1939: World at War

Rules and setup
Please help to playtest this variant.

Interesting . Thanks Flashman.

I loved the struggle for europe map!! How the guy created it himself. Its so dam big! And he said he has a pacific map already! Imagine how big it would be joined together!!

http://www.triplea-game.org

The best solution to the problem is to download TripleA. The above link will let you do exactly that. Not only will this engine allow you to play Larry Harris maps, it also allows you to play a good selection of player-created maps. Some of them are significantly better than any of Larry’s maps, at least to me. (Including New World Order, Rising Sun, and Domination 1914 No Man’s Land.)

I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless  you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.

In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.

Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.

Its pictures from over a year ago.

I will post 1939 AARHE map pics soon

Honestly, if you play the board game for the map and pieces, then you should avoid most of the board games out there.

As far as 4 revisions in 10 years, maybe that’s a bit high, granted, but….  I can tell you a fact that in 10 years, Dell has gone through more server revisions in those same 10 years.  Does that make their products (or substitute Apple, IBM, HP, etc) any worse?  That’s the worst comment I’ve ever heard.  Not only that, but revisions are there to help make the game better.

Ok, rant off.  Talking about World at War 2005 now.  The game is ok, but unfortunately when combining the latest rules from Axis & Allies (which this is based off of), the Allies has too much of an advantage.  Especially when comparing this version with the 3rd version.  There are now factories in India and Australia for Britain to use, you can still purchase infantry off of factory sites, but at a max of 1 per land and they cost 1 IPC more, which hurts Germany a ton since they can’t keep Africa.  Then again, Britain got a bump in Africa as well with the tank defending on a 3 now and they get an extra artillery piece, so you really have to commit in Africa to take it and hold it.

The technology rolls are interesting, but kind of confusing to understand at first.

I’m actually on this forum to see if anyone has brought up house rules or variants to make the game a little bit more balanced.  I believe the Allies should win about 60-65% to keep in line with history, but this version (and the previous ones as well) gives the allies about 80% chance to win.  This is assuming average dice rolls.  We’ve played around with giving Germany super subs and Japan get fighters to start, but it didn’t help all that much.  Japan usually never has a problem and the jet fighters were just the icing on the cake.  Super subs really didn’t help Germany as much as we had thought it would.

Anyone else try to do something different with this game?