I grew up playing a massively custom 80s version. My uncle hand painted new territories and even made playable france and italy and each country had unique bonuses.
Thank you for this comparison video! Do note that the Milton Bradley version was not the actual original! Axis & Allies was first published by Nova Games Designs in 1981, and it had cardboard pieces instead of miniatures! Nova sold the game rights and their remaining inventory to Jedko, and they released a version also in 1981. Then Milton Bradley acquired the rights, and their version (with the now familiar plastic miniature pieces) was released in 1984.
Good clarification. Thanks! I never got to play the original original. While the look is very different, it seems to be the same as the MB game. But I could be wrong. Are there any notable gameplay differences between the Nova, Jedko, and MB versions?
@@LakesideGamers5, no differences between the Nova and Jedko versions that I am aware of, but there were some tweaks made when the Milton Bradley version came out such as the map had some territorial differences, some neutrals had IPC value, each country had a special unit or ability, and there was an Atomic Bomb tech. Maybe some other differences I don't recall.
Yes, I had a great time playing it in high school and college as well. I’ve enjoyed spending more time with it recently with my kids. I’m glad you enjoyed the video!
Great vid! After playing a few hundred matches of A&A online I wish they would make the next version more dynamic. The old research tech development was a fine idea, just terribly implemented. Should have been a pure investment of time/money, not as much luck. Also different countries should have different unit costs, to represent the quality of each as well as the ease or difficulty every country has in furnishing such. And finally there should be a better attempt at historical accuracy. 2 fronts for USA and a large economic disparity between Japan and USA.
This was one of my first big strategy games as well. To think that I thought Risk was the coolest game when I was a kid, and then I discovered Axis and Allies.
My introduction to A&A was this previous weekend when I was invited to play UK and ANZAC in a game of 1940 global. So far we are 20 hours and 2 sessions into it, still with about 1/3 of the game to go.
Nice video and overview of the A&A boardgame line! I didn't see the standalone Pacific version in your list which came out in 2001. This is different from Pacific-1940 which was released in 2009. I found a copy of the 2001 version in a game store a couple years ago but haven't got around to playing it yet.
Yes, i have both Pacific games. I decided to not completely hit every version of every game that came out along the way (you’ll notice revised edition is not there either), and while different they were similar enough that I decided to focus in on the newest generation version. I enjoy the Pacific theater games a lot. China’s unique wrinkles are interesting to me, even if they will still get wiped out if the Japanese concentrate on them. But Japan having to choose which direction to go and fighting off attacks from every direction make it a great A&A experience.
Has probably been over 15 years since I played A&A, but I've been thinking about getting back into it. I had the original one, and A&A Europe. I remember in the early-mid 2000s, there where many A&A variants. East and West, The Great War, and, my favorite: Crucible. They were played via PBEM using a program called MapView. I Actually had a physical copy of East and West, but most of it, except the board and the red cardboard tube it shipped in, have been lost to time. Would be cool to MapView make a come-back. I really enjoyed those variants.
Axis and Allies. The one genuinely bad thing about growing up is that there are no longer any whole weeks with half a dozen board-gaming friends in my diary. In fact once we all had families and mortgages those weeks stopped in their tracks 30 years ago. I moved house a few years ago and finally threw away all my unused-for-decades boardgames. Including an almost mint 1980s version of Axis and allies. Oh Father time, you have so much to pay for.
We added nuclear weapons as a special weapon developement. It killed everything in the territory it was.dropped on. We had a crater that symboliized where it was dropped.
Sounds like the Death Star in Star Wars rebellion. :). That would be a fun way to play Axis and Allies. It would be a perfect fit for Zombies, I think.
Are you referencing Battle of the Bulge? That and Guadalcanal are the two I haven’t been able to play. Fortunately I’ll be able to play Guad very soon and rectify that, but I am hoping for a renegade reprint for Battle of the Bulge in the next couple of years so I can complete the collection. :) In real life the Battle of the Bulge was a compelling strategic battle, so it would be interesting to play out on a board.
Got it. I am looking at blood bath 1940 and I love the concept of playing the game that you know you will finish it a shorter amount of time. I’ll have to investigate it more now that you gave me a heads up. :). Have you looked into siredblood’s rule changes as well, or just the map?
@@LakesideGamers5 I downloaded all the rules, and materials for the map. If that is what your referring too? I just spent the last two days seeing if I could use the map to make the game Attack! Better ( I just got them both on sale for 20 bucks). Then I realized all I was doing was converting Attack into Axis and Allies! Otherwise, I havnt had much time to use the map. I dont mind a longer game, as I would play solo
1940 is a truly epic game with huge potential for variety with custom rules and alternate setups. 1941 got me started as a kid, but after getting Europe and Pacific, I never thirsted for much more. 1941 feels like a tutorial, 1942 is for quick games, and Anniversary is just way too overpriced. 1914 is cool but it's not comparable. If you haven't tried them yet, look up the alternate setups for Global 1940. Larry Harris made a 1942 one, Oztea made a 1941, and I even made a 1939 one.
The first edition had one big flaw. If the Germans didn't take Syria/Iraq on their first turn, the game was over. England would build a factor in Iran on their first turn, and could dump all their new units in there every turn, to feed into africa, Moscow, or India. In that version of the game new factories could build as many units as you wanted. So getting a factory in Iran meant England didn't even have to bother building ships.
Fascinating. Most of my experience with the original version was with the computer game in the ‘90s, and the computer NEVER built a factory in the Middle East. I always found Axis easy because Germany could blitz Russia super fast, and I would build some factories in China with Japan, and the combination of those two things happening would take out Russia before they had a chance to get traction. I might need to pull out the old computer game, play all the factions on my own, and try the Middle East factory and see how it disrupts my traditional strategies. Thanks for the tip!
I remember Japan building a factory in Spain to combat the western allies, also the Commander in Chief rules allowed multinational forces to attack together, not just defending together, these rules were deleted by 1987, it was quite a challenge for the Axis to overcome, but sometimes with patience, preparation and lunch the Axis could really come out ahead,. I'd like to see the Commander in Chief rules restored as a technology development, only with the technology can a player become a part of the multinational attacking forces.
@@mikedearing6352 Very interesting! I have not heard of that rule variant. Sounds OP, so it makes sense that they made sure to get rid of it. I like your idea of using it as a technology upgrade, as that would definitely be an incentive to take the risk and try to get the significant reward of co-op attacking.
@@LakesideGamers5 yeah, it was mostly unfair because Russia was never integrated with the western armies, but the rule allowed any Allie as Commander in Chief making the allied pile in Leningrad and too powerful, Germany would often have to turtle by retreating to Germany and waiting for the opportunity to strike...or a Japanese unit to arrive and become Commander in Chief, timing is the key, with Italy available it would be more helpful for the Axis command structure. Amphibious threats were the worst as Russia turn one always landed 1 Russian infantry in England and they stack up 3 control markers identifying the Russians as Commander in Chief of everything in England...
Up to 5 for 1941 and 1942 and Zombies. 1940 Global could theoretically do 9 (Germany, Japan, Italy, US, USSR, UK, France, China, ANZAC), but France gets wiped out turn 1 before they even go and ANZAC and China are each really small, so if one person played all 3 of those teams you could do 7. Anniversary would be best max 6. 1914 can do 7 but the US is sitting around the first few rounds doing nothing, so 6 is probably a better max for that one. The scenario battles (D-Day, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge) are essentially 2 player battles, though the presence of British troops in D-Day make it where you could play with three.
Have you decided which one you would get? 1942 is good for the standard game, though if you were able to find the Anniversary Edition it would allow you to have Italy as a playable country. I’m biased toward 1914, but I know it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
@@LakesideGamers5 It's too expensive for my parents to buy. But my uncle from the USA will bring it to me when he comes here. So until February I will have to wait.
Anniversary and 1914 are the best imo. The 1942 version is too basic and the scale of the 1940 versions is too large (especially global). Anniversary is a perfect middle ground. As for 1914, I just love how different it is from the others.
I absolutely love 1914 and I was able to see the Anniversary tournament play out at GenCon this weekend and I was impressed enough to get the play mat for it and am really looking forward to finally get to play that version for myself.
When Renegade games did a poll on which battle they would make into a new game a few months ago, I voted for Stalingrad. North Africa should be interesting, but Stalingrad would be such a compelling battle. Battle of Britain and Midway would be the others I would love to see to highlight Naval and Air warfare in a quick battle.
It would be difficult, since there were two stages to the battle, there was the German advance on the Volga, and the Russian encirclement of the 8th army of 250,000 Germans by 2 million Soviet soldiers. The biggest moment of uncertainty was Stalin's relocation of the 2 million man army from Moscow to Stalingrad. This would be difficult to get accross in a game focused on the battle, you would need a game that focuses on the entire eastern front.
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up playing a massively custom 80s version. My uncle hand painted new territories and even made playable france and italy and each country had unique bonuses.
Your version sounds like it was ahead of its time. :)
Is there an image of it? I would love to see it.
Thank you for this comparison video! Do note that the Milton Bradley version was not the actual original! Axis & Allies was first published by Nova Games Designs in 1981, and it had cardboard pieces instead of miniatures! Nova sold the game rights and their remaining inventory to Jedko, and they released a version also in 1981. Then Milton Bradley acquired the rights, and their version (with the now familiar plastic miniature pieces) was released in 1984.
Good clarification. Thanks! I never got to play the original original. While the look is very different, it seems to be the same as the MB game. But I could be wrong. Are there any notable gameplay differences between the Nova, Jedko, and MB versions?
@@LakesideGamers5, no differences between the Nova and Jedko versions that I am aware of, but there were some tweaks made when the Milton Bradley version came out such as the map had some territorial differences, some neutrals had IPC value, each country had a special unit or ability, and there was an Atomic Bomb tech. Maybe some other differences I don't recall.
Great video!
Thank you! I love your Axis and Allies videos as well. Anyone who watches mine should definitely check out yours.
@@LakesideGamers5 - Thanks! We should team up sometime! Let me know if you have any thoughts on a project we could collaborate on.
Great video, Axis & Allies was always a great time back in high school
Yes, I had a great time playing it in high school and college as well. I’ve enjoyed spending more time with it recently with my kids. I’m glad you enjoyed the video!
Great vid! After playing a few hundred matches of A&A online I wish they would make the next version more dynamic. The old research tech development was a fine idea, just terribly implemented. Should have been a pure investment of time/money, not as much luck. Also different countries should have different unit costs, to represent the quality of each as well as the ease or difficulty every country has in furnishing such. And finally there should be a better attempt at historical accuracy. 2 fronts for USA and a large economic disparity between Japan and USA.
Great Axis and Allies video! Immediately gave you a sub.
I love strategy games thanks to this one!
This was one of my first big strategy games as well. To think that I thought Risk was the coolest game when I was a kid, and then I discovered Axis and Allies.
My introduction to A&A was this previous weekend when I was invited to play UK and ANZAC in a game of 1940 global. So far we are 20 hours and 2 sessions into it, still with about 1/3 of the game to go.
Great breakdown of the different versions, thank you!
Nice video and overview of the A&A boardgame line!
I didn't see the standalone Pacific version in your list which came out in 2001. This is different from Pacific-1940 which was released in 2009. I found a copy of the 2001 version in a game store a couple years ago but haven't got around to playing it yet.
Yes, i have both Pacific games. I decided to not completely hit every version of every game that came out along the way (you’ll notice revised edition is not there either), and while different they were similar enough that I decided to focus in on the newest generation version. I enjoy the Pacific theater games a lot. China’s unique wrinkles are interesting to me, even if they will still get wiped out if the Japanese concentrate on them. But Japan having to choose which direction to go and fighting off attacks from every direction make it a great A&A experience.
Has probably been over 15 years since I played A&A, but I've been thinking about getting back into it. I had the original one, and A&A Europe. I remember in the early-mid 2000s, there where many A&A variants. East and West, The Great War, and, my favorite: Crucible. They were played via PBEM using a program called MapView. I Actually had a physical copy of East and West, but most of it, except the board and the red cardboard tube it shipped in, have been lost to time. Would be cool to MapView make a come-back. I really enjoyed those variants.
Axis and Allies. The one genuinely bad thing about growing up is that there are no longer any whole weeks with half a dozen board-gaming friends in my diary. In fact once we all had families and mortgages those weeks stopped in their tracks 30 years ago. I moved house a few years ago and finally threw away all my unused-for-decades boardgames. Including an almost mint 1980s version of Axis and allies. Oh Father time, you have so much to pay for.
When you pass, St Peter will ask you about this FYI.
@@RubensBarrichello.Throwing out a near mint A&A rather than donating or selling it; that’s a first degree felony if not the death penalty lol.
My 80's is no where near mint. The box is almost falling apart. But at least we do drag it out every year or so to play.
I think you forgot a phase in your life, divorce then retirement. Lots of time to make new friends and play military games with your old ones.
Great review, thanks! Looking for a version to get my kids interested, very helpful
We added nuclear weapons as a special weapon developement. It killed everything in the territory it was.dropped on. We had a crater that symboliized where it was dropped.
Sounds like the Death Star in Star Wars rebellion. :). That would be a fun way to play Axis and Allies. It would be a perfect fit for Zombies, I think.
Replaced Heavy Bombers right? 😂
I actually have an expansion that introduced nuclear weapons. It really took away from the base game.
Really interesting games!. Thanks for sharing!.🙏👍👊
I agree! Some of my favorites. Thanks for stopping by!
Have you looked at the BB5 map? I just got it. Im not sure what to do with it yet, but it looks like there is alot of potential there.
Are you referencing Battle of the Bulge? That and Guadalcanal are the two I haven’t been able to play. Fortunately I’ll be able to play Guad very soon and rectify that, but I am hoping for a renegade reprint for Battle of the Bulge in the next couple of years so I can complete the collection. :) In real life the Battle of the Bulge was a compelling strategic battle, so it would be interesting to play out on a board.
@@LakesideGamers5 No, the massive Bloodbath 5 map.
Got it. I am looking at blood bath 1940 and I love the concept of playing the game that you know you will finish it a shorter amount of time. I’ll have to investigate it more now that you gave me a heads up. :). Have you looked into siredblood’s rule changes as well, or just the map?
@@LakesideGamers5 I downloaded all the rules, and materials for the map. If that is what your referring too? I just spent the last two days seeing if I could use the map to make the game Attack! Better ( I just got them both on sale for 20 bucks). Then I realized all I was doing was converting Attack into Axis and Allies! Otherwise, I havnt had much time to use the map. I dont mind a longer game, as I would play solo
I think, In my opinion, the 1940 games are the best out of all of them
1940 is a truly epic game with huge potential for variety with custom rules and alternate setups. 1941 got me started as a kid, but after getting Europe and Pacific, I never thirsted for much more. 1941 feels like a tutorial, 1942 is for quick games, and Anniversary is just way too overpriced. 1914 is cool but it's not comparable.
If you haven't tried them yet, look up the alternate setups for Global 1940. Larry Harris made a 1942 one, Oztea made a 1941, and I even made a 1939 one.
great video mate
Thanks!
Great explanation!
Thanks! I’m glad you liked it!
Very useful thanks
You are welcome!
The first edition had one big flaw. If the Germans didn't take Syria/Iraq on their first turn, the game was over. England would build a factor in Iran on their first turn, and could dump all their new units in there every turn, to feed into africa, Moscow, or India. In that version of the game new factories could build as many units as you wanted. So getting a factory in Iran meant England didn't even have to bother building ships.
