MB easily. ON average this game had the best playtesting and was very replayable. It was balanced ( well for the most part) and had the best looking map and player aids.
It was quality and had no typos or missing parts. It created the franchise of AA as we know it. Just this one game.
The only issue was the commander rule that was changed anyway.
@Imperious:
MB easily. ON average this game had the best playtesting and was very replayable. It was balanced ( well for the most part) and had the best looking map and player aids.
It was quality and had no typos or missing parts. It created the franchise of AA as we know it. Just this one game.
The only issue was the commander rule that was changed anyway.
Was that the one that created Classic?
Classic was broken completely.
And the components were ok, no nation specific pieces at all. (And less variety as well)
And the best looking map? I think IL is being sarcastic
Best looking for 1984.
Look at the AAR map. Terrible.
Of course the newer maps look best but much more work went into MB AA. That map was drawn by hand by the artist who created the box art. He was a true master.
And of course in 1984 the pieces were way beyond anything before it. And the game had enough of them. The tokens were thick and the trays were nice.
You have to appreciate the thing for what it is in its own time. Look how far ahead that game projected its vision of what is possible. Thats a sign of a great game. It alone inspired so many other games.
MB AA never needed any setup changes, but a bid only and nobody could lose with some gimmick attack on turn X. It lasted 20 years and established the franchise.
Besides a bid how was it broken?
@Imperious:
Best looking for 1984.
Look at the AAR map. Terrible.
Of course the newer maps look best but much more work went into MB AA. That map was drawn by hand by the artist who created the box art. He was a true master.
And of course in 1984 the pieces were way beyond anything before it. And the game had enough of them. The tokens were thick and the trays were nice.
You have to appreciate the thing for what it is in its own time. Look how far ahead that game projected its vision of what is possible. Thats a sign of a great game. It alone inspired so many other games.
MB AA never needed any setup changes, but a bid only and nobody could lose with some gimmick attack on turn X. It lasted 20 years and established the franchise.
Besides a bid how was it broken?
Because a 20+ ipc bid was needed. By your logic, P40 isn’t broken except for a 30+ bid
(Ah… memories… I do remember that game fondly. How many hours and weekends I spent as a teenager playing.)
Good point IL, I remember there was always enough pieces. I never remember getting a game and feeling like they cheaped out. It was also built to last.
Because a 20+ ipc bid was needed.
I never once in perhaps hundreds of games never gave or got more than 8 IPC in a bid.
I don’t see how the axis need like 7 more infantry. If they got 6 in EE at start i don’t see what Russia does except leave Karelia. If Germany hits with everything they can win that.
Usually its a tank in Lybia or 2 men or one extra Japanese infantry in China and one in Russia.
At least the game didn’t need people to design a new setup. You just added infantry.
AAE is definatly broken, AAP40 the same, AAP is the most balanced game, but not the best quality IMO
AAR had the cheap thin cardboard, AA42 micro map, AA50 is really nice.
Yea perhaps AA50 was the best quality, but that was $80 bucks, MB AA was like $25-30 in 1984 dollars, perhaps its close.
@Imperious:
Because a 20+ ipc bid was needed.
I never once in perhaps hundreds of games never gave or got more than 8 IPC in a bid.
I don’t see how the axis need like 7 more infantry. If they got 6 in EE at start i don’t see what Russia does except leave Karelia. If Germany hits with everything they can win that.
Usually its a tank in Lybia or 2 men or one extra Japanese infantry in China and one in Russia.
At least the game didn’t need people to design a new setup. You just added infantry.
AAE is definatly broken, AAP40 the same, AAP is the most balanced game, but not the best quality IMO
AAR had the cheap thin cardboard, AA42 micro map, AA50 is really nice.
Yea perhaps AA50 was the best quality, but that was $80 bucks, MB AA was like $25-30 in 1984 dollars, perhaps its close.
I think you’re refuted by more experienced players.
Also, I believe G40 is more balanced than AAP(it required a setup change just like P40)
@Imperious:
Yea perhaps AA50 was the best quality, but that was $80 bucks, MB AA was like $25-30 in 1984 dollars, perhaps its close.
Actually, Classic was more like 40-50 bucks in the 80’s. I think I paid 44.95 for mine from toys r us in the mid to late 80’s. I still have another copy in shrink wrap that says 39.95. I think I picked this up in the mid 90’s.
IMO, currently, I think AA50 is the best of the lot. Although I have not played much global it looks like it may be too big and almost impossible to play f2f in one sitting. Plus, adding territories does not necessarily make something better. Imagine how interminable Risk would have been if it had 84 instead of 42 territories. I guess we’ll see. I also like the original Pacific. 7-9 turns and you were done. I miss my marines.
AA42 is a great game. I played last night for 6 1/2 hours before 9 VC were obtained by the Axis. Allies made a couple of mistakes by forgetting to purchase units for 2 countries and forgetting to collect income for 1 country. I have been negative about AAP40 by WotC but AA42 is great. I just had to add IPCs, marshal cards/tokens, and the VC chart from Revised. Whether it is WotC or another company making the games makes no difference to me for AA42 but I do think WotC cut corners a little with the release of AA42 and AAG40. I also added to AA42 the damage markers and tech from AA50 and the flight path markers from Revised.
