[Board/Tactical Game]: Axis and Allies(2004 version), reviewed by Martin de guerre (5/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11280.phtml

Martin de guerre's Summary:

A good game made better.

Go to the full review for more information.

Post originally by Mike at 2005-05-25 07:43:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

That's a whole mess of changes!

Thanks for the information, though. I definitely want to pick this up.

However, my sons are 19 months and 3 months old. I don't think they're ready to play just yet.

Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2005-05-26 12:24:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

The best part about all of the changes...is in the end, the game is still 100% Axis & Allies.

The changes are almost all notable improvements.

The biggest change is the map. MAYBE after a few dozen plays you'll figure out the ideal strategy for the opening turns, but I've yet to uncover anything as broken as Russian first turn attacks against Germany.

The map changes also change ALOT of the "obvious" strategies from the first map. The Sahara Desert is probably (after rearraging East Europe / West Russia) the most important change. It makes control of Egypt key for control of Africa. No more can the Germans just ignore Egypt and sweep up alot of British PPs on the cheap.

The expansion of Australia and the Pacific Islands, assigning points to many more islands, and giving both sides a fleet big enough to actually engage in island operations opens a whole new theatre to the war.

Other changes like the addition of Destroyers and 2 hit Battleships make the naval campaign in the Pacific much more sensible (massive subfleets are no longer the obvious...or even a very good strategy). Tank defense and the ability of Artillery to upgrade infantry attacks makes the game much more fluid. Instead of buying hordes of infantry on defense and tanks on offense the new units...plus the cheaper fighter cost...makes combined arms much more effective than in the original version.

The new map and new naval units (and new Transport capacity) also makes it possible to have a strategy for Britain other than simply maxing out Strategic Bombing Runs.

So far, the game has enough to offer that I haven't even needed to start playing with any of the special nation specific rules in order to keep things interesting. There is no reason to EVER play old A&A again.


Personally I found both A&A Europe and Pacific to be pale reflections of A&A and not really worth playing, so I was worried about the new full game. But the new full game is a MUCH better game than any of its predecessors.

Post originally by Mike at 2005-05-26 13:38:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Every time I played the original game, the player with Japan usually bought two transports on the first turn and started shipping tanks into Asia. By the time the US had a significant fleet presence in the Pacific, a very rich Japan owned most of the continent and was pounding on the Soviet capital. The game became a race to see if Germany or the USSR would collapse first.

It was a lot of fun, but if the new mods make that less likely it definitely made the game different and arguably much more 'realistic'.

Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2005-05-26 14:32:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

Yeah. The *Right* strategy for Japan in OA&A was always to hit Russia as hard as possible. The only variations were whether to slow the American's by hitting Hawaii or use the fleet to support the attack on Russia. And whether to try to take out India immediately or focus everything on Russia.

I've yet to find a "right" strategy for Japan in NA&A. A campaign in the Pacific, a move to Australia, and some assorted other possibilities all seem plausible depending on opponent's moves.

Post originally by Zapp at 2005-05-26 14:54:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree the new A&A is a major improvement. With som much experience gained, it would be a disappoinment if it weren't. I especially admire the amount of analysis that is sure to be behind the bold move of the 10 IPC fighters.

As for the Pacific, however, even though the new game has slightly increased the desirability of its territories, the basic fact is still that the game is won or lost in Russia.

To raise the Japanese interest in the Pacific to historic levels, Siberia and China must be made much huger. (Compare to A Pacific where you have loads of territories, with a total sum of one (1) IPC I believe.)

Sorry, any Japanese ventures in the Pacific garner... nothing. They already have it!

By the time the yanks can rebuild the fleet - and expand it to match and overpower the huge japanese navy, the game is already won or lost in Eurasia.

Perhaps if the US was divided in two separate entities (somewhat like the Australian/Indian split of Pacific) you could get a more historic gameplay. I.e. part of the US money cannot go to Europe. That way, you'd see action in the Pacific.

It's not that the Japanese don't want to defend their possessions, its more that any US dollar is much better spent in Europe or Africa than on some boring (and hugely ineffective) stand-off in the middle of the sea.

But again, even though there's no action in the Pacific, the game is still great. Greater than the old edition and probably greater than any of the other A&A games.