Anniversary Edition already Obsolete/Superceded?
Flying Tiger last edited by
I have only played appr. 25 games of AAR. With USA I never went after germany directly. I used the bomber for SBR. I would spend 10 IPC usually each round to secure Africa. The rest of my IPCs went into a Pacific war. It was a much better game that way. UK could mostly concentrate on Europe.
General Di Caro last edited by
Obsolete? I got Anniversary Edition yesterday and it looks like the best edition yet. And Guadalcanal and Bulge were also excellent. The game has enough complexity without being burdened by too many rules.
There is no way to make a boardgame reflect “real war.” In WWII, nations didn’t take turns attacking or roll dice to decide how many infantry are killed before any tanks could be touched before any planes could be destroyed (a reason why the random hit scoring systems from the previous editions were so nice).
It’s a game, enjoy it!
Funcioneta last edited by
I’m just a bit skeptical after Revised was a huge KGF game.
I must disagree strongly. Many people play KGF but that is far from being the only competitive strat, and I’m even begining to think that KGF is not the best strat. The thing I fear is, with a so weakened China and a so powered Japan, 1941 scenario will be very unbalanced (giving axis a too easy victory)
Richter von Manthofen last edited by
I only occasional play AA (in any incarnation), but what I know of the Wargame is making me happy by sticking to AA (come on UK panthers - or I am wrong here ;))
Never got into the AA campaign games (DD Bulge,…) and played only a bit revised…
I actually liked Europe and Pacific, but the original game was best so far
Looking forward to AA50 - it seems to be th game it should have been from the start…
Guest last edited by
Of course it would be possible to spend more money against one or the other, but to the extent of which we saw in Revised was clearly going way too far with in many cases NO MONEY SPENT on one theater in the effort to win the other. That was ridiculous from a historical point of view.
In lots of revised games USA didn’t do jack against japan until Germany was defeated or close …well you know.
Yup, if in AA50 spending nothing on Pacific = you lose, period, then yeah I’ll have to buy.
So I take it that the Great Imperious Leader is a German player?
I prefer the axis because its more challenging. IN order of preference:
Ah, I see. You just threw me off with your German Officer uniform and your plans for a Fuhrerbunker. Anyway, I think the British are more challenging than Germany, though I agree that the Allies are easier overall than the Axis, as the the Axis must do or die from the beginning while time is obviously on the side of the allies.
UK may be harder because they are all over the map. Germany needs more quality play and less margin for error which to me is a harder thing, while UK can make more mistakes by comparison and still win.
The Soviets are like Germany in the manner that quality of play is crucial…especially in the beginning.
but you know that if you play revised.
Well put. Germany definitely has little room for error, and one unlucky toss of the dice in the East and the game’s decided (in some games I’ve seen this, at least). The British however can be reduced to pretty much nothing if they don’t act quickly and rightly, as they can lose all of Africa and the eastern possesions in a few turns and be essentially relegated to a minor nuisance off the coast of Europe, irritating Germany more than actually threatening it.
kklojb321 last edited by
Well written, support it
If you're having problems, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org