Posts made by TheJediCharles

Oh well, guys. I’m not the patient type I guess.

I always love that feelin’ when we’ve already finished a game, it’s only 11:30 and we’re settin’ up another game. I like that feeling better than winning the first game. The splendor of everything fresh and ready to go and the first two rounds or so flying by and the game taking shape… everyone’s so confident with thier goals they don’t slow down… they don’t let a setback here or there phase them or their plans… that’s what it’s all about, my friends…. that’s where it’s at.

:wink:

It’s like a few old buddies of mine once said when they had Japan’s purchase against me decided from the moment the game had begun, I made somekind of ‘that’s gonna change’ remark and they just glared at me and said “there’s nothing you can do to change that purchase…. nothing.” I learned then that THAT is what A&A is all about.

he he he

…I think I lost that one too.

he he he

It IS a good thing to know what you’re going to do before your turn. Besides making the other players impatient, you make worse decisions because of the pressure.

You mean THEY make worse decisions under pressure. I work best under pressure.

:wink:

I guess like lots of players usually do, we take breaks every round or two. THAT is time to predetermine their moves. I just can’t stand it when I’ve finished with mine and look at them just sitting there for 5 minutes with 20 I.P.C’s in their hand staring at the board. To me, I take that as their being far too interested in winning than having fun. Either that or they manage their thinking time so poorly that they don’t begin thinking until it’s their turn. Mind you, I don’t expect that with a two player game (even though I STILL manage to be ready to go in that case too). I’m talking about when there’s like 4 or 5 players going at it. For pete’s sake, have AT LEAST your purchase ready, jesh!

:roll:

he he he

Nobody EVER has to wait on me.

There sure are some cool folks around here and provide some great reading.

How should I be surprised? We’re all A&A fans!!!

:D

This situation arises when the UK still owns its 2 original battleships. By purchasing a third battleship,…

Well, not if I’m Germany with rolls worth a darn. If so, I’ll not let the sun set on my turn unless those 2 battleships of UK are gone.

he he he

Yea, new players should be given time to think, but what I expect of old pros is to have thier turn determined before it arrives. Have that purchase on the table and don’t just stare at Eastern Europe for 20 minutes AFTER your turn comes to you.

I’m pretty impatient for a Jedi.

:lol:

Well, then there’s an expanded rule I could sure go for! “Speed A&A”!!

:lol:

but who knows what the future will hold?

Well, it seems that the examples you cited would basicly be just referring to ‘large ships’, little different than ‘launching platforms’ and not the thing that comes to our collective mind’s-eye when hearing the term ‘battleship’. I can see many possibilities, actually PRObibilities, that large ships may be needed in grand numbers again, but never again for the exact applications of the ones that went extict in our recent past. Big ships will need to have reasons to exist far more important than just ‘big guns’… or respectful nostalgia. And the ones that will be built, like you point out, will probably not have big guns on them at all, really.

But, like you say, who knows?

However, after continual playing games 50-100, you start finding players execute the same moves over and over again for maximum efficiency.

Yea, I see exactly what you’re saying. However, I’ve been fortunate enough to have the pleasure of playing against guys that would rather loose a game through trying an unconventional course of action than win a game by rehersing the most directly confrontational, direct and proven ways to win. Chess could be labeled as having the same problems, but it’s never required ‘alternative rules’ to enjoy either. I suppose ‘any’ game can be subject to the same problem. I guess I, and usually my opponents, have prefered throwing a small stategic surprise into the game that may actually knowingly ‘cost’ them the game knowing that was the cause, rather than changing the game and feeling like ‘that’ was the reason you lost; unfamiliarity with new varibles. But dispite that and to repeat, I see exactly what you mean.

But some people do like micromanagement, which can be a great boon (or disaster if you’re not careful) to the game.

Yea, I’ve tinkered with it too from time to time, but when we did a lot of customizing we found ourselves too wrapped up with that alone, all the changes, their effectiveness, their realisticness, their neccessity… it just ended up seeming more fun (to us) to just stick to the game and instead prove your mettle by how wiling you are to risk gambles against your ability to pull them off. Sounds a bit silly, but it’s our way. Besides, gameflow seems lightning fast when it’s the official way and we can put in more games a night instead of fewer, more clunky attempts at intentionally de-familiarizing ourselves with new rules. But, stepping back, I’ll agree that experimenting with micromanagement is fun to try.

Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries?

Well, I wasn’t sanctioning a change, it was just an idea. I ‘meant’ to point that out as another example of my own nagging urge to see ‘everything accounted for’, but resisting it myself. I suppose a manner to explain ‘not’ changing it is that production is equaled out for each since nationalism is about effective a positive force as it is a negative force to get beat in the back of the head and being told to work harder or die. he he he

But this is an interesting topic, to me.

I see what you mean about the AC and fighters, however that is more expensive after all is said and done. You can’t drop a AC with 2 fighters on any one turn.

You’re right. VERY much more expensive. But, while a loaded carrier is a bit less than twice the price it’s about 10 times as versitle and 3 times as accepting of damage.

Also, sometimes you can load them. Can’t you drop American fighters on a fresh U.K. carrier before Germany’s turn?

For offensive purposes, a battleship is a must. An AC attacking 1 is going to cut it.

A ‘great thing’, yes. I agree. A ‘must’, well, as long as I already have one. You won’t catch me buying one.

In saying that, I would have to agree that over all, a fully loaded AC is better that 1-2 BBs.

Yea. Just remember how useless they become when your opponent sort of gives up on the seas, while you can unload your carriers and use them elsewhere.

I see we mostly agree on the subject, but I’ve made it pretty much a rule to never buy them. And if I see an opponent acting like they want to, I’ll try to save a spoiled game by saying “aawww, man don’t do THAT. I don’t want to win because you screwed up. I wanna win 'cause I’m da besssss!”

he he he

Back about 1988 I think, I just looked at the box and knew I’d like it. I had an old game called Carrier Strike that was good, but way too simple and thought this was going to be much better. Well, here it is 14 years and about 30 regular playing partners later and I still have it.

As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got 2 more copies of the game to pool the playing piece together. I thought they were a bit chinchy with them.

:wink:

Thank you both.

:D

I agree that, in harmony with the ‘grand scale’ theme, that each unit is like a ‘division’ or ‘small fleet’ or ‘wing of fighters’, whatever the case may be. I also think that just having two or more of that item doesn’ t ‘neccessarily’ imply that there are twice as many in number, that as a matter of perception and not math, that they could be just simply more well maintained, supplied and armed.

That makes it more believable when a game progresses to having 50 red chips in Karillia and Eastern Europe, that it is in fact not implied to be every man, woman, and child enlisted wth a rifle and nobody’s left at home to be defended. You know what I mean?

It is when compared to an alternative of a loaded flattop. An Aircraft Carrier actually costs less, but after the worthy additional expense of loading it with fighters it is exponantially more worthy of being purchased. The only outside influence a Battleship has is the single shot inland in an aphibious assult. A carrier defends nearly as well alone but has the potential of defending nearly 3 times as good loaded. And the your fighters will be worth so much more with the added mobility and getting them to the battle. While a battleship is condemned to the seas, the truely expensive aspect of a flattop (the fighters) are not, and can then serve wherever best is a thorn in your opponents side, land or sea.

Personally, while I do enjoy the battleships I begin with, I just don’t see the use in ever buying more, unless I have just tons of cash and the game is basicly already won.

Basicly, at any time, ANY time a battleship is being concidered as a purchase it would be better to get a carrier. I cannot fathom an exeption. At all.

This is going back up this thread a bit, but it’s not my fault I missed it. he he he

“I wonder if you added “maintenance” costs on to stuff if that would work”

This is something some old A&A buddies of mine worked out this issue.

Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.

This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying?

Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.

It works fine the way it is.

Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.

You think this might call for a new thread?

Well, looking at the problems associated with battleships in the game explains a lot as to why WWII saw the beginning of the end of the age of the battleship. That’s not to say that there were no new battleships constructed or used effectively, but their faults were becoming apparent. While they were great for specialized purposes and brute force, it was effectively too much power limited to too few items.

Isn’t it funny that so many people think of battleships as the most powerful piece, yet find themselves ‘protecting it’ instead of using it to ‘protect other things’? You know what I mean? It’s only as powerful as the fleet surrounding it.

