Thanks. What I gather is the HBG minis are the same size as OOB except for the fighter planes which are smaller?
What about the GHQ micro-armour? Are those the same scale as A&A board games or close enough?
Thanks. What I gather is the HBG minis are the same size as OOB except for the fighter planes which are smaller?
What about the GHQ micro-armour? Are those the same scale as A&A board games or close enough?
How do the HBG minis compare in quality to the units that come OOB? By quality I mean details and overall appearance. I’m basically looking to upgrade my 1st edition 1940 games with the new pieces from 2nd edition. The HBG units are actually pricier than a new copy of the game but I don’t need another big box and all the extras so I’m trying to weigh the two options. Any advice?
BTW, why hasn’t HBG or someone offered an upgrade kit for 1940 1e owners?
Also are all the HBG minis compatible size wise with OOB minis? I want to supplement my A&A games with some of the unique sculpts from HBG.
The original game had painted GHQ pieces on the back cover and was actually deceptive in insinuating that the game pieces were the same as the picture in the back. Here is a link to my game piece modifications and replacement thread.
I always wondered what the pieces shown on the back cover were. Needless to say, my friends and I were very disappointed when we opened the game and saw the actual pieces. Deceptive advertising indeed.
Is there a reason to keep them separate and intact? I am pretty sure games like D-Day and Europe (1999) and Pacific (2000) have more value as parts than games at this point. The completest in me has been reluctant to mix them but as I was putting together an order from HBG I started thinking maybe it would make more sense to only buy sculpts I don’t already have in other games.
BTW, there doesn’t seem to be much traffic in this sub forum. Should I repost elsewhere?
This is a question for those of you that have multiple editions and copies of Axis & Allies games. Do you keep your games intact or cherry as they say, or do you mix and match pieces from your different copies? Also do you buy new pieces from places like FMG and HBG or do you buy extra copies for the pieces?
I’m really interested in reading what others have to say on this. I have always kept my games separated and intact but after seeing the ten or so A&A games I have I’ve started wondering if I should just create a giant tackle box full of pieces for all the games.
Thanks for your input!
All the 1940 chips are the same.
So 2nd edition 1940 uses the old style chips then, same as 1st?
They unfortunately are different from the Revised, Pac 2001, and first Europe edition games, which have I tons of and are just slightly smaller in diameter than the 1940 chips, thus better. (Not sure about anniversary).
These smaller chips are the ones sold by HBG?
Sorry if I’m being dense here.
Thank you! I couldn’t tell that from the picture on the HBG website.
What other editions of A&A have the new style chips used in '42 2nd edition? Do Europe and Pacific '40 2nd editions use those same type of chips?
I actually really like those chips and would like to find more because I find them easier to work with and count when on the board. Looks like HBG is OOS right now. Strangely they show '40 2nd edition as using the older style chips.
Note: if I should have started a new thread to ask this, kindly let me know. I thought it better to add to the Chip discussion thread than clog up the forums with multiple thread on the same general topic.
What is the approximate playing time of the '41 game? Approximate number of rounds?
I’ve been reading in these forums that the game tends to drag with the “infantry push”. Just wondering if the game actually takes longer than advertised or if it just seems that way because of the infantry push. Haven’t had a chance to play this myself yet.
We use paper money from the older editions. My group never cared for poker chips as we found them cumbersome. For us, paper is faster and easier to count; easily stored for the banker and between games; eliminates the risk that a stack will be knocked over and scatter everywhere.
Thanks for the quick reply. I certainly understand the appeal of Global, unfortunately it’s just not an option for my regular gaming group.
I have the 1st edition of Europe and Pacific 1940. Will I encounter any difficulties using the 2e rules if I have extra bits from other A&A games?
Do the 2e rules improve the game or make a difference if only playing as a stand alone European theater game? Pacific?
How well does each play as stand alone European theater and Pacific theater games?
Are they generally considered balanced OOB or are bids used and if so what is a typical bid?
I get the impression reading this forum as well as others that not many people play these as stand alone games and Global is preferred. Any thoughts on why or is my impression wrong?
I appreciate your thorough and well written response. My friend was correct then which is not a shock but he wasn’t able to give me a clear explanation as to why that is a better strategy. Now I understand.
There are a lot of good articles on Axis&Allies.org unfortunately not many discuss the current editions which while similar in concept have changed the specifics somewhat. I suppose beggars can’t be choosers.
I found it at Target for $18.00 US. I wouldn’t pay anything over $25.00 for it and honestly that is pushing it. When you open the box you will understand why.
After a long absence from A&A, I got together with a bunch of buddies and played 1942.2 recently. We started BS about strategy/tactics and there were two opposing schools of thought. Is it better to spread your forces out to force your opponent to attack each territory with overwhelming force and thus slow him down, or better to put everything in the giant stack and concede the territory you already know you can’t hold?
Eample: leaving a lone infantry somewhere in Africa to prevent blitzing and force your opponent to stop and attack. You know you will lose but it will cost the other side a turn.
Example: The Axis are closing on Moscow. Do the Russians put everything in Moscow to protect at all costs or try to defend Caucasus and West Russia too?
Example: Defend the Soviet far east to slow Japan down or concede it and group your forces together?
I don’t claim to be an expert and don’t consider myself a top player so I appreciate your insight.
It’s one of the two optional rules in the 2e rulebook. Interceptors being one and this being the other. No naval units may move into or out of SZ16 (Black Sea) aka Turkish neutrality. I think that would boost the allies a little since it keeps germany from doing and amphibious assault on CAUCASUS.
Do you think the optional rules, interceptors and Black Sea straits, helps one side or the other in any significant way?
Are there any games posted online where the Allies have actually won without a bid? Or even with a bid?
I just recently got 1942.2 and the few games I played the Axis steamrolled the Allies every time. Russia is just too weak and USA can’t get in the fight quick enough to matter.
It’s the attacker’s option whether he wants to stop and fight the sub or move on through. If he attacks the sub then the destroyer must end its movement in that sea zone for the turn.
Last paragraph on Page 11 of the rulebook states that “An enemy submarine and/or transport does not block any of your units’ movement, nor does it prevent loading or offloading that sea zone. As the moving player you have the option of attacking an enemy submarine that shares a sea zone with you.”