No A&A on popular top 10 list

The reasoning behind not including it seems very narrow minded. Instead of bringing more attention to the war game field they have just brought negative views on long lasting realistic games because they don’t want to spend the time to play them. The age of players is getting older and things like this video are not helping the matter. Sorry to rant but why try to bring attention to a type of game only to give negative views and drive people to shorter and easier games. Doesn’t make much sense to me that’s all.

These guys seem to me to be the types that would love A&AG40. They are no ‘real’ wargamers they say and all the ‘real’ wargamers that I know don’t like A&A because it is mainstream and too much deviating from historical plausibility.

Maybe they don’t know about how G40 is completely different from the original ('42) game. I know for myself that I like G40 but I certainly do not like the original A&A. I have problems with the balance of G40, but I still like it. Btw, I am a both a wargame and a ‘normal game’ type of gamer.

On the other hand…
It strikes me that a lot of the gamers that I know (wargamers and ‘normal’ gamers alike), do not like G40 mostly because, like I mentioned above, there is a lot of balance discussions about it.
They say things like: “the fact that so many people argue/discuss about the balance of this game and have to invent houserules themselves to create balance [because the devs do not seem to be doing so anymore], prevents me from trying this game.” Or they simply say that the game is not balanced and thus bollocks…

Who knows why the dice tower does not pick A&A as favorite; we cannot argue about taste ;-).

I wasn’t able to watch more than the first five minutes of this thing, in which the three guys seem to be saying: a) that a wargame is anything that they themselves consider to be a wargame, and b) that anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot who deserves the contemptuous comments that the three of them are taking such obvious pleasure in spouting.  It wasn’t the kind of introduction that made me want to listen to whatever their game recommendations are; instead, it convinced me that I’d have no respect for their opinions no matter what they ended up listing as their top ten favourites.

I may just be biased, but I firmly believe most people who claim they don’t like the game, assuming they’re war gaming fans to begin with, simply don’t know how to play and aren’t willing to put the time in.

The balance argument is a lame excuse, not to mention that there is a significant portion of A&A fans who think it’s well balanced (not to squirrel the topic…)

I’ve known three people in my life who insisted they would never like the game; I challenged each of them to spend a day with me doing a practice game, explaining the rules as we went.  All three are converts and love the game to this day

Yup it is hard not to like a game that requires so much understanding and planning to be very good at. All I have introduced to it so far have said they love it and from what I gather it is just getting past that first oh my god what do I do moment…

Exactly.  Seeing that huge board for the first time really throws some people off.  None of us probably realize just how big the board is, as we see it constantly.  Whenever someone sees it for the first time they’re blown away.

Talking about a huge board…

Check out the map of this game, on the webpage:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/296/details/World.In.Flames

Wargamers I know usually want more historical simulation than a more simple wargame like A&A offers. Because this creates more historical plausibility. But wait, some people may think… If WW2 is played with a lot of historical plausibility, the axis can never win! Wrong. The Axis side can never win the war, that is correct (barring astronomical differences in playerlevel/experience). But the axis player can still win the game. That is what I often see how victory conditions of WW2 wargames are handled: the axis will loose the war in the long run, but the axis player is given opportunities to score points while playing and can still win the game with a certain amount of points.

As far as balance in A&A goes… I think every1 who feels the allies cannot win without a bid must admit A&A is not balanced. Given equal opposition, and if playing with dice, equal luck, ofc.

@ItIsILeClerc:

Talking about a huge board…

Check out the map of this game, on the webpage:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/296/details/World.In.Flames

Goodness gracious – 24-section map that measures 21 feet by 9 feet when fully assembled?  Impressive, but maybe a tad impractical for the average home.  The paragraph says that the maps are “entirely playable on the table top”…but just what kind of conventional tabletop can accommodate a 21 x 9-foot map?

@Vanerost:

The reasoning behind not including it seems very narrow minded. Instead of bringing more attention to the war game field they have just brought negative views on long lasting realistic games because they don’t want to spend the time to play them. The age of players is getting older and things like this video are not helping the matter. Sorry to rant but why try to bring attention to a type of game only to give negative views and drive people to shorter and easier games. Doesn’t make much sense to me that’s all.

I think younger gamers today are all over prescribed Ritalin as too often society assumes that they have ADHD because they can’t concentrate on anything for more than 30 seconds.  They don’t have the “patience” for a 15 hour game so they aren’t willing to try the way we did when we were younger.  If the game is longer than Settlers of Cataan or Puerto Rico, its too long.

