When and where was your first game?


  • As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got

    Who taught you English? :lol: Just kidding! (really.) :wink:


  • Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?

    Yea, I’ve tried a lot of 'em. Some friends and I even made some up. They’re fun in and of themselves, but not in the same way. While some alternative rules have been very well thought out, and could have been fine if were ‘the originally official rules’, I just can’t get past them as being something of a novelty thing. Basicly, that’s what I did when I was young and played A&A so much I got bored with it. Like playing with your food when you’re full. But now, after 15 or so years and a career and family, A&A time is a rare and priviledged event, requiring moved mountains to make time for. So, I don’t so much care wasting those opportunities on alternative versions. Plus, I’ve recently introduced my neighborhood buddies to it, they’re new and shouldn’t try them yet.

    But, yea, I remember trying several different ones, including the notorious ‘double blind’, and that one drove me nuts. he he he Yea, yea, it had it’s validity in mimicing the stealth of real war, but it was a labor to play and too far separated from strategy and too much like the metaphorical equivelant of swinging your fists in a darkened room hoping to clock your enemies chops. I even won a game like that and couldn’t appreciate it because I felt like it was a hollow victory, beating someone’s ignorance and not their intellegence… it’s sort of too irrational if that makes any sense.

    I feel there already is too much that relies on the luck of the roll already, and to inject even MORE luck into the game just makes it just… too freakish. If you notice, everyone harps on how it makes the game more like ‘real war’, but those games always end with the most unrealistic results. Always. Like a Japanese armada taking over Washington DC at the same exact time a US armada takes over Berlin… just too kookie for me.

    I de-rationalize the whole notion that urges the side of players that like double blind on the fact that the superpowers had a much greater idea of where the enemy was and in what numbers than you give credit to. Enough to accept the real rules as actually being more realistic than double blind’s opposite extreme. Mind you, there were plenty of broken codes, spys and recon to make it acceptable to not use double blind. Think of this too, perhaps even players themselves are ‘mislead’ in their own and other’s strengths as well (in the sense of inflated numbers and grand-scale strategic miscalculations), justifiying why sometimes 3 fighters can get lost to 1 transport alone. Even the regular rules seems to sort of make a very good arguement that even as players are sitting there looking right at their own and their enemy’s forces, they indeed are looking with no more or less accuracy than the real powers did back in the real war, expressed by how sometimes exaggerated results can result from conflicts.

    See what I mean?

    Anyway, it’s hard to discribe really, but regular rules are okay by me and alternative rules are something of a turn-off now. It’s like I tell folks when trying to not only describe A&A to them, but quickly describe it and what makes it such a hit and fun to play…“A&A is great because of it optimizing the greatest number of strategic possibilities with the simplest rules and gameplay better than any other game in history.”

    No need for new rules in my book.

    Who taught you English?

    he he he

    I know the rules. But, I’m using the ‘double blind’ alternative rules of English. Got bored of the regular rules.

    :wink:


  • :D I guess you and your friends even made some up! :lol: Let me tell you, they’re fun but not in the same way! :P


  • …yea… didn’t I just say that?

    You’re confusing me. And that ain’t hard.

    :)


  • I started to play Axis and Allies two years ago. My grandmother gave me the board game for christmas (I’m 15 y old). Then, I started to play with my friend (I lost my first game because I took the allies!) at my home. Since this time, I love this game and each time I play this game, I have fun! People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!


  • People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!

    You know what that sounds to me like?

    You’re not only playing in a tight circle of the same exact individuals, but you are each rehersing the same exact mistakes based on a what might be a communal misconseption of the options available to you.

    How do you fix it?

    Bring in someone you haven’t played with before. Better yet….bring a seasoned player into your midst.

    You will then clearly learn that your friends are experiencing an anomoly of sharing the same faults in strategy. That is the only possible explanation I see.

    Believe me, with the first two or three guys I played with that played nobody else, we had NO idea what we were doing. Until I got a few other guys to come in and suddenly we were all so shocked at how flawed our strategies were as a whole we all thought we were playing a brand new game. THEN I played guys that had played for years… that rocked my world.

    You need new players, I think.

    What you’re suggesting just is not true in any way I can see it.

    If you were playing the Allies against me and where launching an assault on UK with Germany, believe me, I’d have so many Soviets in Eastern Europe you wouldn’t know what hit you.

    One of the most popular misconceptions and one of the first lessons learned by newer or unseasoned players is that you don’t need to accompany attacking infantry with a bunch of tanks, neccessarily. Couple that with the misconspection that Russia must buy mostly infantry and what you end up with is a Russian player who thinks he never should attack.

    I’ll never forget the first time I learned that a bunch of infantry is all you need… and how few infantry can sometimes constitute ‘a bunch’.

    Another popular mistake of newer players make it not getting USA in the action quickly. The urge, as a USA player, to sit back and try to ‘build up’ before moving it is hard to resist. Once you get better and know how to optimize the forces of each country, you’ll realize that US need to contribute immediately, even though it’s not a big thing at first, to save it’s allies from the fact that the Axis is postured from the start to cause a lot of damage. Get USA in it ASAP. A small help from the start is worth way more than a big help when it’s too late.

    All in all, you need to stay on these boards 'til you learn some cool new stuff. And get some to play you.

    You’ll love the game a lot more.


  • “started to play Axis and Allies two years ago. My grandmother gave me the board game for christmas (I’m 15 y old). Then, I started to play with my friend (I lost my first game because I took the allies!) at my home. Since this time, I love this game and each time I play this game, I have fun! People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!”

