Sorry…i didnt get any replies for a while so i stopped looking … i looked on ebay and i wasnt keen on buying a big lot plus shipping…also looked at buying individual pieces but some werent available…so i kinda had given up
When and where was your first game?
-
@TG:
the dreaded Venus Troupe Girl Dance Party
Now that sounds interesting! How do I get them to come to my games?
-
Here’s the interesting back story:
About 1 and a half years ago, my sister and I were having this real big argument over something and the only way we’d settle it was through a game of A&A. She was the Allies and I chose Axis w/ a small bid and paratroopers. Well, I gave her a sound thrashing and planted the Japanese flag over her White House. Well apparently she didn’t like it, and we didn’t speak for a week. During this time, she was secretly rebuilding her tactics and recruiting and teaching two other girlfriends on how to play the game. She then challenged me to another game, this time multiplayer. Since most of my A&A playing friends were unavailable or caught off guard with such short notice, I had to settle with an intermediate player. This time it was a different story. With good luck, second guessing (they used a switched Japan-Germany ATB containment strategy), and teamwork, they were the ones able to come out. Of course for her, the revenge was bittersweet and to prove it, they also came up with this cheerleader spirited “Venus Troupe Girl Dance” move that was humiliating. Since then, I have sworn off to play against them again unless I come well prepared ahead of time.
Now that you heard it, I bet you don’t want to play against them. Their strategy may not be as good, but they do know how to play the metagame.
-
LMAO…. your right, I probably wouldn’t want to play them. If you win what do you say? “Yea I beat a bunch of girls!” and as for the alternative, lets not go there.
TM if your still around, just kidding :D
-
Yeah, you’re really screwed if you did and screwed if you didn’t. No offense, but winning against a girl is downright embarrassing. What do you have to show for yourself? And if you lose to them, it’s even worse! Now you’re stuck with the notion that you lost to your own game! :(
The only alternative lose, but to make yourself look good in the process. (For instance, try taking over all neutral countries before finally bellying over)
-
It’s just a lose/lose situation! I’ve never played a girl, but I think it just goes against nature. We want a trophy, some guy’s scalp to hang in our den, something that gives you a sense of accomplishment. Beating a girl is like shooting your pet 24 point buck! (And if that buck sends you to the hospital how do you explain it?) They just want to see us get mad.
Hey, maybe somebody will start an A&A church league! :P
-
A&A Church League!?
What’s gonna be your slogan? “Kicking butt in the name of Jesus 'cause we’re of holier than thou are” :roll:
-
@TG:
A&A Church League!?
What’s gonna be your slogan? “Kicking butt in the name of Jesus 'cause we’re of holier than thou are” :roll:
come on Moses, you know better than that. True, it harkens a little too much to the crusades, but interchurch basketball, volleyball and floorhockey (please forgive me if i’ve left anything out) leagues are a fun way to stay active with fellow believers. I gotta’ tell you, most of the A&A people i’ve played with are Christians (for some reason - few of my non-Christian friends are really into A&A) and they make for some pretty tactical opponants - irrespective of their faith. And i don’t have any friends who do the “holier than thou” stuff. Maybe ‘cuz my drinkin’ and partyin’ skirt-chasin’ ways have scared them off :)
-
Okay… I don’t think the object of basketball is to smash your opponent’s infantry to pieces (j/k) 8)
-
Back about 1988 I think, I just looked at the box and knew I’d like it. I had an old game called Carrier Strike that was good, but way too simple and thought this was going to be much better. Well, here it is 14 years and about 30 regular playing partners later and I still have it.
As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got 2 more copies of the game to pool the playing piece together. I thought they were a bit chinchy with them.
:wink:
-
“As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got 2 more copies of the game to pool the playing piece together. I thought they were a bit chinchy with them”
Yep, after getting hooked on A&A, I went on the purchased the board game again! This way we could play “Blind” A&A and feel like real battle planners from WWII and talk about our moves without our opponents breathing down our necks. :wink:
-
Back about 1988 I think, I just looked at the box and knew I’d like it. I had an old game called Carrier Strike that was good, but way too simple and thought this was going to be much better. Well, here it is 14 years and about 30 regular playing partners later and I still have it.
As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got 2 more copies of the game to pool the playing piece together. I thought they were a bit chinchy with them.
:wink:
Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?
-
As a matter of fact, I’ve since went and got
Who taught you English? :lol: Just kidding! (really.) :wink:
-
Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?
