Talk:Axis and Allies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] You know what would be cool?
...if someone (like say Avalon Hill) had soft copies of the reference charts. I have the Milton Bradley version from like the early nineties and I lost the rule book and the reference charts. I found the rule book a couple of years ago (then on Hasbro's site) but I have yet to find reference charts to set up the pieces. Im really disappointed to not have found it on wikipedia :( 67.169.206.46 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Balanced towards the Allies?
I think not! I prefer to play the Axis powers...I like the hyper-aggressive strategy they need to adopt in order to win. I've been playing A&A for over ten years now, and I certainly don't view the Axis as being at a real disadvantage if an experienced player is at the helm.
--M.U.D.
- You may be right, particularly in competition play with bids, but someone claiming to be the lead developer agrees with the comment right below here... The Land 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd say the lead developer has a vested interest in devaluing the classic edition. After all, he wants us to all go out and buy the new one. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is acting in bad faith, but it takes more than the lead developer's say-so to make a point...
I'm going to go as far as to say the Revised Edition is still an unfair fight for the axis. Germany gets torn apart unless it huddles around Western Europe which can only result in, if all the Allies work together, complete destruction when the full forces of Russia, Britain, and America turn to them. The Allies would be foolish to fight Germany and Japan seperate and if they put all there men into saving russia the axis are bound to lose. Axis and Allies: Revised Edition is alot easier for the Allies.
M.U.D. 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm Mike Selinker, the Revised edition's lead developer. A couple of points on the comments below: The "unbalanced and repetitive" comment is accurate, and was the major reason for the revision. A game can simultaneously be great and broken. That paragraph makes a lot of sense to me.
Hasbro owned Milton Bradley for 15 years before acquiring Avalon Hill. A&A only transfered to Avalon Hill when Revised began development. Pacific and Europe were published under the AH label, but A&A didn't follow them over to that brand until the WIzards staff began revising the original game.
The Nova Games edition was quite different than the MB "big box." Nova became a partner with Larry Harris when he sold the rights to MB, and the Nova edition was taken out of print.
Hope that helps.
--Mike Selinker
Someone obviously feels strongly that we should not include the following paragraph:
"While the original edition was recognised as a classic, many experienced players felt the game quickly became unbalanced and repetitive."
This is a serious view of the original Axis and Allies and is voiced by a large section of the gaming community.
I am sure someone has a good reason for consistently editing it out - what is the reason?
- I agree with the sentiment; not trying to push a POV. IIRC, I deleted that paragraph because it was without context and had some mistakes. The current version is better-developed and in an appropriate place. --Twinxor 16:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... is something like 'A Gamer's Guide to Axis and Allies' really appropriate for an encyclopedia article? To a certain extent I don't mind it, but I think the tone is a bit off.
"When Hasbro acquired the Milton Bradley Company, they kept Axis and Allies in print as part of their Avalon Hill lineup..." Actually, I believe that A&A was in print with Hasbro owning MB for quite a while before Hasbro bought AH (which only happened in the late '90s). But I'm not sure of the timing of MB/Hasbro/Gamemaster, so I'd like someone else to take a crack at rewriting that.
Also, the original Nova Games edition should be mentioned somewhere, but I'm not sure where to slip that in.Rindis 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article lacks experience at serious international league level. For a start, it takes a bid of around 21 IPC to even out the game. With Russian Restriction option bids are about 5-6IPC. Whilst being a gamers guide, it makes no real hint of the different opening strategies, and common nicknames given to various strategies. The tactic insights hinted at are flawed too. A lot more research is required before lending these sorts of insights to the game. I've played it for almost 20 years, and I am still learning more depths and complexities within this game. Any suggestion that the game is 'repetitive' is in my opinion as similar as saying chess is repetitive. (thetommy)
- Yes, I suspect none of the previous editos are international Axis and Allies players. However, I think that paragraph is a fair summary of vanilla A&A, which is an Allied walkover. However, a section in the article on improvements and competitive play rules would be very welcome... The Land 10:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] appropriateness?
The Strategy section seems to me to be in violation of the policy of no original research and verifiability, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions. Is wikipedia a suitable place for a game strategy guide? --Misterwindupbird 03:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since there were no comments, I removed the section. After rereading the no original research and verifiability policies, I'm even more convinced it doesn't belong. --Misterwindupbird 1 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
- I didn't see the change until now. It would have been better to find a reference for preferred strategy (are there no websites with any of this advice?) rather than to delete wholesale. The no-original-research policy is really aimed at people trying to make WP a source of new facts; general commentary on game strategy may be original content, but is not original research. If I were to fiddle with it (I've never played A&A, so not familiar), it would be to delete the prescriptive bits ("you must do X"), find a source for the conventional parts of the strategy, and maybe prune some verbiage. Stan 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
- This sort of thing really is Wikibooks material, where you can go hog wild crazy writing the best strategy guide known to man (cooperatively, of course...) Even if, technically, a strategy guide that would be limited to what "general consensus" agrees with could be included in Wikipedia, it would be a big target for people to add stuff of their own to. Besides—if we need a reference for this, the reader is arguably better off with just a link to that reference, as Wikipedia could only include the "sanitized", non-original-research-y version, which is probably less useful (and difficult to maintain).
- Also, putting the strategy smack-dab in the middle of the article decreases its value to the non-technically inclined readers, who don't want to get bogged down in paragraph after paragraph of strategy before getting to the game's further development. We should probably do this in a separate article for sake of organization, keeping perhaps only the "summary" section in the main article (rewritten to make it less of an informal lecture). On the whole, though, I still say put this in Wikibooks, and link to it from this article. The encyclopedia doesn't seem like a good place for it. 82.92.119.11 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
[edit] I am knowed such games
Between historical things,i poses the first edition of Axis & Allies, and new editions of Axis & Allies Europe and Pacific.
Inclusive how personally analized historical sources,and stay interest in Russian-Japanese incidents,i developed my personal version Axis & Allies "Siberian front" how one "What If?" excercise about one ideed conflict between Imperial and Soviet forces in Siberian Mainland.
writer22
