News flash: AXIS & ALLIES ANNIVERSARY EDITION due out oct 23 08

I can also imagine an all Axis turn followed by an all Allies turn.

I also have a feeling they use the mechanics from Guad, so all players load and move transports, then BB’s, CV’s, aircrafts, tanks, inf etc, and then all players attack air units, then attack naval units, and last attack land units. Now this work well in Guad, but I dont know about Anniversary ed and 6 players, might be a mess

@tekkyy:

ah yeah
Italy between UK and US can disrupt US reinforcement
western europe and even Algeria
yes new gameplay dynamics indeed

Were do you put Japan then? 2 consecutive axis turns is too much maybe… or add China  :-D and make the turn as this

USSR
Germany
UK
Japan
China
Italy
USA

Also, a good addition would be different scenarios: 1939, spring 1941, spring 1942 maybe…

in keeping with no China (as thats how it is), i would say the best is:

Germany
USSR
Japan
UK
Italy
US

why?
it makes no sence for Russia to go before Germany as Russia should be reacting to Germany. also it allows Russia to start with W Russia in there hands and not have the German front streached unless they want it to be. also it makes W Russia if liberated by US/UK go back to Russia as it should IMHO.
Russia goes next so they can react and also move before Japan so Japan dosn’t kill there Eastern front before they can react.
then Japan, this allows Japan to make the Pearl harbor attack if they want with out interuption and also have the inishative in the East.
UK next as they can now react to the war that just hit them on both fronts (granted they were already at war with Germany, but not so much Japan so thats why hear).
Italy, this way no Axis or Allies are back to back, other wise they would go around the time of Germany, but that would make for too much of a 1/2 punch for both Axis and the Allies. (Germany take Italy reinforce or UK take and US reinforce).
last is the US as they don’t enter the war till after the Japan attack, but the reason for so far after Japan is simply break up.

now i have sceen ppl say make an Allies turn and an Axis turn, i don’t care for this personally. it may be fun to try, but i think it causes problems in that it would basicly be a 2 person game with just a straight up back and forth push. not that this is nessisarally bad as it would allow the UK/US to land together, but it also allows the 3 Allies to make a big push together.
Russia is always in a tight spot with it’s need for lots of infantry but not much other stuff. by doing the linked turn if i was US or even UK i would focouse on Air and not ground units to send to Russia and then let Russia clame the teritories well the UK/US provide all the Air power=punch. end result would be in game turms now of Russia having a huge Air force to gain land with a huge army of infantry and artillary. i think this would dominate in Europe. 1 US bomber ariving each turn and 2 UK fighters a turn with the Russian stacks of infantry. i doupt Germany and Italy could fight against such a huge force that could attack them together each turn.

OK, let’s talk without China:

No problem with USSR going after Germany if it’s june 1941 or spring, 1942 scenarios. However, 1941, december or  1942, december, need USSR first as they were counter attacking. This is only for historical accuracy, maybe for gameplaying is better start at 1941, june and go 1st Germany, 2nd USSR.

However, Japan before UK is another totally different issue. It would prevent any counter from India to Egypt and any KJF based on India’s IC. This should be avoided unless UK gets massive deployed units at India or receive a Burma buffer territory to prevent Japan taking India (even in 1941, june -> FIC was Japanese and Japan also had her China holdings). In any case, it would need some work (specially june, 41 scenario, unless USA receives Dutch Indies or such).

Ugh, it’s even worst… Italy couldn’t take Egypt and India issue would still there  :-o

I’d suggest (without China, assuming 1941, June):

Germany
USSR
Italy
UK
Japan
USA
Check for victory

It let’s Italy conquer Egypt and UK retaking or going for India’s IC (her choice). Of course, Italy, couldn’t prevent the reinforcemnet UK+USA, but think about it as a lessened D-Day.

The best of this order is that puts the lesser Axis power in the middle, not inbalancing playing Germany and Japan too near.

a simple fix for the India thing is make the India teritory (maybe all of SE or Eastern Asia) like it is in A&A pacific. UK has a factory to start with and a India buffer teritory so UK can’t lose the factory early.
as for Africa, Italy could take Egypt first turn still as i’m sure Italy will have a moderatlly large navy on it’s first turn, Egypt won’t have more then a few units so can’t hammer into the Italian troops and win, so between the Italian navy drop and whats already there it should be little trouble. it just allows the UK to evacuate if it wants or make some kind of gambit to counter. i always personally haited that the UK got ripped apart on G1. this if done right prevents the tare apart of both Egypt and navy in Europe region well at the same time wouldn’t allow UK to make for a large strike of any kind… in other words UK keeps some starting units (or can) but dosn’t gain any real ground.

@Imperious:

I think the main reason why the German player needs to move first is to finally solve and end the bidding system in these games so the Axis don’t need anything to compensate for the fact that they need a good start to have a chance.

