It was 1990, I was 18 years old… I moved to the big city of Toronto and my new friends were gamers who played Risk all the time. I quickly got bored of it and was looking for an alternative game I could introduce to them and I saw on the store shelf Axis & Allies from Milton Bradley “a game of high adventure” and “decide the fate of the world in just a few short hours” (lol). Unfortunately we were all pretty hammered by the end of the night and the only thing I remember of my first game was punching out all the plastic pieces from the plastic stencil racks and all the roundels from the cardboard sheets. it was an instant hit with the whole group and I played it with them religiously for up to 2 years until I moved back home to Peterborough. I brought my game with me and it wasn’t long before I hooked some old high school friends to it, and over the next 8 years I played Classic edition even more than I did before. After that in 2000, I moved back to Toronto where I discovered Spring 1942, then A&A Anniversary edition and finally Global 1940… ironically, I met someone from that first group from the early 90’s almost 20 years later, we accidentally bumped into each other online and we have been playing 1 on 1 1940 Global games every month for the past 5 years.
Does it feel good to win individually in this game?
I am having my FIRST MONTHLY EVER BEEN PLAYED Axis and Allies night with the guys Friday.
I just bought the game, had my brother in law come over to feel it out (big lovers of Risk) …. we loved it and are excited for Friday all except for the fact that everyone doesnt just kill each other!!!
In Risk there is no doubt who is the KINGO SUPREMO!, but in A&A I know there is an individual winner, but is there a way that you can manipulate others into doing what you want them to so that in the end you can laugh and mock them because you are the ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL winner and they are not.
Or is it just whoever built up the best??? Cause that would make me sad … please someone tell me that you can really use everyone in this game to your benefit! I guess I can see how you could maybe keep the Axis (or Allies) in the game until you had the best production, but how would you stop your ally from getting bigger and stuff like that???
Help! Someone please make me feel better and tell me I can GLOAT and manipulate and be really nasty. ((Im a very nice person in regular life, thats why I get this way when I get a chance to play board games…he he hh eh)
cystic crypt last edited by
you may be a person who should avoid team games - doubles tennis, football, volleyball, hockey etc.
This is an aspect i like about A&A vs. Risk et al.
Seems like the Patriot missed the point of that game. It is a team game… whatever makes my team stronger is good, the stronger the better.
Maybe you schould try Junta for nasty cut throat action, or 1830.
I think a beter game for PatriotReview would be SamuriSwords or Diplomacy maybe.
So….I feel what you are telling me is that with A&A there really is no signifigant INDIVIDUAL winner? ((ARE WE ALL TALKING BOARD GAME HERE?))
I understand that Team is fun and all, but my friends and I love to get together and get competitive with each other. i.e.–Risk. I could understand the teamwork aspect if I was ONLINE with people, going against others…but it is different in my living room…I want to reign supreme! ((As do my pals)) and be able to call myself the god of strategy…
But I get the feeling from these posts that I may have purchased the wrong game for that please if anyone has experienced or has house rules to fulfill these desires through A&A please let me know…
BUT WHAT IS THIS Diplomacy thing? (as if my wife will let me spend another $40 on a BOARD GAME!)
If you get the World at war expansion there is a stronger element of individualisam, but in order to be successful you still need to use team work.
Diplomacy is a board game that has very little tactical strategy. It is 95% diplomacy, hence the name. I belive you can have up to seven players, the more the better for this type of game. The battles have no chance element. It’s all about making deals and double crossing. Pleanty of room for gloating.
I would try E-bay or the hasbro web site to find out about where to get it.
that sounds cool! BOTh the expansion and diplomacy – have you ever played that history of the world from avalon (that may not be exactly the name) – I read somewhere that that was sweet.
anyway–I like teamwork! I think it is a cool element of AA – I just also want to be able at the end of the day to either say I am the winner or someone else is, besides the Three of us are or the TWo of you were, you know?
History of the world can be a lot of fun. I will always remember when the mongol hordes stormed through china, india and took the pyramids….