Yea, I’ve tried a lot of 'em. Some friends and I even made some up. They’re fun in and of themselves, but not in the same way. While some alternative rules have been very well thought out, and could have been fine if were ‘the originally official rules’, I just can’t get past them as being something of a novelty thing. Basicly, that’s what I did when I was young and played A&A so much I got bored with it. Like playing with your food when you’re full. But now, after 15 or so years and a career and family, A&A time is a rare and priviledged event, requiring moved mountains to make time for. So, I don’t so much care wasting those opportunities on alternative versions. Plus, I’ve recently introduced my neighborhood buddies to it, they’re new and shouldn’t try them yet.
But, yea, I remember trying several different ones, including the notorious ‘double blind’, and that one drove me nuts. he he he Yea, yea, it had it’s validity in mimicing the stealth of real war, but it was a labor to play and too far separated from strategy and too much like the metaphorical equivelant of swinging your fists in a darkened room hoping to clock your enemies chops. I even won a game like that and couldn’t appreciate it because I felt like it was a hollow victory, beating someone’s ignorance and not their intellegence… it’s sort of too irrational if that makes any sense.
I feel there already is too much that relies on the luck of the roll already, and to inject even MORE luck into the game just makes it just… too freakish. If you notice, everyone harps on how it makes the game more like ‘real war’, but those games always end with the most unrealistic results. Always. Like a Japanese armada taking over Washington DC at the same exact time a US armada takes over Berlin… just too kookie for me.
I de-rationalize the whole notion that urges the side of players that like double blind on the fact that the superpowers had a much greater idea of where the enemy was and in what numbers than you give credit to. Enough to accept the real rules as actually being more realistic than double blind’s opposite extreme. Mind you, there were plenty of broken codes, spys and recon to make it acceptable to not use double blind. Think of this too, perhaps even players themselves are ‘mislead’ in their own and other’s strengths as well (in the sense of inflated numbers and grand-scale strategic miscalculations), justifiying why sometimes 3 fighters can get lost to 1 transport alone. Even the regular rules seems to sort of make a very good arguement that even as players are sitting there looking right at their own and their enemy’s forces, they indeed are looking with no more or less accuracy than the real powers did back in the real war, expressed by how sometimes exaggerated results can result from conflicts.
See what I mean?
Anyway, it’s hard to discribe really, but regular rules are okay by me and alternative rules are something of a turn-off now. It’s like I tell folks when trying to not only describe A&A to them, but quickly describe it and what makes it such a hit and fun to play…“A&A is great because of it optimizing the greatest number of strategic possibilities with the simplest rules and gameplay better than any other game in history.”
No need for new rules in my book.
Who taught you English?
he he he
I know the rules. But, I’m using the ‘double blind’ alternative rules of English. Got bored of the regular rules.
:wink:
-
:D I guess you and your friends even made some up! :lol: Let me tell you, they’re fun but not in the same way! :P
-
…yea… didn’t I just say that?
You’re confusing me. And that ain’t hard.
:)
-
I started to play Axis and Allies two years ago. My grandmother gave me the board game for christmas (I’m 15 y old). Then, I started to play with my friend (I lost my first game because I took the allies!) at my home. Since this time, I love this game and each time I play this game, I have fun! People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!
-
People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!
You know what that sounds to me like?
You’re not only playing in a tight circle of the same exact individuals, but you are each rehersing the same exact mistakes based on a what might be a communal misconseption of the options available to you.
How do you fix it?
Bring in someone you haven’t played with before. Better yet….bring a seasoned player into your midst.
You will then clearly learn that your friends are experiencing an anomoly of sharing the same faults in strategy. That is the only possible explanation I see.
Believe me, with the first two or three guys I played with that played nobody else, we had NO idea what we were doing. Until I got a few other guys to come in and suddenly we were all so shocked at how flawed our strategies were as a whole we all thought we were playing a brand new game. THEN I played guys that had played for years… that rocked my world.
You need new players, I think.
What you’re suggesting just is not true in any way I can see it.
If you were playing the Allies against me and where launching an assault on UK with Germany, believe me, I’d have so many Soviets in Eastern Europe you wouldn’t know what hit you.
One of the most popular misconceptions and one of the first lessons learned by newer or unseasoned players is that you don’t need to accompany attacking infantry with a bunch of tanks, neccessarily. Couple that with the misconspection that Russia must buy mostly infantry and what you end up with is a Russian player who thinks he never should attack.
I’ll never forget the first time I learned that a bunch of infantry is all you need… and how few infantry can sometimes constitute ‘a bunch’.
