Worst part of the game so far

@BJCard:

No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.  There are just more territories.  A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!

I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.  In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.  I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.  India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!  How fun is that?

I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.  Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).

Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……

@Razor:

@BJCard:

No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.�  There are just more territories.�  A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!

I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.�  In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.�  I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.�  India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!�  How fun is that?

I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.�  Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).

Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……

I agree with what you said…  And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.

@BJCard:

@Razor:

@BJCard:

No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.��  There are just more territories.��  A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!

I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.��  In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.��  I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.��  India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!��  How fun is that?

I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.��  Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).

Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……

I agree with what you said…�  And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.

Why do you discuss that here at 1914 Board?

@Chacmool:

@BJCard:

@Razor:

@BJCard:

No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.�� �� There are just more territories.�� �� A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!

I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.�� �� In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.�� �� I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.�� �� India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!�� �� How fun is that?

I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.�� �� Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).

Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……

I agree with what you said…� �� And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.

Why do you discuss that here at 1914 Board?

Probably because there is just only so much bitching we can do on WWI without seeing the actual Game  :-D
Seriously I’m excited about this Game but I do feel,at least with my Group it will be heavily Home Ruled.

Sorry about that.  Back to discussing 1914.

Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action

What is that?

Back on 1914 topic
I’m going to wait for the reviews from you guys before I buy it. (anyway I will buy the game when I go to the US in the summer)

Japanese tank drive to Moscow. Basically revised all came down to who could pile the most units into Moscow/Caucasus. Since it took too long for Japanese infantry to march there (no rails, remember?) they just had to shell out for tanks and drive there.
Dramatically highlighted the fundamental flaws of the A&A movement system.

The map.

I have no idea why they thought having a distorting map of a real place was a good idea. For me the game loses a lot of appeal with that goofy map.

I’ll say for sure nobody on this board will by the game to get that derogatory map, they will buy it to get the new inf pieces to use as neutrals in the G40

I’ve wanted an A&A WWI game for so long I’m going to find the time to do my own board.

Tempting to base it on my own variant, but need to test the full OOB version a few times before deciding what to change.

But East Prussia is being fixed for a start, not having that.

Probably lose Lorraine to bring Paris back where it should be; if this needs rebalancing I’d rather give Germany fewer starting units.

Probably keep the diamond, but with the projection I’ve used on my maps, so that for example “Mesopotamia” can be divided north/south with Armenia having the Black Sea border.

The worst (at least I think) is that italy is allied, and in the war from the start. Why don´t they have a delayed entry, or an option to join the centrals?

What is the East Prussia problem?

@Shakespeare:

What is the East Prussia problem?

That the area isn’t under German control and that somehow it is part of Poland.

Just got the newsletter so thought I’d roam back over to this board.  Interesting to see a WW1 game, but after the debacle that was Global 1940, I think I can wait a few years to pick up a copy.  Make sure all the rules have been ironed out…and the game they send is complete… 
/Can’t believe I paid money to be a beta tester for Global A&A, no thanks!/
  Larry you work out the rules and make sure the product is complete and then MAYBE I will spend some money on it, after reading the reviews.

Not sure why you are upset about Global 1940- its the best A&A game available.  I for one am glad they released it when they did and allowed a wider audience to play it an iron out the balance and ruleset.  You don’t even have to buy the 2nd edition- You can print out the rule book and setup.  Now, if you want Italian and ANZAC sculpts, then well I guess you’re buying.

I thought it was pretty awesome to be part of the Alpha testing.
Back when only one of my friends had A&A G40, we went from playing a few OOB sessions to Alpha+ 2 when we discovered it, then to Alpha+ 3 when it came out and now Second Edition.

I think having played with different set ups and rules is part of what made the experience of playing Global 1940 one of the best I’ve had so far with board games.

Where is none of the above? Have you guys even played yet?

@JimmyHat:

Just got the newsletter so thought I’d roam back over to this board.  Interesting to see a WW1 game, but after the debacle that was Global 1940, I think I can wait a few years to pick up a copy.  Make sure all the rules have been ironed out…and the game they send is complete… 
/Can’t believe I paid money to be a beta tester for Global A&A, no thanks!/
  Larry you work out the rules and make sure the product is complete and then MAYBE I will spend some money on it, after reading the reviews.

Welcome back! I’m glad the newsletter pulled you back in.

“Mission Accomplished!”  :wink:

Well, myself and rmorel think it’s one of the best edition of A&A yet, so now you have an opinion from two people who played the game.
Article here: http://j.mp/142Zk0H

@djensen:

Where is none of the above? Have you guys even played yet?

I agree I think the worst part of the game is so many complants about it by people who have never even seen the game let alone played a game. Should atleast play ONE game by the rules before complaining and changing things.