How many players?

I’ve been playing games long enough to have a wide group from which to draw. Scheduled far enough in advance and with alternates available it’s doable.

If 4 players…2 Axis + 2 Allied(1 US + 1 UK/USSR playa)
If 3…1 Axis + 2 Allied(1 US + 1 UK/USSR playa)
NOTE: Rules call for a US/USSR playa in a 4 player game. However, as much as UK usually loses on UK1, my gang has changed that rule.

As obvious and predictable as many 2 player games become we/i prefer multi-player games. A new player just leads to more discussion, someone learning the game and someone learning how to negotiate.

My game experience is varied, but not enough into politics and military to suit me. Have played Napoleonic, American Civil and WWII war games on computer and boards over the years. Would like to play Diplomacy, other A&A games, etc. Would probably have to reduce time with the folks(M&F) I play with now.

Although i have played 4 player games, 2 is the norm, because finding the time to get more people together (and finding more than 1 or 2 decent players) is hard to do. Yes, two players can become predictable, but so can 3,4,or 5.

Agreed, but if I’ve got a newbie playing Allies…
or better yet a newbie on both Axis & Allies you gotta communicate and cooperate.

Better yet, let them work out the Supreme plan. Heh-heh! :wink: A few tweeks from the good players and you’ve still got a game.

My group always makes the time.

I like to play a variety of games with anyone. It helps me get to know the real them.

But if you ain’t got the time…or the patience…

when I would play with my old friends in KY, 5 people would play. I hated this because I hate playing with other people, I would end up taking my teammates turn, and this would piss him off…So we usually ended up playing me as the axis, and 4 people as the allies! :lol:
So I believe 2 people is best!

Since I don’t drive my usual game is me and my dad. But I did once play an interesting A&A Europe game (I’m not too fond of the Europe one, I prefer the original vastly) between myself, my father, his friend Jack and Jack’s young son Tommy. Jack and my father are easily the two most skilled so dad took Germany and Jack took Russia (originally I drew the lot to play Russia but I dislike it strongly in A&A: E), while I played the UK and we gave Tommy the USA. The result was a certainly unique game with play by advanced players (my father and Jack), an intermediate player (myself), and a player just learning the game (Tommy). This made a very interesting game except that Tommy got bored because he didn’t get to do an awful lot for the first 2 turns. My point being that more players spread out over various levels can make good games - and a few poor but rather entertaining ones too. Once I played with myself as the Axis, my father as the US, some kid from our scout troop as the UK and a kid with A.D.D. as Russia (he volunteered for the spot…) So yeah, I ended up winning in 2 turns but the point is we had a really fun game! Afterwards we played again with the scouting kid (who was also just learning the game) as the U.S. and my father as the other allies, and me as the Axis, and the game ended up balanced but still fun for all 3 of us (my father and I for our usual rivalry and the scout for a learning experience for a game he grew to love). So yeah, I say not only is more players better, but so is varying skill levels… ideally I think the most entertaining game experience overall would be having an advanced and an intermediate player play the axis, and a beginner and otherwise intermediate to advanced players playing the allies. Teaching is part of what makes this game fun sometimes, and so is seeing what new idea someone comes up with next!

Who has ever played Axis and Allies with one player???

Yep :)

Back in the 80’s when I went on holiday w/my parents I used to play 1 player A&A.

OMG! I’ve not only played it with one player… I won as the Axis by an embarassing margin.

I find it hard to gather five persons and finish an entire game. My friends and I have therefore taken a liking to 3-player games. In order to make these games competitive and interesting, we bagged the whole axis vs. ally scenario and starting allying different nations. First, we tried a “spheres of influence” setup, with US on her own, two European powers (Germany and UK), and the two Asian powers (Russia and Japan). We tried this setup several times, but found it to be extremely slanted towards the European powers. Then we tried seeding the teams based on national production. We allied America(1) and Russia(5), UK(3) and Japan(4), and put Germany(2) on her own. We have played this way several times, and it’s always different!! Russia usually goes down first-our house rules state that allies can’t be changed until a capital falls. One time we played, Russia went down, America allied with Germany against the island nations, this weakened the UK, the Nazis took London, at which point America(myself) 8) , switched sides, and allied with Japan, who eventually took Berlin with 12 armor!! :o . Another time we played, Russia goes down, America allied with Germany again, but in this game, the UK had fully developed tech, with close to 40 units :o , making it suicidal to attack Britannia. So US and Germany(myself) 8) targeted Japan, the Americans took Tokyo, at which time UK and America allied against the Nazis, who by this point had all of Asia and Africa, was making 90+ IPC’s a round and was essentially impossible to beat (Hilter wins). In our current game(still going), Germany sent everything they had at Russia, was unsuccessful, and the Japs(myself) 8) were the first to take Moscow!!. So you can see that with this setup, the sides are evenly matched, the play is extremely competitive, and it’s never the same, though you have to throw history to the dogs (UK and Japan, on a team?). I encourage you to find your own setup, and try mixing and matching the nations to see what works best!! :lol: (Russia and Germany?)

@The:

Who has ever played Axis and Allies with one player???

Several times! :D

Most of our games are played with 5 players, sometimes (rarely) with 4.
The first problem with this is as someone pointed out, actually finishing games, how much fun is it to watch if your country gets wiped out?

Also, we never play the same teams, or the same countrys, because its more fun if you dont become an expert on 1 country, insted you have to master every aspect of the game…

The second problem now is, all of our players are so good, and the tactics almost never change, so its betting boring to play.
And up til now my gang has been totally against any new rules, but they are coming around now…
So hopefully we´ll keep playing for years to come!!

From Sweden with love…

Cum deo et victuribus armis! - With god and victorious weapons!

If you get wiped out, surrender your remaining units to an ally and quite. Why do you have to watch anymore? (I’m assuming by wipe out you’ve lost your capital and a majority of your units inhibiting your ability to regain control of your capital?)

I know this is an old old thread, but being a new guy on the board I’m still curious: how many players do you usually have at the table per game? Or are you playing mostly one-on-one TripleA?

Our group is lucky enough to do a full table of 5-6 players once every month or two, with varying skill levels throughout. I think that might be exceptional?

Yrs.,
R.