Xeno's "World at War '39-'45" A&A Expansion
Steve Gillies
My friend bought this out of the blue, and now, we don't play the
original anymore... Only this Expansion. The game starts in '39, France
and China are separate countries with separate income and forces. And
not everyone is at war with everyone. To be honest, I'd be bored were I
to go back to normal A&A.
Has anyone else played This Expansion? Lemme know!
Johnny Wong
play the original A&A without house modifications. Just curious.
John Y. Lee
Steve Gillies
>Just wondering does anybody (with the exception of new players)
actually
>play the original A&A without house modifications. Just curious.
>
favour of the Allies, why doesn't MB decide to give more Units and
Infantry to the Axis at the beginning of the game? Obviously, they want
to retain some historical significance, but what's the point if the
Axis consistently loses? Jet Power does not help Germany where they
need it, and no new complexes hurts Japan.
Steve
Nicholas Simas
We only play the expansion now, and our curious about the new expansions
for WWI and WWIII......
Plus, France and China make you grin.....
Jerrod Ankenman
Johnny Wong (mis...@intergate.bc.ca) wrote:
: In article <Edina1996Oct3...@oasis.idirect.com.compulink.com>, sgil...@idirect.com (Steve Gillies) says:
: Just wondering does anybody (with the exception of new players) actually
: play the original A&A without house modifications. Just curious.
Sure, I use it sometimes when I want to play a wargamish type game and
the people I'm playing with aren't actually /gamers./ That way, we get a
fun balancedish game (with me playing on the Axis side), and everyone has
fun.
--jerrod
Steve Gillies
>We only play the expansion now, and our curious about the new
>expansions for WWI and WWIII......
>
>Plus, France and China make you grin.....
What are your strategies with Germany and Japan? When I'm the Axis,
Germany usually attacks Russia on turn 4 or 5, with Japan attacking the
US and Britain on turn 3. I've never been able to crush Russia without
Japan's help, though I think it should be possible.
What do you do with Germany on turn 1? When do you use Japan's Sneak
Attack?
Steve (sgil...@idirect.com)
Shadow
>>Has anyone else played This Expansion? Lemme know!
The only problem I've had is that the balance is even more tilted towards the
allies. Germany starts out so weak, it just can't build up fast enough. I
do like the idea of pieces costing different amounts for various countries,
unfortunately, infantry for Russia is set at 2, which is a big mistake. (at the
start of the game Russia only gets 16 ipc per turn. When war starts, it is
instantly making 2-3 times as much) I also don't like the way attacks are
restricted. Japan can only go so far into Russia, and has to wait a while to
do it. It is almost like the designers wanted to force Japan to attack the US.
It is also vague on sub pens: are they in a sea territory, or a land territory.
Does it cost subs a move to enter/leave the sub pen?
Every game I've played, I think I'm doing well as the Axis, but then Russia
comes into play and the tide turns. Attacking Russia earlier only makes it
worse.
It does have a pretty map.
Shadow
Steve Gillies
Whenever I play Germany, by the time I attack Russia, my IPC level is at
least 35-40 or so. plus the free 7. The key is for Germany to attack as
many Russian Territories as possible. I like to attack Karelia,
Belorussia, and Ukraine by land, Caucasus by an amphibious assault, and
drop a paratrooper anywhere else, Kom, Russia, or Kazakh (and land the
bomber in China), This way, you're guaranteed to have lots of territory,
since Russia can only counterattack ONE territory. I always try to
Strategic Bomb Russia when I attack. This way, they use their 20 IPC
freebie to attack you, and have little left for defense. And I think The
later the better... turn 4 or 5, so that when Japan finally can attack
Russia, they can just roll RIGHT over them. Russia may seem to have a lot
of money, but, even if they were at 36 with the neutrals, you can get them
down to 25 with a good 1st attack, and then bomb, bomb away!
As for Japan, I've seen Japan go from 30 IPCs to 50 in one turn by attacking
Britain, France and the US altogether. Australia, Phillipines, all of Asia
can easily belong to Japan, especially if you use the Sneak Attack.
Although, I like to save my Sneak, just as insurance.
Usually Britain concentrates on one area.... Africa, or a navy; rarely, if
ever, does she put effort into the pacific. That's where Japan must
capitalize. I think the Axis' best hope of winning is an Economic Victory.
Sub Pens are built in Sea zones, adjacent to land zones that have a Factory.
And, even though all Countries have one in their colour, only Germany can
build them. I got this clarified through correspondence with Xeno Games. (if
you want the rules clarifications I have, lemme know) Subs in a sea zone are
protected by the AA at a factor of 2, and if boats and planes attack that
sea zone, your subs shoot at the boats, and your AA shoots at the planes.
The only other thing I can suggest is to play the game with the right rules.