It’s been said that if Hitler had channeled the resources used to build just some of those big, prestigious battleships over to the much greater numbers of subs he could have had instead, he really could have won the war by totally paralyzing the North Atlantic. Granted, airpower was a big concern against them, but not every effect of war is perfectly emulated in the game. WWII saw the most obvious lessons learned that the age of the flattops had arrived. Even the game makes that clear in a realistic way.

But, in the game itself, for any country to purchase a battleship is economic suicide. Unless they have money to waste.

Uh, Chiefman21, he had a “strategy question”, not “a request for blind, fool-hearty luck.”

:roll:

Yea, I’m sure any of us would agree to “Germany must die first”, but only the faulty ones would claim “Germany must die FAST” or “Don’t mind those dudes over in the far east. We’ll get them after we finish with this.”

he he he

Silly willies.

“hehe, double team germany and ignore japan, i LOVE it when they do that you can chew up russia really quickly when your ignored.”

Yea, that whole “let’s take down Germany first/forget about Japan” strategy is a joke. Anytime my opponent(s) say that or look like they’re doing it I think “well, this one’s in the bag.” Sometimes I’ll tell them, “man, don’t waste the game on that. You’ll just loose. Try something more interesting.” But, that makes 'em more confident that I’m trying to save myself against a good plan until they suddenly find themselves covered in Japanese chips and say, “man, he was right.”

But, then they turn right around and make the same mistake again.

Eyeyeye.

Well, it seems to me that there really isn’t anything Germany can/should do against the UK directy until Russia is sacked.

It’s in Germany’s best interests to basicly keep UK out if it’s hair until after Russia’s gone. The way to do that is don’t let the UK get a navy. Keep the Luftwaffe just strong enough to do that duty. Unless the UK has a navy or an industrial complex either in Africa or India, they’re not much help, unless they’re just chuckin’ fighters into Russia for defense, which hurts Germany’s goals.

Just get rid of his Navy until you have Moscow.

Any kind of excessive aggression against UK before Russia falls is misdirected and usually wil just end up helping Russia push Germany back.

Also, if you KNOW they will attack Germany disproportionally then just go defensive. Just go fighers and infantry from the start and hang on and let Japan do the work. If they think that Germany can’t hold it’s own against the Allies when UK has no navy before Japan can take over Moscow uncontrollably, then it’s time to teach them the err in their strategy!

There was an old A&A buddy that used to always make this stupid sound when getting a good roll that was just like Dayle Gribble on King of the Hill when he goes “sh-shaaaahhh”.

It was so demoralizing.

Thanks.

Well, when I posted this I ‘expected’ more replies concerning fun ‘while playing’ the game, not neccessarily ‘in’ the game, but these were fun to read too.

I came to this site when searching for a copy of the rulebook since I lost mine. I didn’t ‘need’ one really since it’s all memorized, but I recruited two brand new players yesterday and thought they’d want to see proof time to time.

So, if you can, mention some interesting stories about any good memories you’ve had with friends and family playing A&A. I sure have lots. I got the game when it was brand new and loved it ever since. It’s been a great companion growing up together.

Greetings!

Just signing on. Loooooong time fan of A&A. I’ve had several different crowds over the years, some family, some friends, some coworkers, some I had introduced to it, some that already had it, that I regulary got together to play A&A. With some (when I had freetime out the whazoo, those were the days) we made pretty much a competitive ritual out of it. Thursday night was ‘game night’ and if you didn’t show up you lost by default and was subject to humilation the next day at work and lost all concideration on what was played on the radio at work (major punishment). The victors got to have all the frills and benifits until the next game night upset. They got to pick what’s played on the radio at work, cokes on every break, not having to help customers first but second, etc. Let’s just say a lot depended on winning the game on Thursday. During the game I had a CD with various wartime sound effects that we’d have on repeat throught the game. Oh, and we only had one change in the rules. The game played 'til the finish, none of this IPC thing, or whatever. You had to destroy every last drop of your enemy or victory is forfit resulting in a miserable week at work 'til your next chance. Those games sometimes drug way the heck out, but hey, IT WAS WAR!

Ahhhh, those were the days. But, I married and moved far away and although made great new A&A buddies, and am making some new ones right now (with neighbor buddies) I’ll still look most fondly at the gang from work when I first learned how to play.

Good wholesome fun.

What’s your story?

A&A is great, but it only needs one more thing added, under weapons development… a Death Star.

[ This Message was edited by: TheJediCharles on 2002-06-05 13:33 ]