@Suppressmeajumma The Western Allies should certainly be landing in the same spot, and Northern Italy, since it has a factory, is certainly a good place to land (France is also good, since itâs two spaces away from any German Factories, so harder to reinforce). My point was more that defending the USSR should be the main objective of the US/UK, not making some kind of grand D-Day Style Landing. You might want to prioritize landing troops in Leningrad before making any landings in France/Italy, so that they can liberate the factory there for the USSR and defend Moscow from the German onslaught.
Historical Correctness
-
Who here found the historical correctness of Europe to be good? Personally I prefer Pacific for its historical correctness and I found that Europe is really stupid, hehe
because the Russian front chucks it totally out of WHACK! If I was to make the game I would make it so that Russia has sh*t loads of money and that they have a totally seperate defense and attack ratios ie. their tanks attack at 2 instead of 3 and so on⌠I think if Avalon Hill had of made the game more historically correct it would have been more enjoyable.
Does anyone else agree with me?
Yanny - Less Caps Please
[ This Message was edited by: Seb on 2002-05-03 02:19 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-05-28 11:24 ]
-
Welcome back Seb! Where have you been?
For all you who donât know, Seb used to be our biggest poster (before I came along of course
)
-
it might be an interesting idea. I would have divided the eastern front into smaller territorys so there could be grand dynamic battles. Iâm not sure about giving russia seprate attack and defence values, it doesnât seem that historicly correct to me. T-34s kicked a lot of ass.
-
hehe I am glad someone recognised me yanny.
-
well, the Germans would have to decrease their attacking value for their fighters and the Russians would have to increase their tanksâ attacks. Since the T-34âs were better than the Panthers and the Stuka dive-bombers were terrible fighter planes.
-
By including so many separate rules like âGerman tanks attack for this⌠American bombers defend for thisâŚâ you really do take a lot of the overall simplicity of the game. And maybe thatâs why people enjoy the game so much, because they can become instant wargamers without reading numerous rules. Granted, the Eastern Front couldâve expanded, the Russians couldâve be more powerful, and country specific stats couldâve been implemented. But you have to realize, any game that offers âhistorical accuracyâ with a learning curve a fraction of the time is impossible. Maybe what you are looking for are âAdvanced Rulesâ for the expert player.
-
What sets Axis and Allies apart from other games is itâs simplicity. Thats why some people love it, and other people hate it (I canât even get the adults in my gaming group to look at it!).
-
That is what makes A&A popular on those who have a reasonable interesting in World War II and/or wargamers who arenât diehards and want to have a good time with a couple of their friends.
What makes A&A so great is, like Chess, itâs easy to learn but almost impossible to master.
âOnly the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.â - Aldolf Galland
âMoral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.â - Patton[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-28 21:01 ]
-
Yeah, I play several really fun games, but very complex games. Atlantic Storm, Brittannia, and Breakout Normandy have 30+ page rulebooks! Takes several games just to get a feel of the game. Axis and Allies, took me 2 turns to understand the rules.
-
Well who knows? I guess Axis and Allies are like your training wheels. Maybe you need them at first, at least until you get a feel and sense of economical and campaign planning. And Europe might be a return to old times with a sense on theater specific battling and a few realistic changes. Now if you are ready to take off those âtraining wheels,â there are plenty of other Axis and Allies conversions out there. Boerke´s European Large Map 1941 seems to be one fine example.
-
yes i agree with yanny for he taought me how to play my first game of AA
but i like AA simplicity at some points and then again i hate it in others. but the thing i like best about AA is unlike many games AA is so customizable. now a good idea for AA is Free for alls Yanny doesnt like them to much cus he alsways loses
but then again the peps we play with are asses, and many times gang up on him
well anyway they are realley fun and have allot more out comes then the standard game. and we usally play only one country can win so theres allot of scheming and sometimes people get exited cus someone moved a battle ship near there coast or somtin like that so its realley fun. the 1939 WAW map is realley good for it. also the when u do them on the Europe map it gets extrememly political. Y u remember that game we played were Max was italy and u were france. that was great and i will admit i might have lost that one in the end.
