ATTENTION!

My board just arrived in the post - it looks stunning!

Setting it up later today, will post pics in the evening  8-)

Hey Deathshead!

My map has taken a bit longer than usual to sort out, since it’s taken a while to secure funds from the members of our  club to pool their cash together.

Should be here by next week. Pics will be posted, but bare in mind I’m moving house and so it will take a while to set up my new gaming room ;)

@Imperious:

I have all these block games. East front, west front, medd front, too complicated and boring.

I was actually surprised as to how uncomplicated Eastern Front actually was, for I thought it would be more so.

And boring? I have to disagree: the game has such depth and realism and yet is surprisingly easy to grasp.

@Brain:

You are right this is sacrilege

The gameplay wont change though, merely the aesthetics  :evil:

@Imperious:

I play EE, but you may notice the blocks often take more space than the pieces. Especially in Russia.

However get Neppa Games ETO which does have counters that would work for AA.

http://www.neppagames.com/

I’ll not be using wooden blocks but rather squares of card, which can be stacked on top of one another for ease of space.

Speaking of block games: Have you played Eastern Front by Columbia Games? We played that also on saturday… I think it’s my new favourite game and will be securing a copy tomorrow  (with Euro & western front as a bundle pack).

This weekend my playing group and myself came to a unanimous decision:

We will no longer be using miniatures to play our Axis & Allies Games.

Frankly we don’t actually see a point in them, other than for Aesthetic purposes. Sure it’s nice to have little figures on the board, but after a while they become a tedious chore. For this reason we are switching to paper representation of units.

I’ve been toying around with a design and think they will be squares, printed on card, using NATO symbols. They already give the map a more authentic ‘military’ look, and are far easier to handle and move around.

Some may look at this as a type of sacrilege, but to be honest it gives so much more space on the board and increases the speed of the gameplay.

I was thinking of something along the lines of this:

The great thing about all this is that they are so cheap to produce, and I can make as many as I require - I also no longer have to bother myself with the concern that colours do not match up with the latest incarnation of units, for that issue will now become irrelevant

@Upside-down_Turtle:

It’s everything Risk ever wanted to be, and better.

Not sure about that, Risk is a good game in it’s own right.

I’ve always assumed Larry Harris designed Axis & Allies around Risk: the first time I got a copy of Risk, before I even knew of AA, I had arranged the playing pieces into the spheres of WW2.

What a bunch of drama-queens.

It’s gone forever because of what you have done.

http://www.kriegsspiel.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&Itemid=59

According to this article it’s possible to play via e-mail… which of course means it’s possible to play it via a forum  8-)

I especially like this suggested game:

WW1 or WW2 campaign

Possibly set in 1914 in the west or east (corps level units), or a WW2 eastern front battle (division level units).  We could have teams of players, with a hierarchy, as only one set of orders would be submitted, thus minimising the umpire workload.  Teams could organise as they wished, but typically players might take roles, such as C in C, intelligence chief, operations chief etc.  They could communicate with each other all the time on plans, analysis etc. without disturbing the umpire’s deliberations.  They would not control the individual combat units directly, but rather act as the command staff of an army or army group.  The would specify attacks, divisions to be involved, date and objectives.  Combat could be resolved by the umpire using a commercial boardgame on the battle, or a PC game such as The Operational Art of War.