When I first heard of AA shooting at tanks or planes EVERY round, I almost
freaked, and we immediately decided not to apply that rule. But now we do,
as well as limits on how much Factories can produce. This last one is key,
since it affects any new complexes the Commonwealth may try to spring up
somewhere in Africa or Asia, as well as affecting Russia's western defence,
and China's defence.
Now, if only the new British men didn't look like Japanese men... and why do
the 1/2 Battleships look like Toothpicks?
Steve
hell...@aol.com
Why even bother? I liked the old Nova version of A&A a great deal. The
MB version is OK, but this half-assed piece of crap is excriciatingly bad.
I wouldn't waste my money.
Bill
Guderian
absoluty NOT true, Try WAR AT EUROPE From Xeno's Games it's a great game
and has much better rules and possibilities then the OLD A&A.
It still would need a little work though, you will learn that quick enough.
Try it for sure!
Guderian
bue...@cistron.nl
rg...@aol.com
In article <19961123064...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
hell...@aol.com writes:
>Why even bother? I liked the old Nova version of A&A a great deal. The
>MB version is OK, but this half-assed piece of crap is excriciatingly
bad.
> I wouldn't waste my money.
I'd say it has potential. Yea the rules are poorly written and terribly
edited and it's overpriced. But if you are bored with vanilla A&A,
this isn't a bad alternative.
RGT
hell...@aol.com
Hi. I'm interested in the responses my original message, about how much
this expansion stinks. Unfortunately, my AOL trial account won't let me
paste a long piece as a reply, so I have to start this new thread. Sorry,
but I'm only here 'til the free time runs out--honest :-)
Responding to sgil...@idirect.com:
Hi Steve,
Since you were good enough to send an intelligent reply to my post, let me
fill you in on a few things and pontificate even more.
>Why even bother? I liked the old Nova version of A&A a >great deal. The
MB version is OK, but this half-assed >piece of crap is excriciatingly
[oops,that should have >been "excruciatingly] bad. I wouldn't waste my
money.
>>I've never played the Nova version. I played the MB >>version quite a
bit, and enjoyed it.
Well, not wanting to sound like a cranky old fart (I don't feel like one
;-) ), I'd have to say that the game lost a great deal of flavour when MB
took it over. Major elements were removed, such as kamikaze attacks,
movable factories for the Russians, US Marines, etc. Sound familiar?
Yep, Xeno swiped them and put them into their variant. I missed them, so
I was happy to see them back, though they are a little bit different.
The Nova development table was cool too, because anyone who wanted to
spend the production points could just throw everything into research and
get "the bomb". That's how my Russians marched into Berlin. A fun
what-if, but not a sound strategy :-)
The MB version left something to be desired, as it dumbed down the rules
to make it more like Risk and less of a wargame. It also added those toy
soldiers which look neat, but can't be stacked the way counters can.
>>But the Xeno version pulled me away from the MB. Why? >>Cause it sn't
the rockem-sockem all out war that the MB >>version is like. When to
attack Russia, when Japan >>should engage Britain and the US, Whether or
not to >>invade Great Britain... These are all variables that can >>shift
from game to game.
Well, I suppose so, but then it isn't WWII is it? The Nova version starts
just after Hitler's attack on the USSR, so it is logical that Russia goes
first and that it attack Germany. I believe the MB is the same, no?
There are a good number of alternate strategies which can be used, but the
basic situation of the war remains unchanged in the game.
>>MB's game has the Axis go after Russia.. If Russia falls, >>the Allies
usually fall.
Well, as I'm sure you are aware of, in reality, the Russian Front served
as a meat grinder, destroying precious German resources which could have
been used to great advantage elsewhere. If the Russians were neutral or
defeated, the Allies would have had a hell of a time beating the Germans.
I don't think you should fault a game for being historically accurate. Of
course, I'd be the last to say it was a _very_ accurate simulation, but
don't complain about the accuracy it does have. Now, if keeping the
Eastern Front active wasn't essential to winning the game, that would be a
reason to complain.
>>If Russia can stay together, the Allies do well.
Not true. If you give the US to a timid player who is afraid to take the
loses necessary to stop the Japanese, you will wind up with the Axis
winning. I've seen it happen (in the Nova version). Russia rarely does
_well_ it usually just manages to hang-on until an invasion can be
mounted.
>>Whereas, In Xeno's, you can attack Russia right away, or wait and
conquer Africa first.
Sure, the question does arise as to what will happen with Russia.
Unfortunately, it seems that the game is still designed so that Russia and
Germany will fight. What about the posssibility of Germans and Russians
being Allies? Or just "non-aggressive" toward each other. It can't be
gamed under these rules.
