Counter Size Not Working

[David Heath]

Hi Everyone,

I know some of you will not be happy and I've said that we had already made the decision to use the same size counters as the older editions of WaW. But after going over design after design, the type font is just too small. This counter should never have been this small to start with, and I just feel I need to change them to the same size was Nations At War.

So hate me if you must and please post and let me know what you think.


David

 

[Eternal]

This is good news, I support the increase in size.

 

[MichaelCD]

These eyes will be OK with larger counters.

 

[David Heath]

We have been playing with design after design on these counters, and I have come to the place where using such small counters is just a bad idea. It was a bad idea in the original design and do it again would be just plain stupid. I know some players are going to be upset and the blame for this change rests totally with me. To simply put it the original counter size is just too small to have that many numbers on it and be able to read the numbers.

So below is a sample of the new counter style and it will be at the Nations At War 3/4th size and NOT the WaW 5/6th size. This is a change to what I have said early.

So What's On The Counter

Top Left
This is your main f weapon system of available on the unit.

First Number: This is Range if the number is gray it stands for unlimited range when firing indirectly.

Second Number: This is Fire Power, the number of dice to roll and type of Fire Power. The color numbers represent one of the following types of fire power.
Red Number Black outline = AP
Yellow Number Black outline = HE
Blue Number Black outline = AA
Green Number Black outline = Missile
Orange Number Black outline = Moving Fire Capable

Third Number: This is the number to roll or higher to hit the enemy target.
The top right is the same of a second weapon system available on the unit and follows the same structure as the top left numbers.

The Bottom Left
This section of the counter can have a few meanings. This area can be considered the Defense or Target Type of the unit.

First Number: White numbers with a Black outline with Yellow/Mustard Circle behind show the unit is Lightly Armored.
If the Number is White letter “S” with a Black outline with Blue Circle behind the unit is a Soft Target

Bottom Center
This is the movement factor of a unit and will show if that unit has any transport abilities.

Land Movement - Green number with a Black outline
Water Movement - Blue number with a Black outline
Land Movement with Transport Abilities - a Green number with a Black outline in a white square with a black outline.
Water with Transport Abilities - Blue number with a Black outline in a white square with a black outline.

Bottom Right
This is a unit's close combat ability.

First Number (left): Black numbers with a White outline. There use to be some units that had a + after the numbers, and we have removed this from the counters.

Second Number (superscript): White number with black outline is hit number

Triangle Left of a unit icon.
If the Triangle is Red with a black outline = Recon
if the Triangle is Gray with a black outline = Unit has indirect fire ability.
If the Triangle is Yellow with a black outline = Special Forces, Commandos or special ability type unit.

This, of course, can change at any time but should give everyone a good idea.

David

 

[Juan de Austria]

Hello,

the new counter looks a little bit uncommon for me at the first moment.
But the numbers are very clear to read.

I miss the name of the formation on this counter.

Why has not the Bradley a green number for the rockets ?

 

[David Heath]

Hello Juan,

The formation names will be on the formation counters. This allows us to use the same formations with different ID and names. This counter is an example more than 100% perfect with all possible weapons.

David

 

[David Heath]

Hi Everyone,

The first pictures below shows the AFV images now 20% bigger. We know it's a little hard with the larger images to maybe tell the difference. How do you like this?

The second and third pictures will give everyone a better idea of the counter size differences. These pictures will be a little fuzzier than the printed versions we use for testing.

 

[The Plodder]

It seems very apt how you have 7.62mm between each counter.

 

[rastamann]

I do like the small counters, but since I have decided a long time ago that this is my favourite modern warfare tactical system, and I'm getting older, the new counter size looks to be nice as well

I am a bit unclear as to what you mean with the formation names not being on the counters - does that mean that, for example, if a formation has 3 infantry, 3 bradleys and 1 M1 platoons, we can simply use any such counters from the appropriate natalionality's counter mix, or will the formations also be color coded?

 

[David Heath]

Hi,

Using the example a formation has 3 infantry and 3 Bradleys would have a formation color on all units (we say red) and on the formation counter, So the formations will be color coded.

David

 

[rastamann]

Great! Thanks for the quick reply. I must admit I like seeing the names of the formations (makes the experience more cinematic to me) but that solution is awesome for flexibility in scenario creation!

 

[Whiterook]

Personally, I am absolutely fine with the larger sized counters. I'm in my 50's and it is increasingly harder to grasp these little suckers (I even bought one of those little suction grabbers to life them!!! : D); and larger counters are easier on the eyes to read. I say "Go for Green, Mission Control!!!"

On the graphic of the tank (for instance), I thought the first vehicle image shown on the first counter was too small...the latest one was much better. The reason for this feeling is simple: I play these games because I want to see tanks rolling across the countryside! That was the best improvement of modern design....graphics! ....as opposed to obscure NATO symbols of old games.

You are definitely on the right track.

Oh, and my honest opinion Dave: You owe no apologies to anyone....you are bringing quality war-games to wargamers. We see that....own your Awesomeness!!!!

 

[David Heath]

One of the other reasons for the formation color was as can make additional formations using the same color. This way we can make bigger battles and use the same counters with different formation names on the main formation counter.

David

 

[David Heath]

Thank you, Whiterook

I want people to understand I didn't make this change lightly, and I did say the counter size would stay the same. It was only after we review the printed counters we saw t the font was too small.

David

Personally, I am absolutely fine with the larger sized counters. I'm in my 50's and it is increasingly harder to grasp these little suckers (I even bought one of those little suction grabbers to life them!!! : D); and larger counters are easier on the eyes to read. I say "Go for Green, Mission Control!!!"

