@surfer thanks for that clarification
Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro
-
we should be happy any company still makes boardgames
-
Ok, yeah, went off the handle a bit there, but I hadn’t seen much new stuff about the TripleA shutdown, and its still the same ol’ status quo there. What pisses me off the most is that TripleA IS essentially the PBF game, just in a much more simplified and streamlined program (also no dice roll typing errors), and that an easy-to-use/learn interface is what will get new players into the game and keep old players interested rather than scare them away. Which also means that MOST TRIPLEA PLAYERS HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT OR WILL POSSIBLY BUY A BOARD COPY OF THE GAME IF THEY ENJOY PLAYING TRIPLEA ONLINE. Which new players most certainly won’t if they don’t know the rules, have never played it before (TripleA is kinda a trial version of A&A for free), AND are presented with a $40 price tag at the game store with no incentives other than “Hey this game looks cool I’ve never heard of A&A before guess Wizards doesn’t advertise it…”
$40 price tag at the gameshop and seeing 40 other variants out there for almost the EXACT SAME DAMN THING is going to make A&A lose a lot of potential new players… Maybe this is Wizard’s plan to make A&A like Magic the Gathering… have a new box set out every 3 months that trumps all the other sets, except that buying a new “booster pack” is gonna cost you $40-50 a throw instead of $3.99. HEREIN LIES WIZARDS OF THE COAST’S INSIDIOUS PLAN… :-o
-
we should be happy any company still makes boardgames
We’re also not exchanging these conversations with pen and paper!
We’ve had computers for fifty years now! It can’t be that difficult to make/hire programmers to make a capable A&A client, if rights issues are all they’re concerned about. (I have my doubts.)
-
Well, what do you think WOTC should be doing, I mean i wish Larry would adopt more realistic rules, add new sculpts and add an airborne piece, but I think these new 1940 games are going to be a big improvement and i rather WOTC spend there money of A&A than magic or D&D crap. I mean dont you want A&A to imporve?, otherwise you can just play classic and it dosnt matter what WOTC does.
exactly. They have better things to do with their time (like improving Axis and Allies, or ADVERTISING Axis and Allies maybe) than shutdown independent fan developed software that’s gotten more people into Axis and Allies and is probably responsible for selling more box sets than ANY A&A advertising campaign WoTC has ever used (if ever). My god, if Axis and Allies ever got mainstream (like on the level of popularity of Risk, (which, granted, is still probably pretty low)) WoTC could burn all their Magic cards in a Infinite Mana Lava Burst.
-
WoTC could burn all their Magic cards in a Infinite Mana Lava Burst.
+1 karma for that!!!
-
uh….
i’m all for new versions of A&A
honestly though, they usually don’t make them that often, this just happens to be a really really good 3 years (AA50, AA1942, AA1940Pacific, AA1940Europe).
if you think making 4 games in 3 years is too much for you, please for the love of god do not try anything else that Hasbro makes or sells (like mtg, with its 8 expansions and 1 core set every 2 years)
-
I liked the reply “you don’t have to buy it in the first place right?”. Sounds to me like people need to get girl friends or something else to occupy the time. It sounds like no real game could ever satisfy what they want or are unknowingly looking for in life. Get out and enjoy the world!
-
Exactly: “Get out and enjoy the world!” …… of Axis and Allies.
-
It sounds like Sgt BLitz is mostly pissed about the TripleA shutdown.
-
Yea i got that too.
-
I’m just mad that they have yet to make a global game with standard rules discouraging a Japanese invasion of Moscow. Seriously, this flaw has been in the series since DAY 1 and they haven’t ever fixed it. Maybe Pacific and Europe 40 combined will be this game, but having to pay $150 for a version that isn’t absolutely broken historically is pretty silly, not to mention the fact that playing it combined will likely be too long of a game for normal humans to complete.
-
playing it combined will likely be too long of a game for normal humans to complete.
Why be normal? Normal is boring.
-
I heard some rumors that Triplea might go back up with purely user-made maps and scenarios, which is A-OK with me, I might even finally get an “A&A North Africa” or “Market Garden” out of it…. :mrgreen:
-
Maybe they can use IL’s maps, that would be awesome.