>>Japan can annihilate China, and then go after Asia,
Well, this is a ridiculous statement. Do you know _why_ Japan attacked
the US, Dutch East Indies, and Malaya? It was to secure the raw materials
to continue the war they had been fighting in China since 1937. The
materials were blockaded in 1941 by a US-led coalition, prompting a
Japanese attack on resource rich SE Asia. The attack on US colonies
(Hawaii and Philippines) was supposed to give them time to consolidate
those gains and make it too costly for the US to oust them. As Yamamoto
predicted, 6 months of victory was all he could give Japan. To say that
Japan could "annihilate China" when, in fact, they couldn't means this is
a poor game and you either don't care or don't know just how lousy it is.
>>or even try an attack on The United States.
Well, if they "annihilate China and then go after Asia" what benefit would
there then be in attacking the US? I wouldn't happen. If they were at
war with the US (which in reality, they undoubtedly would be if those
situations arose) they would negotiate a settlement. If they weren't at
war (a very big if) they would not attack.
>>I'll take this "piece of crap" anyday.
You're welcome to it. I sure don't want it. I was really excited about
the variant when I first heard about it. I was living in Japan when the
expansion was released and I travelled from my home to a friends place
near Tokyo for a long-weekend so we could play. It was a one-hour plane
trip and a 1 hour train trip to get there and I don't want to talk about
how much it cost me. It cannot be said that I wasn't willing to give this
variant a chance. Unfortuately, it proved to be a very amatuerishly
produced product.
I was sadly disappointed in every aspect of the variant. The rules were
poorly written, ambiguous, contradictory, misspelled, and looked like
hell. The pieces were shoddily made. The map looked like the dogs
breakfast (at least the Nova map had screaming primary colours, not muddy
colours). When we got down to playing, the flaws were even clearer. As
Russia, I stomped all over China to get the IPCs. Germany never attacked
me, I had to go after him after the 5 turn limit was up (representing the
time between 1939 and the start of Operation Barbarosa). The Japanese did
everything to avoid getting the US involved. Completely unrealistic.
I've said it before and will say it again; the only good stuff in this
variant is that which has been plagarised from the original Nova version.
If all you want to do is roll dice to see who takes over the world, play
Risk. I was hoping for much more. If you enjoy it, that's your opinion,
but I have a different one and I think people shouldn't spend their money
without hearing it. I'll post a copy to the group as well. Thanks for
your reply.
Bill
Raissa Wang
Hi!
I am not quite as quick to put down this game. Granted it was a
little more expensive then it ought to be, but if you love the MB version
and wish it was a little more detailed, this is a great step!
I played this game with a few friends of mine and found it to be
hours of fun. The rules is not the best, but it can be worked out with a
few house rules. The game starts in 1939, before the Germans and the
Japanese made their fatal mistakes. We found that the Axis had the
advantage in this game at first. But after about 10 games, we were able
to develope an Allied strategy that is almost unstopable. Nevertheless,
we found the game to be more interesting the the old A&A, and will
continue to play it.
John
hell...@aol.com wrote:
: Hi. I'm interested in the responses my original message, about how much
:
Kathy Hannah
greg monforton wrote:
>
> I like the expansion, since it adds a little flavour to a game I've
> played for about 8 years. However, did anyone notice that Germany
> can conquer Britain in the first turn? (With a little luck)
>
> Greg
Seen it done in A&A too!
hell...@aol.com
Responding to : ez05...@chip.ucdavis.edu (Raissa Wang)
>> I am not quite as quick to put down this game. Granted >>it was a
>>little more expensive then it ought to be, but if you love >>the MB
version
>>and wish it was a little more detailed, this is a great >>step!
Needless complexity is _not_ detail. Especially when most of the
comple....ahem..."detail" is caused by poorly written, untried,
unproofread rules. As for the cost, I'd say that it was infinitely too
expensive, since it was so poorly made and worth absolutely nothing.
>> I played this game with a few friends of mine and found >>it to be
>>hours of fun. The rules is not the best, but it can be >>worked out
with a
>>few house rules.
A professional gaming product should not need house rules to make it
playable. My friends and I spend hours on it too, mostly because the
rules were so crappy. It should have moved much more quickly and smoothly
than it did.
>>The game starts in 1939, before the
>>Germans and theJapanese made their fatal mistakes.
Germany's fatal mistake was in 1933 when it elected Hitler (democracy in
action--ain't it grand :-) ). Japan's would have to have been the
establishment of the puppet state of Manchuko in 1931, or the beginning of
the war with China in 1937. The reality is that there were many options
which were out of the question by '39.
As I said before, I was excited when I first heard about this variant, but
was disappointed by the reality.
>>We found that the Axis had the
>>advantage in this game at first.
Probably because they avoided what the Axis would have done (and did) in
reality. Some variation is interesting, but Japan would have had to take
on the US because of forces outside the scope of the game.
