Posts made by TheJediCharles

What do they need one for? They probably don’t even have a domestic legion.

The Jedi Charles, you should see my ‘Build All Bombers’ strategy for the Allies

Hm. Guaranteed?

I won a game against a player trying that sort of thing before. Maybe he wasn’t using them the way you claim is so effective. In his case, my German forces rejoiced that they didn’t have to get their feet dirty since they could walk across downed allied bombers all they way to Red Square.

:lol:

How would you use them, specificly?

np.LG, I don’t even have to get into any specific hole-punching in your strategy to just say a simple fact of A&A.

If it’s not far-fetched enough to propose that ANY strategy is guaranteed to work once, it’s even more far-fetched to suggest that any strategy is guaranteed to work against any good player a second time.

You can download a printable copy of the rule book of this very site.

http://www.hasbro.com/instruct/AxisandAllies.PDF

Edit: OOPS, soon u die already took care of that.

:oops:

he he he

I can only be serious 94.12% of the time.

:lol:

:-?

man… tough crowd.

…before the Imperial fleet could even get near Hawaii, Elvis would unleash his overly-dressed concubines with the behive hairdos and sink any invasion force the Japanesse could muster.

I’m not gonna give up 'til I get a laugh.

Japan could never take over Hawaii.

Don Ho would smash their heads with his ukulele and Jack Lord’s lock of hair that has a life of it’s own would whip their butts.

You guys need to quit talking like this.

You’re scaring Lilo.

:wink:

Yea, well whenever I’m playing on the Allies team and see Japan moving against USA early on, especially to the extreme of trying to take Hawaii, I’ll knock on my parter’s leg under the table and give them the “oh man, this game’s in the bag” look. Every move towards UK or USA is heat taken off USSR and that is as close to “beginning to win” as I could ever describe.

But, that’s just the way I operate.

When I’m USA, Japan can just have Hawaii and Midway. That’s not where the war is and whatever they put on those islands and whatever they lost to earn them is thankfully stuff I don’t have to contend with when I have taken the northern passage and taken Manchuria.

America can afford a few set backs. Japan can’t.

I find any excessive move against US by Japan before USSR falls is just allowing USSR to be too big a problem for Germany. Appart from the fleet around it, Hawaii is a distraction, unworthy of the troops Japan needs to have moving through Asia.

Hey, chiefman21, you sure have provided enough neat posts to go ahead and register in. Before you get any more interested in this site, go ahead and assign yourself a seat you can call your own.

:)

@chiefman21:

I want to know which country is the best for a beginner (easier than the otherrs0
) thanks"!

To me that’s a complicated question to answer accurately. I’d agree with those that say USSR and USA have a sort of lesser complicated adjenda to fulfill, but I think any new player should make a full attempt to understand all 5 forces as best they can as soon as they can. Each has it’s own character to operate, their own drawbacks, strengths, weakness, advantages, and each has a job it’s expected to do that it’s parters are expecting of it. A new player might not understand this and make the mistake of paying too much attention to the only things that matter to his country and not enough to the game as a whole, effectively learning nothing.

It’s like nobody can learn to be a pro at any one country without learning how to play the other countries just about as well, the way I see it.

The notion is to give a new player a country more difficult to mess up, but the new player should not be nearly as concerned with winning as they should be at paying attention to the flow of what is going on with the other countries.

I guess what I’m trying to say is there is no part of the game that is ‘unimportant’. What is important is that the player be made to understand all the goings on. Try to follow up all your comments that begin with “what you should do is…” with endings that sound like "and you should do that because… if you know what I mean. It’s like trying to teach someone to be a quarterback when they don’t really know what a lineman does. To learn to play football, toying with all positions is a good idea.

Which leads to an interesting thing when my friends play. We don’t “call an army” or pick who is which country. We split into teams and pretty much work each side as a collective mind. That way, we could have as many as 300 players, really. We just huddle, decide and exceute. It is a lot stronger and a more interesting game that way too, since there’s no ally telling the other, “aw man, if you do that, you’ll cost us the game.”

:wink:

Under the Game Master Series the Roman Empire game was called, “Conquest of the Empire”.

Thanks.

Do you know if this is the only gamemaster game that wasn’t listed on the A&A box? How many gamemaster games where there exactly?

Shogun
A&A
Conquest of the Empire
Fortress America

What else?

http://pbem.brainiac.com/tsr.htm

They were silly little games that came in transparent cases. Little more than a rule book, paper map and cardboard playing piece and dice. Dirt cheap. They’d bore me ridged now, but back then, they were fun.

I was playing a game on the Zone yesterday…

I did a search for this ‘Zone’ you mentioned, found it, and they already claim they don’t support A&A there anymore. What’s up with that? I never got to try it.

:cry:

I always thought Fortress America looked like it would be a good game but never got it. I found a copy of that Roman Empire game at some game store not long ago that (since I never saw it on any A&A packaging like others from the Game Master Series) I had never known it existed. It looked great, like they all do, and almost got it, but it had the typical inflated ‘comic book store prideful’ price tag, and didn’t get it.

I did get Samuri Swords, the re-release version of Shogun, played it like twice and it stunk. Never played it again. It’s up in the closet and I never mess with it. Waste of money.

Did any of you ever get those old Mini Games that TSR made back in the early 80’s? They were real cheesy, but I liked them. They were cheap and fun, when I was a kid. They had one of some space battle and one of the Alamo. I liked that Alamo.

People on this forum think that the Allies are stronger, but, in our case, Axis win about 80% of the time! Habitually, Germany attacks UK on the first round and invades it. In 2-3 rounds, Russia is down and USA can’t do nothing to help!

You know what that sounds to me like?

