Subject says it all… just curious more than anything else… is this game loaded down with more units, more extras, more anything over its fellow A&A cousins? Retail, 1914 is even more expensive than either of the A&A 1940 games. Or is it just cuz WWI is a niche’ market and they’re fleecing its fans, cuz there’s not much out there for WWI? So why is it the flagship (price-wise) of the Axis and Allies line of games?
Arguably, the most expensive A&A game is actually Global 1940. It simply doesn’t look that way because it’s sold as two separate games, whereas 1914 is sold as one game.
I suspect that 1914 is more expensive because all of its sculpts are new designs (despite the fact that every nation uses the same generic designs), whereas 1940 and 1942 use a lot of pre-existing sculpt molds.
Well ya, Global 1940 is the purchase of two games which comes out more than anything else, I was just merely wondering that out of 1941, 1942SE, 1940 Europe and 1940 Pacific, 1914 costs more than any of them (retail). It just seemed kind of a stretch to me. I think the two 1940 games are the flagship of the Axis and Allies line, I’m not arguing that they should cost more than they already do, I’m just wondering why 1914 costs more… I think 1914 should (at most) cost the same as the 1940 games, or cost something closer to 1942SE.
I agree and do understand Marc’s argument (hi Marc!), but I suspect it is a simple case of cashing in, unnecessarily. The rule book is bloody short (and many of us have misunderstood things).
@CWO:
I suspect that 1914 is more expensive because all of its sculpts are new designs (despite the fact that every nation uses the same generic designs), whereas 1940 and 1942 use a lot of pre-existing sculpt molds.
Putting more thought into that argument… 1941 is pretty much identical to 1914 in that it uses all new sculpts (that half the nations use the same designs x2). Tigers, Russian Carriers, JS-2s, FW-190s, etc, etc… they’re all new sculpts in 1941… I know 1941 cuts a lot of corners, but new sculpts doesn’t seem to jack the price, that’s my point.
Its to cover the cost of all 3 playtest sessions.
Were they played on the moon, that they cost so much to fund?
Have missed you, Flashman. Hope you have been keeping well.
Alas, just turned 50. Been looking back on a wasted life.
Happy birthday!
We can all say that, Flash. Keep your chin up. Life goes on. Keep well.
Alas, just turned 50. Been looking back on a wasted life.
A life playing Axis & Allies is hardly what I’d call a wasted life.
@CWO:
Alas, just turned 50. Been looking back on a wasted life.
A life playing Axis & Allies is hardly what I’d call a wasted life.
I started A&A with 1941 when I was twelve. I’m fifteen now. Am I wasting my life?!?
@Charles:
@CWO:
Alas, just turned 50. Been looking back on a wasted life.
A life playing Axis & Allies is hardly what I’d call a wasted life.
I started A&A with 1941 when I was twelve. I’m fifteen now. Am I wasting my life?!?
No, as I explained in my above post (though perhaps I should have expressed it more clearly), I think that playing A&A is a worthwhile pursuit. Spending time playing A&A is not a waste of time. And even if it was a waste of time, assessing your particular situation would depend on what angle you approach it from. Fifteen minus twelve means you’ve spent three years (presumably not three solid years) playing A&A, which can be considered either a big or a small number. If you view three years as 20% of your total lifespan so far, then yes it’s a lot. If you view three years as 3.5% of a projected total lifespan of, let’s say, 85 years, then it’s an insignificant figure. :-)
But sometimes I look at our A&A forum exchanges and feel my life wasting away …. :wink:
Well I’ll be continuing playing A&A for as long as possible. Getting a job is going to make me have significant less time.
