No variety in A&A

[Commissar_Adam]

me and my friends recently started a game of a&a, we quckly quit shortly after, realizing there was noo point to it. Since we figuered that everyone did the same moves always and if they failed to do this then the other side would do their moves and win. We found that since everyone has to do the same thing or lose, there is no variety to the game. has anyone else encountered this?

[AgentOrange]

Definitely - That's why my crew in ABQ usually plays with alternate teams.  Try Germany and Russia vs. Everyone else - that's one of my favorites!

[Bean]

I agree there is not much variety once the skill levels are sufficiently high. It is always the Allies going after Germany, while Japan makes a long and lonely tank drive to Moscow. You get some variety when one of the players isn't being efficient, but otherwise...

[yamamato456]

Maybe you should play with NA's, and tweak the rules a little.  Our groups made it so that in the Pacific you can move 3 spaces per turn in the ocean instead of 2, to make island hopping more possible.  Also, if Axis and Allies starts to get boring and methodical take a brake from it.  Don't play for a couple of months. 

If you want you can make your own games.  My friends and I once made a WWIII variation (of course w/out nuclear capabilities, that would make the game last 10 minutes).  We had Russia and China band together, and China was worth way more IPC's.  Then its the European countries, and U.S.A. for the allies.  Japan doesn't join the good guys until the third round of play. The communists are like the Axis, strong military weaker economy.  Democrats like the allies, weak military but strong economy.  The game still needs some tweaking to make it more balanced (NATO navy way too strong).

IMO it's way more fun creating your own maps and variations than playing the standard A&A.

[JWW]

Agreed, if combatants are equal and nobody tries untested strategies then it's the same old same old. We are going to jump into Pacific and see if it offers more variety.

[critmonster]

hence the need for a kjf which nobody (including myself) seems to be able to achieve

[AgentOrange]

You can always get creative, but I'm telling you:  You don't need to rack your brain coming up with different rules/conditions; just re-arrange the teams as they are.  I already mentioned Germany and Russia together, but you can also try US and Japan together as well.

[JWW]

If you are playing against opponents who want to WIN first. See Switch versus OCT in Games and the rant that followed the latest loss. You will understand why the KJF isn't attempted. Why bother win a sound KGF strategy wins 75% of the time. As far as changing the game/switching sides (Germany & Russia vs everyone else) it sounds too strange for me.

[AgentOrange]

I've said my piece; just know that in my opinion, it was one of the most interesting games I ever played. 

But know also that we switched sides again when someone got knocked out, so as to keep the game more even.  We played that way until UK took Berlin.  Russia and UK then allied against US and Japan, and the Russo/British alliance divided Europe amongst themselves.  Then later, the UK took Washington.  UK was a friggin' powerhouse by that point, not to be trifled with, so I (Japan) and Russia joined forces against them.
My leave ended at this time, so I personally couldn't finish the game, but I was told that the Russkies took and kept London, and then (I'll admit) they were in a position to crush the Japs. 

Even though I had to accept defeat there, it was a fascinating game as far as alternate strategy, hell even alternate history, so I'd gladly play those teams again anytime. 

[Alcibiades]

I wholeheartedly disagree that there is no variety in A&AR. The element of of chance forces variety and adaptation. But that random element is not so overstated that it overrides the strategic element. This balance is, in my opinion what makes the game so interesting. I play with the same person all the time. Our games are always different, though my first move with Russia is always the same. The last game we played, my opponent rolled with three dice for rockets with Germany in the first turn and got them. This changed the game entirely. It changed the game so much that he ended up beating me for the first time since we purchaced the revised game. Also, his attack on Egypt failed which lead me to blunder by sacking India in order to develop Egypt with UK, something I would have never done had the German attack on Egypt been successful as is normal. These subtle contingencies can change the game entirely. The basic strategies of attempting to pressure Europe with the allies and Russia with the axis will indeed stay the same. But the methods by which the pressure is accomplished must changed as dictated by unexpected dice rolls. There is no way to 'solve' A&AR because there is no way to predict with certainty how any battle will be resolved. Transports can potentially take out battleships, enough said.

[88 Millimeter]

I agree- small changes here and there shift the game dramatically- a territory losing one extra Inf can have ripple effects throughout the game. I do agree that from a philosophical standpoint there isn't a great deal of variety, unless you're willing to go out on a limb and face a loss. But from the standpoint of the round to round battles, etc. I feel there's a great deal of variety.

Also- house rules are good fun. A friend and I are soon going to be playtesting a d20 variant (nerds, aren't we?). Hopefully we can continue to approach realism while still having fun. Special units, etc. can also spice it up pretty well.

[Octopus]

me and my friends recently started a game of a&a, we quckly quit shortly after, realizing there was noo point to it. Since we figuered that everyone did the same moves always and if they failed to do this then the other side would do their moves and win. We found that since everyone has to do the same thing or lose, there is no variety to the game. has anyone else encountered this?

I am curious, which side typically wins?

[liquidvet]

me and my friends recently started a game of a&a, we quckly quit shortly after, realizing there was noo point to it. Since we figuered that everyone did the same moves always and if they failed to do this then the other side would do their moves and win. We found that since everyone has to do the same thing or lose, there is no variety to the game. has anyone else encountered this?

I am curious, which side typically wins?

Well If I put in my 2 cents from the 10-12 games I have recently played the axis has only lost 2x.  Granted some of them america was very unfocused, but even when america was focused a good japan player has been able to pretty much run amuck, smash russia, and then reinforce germany (which should probably be breached and weakened by UK/American trannies) enough to hold them off until japan can regroup and push towards western us.

[critmonster]

it seems that when new to the game axis wins alot then it shifts, forcing the axis to improve their play dramatically.  if you want more variety in the strats you need to employ try the national advantages, i conjecture that is what they are designed for.

[liquidvet]

it seems that when new to the game axis wins alot then it shifts, forcing the axis to improve their play dramatically.  if you want more variety in the strats you need to employ try the national advantages, i conjecture that is what they are designed for.

All I have heard on here though is that the national adv. immensely favor the allies (national adv that are suggested in the rule book) so by that logic wouldn't it insinuate that without the national advantages the axis has the upperhand in most games when played well?