@CWO Marc:
The map of the boardgame where the computer version is based upon, is cut into a few pieces that fit to each other and the scale of the Asian maps is larger than the other maps.
The total of all maps cover all active theatres and skip theatres that are redundant because they will never see any action because there is nothing of value there, armies will only suffer from attrition and not being able to get any supplies, or it is simply impossible to get there (examples are the Sahara Desert, Gobi Desert, Siberian forests/swamps). The most notable exception is the USA-minimap. This extra map basically is only there to govern American production and unit placement (units can only be placed in home nation cities). The axis won’t be able to bring the action to the American coasts so it’s not for fighting.

Anyway, only the computer version has the complete worldmap. It can be scrolled over and zoomed in. The boardgame map fits on a large tabletop and looks like this (though I believe those maps are from an older version of the game):
http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq175/cdratik/WiF/Startup/WorldinFlamesMap.png

A&AG40 is one of my favorites for a ‘general’ strategic challenge, but apparently not so much for a WW2 one…

@Nippon-koku:

I may just be biased, but I firmly believe most people who claim they don’t like the game, assuming they’re war gaming fans to begin with, simply don’t know how to play and aren’t willing to put the time in. �

The balance argument is a lame excuse, not to mention that there is a significant portion of A&A fans who think it’s well balanced (not to squirrel the topic…)

I’ve known three people in my life who insisted they would never like the game; I challenged each of them to spend a day with me doing a practice game, explaining the rules as we went. All three are converts and love the game to this day

–------------------------
Maybe they don’t know about how G40 is completely different from the original ('42) game. I think every1 who feels the allies cannot win without a bid must admit A&A is not balanced.

eShiptransport.com company that also provides moving and packing-unpacking services throughout the USA. There are many advantages of hiring us like we provide door to door carrier facility and open & enclosed vehicle option.

Dice Tower appears to be for the majority of gamers who want lighter gaming experiences. A&A is probably not mentioned because it’s impractical for pop gamers. For various reasons, most people can’t consider a game that takes as long as A&A takes. Even more difficult for most people is that the length of the game is uncertain. You can have a four hour game or you might have a ten hour game. If it can’t be finished in a two-hour time frame, then it doesn’t fit into most people’s gaming lives regardless of how much more captivating the epic experience of A&A is compared to shorter games like Catan and Puerto Rico. I assume that for this reason 1941 was created, but I can’t comment as to how well it achieves this presumed objective, as I haven’t played it.

I also think A&A is somewhat odd in that each player has a different country with different starting circumstances. That can also make it less appealing as it can be an awkward group game if you’re forced to take a power that is less interesting.

A&A works well for people living in the same house who can play a round or two, have the space to leave it set up, and then can come back to it whenever they have time again. It also works well for people who can set aside a weekend day. Others play online and don’t even use the physical game. None of these three scenarios fit within most people’s expectations for a board game.

@CWO:

@ItIsILeClerc:

Talking about a huge board…

Check out the map of this game, on the webpage:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/296/details/World.In.Flames

Goodness gracious – 24-section map that measures 21 feet by 9 feet when fully assembled?  Impressive, but maybe a tad impractical for the average home.  The paragraph says that the maps are “entirely playable on the table top”…but just what kind of conventional tabletop can accommodate a 21 x 9-foot map?

Oh man that would fit in my house.

Sureman right on.  :wink:

Whenever I try to sell a friend or co-worker on trying to play the game, I usually phrase it thusly:

“Do you like spending four to nineteen hours in a room with a bunch of nerds staring at a thousand tiny plastic pieces sitting on top of some cardboard?”

This could explain why a couple of people in the world prefer other boardgames :P

“Sureman” noted that some powers are less interesting. I don’t feel this way when I play, but I know why some people do. I have an interest in the history of WWII in general, so I wear the rose-tinted glasses of “this is cool as hell”. For a type of player that just wants a game, and gives zero to few shits about the history or theme of that game, being dealt one of the countries might feel like they are having less fun than they would with one of the other countries.

I love the hell out of A&A 1940, but I don’t know if I’d put it in the top 10 board games. It’s a pretty niche kind of thing, and that’s one of the reasons I love it so much.

AA is unique to the extent it fits in between light “war games” like the ones these guys like and the real mind buster/hex and counter games.  People who want more realism etc go for the latter while lighter players go the former, leaving us who want something in the middle with AA.  It’s hard to convince either type to go in for middle when they want something really complicated or easy.