Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro

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 correct

Now, 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.

@Panzer:

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.

If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?

@Brain:

If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?

well, Brain Damaged, historical dosnt mean scripted or narative, it means that all the historical factors save strategic leadership(this is reperesented by the player) are as they were in history in a way that confronts players with the same or similar decisions as were their historical counterparts.

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.

In order for the axis to win as a team even though they were not “a team” , the Japanese need to attack the Russians. If you play games where Japan captures UK or Eastern USA instead it becomes even more silly. The game should be two separate games with UK USA and Soviets against Germany/ Italy, and UK USA against Japan. Everything relating to victory to each side to be regulated to these concerns and to something that has to do with these localities and the situation. It should not become scripted patterns of play where you go after just Germany or just Japan and do the minimum on the front where you exert no pressure.

It should be a balanced (somewhat) need to fight both and to deny both their own victory conditions. Thet way you get warfare all over the map and not just a concentrated thing on one side.

definitely, it has to be fighting on all fronts.  Victory conditions should keep the allies from simply throwing everything at say, Europe, because the Japanese would be able to reach their victory conditions and the allies lose, axis wins, and specifically japan player is ultimate winner.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Brain:

If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?

well, Brain Damaged, historical dosnt mean scripted or narative, it means that all the historical factors save strategic leadership(this is reperesented by the player) are as they were in history in a way that confronts players with the same or similar decisions as were their historical counterparts.

It looks like you want to play games that are more advanced.

@Imperious:

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.

In order for the axis to win as a team even though they were not “a team” , the Japanese need to attack the Russians. If you play games where Japan captures UK or Eastern USA instead it becomes even more silly. The game should be two separate games with UK USA and Soviets against Germany/ Italy, and UK USA against Japan. Everything relating to victory to each side to be regulated to these concerns and to something that has to do with these localities and the situation. It should not become scripted patterns of play where you go after just Germany or just Japan and do the minimum on the front where you exert no pressure.

It should be a balanced (somewhat) need to fight both and to deny both their own victory conditions. Thet way you get warfare all over the map and not just a concentrated thing on one side.

+1
I agree.  The reason you see America go either ALL against Germany, or ALL against Japan is because it is allowed to because it is a world game.  The game really does need to be split up into two separate games in order to play out more historically.