Thank you so much!
Has Anyone Played This ?
-
As the Topic Title states. Anyone ?
-
I’ve ordered it online. Haven’t read the rules yet.
-
@barnee
Hi Barnee,
I’m still not enough into gaming, but wanted to say hello.I had an opportunity to play once a few days ago.
Interesting introduction into A&A.
The Hex map is a welcome change which requires practice to read correctly.Simple and well designed game, IMO.
Plus an added GIJoe flavor, indeed. -
-
I just finished three games, all for the same scenario (like North Africa, there are multiple scenarios and setups, “Cold Open”, “Hot Start”, and "Base Brawl). I only played the “Cold Open” scenario and am planning to start my first “Hot Start” game soon. Ask me any questions you have about the game.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato How’s the balance?
How is it different from normal A&A games?
How is it similar to normal A&A games?
Disregarding the GI Joe Flavor (which I have no interest in), is the game fun in your opinion?On a scale from 1941 - G40, where does this game rank in terms of complexity?
-
-
I haven’t played enough games to decide that, but overall it looks pretty even. Both sides played evenly (all the games I played were against myself) have a good shot at winning.
-
Its hex based system is definitely a change from most games, but it’s still based on the real world (it takes place within the Arctic Circle and Greenland, Alaska, Iceland, northern Canada, Norway, Finland, and northern Russia are clearly visible), and as there are limits on land and sea movement (explained below), it actually isn’t that different.
Land units can still only move on land by themselves and can only cross from hex to hex if there is a corresponding land connection. This makes for some interesting movement when fighting over the islands north of Canada, as the map is designed so that important areas in that region are quite far from the bases of both sides.
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.
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.
The unit selection is pretty truncated. There are only 2 land units, 1 air unit, and 2 sea units per side. Submarine mechanics don’t exist. Cruisers operate as the only surface ship and are also able to transport units. Like tanks in Classic, cruisers defend at a worse value than they attack. Carriers are still 2 hit though.
Aircraft are pretty interesting. The Cobra-Destro side has Rattlers, which are basically fighters that move at 3 (costs and attack and defense values are the same). The really useful thing is that they can fly almost anywhere, including territories captured on the same turn. They more or less make aircraft carriers for the Cobra-Destro side unneeded. In comparison, the Joes have Skystrikers, which have superior attack and move values to Rattlers but can only land in hexes with victory points (more on that later) and carriers. They’re actually quite balanced against each other.
Snow Cats (for the Joes) and W.O.L.Fs operate basically like Classic tanks, with an attack of 3, a defense of 2, and a cost of 5. Each has special abilites in combat. Snow Cats can make targeted attacks in the first round of combat and W.O.L.Fs have the option of doing what’s basically the first strike ability of submarines in the first round of combat, down to taking a combat penalty of attacking at 2 and defending at 1.
Infantry work in the exact same way, but they only cost 2 reinforcement points, so it’s easier to spam.
Each side has national advantages (although they’re not called that), encouraging certain moves.
Most areas cannot be controlled by either side, only passed through. The only areas that can be controlled are areas with victory points, which essentially double as IPCs, as they also determine how many reinforcement points you have to buy units.
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.
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.
- This plays a lot more like an Axis and Allies tactical game than the “traditional” ones, with stacking limits, round limits, and several scenarios, all like like North Africa (they do have the same lead designer).
Like all Axis and Allies games, the “bad guys”, in this case, Cobra and Destro, start out with more units but fewer reinforcement points, while the “good guys” start with fewer units but more reinforcement points. The resulting dynamics on the game are similar to the other games.
Besides what I outlined above, movement operates fairly normally, as does turn order, purchases, etc.
Overall I would say it’s similar to tactical Axis and Allies games, especially North Africa, and more similar than different to the latter.
-
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.
-
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.
I hope this helped!
-
-
@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 PacificEDIT: Sorry, butchered my original post because I typed it on my phone. Hopefully this is more readable.
-
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”?
Nothing like that.
Yeah that one sounds very strange. Land units being able to freely shoot at ships seems very off.
In my mind I imagine this to represent the land-based anti-ship missiles modern militaries have.
Probably not a good thing but the stacking limit might somewhat mitigate the usefulness of spamming outside of blocking.
You’re right about that. Additionally, the main battle areas are either a bit far from bases (at least 3 hexes) or centered around islands, so there’s not much room to build up giant land armies to clash anyways.
Are they optional rules or mandatory?
Mandatory.
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)?
It’s 2 v 2. Admiral Keel-Haul and Snow Job vs Destro and Cobra Commander.
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?
Whichever side has the most victory at the end of a game wins. If both sides are exactly tied in victory points, it’s considered a draw.
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 PacificOut of those I’ve unfortunately only played 1941, Zombies, and 1942. Definitely more complex than 1941 or Zombies. Probably closer to 1942 2nd Edition. It’s hard for me to make a comparison though, and I might be completely wrong.
However, I’d say that for a player who only ever played 1941 or Zombies, 1942 2nd Edition would be easier to jump to than this as there are fewer differences between 1941 and 1942.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato Thanks. That was all pretty helpful.
I’ll probably watch a gameplay video on YT to decide if I want to make the plunge of not.
-
Howdy guys
I think this version is pretty good, I demo’d it at gencon, played it twice with a buddy, and once against myself
Impression is that its hard for COBRA to overcome the income disadvantage. The weather dominator isn’t a maybe at $1, I think its key to controlling JOE’s movement and your main advantage-and another cost over time. Joe needs more (dedicated, icebreaking) cruisers than you would want to buy in the mix, and there are situations where you need to break ice but a 3+ isnt a sure thing even with 2 and those will be vulnerable if they succeed or fail…
I think its pretty good, though the 16 x2 + 24 x2 income is just a huge amount of $ difference, and the stronger player should probably play cobra. I’m hoping that future GI JOE versions have other units, like HISS tanks, that you could port back/forth into the other games, though there may not be canon rules for that.
-
Agreed for the most part. I will add to those who haven’t played the game that the full effects of the Joe income advantage don’t come into play until the 5th or 6th round, so Cobra have around half of the game to try to eke out a victory.
Suggested Topics