-
Free for alls are fun, just as long as you have a set of rules to go with them. Otherwise I wouldnât want to be stuck with UK.
-
yeah its simple enough to play ie been looking for other ww2 games like it. do u haave any idea how hard a3r is to get
good thhhhing i didnt want it anytime soon, just like the original final fantasy tactics, none of that greatest hits junk. 5 yrs to find the flippen thing
-
I think the russian front would be a lot more correct if the added the major rivers such as the volga
-
Yeah, along with weather conditions and mountainous terrain.
-
You know, for the Eastern front to be historically correct, youâd give every two Russian infantry one shot to fire.
I agree with the river thing. And what about the technology development, such as the later German tanks and jets?
Guest
-
The Russian T34/85s were more pwoerful than anything the Germans had when they launched Operation Barbarrosa.
-
T34/85âs werenât even around during 1941. But I will say the T34/76 was superior to any German tank used during Barbarossa.
-
Sorry abut that, I made a typing mistake when typing in the tank model. The T35/85s came later. Youâre right is was the T34/76s. Couldnât the soviets pick less confusing names??
-
Hi, This is my first post on topic and thought it wold be perfect to jump in on.
I have played A&A for almost 17 years now (since 86) and what I have best about all three versions is that they are simple to learn and play, at first. But for any body who has a deep interest the inaccuracies eventually get to you, for example the Famous Panzer dash south to South Africa in the original AA, and drive you Mad. But thats where another great kicker comes in for the game its ease to adapt to house rules, any body with tons of ESCI and MPC 1/72 scale figures and micro armor can go bazzark inventing new rules and adding new peices.
The one thing that both A&AE and A&AP lack is the Technology rules from the original game, this allowed some national variation to occur in game play and represented an important part of the war.
-
The German tanks were out-matched in France, never mind Russia!
It was German tactics and innovation that won most of their battles.
-
Honestly, I think the Germans should have won the war- I felt that they had the better tactical minds on their side, but had a damn bad ally in Italy and lacked the strategic foresight and industrial capacity to winâŚwell, there is the issue of the militarily inept FuhrerâŚbut thatâs another issue altogether. I think they adapted the best to the new quick strike tactics pioneered in 1918- I mean, the French saw that and developed the Maginot Line, and the Germans developed what the media called blitzkriegâŚ
-
Blitzkrieg is a very suitable name for the German tactics. Itâs German for âlightning warâ and the Germans did do very well in the beginning of the war. Iâm happy that they made so many mistakes and only wish that they would have made more earlier and they the western powers would have stopped Hitler earlier. They had the ability to win, but thank God they didnât becuase Hitler was a madman. Youâre right about Italy. Iâm sure Spain would have been mroe successful than Italy would have been in the war. Franco was a very good military general.
-
the allies would have been able to prevent the war entierly if they didnât let germany build up an army. iâm not sure but i think in the versille treaty he wasnât allowed to have an army. the allies should have used there troops in stead of lettin germany build up an army on the eastern front to "stop the comunist threatââ. hitler may have won if the damn japs didnât attack pearl harbor. he may have gone on and defeated both russia and great britian. and at that time they could have worked together to take on the us.
-
I donât know how politically correct âdamn Japsâ isâŚanyway- the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was a very good move, tactically- it essentially gave the Japanese the PacificâŚproblem was that the pre-emptive attack didnât knock out the carriers, which came back to haunt the Japanese later in the war. I wonder why other countries, in wartime, fail to see how quickly the United States can mobilize for war from peacetime industry. It happened in both World WarsâŚ
Iâm still amazed at how quickly Germany re-militarized after the economic depression brought on by the Treaty of VersailleâŚamazing what a little bigotism, leadership, and motivation do to peopleâŚ
On a sidenote, has anyone else read the Harry Turtledove alternate history series of books? Theyâre a great read. Especially with the U.S. joining Germany in WWIâŚ