What will be wrong with AAAE: 1940?

If you haven’t found it yet, go to HistoricalBoardGaming.com (sponsor of AAA.org!).

They have copies.

I wass talking about both of them together being $120-180

I don’t think Germany and Japan are tied together politically, meaning you can still do a J1 and only the allies will be at war with Japan, not Germany. Personally I’m worried about Italy, something tells me that they will be able to just own Africa and the Middle East without much trouble, making them very rich and powerful. It is definitely going to take a concerted effort by the UK and US to slow Italy’s march down. Japan will not be as powerful as everyone thinks, remember the US will be getting an infusion of cash from the European theater, and Russia starts the game off making more money than Germany. That means Russia can afford to send more troops Eastward at the start of the game, and Japan while having a large air force and navy, is lacking in ground forces. Something tells me that Russia can be a real thorn in Japan’s side if it wants to.

@LHoffman:

@Make_It_Round:

Italy. For the novelty factor alone.
I like problem-solving, and Italy is bound to have more problems than the proverbial one-armed paper hanger…
Plus, it looks like there’ll finally be something interesting to do in Africa, with so many French and British units around to roll up.

I’d like Italy because they aren’t all over the place, they basically have only 1 front and they can have a fun and challenging time taking over Africa. Very little stress. They can just do what they like and support the Germans as needed… What a life!

I probably won’t be Italy first… but they’d be fun to play with as you could experiment a good bit… with what to attack and where to go. You could play as Italy the first time and learn what not to do with other powers by just watching everyone else. Then you’d be more prepared when you play again.

Yes, but with so much information overload I started doubting my own thoughts and ideas.

@Krieghund:

@GrayBlaZe:

Hey Keighund, got a question; Why could it not be considered to be up to a nine person global game instead of six.  I do understand that playing France, China or ANZAC will be very minor, however, it’s possible for nine people to draw straws and last three places got it get the minors.  Or am I missing somthing?  I’m assuming that it’s just listed as six because that is the max number that would be a good game to spread playing around equally so nobody is just totally eliminated fast with France or having to play limited China.  Is this correct?  Thanx……

You’ve already answered your own question:

@GrayBlaZe:

When they state the number of players, it is just a recomendation.  You could very well play with nine players except; France, China, & ANZAC would be quite boring, unless a newbe or child was playing with you, it would be good for them to play a minor country.  If you are playing with six then some player would play two counties, however, they are still considerd nine different armies; if you play two they don’t mix there income.  So it always be nine indiviual counties weither you play with nine people or two.

The “official” player mix listed in the rules is what we consider to be the best mix for optimal enjoyment of the game.  There’s nothing stopping you from changing that if you have more than six people who want to play.  I do think, however, that getting beyond six will definitely get into territory that could be at least somewhat boring for players of minor powers (ANZAC, China and France).  A seventh player playing all three wouldn’t be too bad, though.

Stay on topic. Geez.

I assume you meant to put “owned” instead of “pwned” when talking about a Barbarossa/Stalingrad game in reference to Battle of the Bulge or Guadalcanal. I agree here too. At least for me, a game such as that would probably have owned the others.

Nah, I meant “pwn”. I was using netspeak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

I think some kind of A&A Russian-front game would be the brilliant, but I don’t hold out much hope of seeing one.

I won’t continue, since I’ve made my feelings clear and this is just one of those ‘we don’t agree’ type issues. I also don’t want to sound like I wouldn’t be able to enjoy / play the game because of it, which obviously isn’t true.

However, I will still say this…

No, they’d probably, like me, not give a damn.

I think some of them, like some people here, clearly would give a damn. For that reason alone designers should take certain things into account. I don’t hold WotC in particularly high esteem, since they have a habit of short-changing the consumer on many small aspects of games which in reality would take almost no effort or cost to put right. Larry only has input which goes so far, and he has my respect. But Wizards do too many irritating things, and to me, this is just another one of them.