You’re not only playing in a tight circle of the same exact individuals, but you are each rehersing the same exact mistakes based on a what might be a communal misconseption of the options available to you.

How do you fix it?

Bring in someone you haven’t played with before. Better yet….bring a seasoned player into your midst.

You will then clearly learn that your friends are experiencing an anomoly of sharing the same faults in strategy. That is the only possible explanation I see.

Believe me, with the first two or three guys I played with that played nobody else, we had NO idea what we were doing. Until I got a few other guys to come in and suddenly we were all so shocked at how flawed our strategies were as a whole we all thought we were playing a brand new game. THEN I played guys that had played for years… that rocked my world.

You need new players, I think.

What you’re suggesting just is not true in any way I can see it.

If you were playing the Allies against me and where launching an assault on UK with Germany, believe me, I’d have so many Soviets in Eastern Europe you wouldn’t know what hit you.

One of the most popular misconceptions and one of the first lessons learned by newer or unseasoned players is that you don’t need to accompany attacking infantry with a bunch of tanks, neccessarily. Couple that with the misconspection that Russia must buy mostly infantry and what you end up with is a Russian player who thinks he never should attack.

I’ll never forget the first time I learned that a bunch of infantry is all you need… and how few infantry can sometimes constitute ‘a bunch’.

Another popular mistake of newer players make it not getting USA in the action quickly. The urge, as a USA player, to sit back and try to ‘build up’ before moving it is hard to resist. Once you get better and know how to optimize the forces of each country, you’ll realize that US need to contribute immediately, even though it’s not a big thing at first, to save it’s allies from the fact that the Axis is postured from the start to cause a lot of damage. Get USA in it ASAP. A small help from the start is worth way more than a big help when it’s too late.

All in all, you need to stay on these boards 'til you learn some cool new stuff. And get some to play you.

You’ll love the game a lot more.

Axis and Allies has been around a good while now. It’s becoming something of a legend, becoming a nice repository of great old memories. While we remember vividly our first game and it seeming not so long ago, it’s really been a long time and is very nostalgic indeed.

Which makes me ask, what other board games do you remember and have good memories of from long ago? Do you still have them?

I have recently re-obtained a good copy of an old game I used to have. It’s actually what I would call a pre-cursor to A&A to me. It’s called Carrier Strike and was made by Milton Bradley. Good old game. Simple, but quite good for being a ‘mainstream game’ found in Toys R Us in the late 70’s. Another good old game, that I would like to have again, but isn’t like A&A at all was Dark Tower, circa '82. I’ve gotta get that thing again through Ebay. Talk about good memories. My brothers and I would play that thing for hours on end. Another game we had that was terrible to play, but might be fun to see again for old time’s sake was that old Mad Magazine board game, made in about the early 80’s, the one where you had to loose all your money to win; getting rich was loosing. Man that game was dumb. Who remembers/had those?

Let the memories fly.

…yea… didn’t I just say that?

You’re confusing me. And that ain’t hard.

:)

Have you ever tried other versions of A&A?

Yea, I’ve tried a lot of 'em. Some friends and I even made some up. They’re fun in and of themselves, but not in the same way. While some alternative rules have been very well thought out, and could have been fine if were ‘the originally official rules’, I just can’t get past them as being something of a novelty thing. Basicly, that’s what I did when I was young and played A&A so much I got bored with it. Like playing with your food when you’re full. But now, after 15 or so years and a career and family, A&A time is a rare and priviledged event, requiring moved mountains to make time for. So, I don’t so much care wasting those opportunities on alternative versions. Plus, I’ve recently introduced my neighborhood buddies to it, they’re new and shouldn’t try them yet.

But, yea, I remember trying several different ones, including the notorious ‘double blind’, and that one drove me nuts. he he he Yea, yea, it had it’s validity in mimicing the stealth of real war, but it was a labor to play and too far separated from strategy and too much like the metaphorical equivelant of swinging your fists in a darkened room hoping to clock your enemies chops. I even won a game like that and couldn’t appreciate it because I felt like it was a hollow victory, beating someone’s ignorance and not their intellegence… it’s sort of too irrational if that makes any sense.

I feel there already is too much that relies on the luck of the roll already, and to inject even MORE luck into the game just makes it just… too freakish. If you notice, everyone harps on how it makes the game more like ‘real war’, but those games always end with the most unrealistic results. Always. Like a Japanese armada taking over Washington DC at the same exact time a US armada takes over Berlin… just too kookie for me.

I de-rationalize the whole notion that urges the side of players that like double blind on the fact that the superpowers had a much greater idea of where the enemy was and in what numbers than you give credit to. Enough to accept the real rules as actually being more realistic than double blind’s opposite extreme. Mind you, there were plenty of broken codes, spys and recon to make it acceptable to not use double blind. Think of this too, perhaps even players themselves are ‘mislead’ in their own and other’s strengths as well (in the sense of inflated numbers and grand-scale strategic miscalculations), justifiying why sometimes 3 fighters can get lost to 1 transport alone. Even the regular rules seems to sort of make a very good arguement that even as players are sitting there looking right at their own and their enemy’s forces, they indeed are looking with no more or less accuracy than the real powers did back in the real war, expressed by how sometimes exaggerated results can result from conflicts.

See what I mean?

Anyway, it’s hard to discribe really, but regular rules are okay by me and alternative rules are something of a turn-off now. It’s like I tell folks when trying to not only describe A&A to them, but quickly describe it and what makes it such a hit and fun to play…“A&A is great because of it optimizing the greatest number of strategic possibilities with the simplest rules and gameplay better than any other game in history.”

No need for new rules in my book.

Who taught you English?

he he he

I know the rules. But, I’m using the ‘double blind’ alternative rules of English. Got bored of the regular rules.

:wink: