I was planning to do what you are attempting combining Gathering Storm and AWAW, but I don't think I will ever be able to handle the rulebook. I will probably try Fire In The East instead. Though I may be barmy because I have already got the Der Weltkrieg Grand Campaign going in the spare room.
It's probably best to play just ONE, rather than try to figure out how to cope with both at the same time. The shocking thing is that GS is about as tough to figure out as AWAW - there is no reason for that.
Great video. I see AWAW as being more of a simulation than a game, and a lot of the special rules are a bit more understandable by understanding why they happen. I see it more as a means of experiencing WWII, rather than simply being a game you play to beat your opponent.
The thing is that WiF is playing on about the same level - and has no where near the same issues with the rules. From discussions I'm having with real devotees of the game today, it's actually the COMPETITIVE side of the game that has made the rules the way they are.
"Japan deploys before China. so the silly partisan situation doesn't happen" _ Wow - I must be dyslexic. After reading it wrong TWICE, now it is correct. :P
Unfortunately there are people out there that cannot get a grip on how to play these fine games. I have been playing A3R, AWAW, GS, then SOA for almost 30 years. Maybe people can play Axis and Allies instead. A much simpler game for the simple minded.
@@calandale I agree to disagree. AWAW, GS, & SOA are games by many. You can say the same thing about Axis and Allies, yet A&A only has a few pages of rules.
Let's not discuss A&A in this. Its size means it doesn't need good professional developers who understand the hobby as a whole. This rule set would have greatly been aided by such. And by blindtesting. Instead, it was refined by the online committee of what few fans remained.
Compare, for example, to the similarly scoped WiF, which also has been through many iterations over the years. No monstrosity of an overbloated rulebook. AWAW took the fan-written Magic Realm edition approach - let's try and nail every little thing down precisely, using as many words as possible, making the game unapproachable to any who haven't been following every iteration. Even the fairly simple Gathering Storm is plagued by these same issues.
@@calandale Many debates about the Axis and Allies rules have been greatly debated over the years. Even with experienced player at gaming championships.
Not trying to be disagreeable at all, but I feel that your comment was a bit over-the-top and not particularly well founded. Maybe you were just reacting to this video that really does not properly assess the game and why it has a large rules book. Thousands of devoted fans of this game would beg to disagree with both this video and your comment. It’s simply a matter of personal taste. Monster wargames are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I hardly think that means they should not be manufactured. Let the free market decide. I can tell you that the wargaming community marketplace has already spoken. AWAW and it’s predecessor titles span almost 49 years of being played and enjoyed. I am one of those gamers. I’ve been playing the Third Reich system since Avalon Hill launched it in the 1970’s. I friggin’ LOVE the game and it’s evolution over the years.
Aw Gawd!
I'm re-watching this because Enrico has been on a train game kick...
I was planning to do what you are attempting combining Gathering Storm and AWAW, but I don't think I will ever be able to handle the rulebook. I will probably try Fire In The East instead. Though I may be barmy because I have already got the Der Weltkrieg Grand Campaign going in the spare room.
It's probably best to play just ONE, rather than try to figure out how to cope with both at the same time.
The shocking thing is that GS is about as tough to figure out as AWAW - there is no reason for that.
Good and funny at the end!
This looks reidculosly crazy. I have come around and love the ETO Unconditional Surrender. I don 't have the energy to play this solo.
You get something very different from this game than you do from USE.
Great video. I see AWAW as being more of a simulation than a game, and a lot of the special rules are a bit more understandable by understanding why they happen. I see it more as a means of experiencing WWII, rather than simply being a game you play to beat your opponent.
The thing is that WiF is playing on about the same level - and has no where near the same issues with the rules. From discussions I'm having with real devotees of the game today, it's actually the COMPETITIVE side of the game that has made the rules the way they are.
Hilarious ending...
@calandale I always wanted to play this game with 2 players, but now I am more confused than I was before, any tips?
Thanks in advance!
The A3R rulebook was easier, if that helps?
"Japan deploys before China. so the silly partisan situation doesn't happen" _
Wow - I must be dyslexic. After reading it wrong TWICE, now it is correct. :P
Maybe you should just give this game a miss. it sounds like you are torturing yourself trying to deal with that monster rule book.
This is how I cope.
Unfortunately there are people out there that cannot get a grip on how to play these fine games. I have been playing A3R, AWAW, GS, then SOA for almost 30 years. Maybe people can play Axis and Allies instead. A much simpler game for the simple minded.
The real problem is the rules - and the insular manner in which they were developed.
@@calandale I agree to disagree. AWAW, GS, & SOA are games by many. You can say the same thing about Axis and Allies, yet A&A only has a few pages of rules.
Let's not discuss A&A in this. Its size means it doesn't need good professional developers who understand the hobby as a whole.
This rule set would have greatly been aided by such. And by blindtesting. Instead, it was refined by the online committee of what few fans remained.
Compare, for example, to the similarly scoped WiF, which also has been through many iterations over the years.
No monstrosity of an overbloated rulebook.
AWAW took the fan-written Magic Realm edition approach - let's try and nail every little thing down precisely, using as many words as possible, making the game unapproachable to any who haven't been following every iteration.
Even the fairly simple Gathering Storm is plagued by these same issues.
@@calandale Many debates about the Axis and Allies rules have been greatly debated over the years. Even with experienced player at gaming championships.
This disgrace should never have been manufactured.
Not trying to be disagreeable at all, but I feel that your comment was a bit over-the-top and not particularly well founded. Maybe you were just reacting to this video that really does not properly assess the game and why it has a large rules book. Thousands of devoted fans of this game would beg to disagree with both this video and your comment. It’s simply a matter of personal taste. Monster wargames are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I hardly think that means they should not be manufactured. Let the free market decide. I can tell you that the wargaming community marketplace has already spoken. AWAW and it’s predecessor titles span almost 49 years of being played and enjoyed. I am one of those gamers. I’ve been playing the Third Reich system since Avalon Hill launched it in the 1970’s. I friggin’ LOVE the game and it’s evolution over the years.
Looks similar to Cataclysm and thus unplayable.
Oh no. This is far harder than Cataclysm.
@@calandale All I can say is...why? When the minutia takes over, it just isn't fun anymore.
@@wartable Some people enjoy the minutia. Some people just enjoy watching Enrico go insane. The world is a big place.
@@wartable And I'd argue that Cataclysm has been, for me at least, the most playable grand strategic for WW2 out there.