Axis & Allies

[Cryptic_Snow]

So far our players list consists of illram, Ayatollah So, cardgame, and me.

We could use one more!

As for the 10 player version, I've never heard of it. Anyone have a link?

Where are you guys doing this?

As for the Global version have you checked out the video I posted?

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

So far our players list consists of illram, Ayatollah So, cardgame, and me.

We could use one more!

As for the 10 player version, I've never heard of it. Anyone have a link?

I can play as well.

 

[Antilogic]

A while ago I played a game of Risk all the way until all the world was conquered, and I came second. One of the players said that it was the game with the most strategic depth, but I didn't think so because it seemed like it only relied on luck. How well does Axis & Allies compare to Risk, and is there more to do in the game?

I'd rate Risk fairly low in terms of strategic depth. The odds are always in favor of the attacker due to the extra die he gets to roll, and you always want to attack anyway to pick up cards to trade for more troops.

As far as board wargames go with serious depth but light-to-moderate game rules, Diplomacy is the classic example. I also like to play the Friedrich and Maria boardgames by Sivel, but I don't think too many Americans know about them. Moving away from war-games, there are any number of German-style board games that have significantly more strategic depth than Risk (I could post a massive list if you are interested).

Much, much more strategic than Risk, although there is still quite a lot of luck involved.

I remember my brother playing as the Nazis totally steamrolled about 30 of my Russian conscripts and only lost about three tanks... he attacked with maybe ten of them, a couple fighters and some infantry.

Any board game with dice mechanics leads to a significant luck element. It's a fact of life (and my major complaint with American-style board games--they rely too heavily on dice).

thats why Diplomacy is the best board game

nasty nasty game

Gah, that game is brutal. Utterly brutal. Especially when your friends are... well, I don't want the profanity infractions.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I'd rate Risk fairly low in terms of strategic depth. The odds are always in favor of the attacker due to the extra die he gets to roll, and you always want to attack anyway to pick up cards to trade for more troops.

The way they played it didn't involve attacking on every turn. What they did was do nothing, saving up troops until they have about 30-40 on one province, and then attack.

Moving away from war-games, there are any number of German-style board games that have significantly more strategic depth than Risk (I could post a massive list if you are interested).

I know they've played Settlers of Catan, but they find Risk has more depth.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So far our players list consists of illram, Ayatollah So, cardgame, and me.

We could use one more!

As for the 10 player version, I've never heard of it. Anyone have a link?

I'm also open for a game.

 

[Neomega]

We would play a version of Risk where an army could only move 1 territory per turn. Made it a bit more interesting, but even so, the cards really messed up the game IMHO... ...Turn in cards... boom, 20 armies on Iceland FTW!

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

I found some Axis & Allies Europe 1940 games on Ebay going for $200

 

[peter grimes]

Can't believe I somehow missed this thread!

Used to play in college against my roommate. We'd stay up all weekend playongva game through. Honestly the setup was part of the fun!

If you guys are talking about a pbem style game or something I'd be interested, even if it's just as an adviser to a player....

...teams?

 

[Antilogic]

The way they played it didn't involve attacking on every turn. What they did was do nothing, saving up troops until they have about 30-40 on one province, and then attack.

Not attacking on every turn (when you would have an advantage in # of dice thrown) slows you down on card collection. They be playing poorly.

I know they've played Settlers of Catan, but they find Risk has more depth.

I'm not sure your buddies know what strategic depth means. Catan has the same sort of balance-of-power between players (nobody wants to give you the 10th point, coalitions will form, etc.) but with added economic management. Not to mention multiple routes of obtaining victory points (cards, longest road/army, or building settlements/cities). And we aren't even talking about the expansion packs.

 

[cardgame]

Can't believe I somehow missed this thread!

Used to play in college against my roommate. We'd stay up all weekend playongva game through. Honestly the setup was part of the fun!

If you guys are talking about a pbem style game or something I'd be interested, even if it's just as an adviser to a player....

...teams?

