This is hilarious and accurate, I want to try out the 50th anniversary edition now.

Sometimes in life you have moments that define what a word really means for you. Sometimes it is ‘that defined pain’, some times it is ‘that defined love’. For me, the word quagmire was defined after 11 hours straight of A&A and the score was still tied. Axis and Allied had traded ownership of some cities across the globe but still held the exact same number as at the start of the game.

I ain’t saying we were good at the game, but we had fun with it.

I’ve only played like 2 games of Axis & Allies, but it’s one of my favorite board games. In one of them, I was Germany, sent a panzer armada into Russia, and rolled hits on like 25 of 28 attack dice. It was glorious!

Here’s a hilarious, but accurate, summary of A&A and how a typical game goes:

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Axis_%26_Allies

More plastic than in a modern car. But my lands, look at that gap in the first picture!

So…. Tsar Vladimir I?

+1 that is hilarious

I’ve never understood the hate for Halo 4. I disagree with the story decision to make Forerunners a separate species and revive them as antagonists, but the game is pretty as hell, (mostly) fun to play, introduces new enemies which are interesting to fight, and has an excellent soundtrack that, while aurally distinct from Marty’s work, fits the action perfectly (I am actually listening to it right now!) Also, for my money, the only Halo game with a better story is 2.

You do lose a little of that wide-open sandbox aspect because of how overpowered Watchers are, but I found it nice to mix up weapons and tactics in my Legendary runs instead of leaning on the ol’ reliable noob combo.

Now that I’ve got tons of Infinite multiplayer under my belt, I totally understand why 4’s iteration of the MP is so hated. It’s content to be a (poor) copy of CoD while ignoring all of Halo’s strengths. I think that the hatred of the MP is so strong that it bleeds into hatred of the game itself, which isn’t fair.

Playing a half dozen games of Axis and Allies should be part of the required minimum for anyone who wants to pontificate on WWII. https://www.axisandallies.org/strategies/
The reality is WWI broke the British Empire. She had no strength to handle anything on the mainland. If the French couldn’t handle the ground-pounding from the Germans, no way was a British expeditionary force going to do anything. It’s a credit to the British as a people they stayed engaged against the Germans at all. Once France was eliminated they had no more skin in that game.

That’s the kind of thing Axis and Allies will teach you and bring to life beyond the textbook. It was the red army that bled and died to break the Germans. It was the British hanging on by threads with no real reason to be in the fight. It was the Japanese who had no muscle in the Pacific unless they could break the fleet in Pearl Harbor, which they did not and would not again at Midway. When you play the game you feel the pain!

On the games to learn trajectory: We played the game Roots over Christmas with some family. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/237182/root
Anyone can learn about the different generations of warfare within a single fun game. It takes a minute to learn.
3GW One faction of the forest creatures is the typical dominant empire trying to maintain control.
3GW Another is a resurgent monarchy that can take the field of battle but falls prey to the political infighting of leadership.
4GW The green faction is a batch of communist agitators or green berets, setting up insurgencies and becoming very difficult to stomp out without enormous costs.
5GW The blue guys are representative of the ideological warriors, eg, the Christian missionary winning single hearts and minds in hostile territory while avoiding the swatting hand of aggressive governments.

It’s a gem to play and we had constant remarks like “Oh this is how we lost in Afghanistan” and “Oh I see your fifth column coming up again!” On the first playthrough use the walkthrough guide to speed up the learning process.

Good work on the ‘eavy stuff and keep up the good work!

Frist of all Britian was weak by 1938 and really in throughout the war did not have the power to stop Germany. Without US entering the war the UK miltary after losing France and Singapore would done very little sinve it have to borrow funds and lack the manpower. They probably lose India, Australia and North Africa before Germany invades the USSR. Asian-Pacific, D-day and North Africa were thanks mainly to the Americans.

Usa is weaker and the enemies are stronger than it was in 2001. Just like Britian in 1938 the reality is that it can not and should not try to defend every country disputes. If Russia were to invade the Ukraine. How would or could the US win? (I mean without nukes). A long war with Russia would lead to a ever greater weakening Asian front, allowing China to expand. Lost of troops over sea in another war after years of fighting in the middle east would increase anti war, debt and divide the country further. I am not joking it could lead to a collapse of the US like Russia in 1917 if they keep going overseas and not fixing the problems at home.
You are right about Hilter and Putin. I think these guys are looking at the situation like it is a Hollywood film about WW2. I know with the education since i grew up in Australia is very narrow. They talk about why the war started only looking at Hilter and the demands while only a small part talking about Versailles. Churchill is talked about as a hero and a Prophet. I was told he was right about German and that the allies should of stop hilter earlier. The USSR is only talked about how hilter was mad to invade. Japan is mention due to Pearl Harbour and threat to Australia (bombing of Darwin). The problems with this view of history (other than it is wrong and therefore nor true) is that it is dangerous. Anytime the person looks like Hilter, if it looks like 1936 or the treaty of 1938 than to negotiate is wrong and war is the answer.