that pre-assume Axis loss and have the Axis player attempting to hold out longer than the Axis did historically (this is Empire of Sun and World in Flames, and it seems to also be the philosophy in the design-for-effect features of USE)? Or do you pre-assume that the Axis could have won the war, and that's the only victory condition that matters?

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that any reasonable design attempts to achieve the former rather than the latter . . . unless you allow for wild diplomatic shifts, such as allowing Russia to choose to enter the war on the Axis side and/or remain neutral, or a neutral Britain, or a U.S. that remains neutral as to Europe and/or Japan (if not attacked) . . .

Also - as an aside, I have an affinity for World War I and would prefer that design, Sal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Benc
msg tools
cmontgo2 wrote:


I'm no historian, but it seems to me that any reasonable design attempts to achieve the former rather than the latter . . . unless you allow for wild diplomatic shifts, such as allowing Russia to choose to enter the war on the Axis side and/or remain neutral, or a neutral Britain, or a U.S. that remains neutral as to Europe and/or Japan (if not attacked) . . .



I don't how exact it is, but from what I read it seems to me that it was actually not very sure that SSSR and Germany went against each other. It was possible but it was perhaps caused more by Hitlers paranoia and great underestimation of SSSR than anything else. Stalin allegedly didn't want to wage war with Germany.

How about making SSSR some kind of third faction in one of the scenarios. In system which wouldn't be about destroying axis vs allies, but gaining greatest sphere of influence or similar conditions. SSSR had the option to expand in Central Asia, later India or Near East, so how about making it this way, possibly making the regions in Europe more important and profiting, to increase the paranoia between players, but allow SSSR to win the game without actualy conquering Europe.

It seems a bit more real. I don't want to make a Game of Thrones out of it, but similar thing pays for US, they didn't want to be on the losing side fightning against GER, JP and SSSR, with Britain defeated. So they held bach till it was clear that GER pretty much destroyed itself in Russia. In the end that was what mattered, how strong you'll be at the end of the war.

What do you thing about it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salvatore Vasta
United States
Woodstock
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pavel - What you suggested sounds like it would be better handled by a game like Cataclysm: A Second World War.

USE is more a direct simulation of the historical situation and would require a lot more modification and testing to work that way.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Iryos wrote:
cmontgo2 wrote:


I'm no historian, but it seems to me that any reasonable design attempts to achieve the former rather than the latter . . . unless you allow for wild diplomatic shifts, such as allowing Russia to choose to enter the war on the Axis side and/or remain neutral, or a neutral Britain, or a U.S. that remains neutral as to Europe and/or Japan (if not attacked) . . .



I don't how exact it is, but from what I read it seems to me that it was actually not very sure that SSSR and Germany went against each other. It was possible but it was perhaps caused more by Hitlers paranoia and great underestimation of SSSR than anything else. Stalin allegedly didn't want to wage war with Germany.

How about making SSSR some kind of third faction in one of the scenarios. In system which wouldn't be about destroying axis vs allies, but gaining greatest sphere of influence or similar conditions. SSSR had the option to expand in Central Asia, later India or Near East, so how about making it this way, possibly making the regions in Europe more important and profiting, to increase the paranoia between players, but allow SSSR to win the game without actualy conquering Europe.

It seems a bit more real. I don't want to make a Game of Thrones out of it, but similar thing pays for US, they didn't want to be on the losing side fightning against GER, JP and SSSR, with Britain defeated. So they held bach till it was clear that GER pretty much destroyed itself in Russia. In the end that was what mattered, how strong you'll be at the end of the war.

What do you thing about it?


In addition to Cataclysm, this is also being done in Craig Besinque's Triumph & Tragedy - a more abstract, faster-playing game. From my limited experience with the game, I am not sure this would work with the Unconditional Surrender game design. Anyway - I am sure Sal has the issues well in hand.

Thanks for designing this game, Sal. Having fun with US:CB right now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Benc
msg tools
Ok, thank you all for your responses and Sal for your work on this game.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salvatore Vasta
United States
Woodstock
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're welcome. Thank you for buying and playing the game.

Sal
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sébastien Schmutz
Switzerland
Fribourg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I imagine this project has been cancelled right?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salvatore Vasta
United States
Woodstock
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seb283 wrote:
I imagine this project has been cancelled right?


A Pacific version of USE? It's not cancelled. However, I am not going to get to it until I get more design work done on a WW1 version, called Armistice! WW1 in Europe.

It is taking a long time to do these because my real life has changed since I designed USE. I don't have the same time to commit to it as I used to.

If I can get a playtest kit out for ARM (keep fingers crossed for later this year), then while playtesters kick ARM around, I can contemplate Unconditional Surrender! WW2 in Asia and the Pacific.

Sal
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sébastien Schmutz
Switzerland
Fribourg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
svasta wrote:
Seb283 wrote:
I imagine this project has been cancelled right?


A Pacific version of USE? It's not cancelled. However, I am not going to get to it until I get more design work done on a WW1 version, called Armistice! WW1 in Europe.

It is taking a long time to do these because my real life has changed since I designed USE. I don't have the same time to commit to it as I used to.

If I can get a playtest kit out for ARM (keep fingers crossed for later this year), then while playtesters kick ARM around, I can contemplate Unconditional Surrender! WW2 in Asia and the Pacific.

Sal

Thank you for your quick answer Salvatore!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.