Well you can always say
“We won today, but only because I have the tactical genius of MacArthur, the Diplomatic Skill of Ike and the self assured, embolden cockyness of Patton. So with out me you guys would have been screwed.”
You know put the “I” back in team!
As I always say… “There is no “I” in team, but there is an “ME” and THAT is what it is all about!”
I like your comment dezrtfish and will keep it for later use!~
God bless all!
You may not be able to gloat as an individual, but you will be able to gloat as part of a team - you just have to let your teammates in on the gloating.
If you want to gloat as an individual, you could always (after your team has won) declare war on the rest of the world. THAT should be an interesting battle and well worth gloating over should you succeed!
Diplomacy is the best game for berating others, but at the same time it is almost impossible to win. Once you start to pull ahead everyone else bands together and beats you back down. As far as individual victory in Axis and Allies, the rules say the person who’s income increased by the largest percentage. If the axis win it’s almost always Japan, with the allies though it can be any of the three although it is often Russia.
Here’s a couple of suggestions:
- Play the game as is, except it is every man for himself, although this probably isn’t balanced.
- Everyone starts out with the same income and numbers of units and then can place them anywhere in their countries borders, although you’ll probably have to mess with territory values to even things out.
- Use a risk type set up, (everyone gets same cash, units), but players then pick their Capital (anywhere) and other territories (like risk). But you play with A&A rules –- we have a game like this going in the game section called A&A Risk. We made capitals worth 10 IPC, everything else worth 2 IPC to make it easy.
These are just a few ideas. Check out the varients and house rules section for more.
Darth , that sounds sweet! I will play it normal for a few games with that in mind… I think I would seriously dig that version of the rules.
thanks! Im pumped with that idea now!
Cool, glad you liked it.
One thing though, The UK player may be at a serious disadvantage because he has a very large empire and very few units to begin with, and may lose much of her income in Afr and Canada if it is every man for himself.
It probably would be a good idea to test it out a few times, but I could see the UK needed another guy in India and/or South Africa maybe. Or perhaps give the UK one man in Libya and move the German units to Algeria. Or UK gets a free IC and AA gun in South Africa (but can only place 2 units there per - use the placement of a new IC rule)
Just some suggestions to try and even the playing field.
That is interesting to leave the countries as-is and play it out. It would become very diplomatic, and any power can win when diplomacy is involved, the problem is japan would by far have the best win percentage because it has the most expensive stuff, and the best position to expand. Due to the nature of the setup, Germany and Japan make great allies because they don’t confict with eachother. Therefore, these countries can be agressive, and the allies lose the right to put units on allied soil. Basically what I’m saying is unless all the players are extremely experienced, Japan will win most of the time. Once all the players get really good, Germany will know not to attack anyone at first (or else after that person dies, Germany will too), maybe shuck stuff through persia -afghan to attack japan with. Would be weird, I can see pacific strats working here. Would require a lot of experience to be much fun though. Everyone would have to work hard to keep everyone else balanced.
Team gloating is fun, just don’t hug me!
You’ll spill my Dr. Pepper.
Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy! Diplomacy!
My second choice, unless I am feeling diplomatic.
I have played many 5-way “every man for himself” A&A games. We’ve done it two ways, both original setup for each player (using the reference cards) and the scanario where everyone gets an equal number of units at the beginning, all to be placed on their capitals. We like the latter better, but both work.
For both versions, we set a time limit, and whoever has gained the most territory points at the end of the last round wins. Each player gets his country assignment randomly, and yes, it definitely makes a difference. GB is the toughest by far, so that player will have to use diplomacy to survive. Germany and Russia will fight each other to the death unless they form a nonagression pact (which is usually broken eventually). Japan and th US are in the best positions to win, but often end up in a similiar war of attrition as Germany/Russia.
I love this version of the game because it is totally open-ended, there’s no tried and true strategy to win. We make everything tradeable, IPC’s, territories, units, whatever. If you can make a deal, go for it. The only rule is that trades must be physically transacted during one of the “traders” turns.
Other than that, all standard rules apply. This might be right up your alley, Patriot. Give it a shot.