Agree, the bid sistem should be eliminated, but it also can be done simply putting more units on deploy. 1 ITA art to lyb and maybe 2 GER infs at ukr could be enough.

I think deployment will be greatly changed anyway with Italy and starting in 41, june (even with dec, 41, a good starting date, I think).

And I agree, the indian IC and Burma buffer territory would solve the problem.

:-o
All Speculations aside, If it doesn’t work for us, we will change it to what we do like, eventually  :wink:

As far as the bid system goes, that has always been a good way to pick sides. removes the arguement potential about who gets to play what.

OoP;
    Germany
    Russia
    Italy
    UK
    Japan
    USA
This seems like the least painful way to insert Italy, due to Germany / Russia switch. The Italins can still reinforce the German advances and do ther usual thing in Egypt.
And Uk can still get to mess with Japan, which I personnly don’t like, but UK can only do one of two important thigs, retake Egypt or attack Japans fleet.
  Japans holdings will be less than revised, as US will still hold the Phillipines and other Islands, wake, Solomans, etc… And Uk will hold New Gunia and Borneo.
Map changes should include:
    the Alution Islands of Alaska being two seperate areas, as fighting did take place there, granted not critical, but the Japanese there could not have been ignored either.
  Japan, Australia, India, and even Egypt-Sudan should be 2 areas.
    Greater China should be 3 areas.
Capitals should be circle territories within their greater territory. Once the greater territory is captured, the Capital is limited to only a certain amount of Infantry reinforcements, let’s say for arguments sake, 4 Infantry. Capitals are also not blitzable. As in Classic, “special small territories” World edge boxes can be used to hold the extra capital troops.
And I like a “Buy and placement phase” prior to the first player going, where everyone makes their buys at the same time, and then places their buys at their ICs’, like in Samurii swords. This may have to be done in sequence in a on line game, but not a big progaming problem. PBEM is another ball of wax altogether, Hmmm, anyone got any ideas there.
  And if paratroops and Marines and Guards units, and super-tanks and such can be added, all the better! :-D
Well, that is my wish list, What’s yours?

As far as the map goes I would like to see…

1. China(Manchuria, China, Sinkiang, Kwangtung) be broken up into 6 territories. Probably adding Korea and another territory.
2. FIC broken up into 2 territories.
3. Western Europe, Southern Europe and Germany broken up into 5-6 territories. The eastern front has many territories but the western front is lacking.
4. Siberia should have another territory added to better simulate the distance to Moscow from the Pacific war.
5. Africa should have 3-4 territories added. These would be worth 0 ipcs. This would better simulate the distance in Africa plus reflect how underdeveloped it is with 0 ipc territories.
6.Austrailia should be 2 territories.

Play…
1. Convoy zones are a must.
2. A few naval bases would be great in the Pacific to get the USA into that theatre faster. The Atlantic doesn’t need bases. Airbases are probably not necessary.
3. I hope they have come up with a way to do an all Axis and all Allies turn but they probably haven’t.

I’m wondering how the Cruiser will function and how much they have demoted the destroyer.

I think everyone is suggesting too many changes.  A thread should be made in house rules to argue about one or two changes that aren’t drastic that would improve or at least change gameplay.

I like the order of Ger/Rus/Jap/Uk/It/Us.  Germany gets to attack russians first, Japan gets to attack allies first.  Its sets up great for a mid-1941 start.

What is “pet pees” ?

What is “sucks” ?

I am from Norway not at luxury speaking own language

one more + karma to my favourite Hun. Hi Hun, last one is from me

Well the post from Mr. Harris cleared up some questions, but we’re all still chomping at the bit for more information. Hopefully, the Harris game site and Wizards will be releasing some more info, like pics of the board and the new pieces. That would be sweet to actually see some pics and will surely tide most of us over, at least for a short time.

@Adlertag:

What is “pet pees” ?

What is “sucks” ?

I am from Norway not at luxury speaking own language

I think it was meant to be “pet peeves” which are things that make a person angry  :x or frustrated  :?. Things a person always gets mad at. Usually they are particular to an individual.

“Sucks” or in the context “sucks to be you” is a slang for ‘bad’ or maybe ‘crappy’ (crap as in excrement) or more diplomaticly “I’m glad I don’t want terrain because if I were Aldertag it would keep making me mad that I’m not going to get it.”

Also I don’t think Larry meant it as much other than a good natured joke. Sometimes “sucks to be you” is not meant kindly but I don’t think that is the case here.

Thanks Frimmel and Yoper

OK, somebody said there are more info if you go to “Entry” in Boardgamegeek.
Any link ?
And where are "“Entry” ? I cant find it, man

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/35052

Thanks Craig. I will certainly be keeping an eye on GenCon to see updates for the release notes and pics. I’m sure the board alone will be stunning to see. Only four months to go before GCI and the unveiling. Sweet.