>>Nevertheless,
>>we found the game to be more interesting the the old >>A&A, and will
>>continue to play it.
No accounting for taste. When I want fantasy, I play a fantasy game. WaW
'39-'45 is just too lame for my tastes, allowing--NAY-- encouraging,
completely unrealistic strategies and tactics that could never have been.
Bill
greg monforton
Steve Gillies
> I am not quite as quick to put down this game. Granted it was a
>little more expensive then it ought to be, but if you love the MB version
>and wish it was a little more detailed, this is a great step!
> I played this game with a few friends of mine and found it to be
>hours of fun. The rules is not the best, but it can be worked out with a
>few house rules. The game starts in 1939, before the Germans and the
>Japanese made their fatal mistakes. We found that the Axis had the
>advantage in this game at first. But after about 10 games, we were able
>to develope an Allied strategy that is almost unstopable. Nevertheless,
>we found the game to be more interesting the the old A&A, and will
>continue to play it.
I've gotten Rules Clarifications from the guy who wrote the game. If you have
any questions, ask away.
As for your Allied strategies, What are they?
Steve Gillies
>I like the expansion, since it adds a little flavour to a game I've
>played for about 8 years. However, did anyone notice that Germany
>can conquer Britain in the first turn? (With a little luck)
With a LOT of luck, including perhaps getting a French Fleet, great Rolling,
and you basically would have nothing left in Europe, you'd barely conquer
Poland, if at all, and make no headway in Africa. I've considered it, but I
would never do it. Have you ever done it? What happened?
greg monforton
It was at least a year ago since I played, but the German, who
wasn't me, took over France in his first impulse and then assaulted
England. I don't think I was the UK, but I do remember putting my
rules lawyer hat on and pouring through the rules to see if it was
possible. It was one of the first times I played the expansion and
I wasn't too comfortable with it. Poland has to wait for a turn,
and it does slow advancement in other areas, but the payoff is
big. If anything it rattles the Allies.
Rules clarifications, or different interpretations may have made
this obselete. If anyone wants to check it out, it could be done
solitare as it all happens in the German's first turn. I personally
wouldn't do it, even if it was possible, because it is 'dirty pool'.
Unless I really wanted to put someone in their place...
I'd be interested to know if it really could work. Try building
transports between impulses. It worked before, but hey, I could be
wrong.
Greg
Steve Gillies
>It was at least a year ago since I played, but the German, who
>wasn't me, took over France in his first impulse and then assaulted
>England. I don't think I was the UK, but I do remember putting my
>rules lawyer hat on and pouring through the rules to see if it was
>possible. It was one of the first times I played the expansion and
>I wasn't too comfortable with it. Poland has to wait for a turn,
>and it does slow advancement in other areas, but the payoff is
>big. If anything it rattles the Allies.
Britain starts off with 4 men, one each of tank, fighter, bomber, AA gun, as
well as a Bat, 1/2 Bat and Transport. And remember, the Men defend at 3, and
the fighter at 5. With that defense, plus the AA gun shooting every round,
it's possible, but extremely unlikely. I don't know what the exact odds are,
but if you fail, you've left yourself in a VERY bad spot. 30 IPCs to spend at
the beginning: You have only 1 transport in the Baltic Sea. You'd need
transports, plus men. You can take in Bombers, but no fighters. With the
Transports you'd need, plus the men, plus tanks....it seems practically
impossible. But then again, that's what I like about A&A... anything's
possible.
>Rules clarifications, or different interpretations may have made
>this obselete. If anyone wants to check it out, it could be done
>solitare as it all happens in the German's first turn. I personally
>wouldn't do it, even if it was possible, because it is 'dirty pool'.
>Unless I really wanted to put someone in their place...
No, it's legal all right...
>I'd be interested to know if it really could work. Try building
>transports between impulses. It worked before, but hey, I could be
>wrong.
Just to clarify on the Blitzkrieg: Germany buys their stuff, fights, places
their stuff, they then fight again, and then they get their money. We had
this wrong the first time we plated... it was a short war. It's
understandable though, considering the horrible rules. Any time the game gets
mentioned, people mention the rules being garbage. I agree wholeheartedly. In
fact, Xeno is preparing a FAQ for the game... I'll post the Address once it
comes out.
pd...@aol.com
Yes, I have played now for about two years and have tried to conquer
Britain twice. I failed both times, but it is so nice now to have the
chance!
Shadow
sgil...@idirect.com (Steve Gillies) writes:
>I've gotten Rules Clarifications from the guy who wrote the game. If you have
>any questions, ask away.
>As for your Allied strategies, What are they?
One question. Can you email me the clarifications? (or snail would work too)
Shadow
pme...@cse.unl.edu