Infantry

"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:

I’m down with that! :D
(just don’t rush those still new to the game :wink: )

speed A&A . . . i could just imagine trying to keep track of that. No one i play with would ever go with that . . . i mean, then you’d have to dump at least half of your dice rolling rituals. Plus the NCM’s would be terrible in general. And you’d always forget to bring that “other” plane into battle.
I agree with Moses - maybe leave these games to the “experts”.

• CC

Yeah, but when I’ve seen “Speed A&A” (also commonly known as “Express A&A”) in action, it knocks your shoes off. It can only to played using the A&A CD (with quick dice rolls and easy planning), but it sure is fast! Games will usually take under an hour to 30 minutes to complete (and this is actually with good players) :D

Yea, new players should be given time to think, but what I expect of old pros is to have thier turn determined before it arrives. Have that purchase on the table and don’t just stare at Eastern Europe for 20 minutes AFTER your turn comes to you.

I’m pretty impatient for a Jedi.

:lol:

It IS a good thing to know what you’re going to do before your turn. Besides making the other players impatient, you make worse decisions because of the pressure.

You mean THEY make worse decisions under pressure. I work best under pressure.

:wink:

I guess like lots of players usually do, we take breaks every round or two. THAT is time to predetermine their moves. I just can’t stand it when I’ve finished with mine and look at them just sitting there for 5 minutes with 20 I.P.C’s in their hand staring at the board. To me, I take that as their being far too interested in winning than having fun. Either that or they manage their thinking time so poorly that they don’t begin thinking until it’s their turn. Mind you, I don’t expect that with a two player game (even though I STILL manage to be ready to go in that case too). I’m talking about when there’s like 4 or 5 players going at it. For pete’s sake, have AT LEAST your purchase ready, jesh!

:roll:

he he he

Nobody EVER has to wait on me.

I dont mind long games or turns.
If I’m playing A&A, I go into expected it to be at least 5 hours.

I had a friend who took 1 hour to complete his turn as Gemany in the World at War version of A&A.

That was abit much, but aside from that I dont mind sitting back drinking a coffee and a slurpee and just enjoying the atmosphere.

I happen to like performing moves without the benefit of predetermining my turn. Being spontaneous, trying out different strategies is the best way to enrich the gaming atmosphere where table talk is encouraged.

@Mr:

I dont mind long games or turns.
If I’m playing A&A, I go into expected it to be at least 5 hours.

I had a friend who took 1 hour to complete his turn as Gemany in the World at War version of A&A.

That was abit much, but aside from that I dont mind sitting back drinking a coffee and a slurpee and just enjoying the atmosphere.

we’ll have to get together for a game sometime. my slurpee quota is not being filled very rapidly.

@cystic:

@Mr:

I dont mind long games or turns.
If I’m playing A&A, I go into expected it to be at least 5 hours.

I had a friend who took 1 hour to complete his turn as Gemany in the World at War version of A&A.

That was abit much, but aside from that I dont mind sitting back drinking a coffee and a slurpee and just enjoying the atmosphere.

we’ll have to get together for a game sometime. my slurpee quota is not being filled very rapidly.

LOL
We should :lol:

What’s the difference between thw World at War and regular A&A? I haven’t seen anyting on the World At War.

@EmuGod:

What’s the difference between thw World at War and regular A&A? I haven’t seen anyting on the World At War.[/quote

Its made by Xeno games.
Its starts the war from 1939 and there is a different map,
Different rules, a little more complex then A&A.
Its has more units and a pile of special rules to give it some historical accuracy.
Like, the blitz, Japans sudden attack and….well its alot to explain.
They talk about under A&A variants.

Oh well, guys. I’m not the patient type I guess.

I always love that feelin’ when we’ve already finished a game, it’s only 11:30 and we’re settin’ up another game. I like that feeling better than winning the first game. The splendor of everything fresh and ready to go and the first two rounds or so flying by and the game taking shape… everyone’s so confident with thier goals they don’t slow down… they don’t let a setback here or there phase them or their plans… that’s what it’s all about, my friends…. that’s where it’s at.

:wink:

It’s like a few old buddies of mine once said when they had Japan’s purchase against me decided from the moment the game had begun, I made somekind of ‘that’s gonna change’ remark and they just glared at me and said “there’s nothing you can do to change that purchase…. nothing.” I learned then that THAT is what A&A is all about.

he he he

…I think I lost that one too.

he he he

Well, if you ever get in two games in a day (a rarity with those I play with), I would much rather lose the first game and win the second. There’s just something about surmounting the odds, coming back when
you’re beaten, and saying, “This time it’s Personal!” before every dice roll. :wink:

Also, what’s the full title of A&A? Is it just Axis and Allies? Or does it have some sort of sub title, like “Axis and Allies: A New Hope?”

“A&A is great, but it only needs one more thing added, under weapons development… a Death Star.” :P

Whoa—sounds like my kind of rule! A plans?

i gotta’ hand it to the Jedi. I’m enjoying your posts more and more. I hope you’re a regular here soon.

another thing that’s nice about winning the second game - learning from your mistakes, and ending the evening on a high note (not to be confused with that other topic - A Game of HIGH Adventure).

“ending the evening on a high note”

Always an advantage of “winning last.” At least you don’t have to stay awake in bed all night pondering what you did wrong and how you can improve for the next game (worse if you have to wait awhile for that next game). :wink: Just don’t get overcocky!