@coachdcj Player 2 is correct. From the Official Rules Clarifications document (page 4):
You can never give an ally anything: units, territories or I.P.C.'s.
Infantry
-
Another board game (Which has finally arrived here), which IMHO is the best game ever:
Junta!!!You play a family in the Republica de los bananas, and the winner is the family that has the most money in its swiss bank account at the end of the game…… Long live el presidente g !! :)
-
It sounds like with that north african game you might as well just fight an actual war, it’d probably be simpler! ("What! You go tell Arivadercci-what’s-his-face that he can dig a well for his OWN F*****G WATER!!!) :roll: I thought A&A was fairly complicated! With a game like north africa you ought to learn to play RISK in kindergarten! :lol:
-
Well, I stand by the fact that no one I know has even completed that game, let alone one turn! :P
But really, some of the rules are tedious:
“Do you want to assign drivers for you tanks?”
“Well duh, you think they’re going to drive themselves!?”
“Do you want to feed your troops?”
“No, I think I’ll let them all strave – OF COURSE I"LL FEED MY $@$%TROOPS!”And you know something is wrong is when the errata sheet is longer than the rulebook for most games!
But I like discussions like these, I had my share of bad games:
One was called “The Plot to Assassinate Hitler.” Sounds interesting, right? That’s until you find out that the entire game takes place in Hitler’s mind(!) and the producers even admit, “This game may not represent the political situation in Germany at the time.” The whole game either ends with you being interrogated by SS Officers “in the lower corridors of Hitler’s brain” or Hitler jumping on the gravy train to spend his last days in the Bahamas! Any takers? -
@F_alk:
Another board game (Which has finally arrived here), which IMHO is the best game ever:
Junta!!!You play a family in the Republica de los bananas, and the winner is the family that has the most money in its swiss bank account at the end of the game…… Long live el presidente g !! :)
well wicked game this! pretty simplistic game… but all the fun is in the backstabbing!
-
Has anyone played the board game " Zombies"? It’s good.
basically, you and up to 5 other players run around a city, trying to escape the zombie infested streets, looking the heli-pad.
Kill as many Zombies as you can, shotgun, gasoline and chainsaw.
Wicked! -
Sounds like my kind of game! :D
-
sounds like resident evil/lawnmower man :D all in one handy little game. woohoo im all for
-
Throw in Bruce Campbell from the Evil Dead series and you got yourself something! :D
-
This is going back up this thread a bit, but it’s not my fault I missed it. he he he
“I wonder if you added “maintenance” costs on to stuff if that would work”
This is something some old A&A buddies of mine worked out this issue.
Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.
This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying?
Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.
It works fine the way it is.
Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.
You think this might call for a new thread?
-
Nice….good post.
-
@TG:
Throw in Bruce Campbell from the Evil Dead series and you got yourself something! :D
The games box cover is a Bruce Campbell look a like.
Heres a link for the game http://www.frothersunite.com/UnclEvl/Zombies/Zombies.html#WIHAW
-
once again, the Jedi is wise. I was not serious about incurring maintenance charges, but you provided excellent reasons as to why they would not be necessary. There are a few things that bug me, but not much, and i have learned to consider that each “unit” is a basic grouping of them (platoon, battallion, whatever). So maybe a battleship is really, like, 3 of them, and a sub is a “bunch 'o subs” etc?
enough crypt. -
Thank you both.
:D
I agree that, in harmony with the ‘grand scale’ theme, that each unit is like a ‘division’ or ‘small fleet’ or ‘wing of fighters’, whatever the case may be. I also think that just having two or more of that item doesn’ t ‘neccessarily’ imply that there are twice as many in number, that as a matter of perception and not math, that they could be just simply more well maintained, supplied and armed.
That makes it more believable when a game progresses to having 50 red chips in Karillia and Eastern Europe, that it is in fact not implied to be every man, woman, and child enlisted wth a rifle and nobody’s left at home to be defended. You know what I mean?
-
Thank you both.
:D
I agree that, in harmony with the ‘grand scale’ theme, that each unit is like a ‘division’ or ‘small fleet’ or ‘wing of fighters’, whatever the case may be. I also think that just having two or more of that item doesn’ t ‘neccessarily’ imply that there are twice as many in number, that as a matter of perception and not math, that they could be just simply more well maintained, supplied and armed.
That makes it more believable when a game progresses to having 50 red chips in Karillia and Eastern Europe, that it is in fact not implied to be every man, woman, and child enlisted wth a rifle and nobody’s left at home to be defended. You know what I mean?
I do. I completely agree with your view.
-
Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.
This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying? ?