-
I think they did with AA50, but i am not sure what happened because i don’t use that program
-
I think some people already pointed out how “historicity (does this word exists?)” can restraint a game playability. Think of it that way : German infantries were not the same as Russian infantries. Should a game take into account this? (I’m not talking computer game, where this can be easily done, but boardgame). I believe not, because it will make the game too heavy ; the game being very heavy as it stands now.
Historically, the Allied won the war. But for a boardgame to be fun, especially with AA, both side can win. Already in its design, the idea of historical accuracy is flawed. Historical elementers serve as a base for this game. But once the base is installed, everything else doesn’t have to be historically correctNow, you would want Japan to not attack Russia. The fact that Russia’s northern territories are worth so little should deter Japan, in his early rounds at least, to invade seriously Russia. If Japan do spend too much ressources in the early rounds against northern Russia, I’m pretty sure the rest of Asia will punish Japan swiftly. Japan can only attack seriously Russia when having ICs (in AA50) in India, Burma, FIC and/or Manchuria/SUM, etc. But by then, that means Japan has already accomplised more than what she did historically.
I don’t see why some people keep complaining about Japan attacking Russia. This is a game where WWII is being “redone” We do it our way. Plus, like I explained earlier, Japan doesn’t have much to gain in the northern parts of Russia. A bunch of 1ipc territories. Asia is where all money is for her. Look, Harry even made a rule for USA in war and not in war. This is very interesting and add a little historical flavor to the game. But let’s not get into historical details that can ruin the game. (Like, no Axis nation should ever drop troops in America because none of them ever did. Or other stupid rules in the like)
-
I don’t see why some people keep complaining about Japan attacking Russia.
Because its impossible. Its so impossible, its like making a rule that every Italian unit gets an automatic hit in combat.
Japan could never in any universe get farther into Russia than about 500 miles, but the game in like 85% of the time requires Japanese tanks and pieces to horde Moscow for the axis to win.
The question becomes why does the game support such a ridiculous set of ideas that require this to win? So for us the game actually forces players into a crazy set of objectives, so while you complain that the game should allow an anything goes format what you don’t see is that its modeling an exactly closed pattern of play that by the design forcing players to unite and coordinate perfectly the movements that lead to the same ridiculous procession.
The design should make each nation get its own national victory conditions, so for example the Japanese player can win by not even attacking Russia and Japan can just concentrate on its own program of conquest and the axis don’t need to cooperate. This means that Japan can still attack Russia, but it wont win victory, but of course it can help Germany out.
IN the allies corner the Soviets should have their own VC and the UK USA player competes with the Soviets to win by getting to Berlin first ( for example).
Its too simplistic to just make everybody coordinate for victory, adding an element that your playing for your nation to win individually is greater. The axis never really worked together they were only linked by the fact that they fought the same enemies, but at the same time they had totally different reasons for entering the war. Nothing was coordinated. The western allies coordinated, while the Soviets had completely different reasons to fight the war and wanted to export Communism. UK wanted to limit the Soviets and USA played peacemaker to preserve the status quo.
None of this is found in the VC for any AA game, so people complain that these games are always the same old “Japanese tanks rolling against Moscow” thing.
-
Amen, Imperious Leader!
-
First off I like to say…SgtBlitz you crack me up, those are some hilarious statements, and I can agree with your frustrations. :-D
Emperor_Taiki makes a very good point. :-)
Omega and johnnymar also make very good points. :-)
I second that Amen to IL. 8-)
One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:
So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.
-
@Imperious:
None of this is found in the VC for any AA game, so people complain that these games are always the same old “Japanese tanks rolling against Moscow” thing.
That only happens when the Allies try the same old “Kill Germany first” thing. If something as ahistorical as Japan invading Moscow is happening in your games it’s probably because you’re doing something that is equally ahistorical, like ignoring the Pacific.
One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:
So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.
Exactly. The only way Japan can usually threaten Russia is when the Allies let them do it. No new rules need to be written in order to prevent Japan from invading Moscow, your game play should do that.
Suggested Topics
