i am working on a MASSIVE project to build a board game about the cold war set in 1980 and while i am VERY VERY knowledgeable about this i sipimly do not have enough specific information so if anyone has any information pertaining to this i would appreciate it if they would post it. thank you.

The Cold War is a pretty massive history subject. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you could post the kind of information you are looking for?

Since the Cold War had no actual fighter, make a meter so everytime you make a radical decision it increases the other countries from coming closer to sending troops. The Cold War is my favorite because it was just tension, it was basically competing for the strongest country, US or Soviet Union,

I like to consider the Korean and Vietnam wars part of the Cold War, they are all tied in to Communism.

firenukes777 wrote:

i am working on a MASSIVE project to build a board game about the cold war set in 1980 and while i am VERY VERY knowledgeable about this i sipimly do not have enough specific information so if anyone has any information pertaining to this i would appreciate it if they would post it. thank you.

I reckon we're going to need a bit more guidance than that. What are you specifically interested in?

Well, i need extra specific information that my numerous book don't cover such as the road, off-road, and submerged ( I.E. snorkeling across a river) Km/h of Soviet MBTs and APCs (Main Battle Tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers) such as but not limited to T-54, T-55, T-62, T-72, T-10, T-10M, PT-76, BDM, and all BTR models. any info about those or the types of tanks per first category Soviet tank division which contains and estimated 320 tanks. any information about the year 1980 would also be appreciated as well as ANY topograpfical maps of Europe. thank you.

Sounds like a notepad and Google are better resources than a forum full of (mostly) kids then

Yeah, but i just thought i would check.

Good luck on the project! I don't know much about the Cold War specifically but I know a quite a bit about the political leaders involved. Just try not to make the board game seem too insensitive: that's what sometimes happens when you make games about war.

GyroscopeBill wrote:

that's what sometimes happens when you make games about war.

I would imagine the lack of war in the Cold War might complicate that somewhat!

Well, i am one of those “crazies” for anything military or war and board-gaming is no exception. sorry but it will be very intense because war is intense and with war gaming you can find a lot of people that are really dedicated. but i have thought that i might be over doing it when i found i would be able to park a real Soviet tank on the board.

Looking for military information? I'm not of much help, sorry. I'm able to provide this map: Military alliances of the Cold War - 1980.

firenukes777 wrote:

sorry but it will be very intense because war is intense

Except what characterised the Cold War was its lack of intensity. Hence “cold”. It was a war where no actual war happened.

In terms of interesting media on the subject (given that pop culture is rather relevant in order to create something the audience can relate to) I would think Dr. Strangelove would be a good first port of call. Yes, it's a comedy, but after the credits rolled I was very glad to come back to the real world. The threat of nuclear war being the issue, not so much traditional troop movements.

Introversion's game Defcon (wow, it's currently 59p/$0.99 on Steam!) also feels relevant to the conversation, although I've yet to get around to properly playing it.

My biggest question to you regarding your boardgame concept: what do you envision the “win” condition to be? How do players win?

I'm going to quote my response to someone else regarding boardgames. With any luck it'll help you too

Flamekebab wrote:

(heads up - this response might sound a little rough to start with but it gets better )

BOBBYBOB3 wrote:

NOTE: DO NOT COPY MY IDEA UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Just… don't.

Not to be mean but it's probably worth explaining a little something about intellectual property law. Ideas aren't protected by copyright - only the implementation of them.
This can work in your favour though! Game mechanics can be borrowed from other games and built on without needing to worry about stealing anyone's idea.

So… your first question doesn't matter

As for question 2 now there's the fun part

First off, have you ever designed a game before?
The reason I ask isn't to be Captain Bringdown it's to avoid telling you things you already know.

Also, I'm rather envious. When I wrote my first game a little over fourteen years ago I did it with a friend in my bedroom and typed it up on an old monochrome laptop. I didn't have an internet connection and had barely anything to teach me how. These days there's all sorts of amazing resources out there to help

The first thing - are you familiar with the concept of play testing?
If not, it's basically trial and error. Write up a set of the rules you've imagined. Grab a few friends and try playing it.
Make notes as you go along and talk it over after the game is completed.
Once you've got some data from doing this have a think about how to improve what you've already got.

For example - how long do you want this game to take to play?
Perhaps it's 20 minutes, perhaps it's several hours. I'd recommend keeping it shorter if at all possible.

Another example - which bits are the most fun? Which bits are kinda dull?

One more - which bits are hard for players to understand? Are the rules too complicated in some places?

A general rule of thumb is that less complexity is usually better. Of course you don't want things to be too simple but if things are too much of a pain it's hard for new players to get into it. It might be an amazing game but if your players give up in frustration after a few minutes it doesn't matter how good the later bits would be.

In terms of getting a game made then it really depends on what you mean by that. If you mean a tangible boxed copy with physical playing pieces then I would imagine you'd need all the relevant components finished. Playing pieces could either be bought wholesale or made specifically for it. Artwork could be created by you or sourced elsewhere (such as by paying an artist to do the work). Printing is probably just a matter of researching print on demand services. A local print shop might even be able to do the board for you.

To scale it up to something bigger and selling it online would just be a matter of figuring out a few more logistics. Finding a service to print game boards en masse, for example.

If you've got any questions I'd love to answer them. I do not make games for a living, don't get me wrong, but I've done a lot of work on that sort of thing. I do on the other hand create playing pieces for games!

to the hockyist for the map although i all ready knew about the North Atlantic Treaty Orginazation (NATO) as well as the Warsaw Pact i appreciate it. to flamekabab i thank you for the advice. i do already own Dr. Strangeglove as well as Wargames and have heard of Defcon, i am quite a fan of the 1980s for being born tn the 2000s. i think my win conditions will be in Europe controlling enough major cities will over-run that country and you will be awarded Victory Points. for the US, losing enough major cities or military bases, but not DC because the President does not hold the power people think he does, but because he is the head of the armed forces there would be an effectiveness loss. if the Soviets lose major cities or Moscow, because all the major military HQ are there and because the Soviet ruler is pretty much all powerful in the USSR.

firenukes777 wrote:

I think my win conditions will be in Europe controlling enough major cities will over-run that country and you will be awarded Victory Points. for the US, losing enough major cities or military bases, but not DC because the President does not hold the power people think he does, but because he is the head of the armed forces there would be an effectiveness loss. if the Soviets lose major cities or Moscow, because all the major military HQ are there and because the Soviet ruler is pretty much all powerful in the USSR.

So what does “controlling” mean in this context?

The problem with the Cold War is that the game starts off in a “win” state going by those ideas. That's how the war was effectively won by all sides - we stopped playing the game. Here's a timeline of events.

I think you need to stop thinking of the Cold War as a military conflict. It wasn't. The Cold War was more like a struggle for power/influence between the US and USSR. The USA and USSR would not fight each other directly. They indirectly fought through “proxy wars”, with each country supporting a side. Let me give you some examples:

Korean War - USSR supported the North, US/NATO/UN supported the South.

Afghanistan War (1979-1989) - USSR supported the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, US supported the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen

Vietnam War - US supported South Vietnam and anti-communist forces, USSR supported the North and pro-communist forces.

Does this make sense? Perhaps the US and USSR could fight indirectly in these countries, and whoever takes more countries wins?

The USSR and USA wanted to see whose ideology was best. They fought with proxy wars.

The Cuban Missle Crisis was one case where the USA and USSR came very close to directly fighting, but thankfully they didn't.

i understand that there was never a real full scale war, but i am making a what if type game about the possibility of the Soviets lauching a massive preemptive strike in Europe.

Either side launching a strike of any kind would result in them both losing, it's a fundamental part of M.A.D. doctrine. It's why nuclear weapons haven't been used in anger since 1945 - using them means everyone else uses theirs.

well it would start conventional but could esclate to chemical or nuclear.

firenukes777 wrote:

well it would start conventional but could esclate to chemical or nuclear.

If it escalates to nuclear war, then everyone loses. Perhaps the goal of the game is to not let that happen?

firenukes777 wrote:

i understand that there was never a real full scale war, but i am making a what if type game about the possibility of the Soviets lauching a massive preemptive strike in Europe.

Europe? Europe stayed out of the Cold War. It was between America and Soviet Union for the most part. Though there was Cuban Missle Crisis. And I guess China's Communism was involved, and the fight for Korea and Vietnam.