@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Has Anyone Played This ?:
Its hex based system
That’s a point of interest in and of itself. In A&A Hexes only appeared in Battle of the Bulge but most wargames use them, so they’re not completely alien to me. Are there bonuses in combat for flanking the enemy or penalties for moving your units into the enemy’s “Zone of Control”?
Adding to the above is the introduction of a Cobra “Weather Dominator”, allowing to turn hexes with water into ice (i.e land) hexes at the cost of 1 reinforcement point (basically IPCs). They’re generally used to faciliate the land movement of Cobra-Destro units and bridge areas.
This seems neat. Good gimmick to make games more dynamic.
One huge change that I’m still getting used to is that ships, aircraft, and land units occupy hexes that contain both land and water together, attacking and defending with each other (with some small exceptions). As such, amphibious assaults are made with ships and land units fighting together, and most battles (especially over islands) are conducted with all air, land, and sea units fighting together.
Yeah that one sounds very strange. Land units being able to freely shoot at ships seems very off.
The unit selection
The asynchronous units sound very interesting. Honestly I wish the mainline A&A games did this as the different powers were better at different things during the IRL WW2 (the North Africa game seems like a step in the right direction with different stats for different nations’ units (compare the tanks between the different sides for an easy example).
Infantry work in the exact same way, but they only cost 2 reinforcement points, so it’s easier to spam.
Probably not a good thing but the stacking limit might somewhat mitigate the usefulness of spamming outside of blocking.
Each side has national advantages (although they’re not called that), encouraging certain moves.
Are they optional rules or mandatory?
All powers have a base, which essentially acts as their capital, which is where all units a power buys are placed (with some minor exceptions) and the capture of one base on the other side instantly leads to victory for the capturing power. Interestingly each side has a “shared” base, where units from two powers on the same side can be placed.
I know basically nothing about GI Joe other than the absolute bare basics. Is the game 2v2 or is their an uneven number of powers (example: most A&A games are 3v2 (R/B/A Vs. G/J)?
There are 2 ways to win: Capturing bases (I would compare this to a capital capture in normal games) or getting enough victory points from the board, the latter of which is both the most likely scenario of victory and similar to an economic victory in some Axis and Allies house rules.
Classic has economic victory as one of its official win conditions (for Axis) and its probably my favorite victory condition in the series. Big plus for me there.
It’s pretty fun. The round limits and victory conditions keep the games short and avoid the kind of prolonged deaths losing powers in Global 1940 experience. The changes provide an interesting twist, while what’s kept from other games make it easy for returning players to understand the rules.
If the game reaches the round limit and no one wins with one of the previously stated methods (capital/economic), how is the winner determined? Is it a draw?
I would put it in between 1941 and 1942. Definitely one of the simpler Axis and Allies games. Probably most similar to D-Day of the games I’ve played in terms of complexity.
Sorry to ask a follow-up on this one, but to narrow the scale to the “lighter” A&A games, which of the following (assuming you’ve played them) would you say this is closest to (complexity-wise). Disregard the actual quality of the games. I’m only asking about scale/complexity here:
41
Zombies
Classic
Revised/42 1st Edition
OG Europe
42 2nd Edition
OG Pacific
EDIT: Sorry, butchered my original post because I typed it on my phone. Hopefully this is more readable.