    Good for you, we could always use more good Axis players to lay waste to the Allies! But like the Jedi said, be sure to play against new players, too. It’ll help you to change tactics and throw a new variable into the game (even someone who has never played before).

    Oh yeah, just broke 1900! 8)


  • @TheJediCharles:

    Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?

    Yea, I’ve tried a lot of 'em. Some friends and I even made some up. They’re fun in and of themselves, but not in the same way. While some alternative rules have been very well thought out, and could have been fine if were ‘the originally official rules’, I just can’t get past them as being something of a novelty thing. Basicly, that’s what I did when I was young and played A&A so much I got bored with it. Like playing with your food when you’re full. But now, after 15 or so years and a career and family, A&A time is a rare and priviledged event, requiring moved mountains to make time for. So, I don’t so much care wasting those opportunities on alternative versions. Plus, I’ve recently introduced my neighborhood buddies to it, they’re new and shouldn’t try them yet.

    But, yea, I remember trying several different ones, including the notorious ‘double blind’, and that one drove me nuts. he he he Yea, yea, it had it’s validity in mimicing the stealth of real war, but it was a labor to play and too far separated from strategy and too much like the metaphorical equivelant of swinging your fists in a darkened room hoping to clock your enemies chops. I even won a game like that and couldn’t appreciate it because I felt like it was a hollow victory, beating someone’s ignorance and not their intellegence… it’s sort of too irrational if that makes any sense.

    I feel there already is too much that relies on the luck of the roll already, and to inject even MORE luck into the game just makes it just… too freakish. If you notice, everyone harps on how it makes the game more like ‘real war’, but those games always end with the most unrealistic results. Always. Like a Japanese armada taking over Washington DC at the same exact time a US armada takes over Berlin… just too kookie for me.

    I de-rationalize the whole notion that urges the side of players that like double blind on the fact that the superpowers had a much greater idea of where the enemy was and in what numbers than you give credit to. Enough to accept the real rules as actually being more realistic than double blind’s opposite extreme. Mind you, there were plenty of broken codes, spys and recon to make it acceptable to not use double blind. Think of this too, perhaps even players themselves are ‘mislead’ in their own and other’s strengths as well (in the sense of inflated numbers and grand-scale strategic miscalculations), justifiying why sometimes 3 fighters can get lost to 1 transport alone. Even the regular rules seems to sort of make a very good arguement that even as players are sitting there looking right at their own and their enemy’s forces, they indeed are looking with no more or less accuracy than the real powers did back in the real war, expressed by how sometimes exaggerated results can result from conflicts.

    See what I mean?

    Anyway, it’s hard to discribe really, but regular rules are okay by me and alternative rules are something of a turn-off now. It’s like I tell folks when trying to not only describe A&A to them, but quickly describe it and what makes it such a hit and fun to play…“A&A is great because of it optimizing the greatest number of strategic possibilities with the simplest rules and gameplay better than any other game in history.”

    No need for new rules in my book.

    Who taught you English?

    he he he

    I know the rules. But, I’m using the ‘double blind’ alternative rules of English. Got bored of the regular rules.

    :wink:

    I know what you mean, I use to love playing the world at war version of A&A, about 9 years ago now, but now Its fun just settling into the original.
    Too many rules in the world at war game, I go into conniption fits every time I try it nowadays. :lol:

    I do like the new A&AE/A&AP though.


  • I was about ten years old when played my first game. My brother had invited some friends over in a free-for-all game of Axis and Allies. One of his peers could not make it, and seeing no other choice, he asked if I could play. After promptly reviewing the rules, I chose USA. This was one of enjoyable gaming experiences I have played. The whole game was a blast from start to finish! I can’t remember many details, other than it was the first game began my love of bombers. They won me the game! :D


  • That sounds cool. Did you use lots of bombers?


  • yup gotta loe the axis players handing smackdowns :wink:


  • “That sounds cool. Did you use lots of bombers?”

    Indeed. :) Lots of bombers means lots of fun!


  • my first game was when i was stationed in england, back in 86. someone mom had sent it to give us something to do besides drink. needless to say, we played drunk… russia and japan ended up dividing my US, while england and germany passed out. was a pretty wild game.
    anyway, we tried it again the next day, merely hung over. i was HOOKED. id always hated chess, as chess has no element of luck, and most of the chess players i knew were boring. unfortuneatly, i took the game slightly more seriously than my friends, and actually thought about the game a bit, and developed… strategy… wasnt too long befor the rest of the game got bored after that. was several years later before i found a really great gaming group.


  • Yes, playing A&A high or drunk is very fun (or funny to those watching). :)


  • hey just so happens i loe to play chess and im not boring :wink: ur just lucky im such a nice guy :D


  • “Yes, playing A&A high or drunk is very fun (or funny to those watching).”

    Moses, you are not even suppose to be drinking or ‘high’! :o


  • Ha, such laws do not apply to me. :P


  • never tried it high, but i bet its a blast :)


  • I played my first game when I was 11 at a friends house, back then we didn’t know that ger. and jap. had to be allied and usa, uk and the ussr had to be allied so I( USA) allied with my friend (GER) and since we only had 4 players we were against ussr and jap, as you might expct my first game was a victory :D


  • @GeZe:

    I played my first game when I was 11 at a friends house, back then we didn’t know that ger. and jap. had to be allied and usa, uk and the ussr had to be allied so I( USA) allied with my friend (GER) and since we only had 4 players we were against ussr and jap, as you might expct my first game was a victory :D

    Thats funny :lol:

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 13
  • 8
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • 6
  • 31
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

24

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts