Try to accept those pictures as some artistic embellishments. When you played those eagle games you had to put up with whales and octopus and other crappy things and you didn’t complain then. Why you complaining now? At least they lend some humor to the game and relate to the theme of the game. I would have altered the opacity on those pictures but it was something he wanted. When you actually play the game those pictures don’t bother anybody.
Having Pakistan on the map in a WWII game would put me off a bit, too. It would be sort of like having a game on the Civil War and having the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska on it. It is annoying – but neither situation involves an area that is likely to see much game play.
Well im sorry you and Pakistan don’t get along. :-P
Having all the units, Allies AND Axis, be German would give me considerable pause as well. This seems like an unfortunate choice to me; I would have thought it would be better to go with more generic units like in the original game – or default to US if nothing else. I realize this is rather nitpicky to some, but it would bug me. On the other hand, I’m assuming that most, if not everyone, who is a potential buyer of this game has other games with more appropriate units that they could sub in. Still, I think this is a legitimate gripe, and one that the creator should have considered before production.
Everything was considered. The game will ( since you have read this thread) feature all the different national units after they recoup their investment. They don’t want to reinvent the wheel by introducing those silly generic pieces and have to do the same job over again like what happened with Milton Bradley edition and Hasbro edition. Since Germany by far has the best looking equipment it was an easy choice to put them first and after latter prints of the game feature all sorts of new pieces… But its very expensive to do this.
As to the other gripes – really, has anyone ever produced a game that didn’t raise objections from people about something that was in the game, be it a rule, the map, a component, etc.? I’m not trying to start a fight or anything – personally, I have pretty high standards myself for things I’m going to spend money for. But ultimately, isn’t the question of whether or not it’s a good game the most important thing? From what I’ve read about The Wargame, it seems that just about everyone agrees that it’s a good game, with good rules and a lot of fun.
Yes it is indeed.
Here’s a test – which game has a more accurate map – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? Axis & Allies? OK. Now, which game is a better GAME – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? I’m guessing most people here would say that The Wargame is better. If The Wargame is the better game, does it really matter if there’s a minor glitch or 2 on the map? Another way to look at it is this – which of the two games are you most likely to want to play?
Yes the idea was to get the game very playable rather than historically accurate. Play testing for this game has been like 14 years so its had enough time to mature. Its got alot of replay value as well.
I think everyone who likes the A&A-style games and is interested in a more complex game should buy The Wargame if they can afford it, and if they think they’ll get enough play out of it to justify the cost. My reasoning for this is quite simple.
The Wargame is not really complex at all. Its on the same level as AAR. It takes only 15 minutes to explain the rules.
I think it’s extremely unlikely that you will ever see a major game company produce an “Axis & Allies On Steroids” kind of game.
Right nobody is going to spend the kind of money on real cardboard because they have to pay hundreds of hungry mouths… Jeff is a one man show …so so he can afford to put so much into a box you wont need a gym membership if you lift the box 5 times a day.
The problem is that such a game is going to have a limited appeal. Sure, wargamers are always at least interested in a game that takes an existing game system to the next level. But I’d wager that isn’t the attitude of the average Joe who has the game. How many people who own A&A are going to want to go out and buy a bigger and better version of a game they already own? My guess is not very many – I’d say a very optimistic figure would be 10%. That kind of number isn’t enough for an established company to take a chance on. I suspect that companies that are pitched that sort of idea would say “There’s already a game like that in the market – Axis & Allies.” I also wonder if the failure of Eagle Games might discourage efforts of this sort.
I think Eagle games failed when they made that silly poker computer game and paid that lady ( Anne Duke) way too much to support it. I knew that company would fail. I posted it many years before it actually did fail…because their games are too much like 1970’s comic book games ( ala Helen of Toy)
The point is, if we want “bigger and better” designs they’re going to be games like The Wargame and WWII: The Struggle – games that are the dream of a guy like us who has the creativity and determination to put an idea together and see it all the way through to completion. They’re going to be labors of love that are developed in the basements of guys like this, not creations motivated in the interest of pure profit in the offices of a company like WotC. Because of this, I think we should do all we can to support these sorts of efforts. It rewards them for their efforts, and encourages them and others to create more games – which also is to the benefit of us all.
Yes we should support these creative people and reward them for creating good games. Without them this genre of games will not move forward.