A very valid point. And here’s a good response (at least IMHO) to such an excellent post… However, certain questions arise. Should the troops near the end of the war have the most “combat effectiveness” due to advances in technology and tactics? Also, I think this follows the flow of the game. The game takes place in 1942, which isn’t exactly the peak of wartime enlistment, so as the game progresses the armies become larger and larger (USA being a fine example). And near the end of the game they start to shrink (at least for the loosers). Does this mean the late game armies had less supplies and sophistation compared with armies near the middle of game? No, as for Germany (in the real war), their troops became more effective (in terms of weaponry and equipment) but lost due to numerical inferiority. I think this is what the game is suppose to mirror, at least from my perspective (which might be totally wrong).
It works fine the way it is.
I agree, Axis and Allies is a great beginners game if you’re looking to “step up” from Risk. However, after continual playing games 50-100, you start finding players execute the same moves over and over again for maximum efficiency. Now players will change their playing style (maybe I’ll go Japan First this time or maybe a IC in Brazil will do the trick), but if you’re playing professionally, there’s usually only one way to go in order to compete in the field. What you have is a repeat of the last game (and the future game), except the outcome of the dice are different. This is when the game becomes stagnant and remedial. This is when it’s time to whip out the “Rogaine Solution.” What is the Rogaine Solution? It can be any number of things, like switching the teams around, including bidding, introducing new techs and strategies, adding new rules and changing old ones. Basically, you want to make the game as new and enjoyable as the last without sacrificing the overall impact of the game. And I see no problem with this.
A great example would be Eagle Game’s Civil War (sorry, but it’s probably the best game on the market next to A&A). This game includes two rule sets, one “basic” and the other “advanced.” What does this mean? Well after you get your feet wet and grasped the fundamentals of the game, maybe you should try something more “challenging” or inject a boost new “gameplay.” Before when you had games usually ended before three hours, they now drag on for days – even weeks! And best of all, those extra hours are some of the most exhilarating of your gaming life (just ask any Civil War player). Extra hours that probably would’ve rather be spent playing the “basic” game over and over again. Rules is a testament of the game’s replayability.
Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.
And about the scale of the game, indeed it is huge. But some people do like micromanagement, which can be a great boon (or disaster if you’re not careful) to the game. Even with the size of the game, some factors do have to be taken for, weather (or seasons as you call it) being an example. Do you think the Russian winters only existed in one particular part of Eastern Europe? No, it extended and encompassed the whole Russian Front. Now does that mean every minute detail should be taken in account for (ie Campaign for North Africa)? I mean who really wants to spend their time figuring out “pre-battle planning,” “battle planning,” and finally battling” or keeping a log sheet of every single units detailing everything from exp. Points (with custom dice modifier) to amount of ammunition (urg)? Of course not. Board games were meant for player interaction, and when you find yourself playing more against “the system” than your opponent, something is seriously wrong here. However, weather rules do take into account player interaction. It creates suspense between Russia and Germany, as they nervously steer down each other’s stack until the weather subsides. Or maybe one player will decide to “push his luck” against the weather and exploit the lack of enemy forces, unsuspectingly transferred to other fronts for the time being.
Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.
Before trying out any rule, you must weigh the benefits with the possible consequences. Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries? And shouldn’t Allied territory liberated from the Axis (Western Europe and the Phillipines being good examples) produce more than their stated NP value due to an upsurge in nationalism? An interesting possibility that must be weighed….
-
@TG:
And near the end of the game they start to shrink (at least for the loosers). Does this mean the late game armies had less supplies and sophistation compared with armies near the middle of game? No, as for Germany (in the real war), their troops became more effective (in terms of weaponry and equipment) but lost due to numerical inferiority. I think this is what the game is suppose to mirror, at least from my perspective (which might be totally wrong).
Before trying out any rule, you must weigh the benefits with the possible consequences. Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries? And shouldn’t Allied territory liberated from the Axis (Western Europe and the Phillipines being good examples) produce more than their stated NP value due to an upsurge in nationalism? An interesting possibility that must be weighed….
WRT Germany losing the war - i’d understood that it was due in a large part to under supply due to the trains being used Jew/gay/handicapped/etc.-slaughter - that the German armies might have been able to keep fighting if the trains kept coming, but they had been directed to the “concentration camps” instead (what a stupid word - it sounds like people just sat around studying for exams rather than being killed, enslaved, tortured, etc. - they should be the “evil camps of killing innocent people” - enough crypt).