If there aren't any more slots, I call dibs on this advisor xD

Four of us have exchanged e-mails, but I don't think anyone's actually begun yet.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Not attacking on every turn (when you would have an advantage in # of dice thrown) slows you down on card collection. They be playing poorly.

I attacked on every turn, and I ended up losing. I think it might have been older rules, as when someone hands in the cards, the amount of troops you get from the cards increases by I think 2 every time. It ended up at I think over 40 troops just by handing in three cards.

 

[Antilogic]

I attacked on every turn, and I ended up losing. I think it might have been older rules, as when someone hands in the cards, the amount of troops you get from the cards increases by I think 2 every time. It ended up at I think over 40 troops just by handing in three cards.

There are a few different exchange rates for cards (fixed, +2, or exponential), but so long as you are playing with the rule where you only receive cards when you successfully invade a territory, attacking every turn is the only way to pick up a card every turn. This is why I don't think there is much depth--there is no real economic/resource management besides the card mechanic, you only get cards by attacking, the odds favor the attacker, and cards help you attack by giving you more cannon fodder troops. So it's a degenerate decision, you want to attack anyway to win and are rewarded for it.

It's still possible to lose, though, since continental troop income matters, and you are rolling dice so there's a random element.

 

[Disgustipated]

I had a few games with my brother and friends, but eventually it was impossible to find people to play with. I hate to admit this, but I often played myself. Lame, I know. But this was back in the day when there weren't many good computer games, and this game still surpassed just about anything on the computer.

The biggest problem is the Allies nearly always win (except for some unlucky dice rolls). Are newer versions any more balanced? I'd like to hear a strategy for the Axis actually winning. I just can't see it happening. The economic power of the Allies is too great. Assuming the allies work together somewhat, they cannot lose.

 

[peter grimes]

I had a few games with my brother and friends, but eventually it was impossible to find people to play with. I hate to admit this, but I often played myself. Lame, I know. But this was back in the day when there weren't many good computer games, and this game still surpassed just about anything on the computer.

The biggest problem is the Allies nearly always win (except for some unlucky dice rolls). Are newer versions any more balanced? I'd like to hear a strategy for the Axis actually winning. I just can't see it happening. The economic power of the Allies is too great. Assuming the allies work together somewhat, they cannot lose.

Not lame at all!

My roommate and I spent hours (I mean, without exagerrating, likely 50+) developing a Vikings version of A&A. That's what we found fun - researching to develop the map, learning about the tactics and generating units based on that, tweaking things for balance... of course, this was before the internet, so we had to use real books! Uphill both ways! With an onion tied to our belts, as that was the fashion at the time...

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Can't believe I somehow missed this thread!

Used to play in college against my roommate. We'd stay up all weekend playongva game through. Honestly the setup was part of the fun!

If you guys are talking about a pbem style game or something I'd be interested, even if it's just as an adviser to a player....

...teams?

I agree the setup was fun, at least to me it was. Just seeing the entire board brimming with units waiting to be unleashed

 

[illram]

We have had some CFC A&A games going via email, one of which I have lost and one of which I am on the road to losing against Ayatollah, who clearly hustled me into thinking he was a newbie . But if anyone wants in we have a social group for A&A PBEM games, and we are trying to set up a second CFC game. It's a private group in case any of us exchange email addresses in the social group. Let me know if you want in or if you are interested in playing!

The software we use is capable of playing any A&A map: classic, big world, Global edition, Revised, whatever.

 

[Michkov]

I'd be interested trying one. I've never played A&A though.

 

[Ayatollah So]

if anyone wants in we have a social group for A&A PBEM games, and we are trying to set up a second CFC game.

The social group is here (I think you have to request to join?)

Ayatollah, who clearly hustled me into thinking he was a newbie .

My secret trick: use the new map, to which illram was just as newbie as me

 

[peter grimes]

I think I should have enough time in the coming months to try this again. But I'm not willing to dive into a game in a 1 on 1 situation, seeing as how it's been decades since I've played - and I've never played on the computer (don't know how much that matters).

 

[illram]

I invited Michkov to the group. Good stuff Peter; check in to the Game 2 thread, we're trying to get a multiplayer game going.