Fascinating. Most of my experience with the original version was with the computer game in the ‘90s, and the computer NEVER built a factory in the Middle East. I always found Axis easy because Germany could blitz Russia super fast, and I would build some factories in China with Japan, and the combination of those two things happening would take out Russia before they had a chance to get traction. I might need to pull out the old computer game, play all the factions on my own, and try the Middle East factory and see how it disrupts my traditional strategies. Thanks for the tip!
I remember Japan building a factory in Spain to combat the western allies, also the Commander in Chief rules allowed multinational forces to attack together, not just defending together, these rules were deleted by 1987, it was quite a challenge for the Axis to overcome, but sometimes with patience, preparation and lunch the Axis could really come out ahead,. I'd like to see the Commander in Chief rules restored as a technology development, only with the technology can a player become a part of the multinational attacking forces.
Luck, after lunch..
@@mikedearing6352 Very interesting! I have not heard of that rule variant. Sounds OP, so it makes sense that they made sure to get rid of it. I like your idea of using it as a technology upgrade, as that would definitely be an incentive to take the risk and try to get the significant reward of co-op attacking.
@@LakesideGamers5 yeah, it was mostly unfair because Russia was never integrated with the western armies, but the rule allowed any Allie as Commander in Chief making the allied pile in Leningrad and too powerful, Germany would often have to turtle by retreating to Germany and waiting for the opportunity to strike...or a Japanese unit to arrive and become Commander in Chief, timing is the key, with Italy available it would be more helpful for the Axis command structure. Amphibious threats were the worst as Russia turn one always landed 1 Russian infantry in England and they stack up 3 control markers identifying the Russians as Commander in Chief of everything in England...
How many players does each version support?
Up to 5 for 1941 and 1942 and Zombies. 1940 Global could theoretically do 9 (Germany, Japan, Italy, US, USSR, UK, France, China, ANZAC), but France gets wiped out turn 1 before they even go and ANZAC and China are each really small, so if one person played all 3 of those teams you could do 7. Anniversary would be best max 6. 1914 can do 7 but the US is sitting around the first few rounds doing nothing, so 6 is probably a better max for that one. The scenario battles (D-Day, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge) are essentially 2 player battles, though the presence of British troops in D-Day make it where you could play with three.
I subscribed
Thank you! Welcome!
I'm thinking of getting a Axis and Allies game. I would probably get the 1942 version or the WW1 version.
Have you decided which one you would get? 1942 is good for the standard game, though if you were able to find the Anniversary Edition it would allow you to have Italy as a playable country. I’m biased toward 1914, but I know it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
@@LakesideGamers5 It's too expensive for my parents to buy. But my uncle from the USA will bring it to me when he comes here.
So until February I will have to wait.
@@ChileanWagner.777 Well, I hope you are able to get it and enjoy it!
@@LakesideGamers5 Thanks. I will update you when my uncle visits me next year.
Anniversary and 1914 are the best imo. The 1942 version is too basic and the scale of the 1940 versions is too large (especially global). Anniversary is a perfect middle ground. As for 1914, I just love how different it is from the others.
I absolutely love 1914 and I was able to see the Anniversary tournament play out at GenCon this weekend and I was impressed enough to get the play mat for it and am really looking forward to finally get to play that version for myself.
Axis and allies. Europe was a great game, but how come they don’t have Stalingrad as a board game
When Renegade games did a poll on which battle they would make into a new game a few months ago, I voted for Stalingrad. North Africa should be interesting, but Stalingrad would be such a compelling battle. Battle of Britain and Midway would be the others I would love to see to highlight Naval and Air warfare in a quick battle.
@@LakesideGamers5 I mean you had Germany, Italy, Romania Bulgaria against Russia. I would love to see those pieces on the board.
It would be difficult, since there were two stages to the battle, there was the German advance on the Volga, and the Russian encirclement of the 8th army of 250,000 Germans by 2 million Soviet soldiers. The biggest moment of uncertainty was Stalin's relocation of the 2 million man army from Moscow to Stalingrad. This would be difficult to get accross in a game focused on the battle, you would need a game that focuses on the entire eastern front.
Revised edition??!!
👍👍
Much appreciated!
God bless you
You as well!