Another popular mistake of newer players make it not getting USA in the action quickly. The urge, as a USA player, to sit back and try to ‘build up’ before moving it is hard to resist. Once you get better and know how to optimize the forces of each country, you’ll realize that US need to contribute immediately, even though it’s not a big thing at first, to save it’s allies from the fact that the Axis is postured from the start to cause a lot of damage. Get USA in it ASAP. A small help from the start is worth way more than a big help when it’s too late.
All in all, you need to stay on these boards 'til you learn some cool new stuff. And get some to play you.
You’ll love the game a lot more.
-
“started to play Axis and Allies two years ago. My grandmother gave me the board game for christmas (I’m 15 y old). Then, I started to play with my friend (I lost my first game because I took the allies!) at my home. Since this time, I love this game and each time I play this game, I have fun! People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!”
Good for you, we could always use more good Axis players to lay waste to the Allies! But like the Jedi said, be sure to play against new players, too. It’ll help you to change tactics and throw a new variable into the game (even someone who has never played before).
Oh yeah, just broke 1900! 8)
-
Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?
Yea, I’ve tried a lot of 'em. Some friends and I even made some up. They’re fun in and of themselves, but not in the same way. While some alternative rules have been very well thought out, and could have been fine if were ‘the originally official rules’, I just can’t get past them as being something of a novelty thing. Basicly, that’s what I did when I was young and played A&A so much I got bored with it. Like playing with your food when you’re full. But now, after 15 or so years and a career and family, A&A time is a rare and priviledged event, requiring moved mountains to make time for. So, I don’t so much care wasting those opportunities on alternative versions. Plus, I’ve recently introduced my neighborhood buddies to it, they’re new and shouldn’t try them yet.
But, yea, I remember trying several different ones, including the notorious ‘double blind’, and that one drove me nuts. he he he Yea, yea, it had it’s validity in mimicing the stealth of real war, but it was a labor to play and too far separated from strategy and too much like the metaphorical equivelant of swinging your fists in a darkened room hoping to clock your enemies chops. I even won a game like that and couldn’t appreciate it because I felt like it was a hollow victory, beating someone’s ignorance and not their intellegence… it’s sort of too irrational if that makes any sense.
I feel there already is too much that relies on the luck of the roll already, and to inject even MORE luck into the game just makes it just… too freakish. If you notice, everyone harps on how it makes the game more like ‘real war’, but those games always end with the most unrealistic results. Always. Like a Japanese armada taking over Washington DC at the same exact time a US armada takes over Berlin… just too kookie for me.
I de-rationalize the whole notion that urges the side of players that like double blind on the fact that the superpowers had a much greater idea of where the enemy was and in what numbers than you give credit to. Enough to accept the real rules as actually being more realistic than double blind’s opposite extreme. Mind you, there were plenty of broken codes, spys and recon to make it acceptable to not use double blind. Think of this too, perhaps even players themselves are ‘mislead’ in their own and other’s strengths as well (in the sense of inflated numbers and grand-scale strategic miscalculations), justifiying why sometimes 3 fighters can get lost to 1 transport alone. Even the regular rules seems to sort of make a very good arguement that even as players are sitting there looking right at their own and their enemy’s forces, they indeed are looking with no more or less accuracy than the real powers did back in the real war, expressed by how sometimes exaggerated results can result from conflicts.
See what I mean?
Anyway, it’s hard to discribe really, but regular rules are okay by me and alternative rules are something of a turn-off now. It’s like I tell folks when trying to not only describe A&A to them, but quickly describe it and what makes it such a hit and fun to play…“A&A is great because of it optimizing the greatest number of strategic possibilities with the simplest rules and gameplay better than any other game in history.”
No need for new rules in my book.
Who taught you English?
he he he
I know the rules. But, I’m using the ‘double blind’ alternative rules of English. Got bored of the regular rules.
:wink:
I know what you mean, I use to love playing the world at war version of A&A, about 9 years ago now, but now Its fun just settling into the original.
Too many rules in the world at war game, I go into conniption fits every time I try it nowadays. :lol:I do like the new A&AE/A&AP though.
-
I was about ten years old when played my first game. My brother had invited some friends over in a free-for-all game of Axis and Allies. One of his peers could not make it, and seeing no other choice, he asked if I could play. After promptly reviewing the rules, I chose USA. This was one of enjoyable gaming experiences I have played. The whole game was a blast from start to finish! I can’t remember many details, other than it was the first game began my love of bombers. They won me the game! :D
Suggested Topics
