Should Axis and Allies be reduced to 2 turns?

[Maddog77]

You folks are putting way too much thought into this. Keep it simple. Keep it the way it is as, in my mind, it keeps the game balanced. 

[GoSanchez6]

I might have mentioned this in another post but what about making movement of units more infantry 2,tanks 3,all navy 3. I think this would speed up the game dramatically. That is if that is what you are looking for.

[Razor]

I support the "All Axis, then all Allies move" because:

1) When only one player act, then the other 7 players get bored. But if 4 players act at the same time, then the 4 others must pay attention and nobody gets bored.

2) Easyer play. If you want your infantry to sail with a friendly tranny, you must embark on your turn, sail on the friends turn, and offload on your turn, wich makes it a long-time prosject with the current rules. In an "All Allies turn" you just put all the allied land units on the trannies, sail, and then off-load in the same turn. Same with the fighter on a friendly carrier, who follow the carrier down if the carrier got sunk during an attack, when the friendly fighter just land on an adjacent island.

3) The friends can defend togheter, but not attack toghether, with the current rules. This is not historical correct, nor does it makes sense. If you have 30 allied units from several nations in territory "A", they are not strong enough to attack 10 Axis units in territory "B", because the Axis will roll dice too many times. But if this 30 allied units can attack together in the same turn, they will be strong enough. No more insane stacking.

[Razor]

The current turn order system force the players to nation specific purchases. This fact was most blatant in the classic game, with the notorious " The German Crush Move". Russia would buy nothing but infantry. USA would buy nothing but infantry and trannies. UK would buy tanks and fighters. Then all three allies would stack in Karelia, and when strong enough attack East Europe. After the German turn, UK would attack with tanks and fighters and take the ground, then USA would reinforce with infantry, and at last USSR would reinforce with infantry too. Now Germany would not be strong enough to attack this huge stack, and the game would soon end.

With the "All Axis, All Allies Move", all friendly players can now attack together, and because of that all players can purchase a more balanced mix of units, just like they did in the real war.

[Razor]

No more can-openers.

With the current OOB turn order, one enemy can attack and occupie your frontline, and in next turn another enemy can exploit that hole with a huge Tank-stack attacking the territory behind. This force you to place infantry as Tank-blockers in every territory you own.
The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete.

[Gargantua]

The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete

Umm, NO.

Unless I am misunderstanding something?  There is still a "technical" turn order, even though everyone goes at once.

It's not like Russia, Uk, Anzac, and USA can all attack the same territory as a group at exactly the same time!

It's technically spaced... so Germany can can-opener for italy - for example.

[SSPanther]

To Imperious Leader & Mantlefan:

I believe I speak for everyone when I ask, could you two please quite with the back & forth. It's not productive, and its getting old. I ask this in respectful way. You two both seem to have a lot of knowledge about this game, and your input has been great, but there seems to be some kind of rivalry between you two or something, especially judging by Mantlefans comments at the bottom of his or her page. It reminds me of politics or something. We are all here b/c we love this game, so lets focus on that....

Regarding the two turn method, I am pleased to see how much debate this is fostering, even if most are not in favor of it.

Here are my thoughts on it:

1. I do believe it will cut down on time, as to how much, one could only speculate at this point.
2. @ Mantlefan. You ask if its worth Larry spending so much time to reduce a game from aprox. 10-12 hours or so to about 7-9. That depends. If it will prevent Larry & others from utilizing their time for other important things such as a newer a version, updates, etc., then perhaps not. But if A&A Global is intended to be his final product, and he has the time, then I don't see why he could not focus his time on a 2 turn based game. It all depends.
3. I think Razor highlighted some very good points as to why it should be considered:
- "When only one player act, then the other 7 players get bored. But if 4 players act at the same time, then the 4 others must pay attention and nobody gets bored." I think A&A would be more enjoyable if Germany and Italy, for example, could collaborate with one another about attacking Russia in the Ukraine ("You send your tanks and I'll send my infantry and aircraft")
- The ability to attack together (stated above). This ability makes the game more fun, and is historical too.
- Easier play with regards to loading on friendly transports, landing on friendly AC's, etc.

4. Last but not least, I think (I am speaking from my own personal experience here) it will create a game that is more user friendly to the general population of people who like to play strategy board games. Marketing this game towards a bigger audience should be something desired by all A&A players. Even die hard A&A players I know hesitate to play a game that will last so long, yet they still desire something that is more in depth then the global version(s) out there.

With regard to tradition and the fact that A&A has always been a game where each power goes on their own turn, so what. Il has already pointed out that the makers of this game have borrowed a number of concepts from other games. Its what people in this business (and others) do. You do not have to always be original. I think the makers should consider any changes that would improve the gaming experience, even if those ideas are not necessarily there own.

[Kobu]

The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete

Umm, NO.

Unless I am misunderstanding something?  There is still a "technical" turn order, even though everyone goes at once.

It's not like Russia, Uk, Anzac, and USA can all attack the same territory as a group at exactly the same time!

It's technically spaced... so Germany can can-opener for italy - for example.

The very first ruleset had the one turn combined attack for UK and US, and that pretty much ended every game. Let's make that available every turn. I foresee no problems. 

[Gamerman01]

Good post, Panther, thanks.

[aaron91]

There seems to be a discrepancy with what the idea actually means. Does the idea at least in terms of the OP's intent mean that all Axis nations move together at once then all Allies or that Axis moves first but in a turn order then Allies move first but in a turn order. I interpreted it as the first option. Lately I have been brainstorming a way to make joint attacks feasible since they played such a huge role in the real war but are completely unrepresented in global. The only way I concluded it would work without convoluted rules placed into G40 is to revise the turn order in the way I described above (first way).

[Imperious Leader]

It does except on the first turn it might be different.

For a Europe 1940 game, you might have not changes, but if the scenario was a 1942, you might have Russia playing first just in the first turn, then after axis after that.

For 1940, all axis play first and i see no need for changes in turn order for any turn.

[Cow]

italy is still pointless in a 2 turn system.

[SSPanther]

italy is still pointless in a 2 turn system.

Italy is not pointless, although I do recognize that they appear to become significantly weaker. I actually like this, as it more closely simulates the real war (Italy needs Germany's help in Africa and Middle East or it will get its butt kicked...) and is good for adding newer players, which our group seems to do regularly. What I mean is Italy is a good power for someone who is inexperienced to use, because if they make a mistake it most likely wont cost the game. IMHO Italy always seems underrated, and can actually make a significant impact in the game with just a minor amount of aide from Germany.

[Geoscal]

For me this would ruin the game.  For our games we play that all purchases must be done before your turn and the next turn starts as soon as the previous player has finished their combat move.

This really speeds the game and no one is bored.  We even finished two games in one evening!

[Imperious Leader]

For me this would ruin the game.  For our games we play that all purchases must be done before your turn and the next turn starts as soon as the previous player has finished their combat move.

This really speeds the game and no one is bored.  We even finished two games in one evening!

Under this system that is already being done. All players of a side perform all the turn functions together, except rolling dice. Then the other side does the same. While the first side performs this the other side is making builds and preparing their turn. So its even faster.