Honestly, if you play the board game for the map and pieces, then you should avoid most of the board games out there.
As far as 4 revisions in 10 years, maybe that’s a bit high, granted, but…. I can tell you a fact that in 10 years, Dell has gone through more server revisions in those same 10 years. Does that make their products (or substitute Apple, IBM, HP, etc) any worse? That’s the worst comment I’ve ever heard. Not only that, but revisions are there to help make the game better.
Ok, rant off. Talking about World at War 2005 now. The game is ok, but unfortunately when combining the latest rules from Axis & Allies (which this is based off of), the Allies has too much of an advantage. Especially when comparing this version with the 3rd version. There are now factories in India and Australia for Britain to use, you can still purchase infantry off of factory sites, but at a max of 1 per land and they cost 1 IPC more, which hurts Germany a ton since they can’t keep Africa. Then again, Britain got a bump in Africa as well with the tank defending on a 3 now and they get an extra artillery piece, so you really have to commit in Africa to take it and hold it.
The technology rolls are interesting, but kind of confusing to understand at first.
I’m actually on this forum to see if anyone has brought up house rules or variants to make the game a little bit more balanced. I believe the Allies should win about 60-65% to keep in line with history, but this version (and the previous ones as well) gives the allies about 80% chance to win. This is assuming average dice rolls. We’ve played around with giving Germany super subs and Japan get fighters to start, but it didn’t help all that much. Japan usually never has a problem and the jet fighters were just the icing on the cake. Super subs really didn’t help Germany as much as we had thought it would.
Anyone else try to do something different with this game?