On the graphic of the tank (for instance), I thought the first vehicle image shown on the first counter was too small...the latest one was much better. The reason for this feeling is simple: I play these games because I want to see tanks rolling across the countryside! That was the best improvement of modern design....graphics! ....as opposed to obscure NATO symbols of old games.

You are definitely on the right track.

Oh, and my honest opinion Dave: You owe no apologies to anyone....you are bringing quality war-games to wargamers. We see that....own your Awesomeness!!!!

 

[rastamann]

I'm just holding on and wait for what you guys do with my favourite tactical boardgame! I know I'm psyched and I'll own it all in the end

 

[Arrigo]

I am a bit disappointed, I am not really a fan of the larger counters in Nations At War, and always found the old counters perfectly fine. I understand the switch, but well it makes the old material useless. I know you will reprint everything (but then it another expense) and when the reprints are done and new, meatier, things will come out, this will be a problem for people who had already invested quite a lot. Bigger counters= bigger hexes=no compatibility in map.

One thing I like is the new font, much better. One thing I do not like is the replacement of R with triangles.

 

[David Heath]

Hi Arrigo,

Please trust me when I say we took a long a hard look before making such major change. The old counters were just too small, we printed a set and no one could read them. The maps and background story is not the same and I let Keith post of some of the other changes.

David

 

[Arrigo]

David,

never cared for the story...

Maps are another matter, what you are hinting now is that the new games will be not just a grpahic upgrade (with larger maps and new counters) but there will be differences in the maps (good and bad).

Good point: it is really a different beast rather than a repackage

Bad point: more bucks down the alley!

One things that worries me is that larger hexes will translate in less maneuver space, I feel nations at war is utterly cramped.
Anyway I was a 'bit' disappointed not raging back. I am certainly not dropping my support for the series (and It is not just word, I designed quite a few scenarios in the past), I am just worried about the reaction of the whole community. A good idea would be presenting the new games not as just repackages (as they are more or less presented now) but entirely new products, and possibly:

1) if a new 2.0 ruleset is released provide as free PDF to the community (not a big problem I hope and also a good advertising tactic).

2) maybe providing a modicum of support for older game in the form of occasional scenarios and PDF counters in 5/8 fashion. Unreadable for some, but they are free download so you cannot complain too much (ok this requires more commitment).

3) making a lot of effort in explaining the new games are new and worth to have in their own way.

I hope I am not sounding to picky and overbearing (teachers' habits...), but what I have seen in the past is a strong reaction when new games of a series are made incompatible with previous iteration forcing re-buys or changes. I like WaW, it is my favorite post WW2 platoon system right now (love assault but it is slower), and two weeks ago I saw a cracking good 10mm game using WaW at a local convention. I am sure David will bring good things, but I am also worried about potential backlash.

Arrigo

 

[David Heath]

Hi Arrigo,

Not many people cared for the old storyline, and the old series future of adding a horror element to the game series was not received well at all.

We have changed the maps in many ways, the rivers are now along the hex sides and not through the middle of hexes, maps are all geomorphic with rocking new graphics.

1) The WaW85 (WaW v2.0) rule booklets will be released as a free download when ready.
2) We considered this, but the team is just not big enough to handle to series so close to each other. The older series also had production issues we do not want to get placed on us.
3) We will keep posting details and Keith recently posted some changes coming in the series.

We want your feedback, and we hope you find us straight forward in our replies. Honestly, we have had no backlash but instead a lot of excitement.

Keep posting your comments, and we do our best to keep to keep up.

David

 

[Arrigo]

Hi David,

I was one of the people getting a bit riled when Mark was adding vampires... or other stuff... on the funny (or not so funny) side when he started to add stuff on the Pope I was worried, using a real pope name without permission is a crime for Italian law, especially in someting like a game, and could be punished with prison. Mark was fine... but I was also working on the game and I was still officially living in Italy (and the Pope mentioned has also been canonized...).

Great news on the maps, I have never been a fan of in hex rivers, even worse never been a fan of the Danube being inside an hex. At the scale of WaW the Danube has to be at least two hex wide if not more (and then it become a real river crossing). It would be nice to consider that when you tackle Blood and Bridges map!

1) great!

2) understood, still it would be nice to round up some formations in the old games, especially if you can get scenario designer doing it for free (hint hint...).

3) well, right now is all pretty answers, no one has to pay. As long it is clear that it is not just a graphic redesign I am happy to pay (and I am a poor cheapskate...), but I have heard some comments, concerning other tactical systems to be completely honest, about the need to re-buy games just to keep in the series. People sometime sees it as milking (GW anyone???) I have everything except America Conquered and if I want to continue to follow the series I need to re-buy everything. Otherwise I will not be anymore compatible with the newest module. Of course I have a master plan to sell my scenario design expertise to you and the company in exchange of the new games... well I try to have my hobby to pay for itself...

The other issue is that this will delay new additions because the core modules have to be reissued. My humble suggestion is of course to re-issue the core modules but maybe something new.

For example it would be nice to have T-80 and T-64 in the base game (the T-72 were in error, no T-72 in GSFG!!!) and the US Units from Unto the Breach, I will slightly downsized Untold Battles but give a meatier Storming the Gap, maybe move the Germans to Untold Battles, to me makes more sense to have full nationalities per module rather than mix and matches.

I for one would prefer this approach rather than the 'compilation one'.

Best,
Arrigo

PS: yes, me resurfacing also means I will contact Matt ASAP with new scenarios...