What was original retail price of A +A Anniversary Edition?

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

For the once liking the OOB map. Here is my scan of the 2nd edition map:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41446.0

When I have the time (my focus is currently on some Global 1940 customizations) I want to update at least the Iwo Jima and Honolulu mistake.

But looking at geography ‘errors’ don’t get me started on the Dutch East Indies and the fake islands they came up with.  :-)

Episode 115

We review Man of Steel and play Anniversary

http://dicetruction.blogspot.ca/

I think they should still cost 5. The Wizards.com FAQ for revised (2004 edition) says AA guns can target fighters or bombers separately. So the AA guns are no stronger in AA50. They are actually weaker because they no longer fire on planes passing over-head like they did in revised.

@SS:

Ok then. Axis player what is the best way to play it , with or without tech and NO’s?

I would preface this with my opinions about these options.

National Objectives

Usually these are more often lost and hard to (re-)obtain for the allies.  The axis are usually advancing and can more easily achieve their national objectives, with the exception of Italy, whom the allies can deny the Italian NOs more easily.

Advantage with National Objectives:  to the Axis

Weapons Development

sidebar
I am not a big fan of the randomness that is built into the achieving of technologies.  Plus the techs are not even in their strengths:  Super Subs for Russia?  practically worthless

But if you play with tech, I think that favors the Axis.  Why?  Most techs are offensive in nature, which is the Axis main strategy/strength, especially early.  It would be nice if Jet Fighters were still a ‘5’ on defense instead of a 4 on offense (no longer a defensive tech).  Similiarly, advanced art could be a defensive aid as well (inf defense to a ‘3’).

Advantage with Weapons Development:  to the Axis

Again, merely my opinion, but with the reason(s) I why I believe so.

Gents

Thanks for all the input.  Much appreciated.

@Hobbes:

There are a few interesting differences from the map pictures:

Japan is now surrounded by a single SZ, instead of the 2 in Revised. This allows for US bombers to attack any ships there and land on that new Russian territory adjacent to SFE and Bur. Japan has a lot of hard choices to make: to take out the 7 inf Russian stack on Buryatia (after moves on R1) or to prevent Manchuria from falling to the Russians; to take Borneo/E. Indies/Phillipines; to hit Pearl; plus Burma/HK/China Egypt is tougher to crack for G1: running a calc gives G 73% odds of conquering it, where before 2 inf 2 arm 1 bmr gave it 95% odds. The Italians seem to have 2 choices: either reinforce Egypt or try to retake it in the case of a UK counterattack, or do the same for the Ukraine. Which would open the way for a German tank rush on Caucasus…i guess that’s why there’s no German INF on Austria, otherwise they could be moved to Rom/Bulg and the G transport on the Med could be used to lift INF for that attack on the Caucasus. G has the option of making an attack on Kar on G1 using the Finnish INF and the transport, plus all of the Luftwaffe, but the AA makes it risky. It can really pay off though because it secures the Baltic countries from any Russian counterattack.

The single seazone around Japan deters even more invading Russia and trying to achieve its historical objectives.