buy it. especially if you live in the us, because then you are just simply spoiled if you think the game is expensive ;) i live in Denmark and here the standard price in shops is 145 USD in todays currency. In any case the game is limited edition and not many of the left outthere any more, so be quick a buy the game, play it and if you don’t like or don’t think it is worth the money you can probably sell it after some time to the same price og higher because fo the limited edition :D
Buy it! I bought AA50 when it was released in Germany via amazon.de and paid EURO 71,- for it. Today you will get AA50 at amazon only via marketplace. The price arised to EURO 198 + shipping so far.
So AA50 - beneath being a great game experience - seems to be a good investment of money, too :-)
Balanced: With only two games( AA50) under my belt i do not have an opinion yet. When considering this, one has to take the experience of the players into account; a novice player will be thrashed by veterans (beginners luck aside).
One of the unique aspects of A&A is the group play. So you can balance the teams wit novice and veteran players on each side. Sometimes advice is accepted sometimes rejected, it one of the fun aspects of the game. For example- i’ ve seen it happen often-the elaborate strategies of the veteran players going down the drain due to eccentric moves of headstrong beginners. (Maybe this is an overlooked historical aspect of the game; the animosity and mistrust between the allies, the no- coördination between the axis (and a freewheeling Mussolini!)
It is the best edition yet , altough not perfect. (some rules, the pieces, the map, …), but certainly worth its money.
Greetings
El Stef
I have yet to see a dominating performance from US against Japan. And Germany and Italy need more attention than just England and Russia. But it all comes down to The Bear. Russia won World War II. In actuality, they lost the most, but they won. Why do you suppose the US used Atomics? For me, balance has to do with the strategist, and winning always comes down to the big battles.
@Capt.:
I have yet to see a dominating performance from US against Japan.
Tech is another wrench in the wheel.
With US scoring some early techs, Japan can be dominated by the cash / resource RICH US.
I’ve seen it a few times.
@Capt.:
I have yet to see a dominating performance from US against Japan. And Germany and Italy need more attention than just England and Russia. But it all comes down to The Bear. Russia won World War II. In actuality, they lost the most, but they won. Why do you suppose the US used Atomics? For me, balance has to do with the strategist, and winning always comes down to the big battles.
I definetly agree that it can be quite difficult to make some real damage with the us in the typical games with no all-1’s throws. Last game I played Japan lost 6 fighters in the first round… talk about setting getting your leg sawn off i round 1. after that dreadfull start japan never fully recovered and struggled with many of its 2nd round “sure” victories and it all went sour from then on.
So if two expert players went against each other, each had equal luck, and neither used techs, it would be a long and balanced game, with either side having the potential to win for long into the game, and the final result being very close to going the other way?
I have played 6 games of the 1941 scenario (3 face to face and 3 games online still in progress).
This is the most balanced AA Title I’ve played – so long as you include the National Objectives (official) optional rule.
I believe the 1941 scenario favours the Allies if you do not play with these rules. However, it is still VERY early days.
Please note that AA 2nd Ed, AA Revised, AA Europe, AA Pacific can all be made “balanced” with a bid for the axis/allies.
@DY:
This is the most balanced AA Title I’ve played so long as you include the National Objectives (official) optional rule.
I haven’t played enough games of Anniversary to definitively confirm balance, but I agree that it seems (at least) better. I can say that I love Anniversary’s National Objectives (along with other improvements), regardless of any balance issues.
I really liked Milton-Bradley A&A: a great, simple game of WW II. And I appreciated the historical flexibility, except when it got too extreme. Those extreme points, those purely “gamey” strategies that evolved, involving gross violations of history… those did bother me some.
Thus Anniversary Edition’s optional National Objectives. They give in-game reasons to more-or-less follow general historical developments without tons of fiddly rules (yeah, I’m looking at you, Third Reich). You still have historical flexibility, but you’re rewarded for not being too outrageous. NOs plus all the other cool stuff in Anniversary means it’s the first A&A I’ve bought since the Milton-Bradley one (I did read up on Pacific/Europe/Revised/etc., but I passed on them). I love Anniversary! Definitely worth the price to me for all it offers, including what I consider more historicity and better balance.
Hello Vegryn,
Game Balance-This is often a heated question on these forums. I would first suggest you view the thread, After Action Reports in this forum, look at the LeaderBoard they are closing in on 100 plus games played. This allows you to view many players experiences.
It would appear the Axis have a slight edge in 1941 setup. This is good in my view-you should want to play the Allies in 1941 to see if you can stop the forward tempo of the Axis, it balances with 1942 setup where the Allies over whelm the Axis with Economic might and have a slight advantage.
AA50 allows both setups 1941 or 1942, and uses a more fully developed rule set, which provides a more robust game play, (read fun and active. )
My gaming group has abandoned the old game, so scoop this one up, before its gone, enjoy.
I havent played enough to confirm either but all i know is that I am SO GLAD I got this game!! Even when you lose it just so amazing to fight the war!
I havent played enough to confirm either but all i know is that I am SO GLAD I got this game!! Even when you lose it just so amazing to fight the war!
you should come join my playgroup then ;)
joke aside, I know what you mean. I really great to play a game that have been upgraded in so many areas; especially with NO’s and a much better research system than in revised.
Now that I have a handful of AA50 games under my belt my feeling is that the game is fairly well balanced (at least the 1941 scenario, have not played any 1942 yet).
Axis are set up to get an early lead on overall IPC generation but the Allies are placed in a better position to work together to slowly wear the Axis down. My take is it’s a game of patience and careful planning for the Allies and a game of balanced aggression for the Axis. I’ve seen an equal number of Axis and Allied wins in the games I’ve played.
Technology, however, can completely ruin this formula :)
I’m still on the fence on whether or not I like tech in the new version… I definitely like the new implementation where research you buy is “banked” between turns if you miss your tech roll. In the previous edition of AA I rarely spent IPC’s on tech unless I was already in an advantageous position and could afford to just throw away 20+ IPC’s on a gamble. Under the new system small incremental investments will eventually pan out and get you something.
Sounds great on the surface but this is a double edged sword. You can count on at least 3 powers having at least 1 tech by turn 5 (if not more and sooner). It definitely makes for some interesting/varied games which is good but there are some (in my opinion) broken tech/power combinations which effectively end the game for the other side if obtained at the right time. This is not fun to play against, especially when you’re talking about a game where the short version can easily take 6+ hours.
Example: Either Germany or USSR gets mechanized infantry on turn 1 or 2. Pretty much game over for opposite side unless they get lucky and score an equally powerful combo.
Even so I still like playing with tech; I just don’t feel that this particular part of the game is balanced. There are certain combinations of powers/techs that are clearly broken and can just about ruin the fun of the game for everyone playing.
long rane aircraft combined with heavy mombers is “tha bomb” jetfighters is a first runner up.
I prefer the Axis haveing the advantage,it gives the allies a challange.
The allies such as U.S.S.R and U.K were shakein in there boots durring the first couple of years in the war,even us here in the U.S had to work hard to get our warmachine up.
I find that it really depends on player skill to determin who will win.
The first 2-3 turns will see maney German and Japanese victorys i can asure you that.
ps….Im looking for a place/site that will Laminate my board,if it’s going to be of value in the future should try and insure it’s integrity.
From my short experience with the greatest war game of all time, the 1941 version is very well balanced, while the 1942 version is more in favor of the Axis. I advise anyone who loves a good long war game to buy it.
