Differences from A&A

[cdwjava]

Okay ... I'm intrigued.  But, before I engage in a potentially debillitating "discussion" (a very loud one, I predict) with my wife regarding such a hefty game expenditure, I'd like to know a little more about how this monster game differs from A&A.

I read the naval combat example and liked what I saw.  I was curious about the concept of a "light carrier" for the Japanese ... thus implying that there were multiple classes of this and, perhaps, other ships.

How does land combat work?  How do economics differ from A&A?  How many unit types are there?  What about R&D - how is that handled?  Is movement simple area to area, or is there a strategic movement concept built in as well?  Special resources?  (I'm sure I will have more questions as well ...)

Any info I can get will help.  While I may be intrigued, before I suggest to my wife that I spend over $1,000 of my ... er, OUR (sorry, hon) money, I need to be able to see that this is a game worth possibly spending the next few years worth of game funds for ... or working a heck of a lot of overtime!

 - Carl

[John D.]

Hello Carl,
  Â  Â The answer to your question is rather lengthy. I will start with a general answer and can get more detailed if you like.
1) Many units take time to build with the total cost being spread out over multiple season (turns). Armor takes two seasons to build with a cost of 3,3 instead of 6 all at once. Battleships cost 5,5,5,5 - taking a year to build with a total investment of 20.
2) Factories are not gateways for units but instead represent an investment in military production infrastructure and permanently increase your countries total production output.
3) Air units can scramble away or react to battles taking place in adjacent territories.
4) Has a 25 turn limit (based on seasons) in which victory conditions change based on historical occupations.
5) The map is produced in proportion to where the majority of the battles take place.
6) The game doesn't impose any artificial limitations on what countries can or can not do but the game is built on common sense to a large extent, trying to represent the realistic historical capabilities of each country, but offers a limitless array of approaches on how to win (again, on a very historical approach if that is what is wanted)
7) There are 2 general types of units - "Front line" and "support". If support units do not have a front line unit to "support" they are less effective.
8 ) Strategic, Rail and Tactical movement takes place all at once.
9) Out of supply rules exist.
10) There is an mechanized/armored breakthough phase.
11) Other units that A & A does not have that we have are: AT Guns, German 88s, German Stukas, paratroopers, Russian Sturmoviks, British Early War Naval Fighters, British and US Heavy Bombers, Russian Katusha Rockets, separate cruiser and destroyer units, the Japanese Yamato Battleship, Light and fleet carriers.

That is a start.

John

[Bobsalt]

Carl,

I’m one of the two people who just bought this game (the $1000 deluxe version). To keep this brief, I’ll make the following comments:

1) Definitely worth the money. I haven’t actually played it yet – just set it up and pushed some pieces around. I’m taking it to a large game club meeting this Saturday (11/19) – hopefully, this’ll get some guys hooked on it.
2) The way I’ve described the game to people is that it’s a cross between Axis & Allies and World in Flames. If you’ve never played WiF, WiF is a very complex strategic level game covering all of WWII – if you’ve played WiF, there isn’t anything here that’s going to take you by surprise. Many of the mechanics of this game (I’ve been calling it Axis Uber Allies – you can commence groaning now…) are borrowed from other games, but have been streamlined. The effect is, believe it or not, a game that still has very simple and easy to understand mechanics, while being more realistic than A&A.
3) In my opinion, air units involved in ground combat are handled more realistically. You now commit fighters and bombers to participate in a ground combat, and the defender does the same. You fight a round of air-to-air combat to see what units actually get through the enemy fighters to participate in the battle. I think it’s much more realistic than the traditional A&A rules.
4) The game appears to be highly customizable. The game as sold pretty much locks you into doing what was done historically in some areas (for example, you can’t build strategic bombers for Germany), but since all of the stats are there, you can buy additional miniatures on your own (as I’ve done) to allow things like this. This is in no way a complaint – I agree with the approach of the designers – but I game with some guys who are marginal gamers, and might be put off a bit by a “You’re Germany, you can’t build strategic bombers” approach. My friends and I have already discussed additional rules ideas and new units to add.

I truly do believe that this is something I’ll be playing years from now. The game takes a concept that has already proven itself (Axis & Allies), and just expanded upon it. A&A is probably one of the best games ever published as to the ability to play it again and again and not get tired of it. I think this game will be similar. The only drawback(?) is that it will take awhile to play, so you will want to be sure you have friends who are willing to go a couple of sessions to complete a game. For someone who’s in a group that games regularly, this game is ideal.

Hope this helps –

Bob

[cdwjava]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the replies.  Sorry I had not responded earlier, but life got a tad hectic there for a while and promises to remain so for a time ... AND I was changing computers and ISPs at home, so I had a few technical glitches.

My friends and I have always enjoyed A&A, but, we have gotten tired of the pretty standard maneuvers that have come to pass.  There also comes a time when you can predict a victor depending on the circumstance and the game grinds to a halt due to lack of interest.  It may be us, but the lack of variety and depth in A&A became apparent and we longed for more.

And while World in Flames is my spot on favorite WWII game, it is just so complex as to be impossible to play over time.  I think the furthest I have gotten with an opponent was late 1942 and that took us several months.  Then children and real life interfered.

I really am intrigued at the unit variety and what appears to be a relatively tolerable rules complexity ... not too convoluted, yet not too simplistic, either.

But when a game costs as much as a Thomas Kincaid painting I bought for my wife last year ... well, I suppose you can see the dilemma.  (Yeah ... I know ... what can you do with a painting?  But ... my wife was HAPPY with the painting - and that means I was not UN-happy ... a game on the other hand take a different kind of selling.)

Ah, the dilemma!

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be in a position to make a purchase until well after the Holidays anyway.  Three kids is a killer on the discretionary budget!

 - Carl

[Imperious Leader]

I think a possible solution is to buy only the map and use all the plastics from a/a, attack! , table tactics ,etc and buy a few metal pieces which arent found anywhere else.

V2 rockets
Katushkas
a few biplanes
heavy tanks
fortification units

[John D.]

Hello Carl,
     You can always buy the standard game, like Imperious suggested, and upgrade later if you would like (just paying the difference at that time)

John