Also i wonder to what degree Nazi/German sympathizing countries might have “turned it on” for their new efficient masters (Vichy - i’m looking at you). . . call it a lack of faith in mankind, but i’m sure the Nazi’s figured out a way to make up for production-loss due to nationalism. -
"WRT Germany losing the war - i’d understood that it was due in a large part to under supply due to the trains being used Jew/gay/handicapped/etc.-slaughter - that the German armies might have been able to keep fighting if the trains kept coming, "
However, you also have to factor in the reducing (in length) of supply lines as the Germans had to retreat further and further. Also, I don’t think supply lines would’ve been that much of a problem once the war entered into Germany (ex. Battle of Berlin). Also if this is true, shouldn’t the German army (in terms of stacks) be weakest when it was at its height (meaning farthest extended)?
“Also i wonder to what degree Nazi/German sympathizing countries might have “turned it on” for their new efficient masters (Vichy - i’m looking at you). . . call it a lack of faith in mankind, but i’m sure the Nazi’s figured out a way to make up for production-loss due to nationalism.”
Yeah, Vichy even fought us in North Africa! However, then you still have to deal with the French underground resistence…
-
However, after continual playing games 50-100, you start finding players execute the same moves over and over again for maximum efficiency.
Yea, I see exactly what you’re saying. However, I’ve been fortunate enough to have the pleasure of playing against guys that would rather loose a game through trying an unconventional course of action than win a game by rehersing the most directly confrontational, direct and proven ways to win. Chess could be labeled as having the same problems, but it’s never required ‘alternative rules’ to enjoy either. I suppose ‘any’ game can be subject to the same problem. I guess I, and usually my opponents, have prefered throwing a small stategic surprise into the game that may actually knowingly ‘cost’ them the game knowing that was the cause, rather than changing the game and feeling like ‘that’ was the reason you lost; unfamiliarity with new varibles. But dispite that and to repeat, I see exactly what you mean.
But some people do like micromanagement, which can be a great boon (or disaster if you’re not careful) to the game.
Yea, I’ve tinkered with it too from time to time, but when we did a lot of customizing we found ourselves too wrapped up with that alone, all the changes, their effectiveness, their realisticness, their neccessity… it just ended up seeming more fun (to us) to just stick to the game and instead prove your mettle by how wiling you are to risk gambles against your ability to pull them off. Sounds a bit silly, but it’s our way. Besides, gameflow seems lightning fast when it’s the official way and we can put in more games a night instead of fewer, more clunky attempts at intentionally de-familiarizing ourselves with new rules. But, stepping back, I’ll agree that experimenting with micromanagement is fun to try.
Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries?
Well, I wasn’t sanctioning a change, it was just an idea. I ‘meant’ to point that out as another example of my own nagging urge to see ‘everything accounted for’, but resisting it myself. I suppose a manner to explain ‘not’ changing it is that production is equaled out for each since nationalism is about effective a positive force as it is a negative force to get beat in the back of the head and being told to work harder or die. he he he
But this is an interesting topic, to me.
-
“Yea, I see exactly what you’re saying. However, I’ve been fortunate enough to have the pleasure of playing against guys that would rather loose a game through trying an unconventional course of action than win a game by rehersing the most directly confrontational, direct and proven ways to win.”
Well, you’re a lucky one. And if I were you, I would stick to those guys like white on rice. Such players, willing to try something new (even at the expense of losing), don’t come around hardly enough. :)
“Chess could be labeled as having the same problems, but it’s never required ‘alternative rules’ to enjoy either.”
Chess is a game for the geniuses. However, ever been to a professional chess tournament? More often than not, these tournaments will drag on for months since the players are so evenly matched, that many games result in stalemates. Also, chess has had some “alternate rules.” Some players like the pressure game of “speed chess,” though this requires a clock. Another “variant” would be playing chess against more than one opponent at a time in order to keep one player on his or her feet.
“rather than changing the game and feeling like ‘that’ was the reason you lost; unfamiliarity with new variables”
Again this is another problem for those who have mastered A&A. Some people play it because they want to “feel” like actually generals using their “superior tactical knowledge.” The main problem is that this doesn’t simulate real life strategy at all. When you tried the same move hundreds of times and have planned out every single counterstroke to your opponents’ moves, you become more of a machine than a combat general. Remember what Rommel said, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” Real life commanders often have to rely on quick decisions under tense situations and sometimes even under enemy fire – they don’t have the comfort of spreading their time in air conditioned room or being able to plot what to do ahead of time.
“Sounds a bit silly, but it’s our way.”
There’s no problem with that. I’ve seen those that love the “Basic Rules” for Civil War so much that they hardly take a glance at the advance rules. :)
“I ‘meant’ to point that out as another example of my own nagging urge to see ‘everything accounted for’, but resisting it myself.”
True, you don’t see many Captains acting out their urge to abandon their bridge and take over a AA battery in order to get in on a piece of the action. :wink:
-
Well, then there’s an expanded rule I could sure go for! “Speed A&A”!!
:lol:
Suggested Topics
