So why buy a hamburger when you want steak then spend all that time & effort trying to make it look, taste, smell like steak… when you
already own steak?
I don’t think this game is really meant for us. I would think it is meant to be on a shelf in Toys R Us to rope in the very casual gamer that would have bought Risk. I assume this is its purpose with a simple and fast game- to bring in new gamers and get them hooked.
Cheers
Thanks for the clarification.
I like that the Russians now have their own fleet units.
And thank-you for redoing the Hipper!
As a request, though - give us the KGV for your next game!
Cheers
It is from post #8. If this is not so, then what new sculpts are there, then?
Cheers
NEW SCULPTS
russian battleship
japanese artillery
german cruiser
american fighter
british battleship
I’m stunned that the Russians get their own fleet scuplts in this game that is less than half the price of AA50, but the Italians had to share the German sculpts in AA50.
Intersting choices that Avalon Hill makes.
I am glad they redid the German cruiser, though. Need to see a better picture of it, though.
And the British battleship is redone? I It is stated that it is, but I can’t tell in the pics. What is it supposed to be now? KGV?
Cheers
If you accept that the game is pure fantasy and anything goes, then I wouldn’t call it World War II.
I would say the point is to have a period game that allows different possible paths to win that are plausible. I don’t think you need to go to a computer game to do this. They managed it nicely in D-Day, Bulge and Guadalcanal. GMT does it. Even Xeno managed something that felt right. Some of the manouvres done in the game push my suspension of disbelief too far. It’s like watching a movie and seeing a scene that makes you roll your eyes.
Some things possible in the game can’t be done by real armies today. I don’t have a problem with distorting things a bit in the name of balance, but there are some things that stretch it too far. This wrecks the WWII feel for me. I skipped revised for this reason, and was dissappointed AA50 didn’t fix it. I’m hoping these discussions are being read by someone that has a say and will take them into consideration for future games.
Cheers
Perhaps something along the line of “Axis and Allies” with just a dash of “Diplomacy” thrown in, and somehow still find a way to make it viable for two players.
In a 2 player game (or playing by commitee) when there are 2 defined sides, I just don’t see how diplomacy b/n your own allies can work when you are negotiating with yourself. You need 2 separate rule sets like Eagle Games did with Napoleon in Europe.
I am not clever enough to figure out how it could be done
That make 2 of us.
“Aahhh, Jack, Now that be the attitude that lost ye the Pearl. People are easier to search when they’re dead.”
You’ll have to explain that one to me.
… and what is this karma thing above my avatar?
I don’t have a problem w/ separate VCs, except as a 1 to 1 game. Even in Multi-player games, both sides are played by commitee, so it may as well be 1 vs 1.
I need something that accounts for that.
Besides, I’m still finding that taking Moscow 1st, THEN taking the VCs is the way to go.
Cheers
That being said, even with VC’s if it is more effective to shut down a capital, I would pursue that path anyway. My guess is it probably would be.
IMO, that is the problem in each of the versions of the game so far. Nothing trumps taking a capital, and the only one Japan can feasibly go after is Moscow. And I’m just not a fan of that.
Maybe a time limit, where by the time Japan got to Moscow, the game would be over anyway - that might force me to take VCs instead.
Cheers
But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?
I agree, but I doubt we’ll get that.
OK, looks like I can now type in the e-mailaddress properly.
It is:
I’ve got 1 person so far, any others?
Cheers
Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map. Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.
I 100% agree with putting more spaces in the back of Russia and making them worthless. Crossing 15 000km of swamp, mountans and boreal forest really should be of little gain and quite difficult (Not to mention doing it in winter with the cold, in the spring with the flooding and mud, in the summer with the mosquitoes - and a supply train several thousand kilometres long). I also agree the same should be done to China as well as beefing them up. But I doubt that has happened to the game. House rules involving separate victory conditions like I’ve read so far - but on a time limit so the allies don’t have time to concentrate on only Germany - seem to be the way to go that I like so far. Within the constraints of the map we will be provided.
Adding more ships the Pacific I don’t think will work. I would still take my US fleet and move it to the Atlantic to help cover transports rather than build a new fleet to protect against German attacks.
Great ideas on here - I’m finding this useful.
Cheers
Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.
I like the idea of a non- aggression pact. Maybe with a time limit? Expire in 4 turns or something. Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.
Cheers
So would you suggest then the Allies have to stop two simultaneous objectives in order to win then then?
So the real deal is Germany (with a pinch of Italy) Vs The World, while little guy Japan takes part in the B plot where he has to take over a certain amount of territory/IPC value? So if the Allies kill the big boy, but insignificant Japan takes over its ltd amount of land for a victory condition the Axis win? To me it seems kind of odd.
I didn’t call Japan the ‘little guy’. In a global war, they are a significant - but separate - power. I’m arguing for victory conditions that create separate (or loosely linked) theatres. No need to go into details, as others have already described the issues.
Zooooma, that could work if there was a time limit, and it was significantly easier than an all out drive for Moscow from both sides. What would you peg the number of turns needed?
If you find Japan to be too insignificant, why not just go for AA Europe?
:roll:
No point in arguing what ifs, I suppose … no one will convince the other. I disagree with the idea that Japan could have sent planes to Germany or crush the Chinses or cross Siberia while you think it possible. OK.
My point is that the best way (and only, I believe) is for the Axis to focus on Moscow. I think that everything else is a waste of time (at least with the present victory conditions).
If I am missing something, I am eager to learn a new strategy!
Cheers
In the real WW2, Japan could not win anything against the US, unless the US gave it away for free.
This game, much like the rest from Hasbro, won’t be even remotely historical. But I do want it to feel historical. Japan crossing Siberia and China and sending fighters to the Germans doesn’t feel right to me.
I agree with Zoooma - the game ends with either Germany or Russia falling. I need to have an incentive to help me win the game to go after the islands in the pacific - VCs don’t cut it.
I also believe that even more spaces b/n Japan and Moscow are needed and a beefed up China to discourage Japan and look elswhere for a win.
Cheers
I and a couple others play:
Axis & Allies:
Battle of the Bulge
D-Day
Anniversary Edition
Pacific
Europe
Napoleon in Europe (Eagle Games)
American Civil War (Eagle Games)
Conquest of the Empire (Eagle Games)
World War II in Europe (in between Axis and Allies: Europe and Third Reich, but less complicated than GMT`s Europe Engulfed)
“Based on” doesn’t mean the same as.
Maybe not - hopefully you are right and the map has more than just cosmetic changes.
Cheers
I have been more than negligent with you guys… But I’ve been busy, busy, busy… Not that you haven’t been but I don’t handle pressure as well I guess. I think it’s ok for me to let you know the following - The AA42 is based on the Revised Map. There will be NEW sculpts. Really cool sculpts actually… The price tag will be VERY low as well. Love you guys!
quoted from Larry Harris from
:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1805&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8
I’m guessing this means new - not refreshed - sculpts with the addition of cruisers. I’m curious to see if this is really the case.
Cheers
Larry Harris has now stated on his site that the map is the same, but the scuplts are new
Cheers
