I am not saying any of my posted ideas are in the new game. I just making the same point as the OP who like anybody else can post something and have larry say “thats been in my thoughts and its a great idea” He is a great guy who wants everybody to feel comfortable sharing their ideas. He has zero intention of using 99% of these ideas….but the actual answer key as i pointed out before is the total effort of all those posts over years mixed in with his own ideas mutated into most of the games ideas that are finished product. The game was printed long ago and Larry has a copy. Nothing can be changed at this point for at least 5 months, so its not like anything is going to change.
I am most sure the destroyer goes down to 2-2 unit and cruiser is at 3-3, with this i can only speculate the destroyer is now 10 IPC and that change you elude too in your post is not ANYTHING new but a rehashed idea, among other sensible approach to the DNA of the units values per IPC basis. I’m am also quite sure that they will have some unique ability in the game, but it will come out soon.
Just keep thinking about what a wonderful time it will be when we all finally get the objectified look at the game and a pouring of ideas about this and that will be staggering. This site will get real busy real quick. Its really like waiting for the “man landing on the moon” type of feeling for me.
Well said, IL.
@LT04:
Why do you think that getting this game on the shelves takes so long?
The usual answer is that the production in China is behind schedule.
Well said, IL.
@LT04:
Why do you think that getting this game on the shelves takes so long?
The usual answer is that the production in China is behind schedule.
That makes sence. I would think they want a full first batch. Or maybe they wanted to have it hit the shelves at that time to be purchased as a Christmas present.
LT
@Imperious:
On the other issue:
Larry posted that he misspoke and cannot post a picture yet, but he will as soon as he is allowed.
Of course i just relay the info here seconds after its posted.
the window of doing this cant be greater than about 2 weeks because the game will be photographed at Gen Con.
I guess it is possible that AH wants to save photos and have a big “reveal” on their website around the time it is unveiled at Gencon, but given their track record I kind of doubt it.
No i doubt this because AH never could pull off a coordinated marketing effort. The so called marketing staff is way too busy playing D&D anyway to be bothered doing their jobs. The photos will just be released after thousands of pictures instantly appear on every axis and allies site within minutes of Gen Con ( thanks to teams of paparazzi assault groups)
OKW will process these and submit as highest priority.
AH will most likely do nothing till 10 days before the game comes out with articles that are being rushed out at the last minute.
What they did with Revised was adequate . It was a prepared effort. Since then its been dubious efforts.
To get a job at Avalon Hill Marketing department all you need to know is how to handle a mop and empty trash after the employees leave. If AH posted a picture of the blokes that worked for them, you would see a freek show of misfits who obviously could never be employed anywhere else. Tatoos, Pierced earrings, Blue/Green hair, all types of unimaginable riff raff hanging out just sitting around eating…
lol sounds like a real…party place,i myself am really excited to see all the new sculpts and schemes,especially the board itself.
/Imperious leader
The naval balance could be fixed with a few nice changes, will be interesting to see how they do it. If they could fix the sub unit the way they fixed the battleship unit for AARe I would be thrilled.
Maybe we could have a new special ability instead of “first strike”, that one being taken over by cruisers, e.g.:
"Cruiser special ability: fires in “first strike” if no enemy battleships or carriers are present.
Sub special abilities: 1) May avoid combat if in a sea zone adjacent to a friendly land area (i.e., bunkers).
2) May choose to make a strategic attack: may pass through any units and move to a sea zone containing at least one transport. There it fights a combat vs. carriers, fighters, destroyers and transports only. Only subs may take part in the strategic attack and they may not retreat. If only fighters remain on the defending side, the combat ends."
Probably nothing like what Larry et al have done but subs are broken as it is, and they can be fixed in many, many ways…
Maybe FTR’s / BMR’s can’t attack subs without a navy vessel? That would be great.
LT
LYNxes:
The naval balance could be fixed with a few nice changes, will be interesting to see how they do it. If they could fix the sub unit the way they fixed the battleship unit for AARe I would be thrilled.
Where do i start? Basically all the sub interaction ideas of having ships roll out 2 or less to search–-“the sub interaction rules”
were created by larry in 2004 under advanced axis and allies threads on his site. EVERYBODY else bought that idea and used it for their own variants. Its not an “AARe idea” they took it from Larry. The BB fix was also an idea pushed about by people in 2004 and subsequently mined and allocated for hundreds of house rule systems.
It would be accurate to say “I hope Larry uses his original ideas for advanced axis and allies to fix subs in the new game”
I’ve never played AARe nor looked through the rules, so this BB fix that you guys are talking about has piqued my interest. Can you explain exactly what it is/how it is different to normal AAR battleships?
Cheers
The idea is this: BB price goes to 20 IPC, most naval except SS and AP move down 2 IPC or so.
Plus BB gets preemptive fire as long as another BB is NOT present to represent long range guns blowing smaller ships out of the water before they themselves get in range. It takes 2 hits, but you cant repair for free… you roll a d6=cost, and if you roll a 6 again you pay both D6 results. Also, you cannot have more than one BB hit at the same time, you must allocate a non-BB unit if you have it to take the hit first, so you don’t end up with a bunch of BB’s with repairs and the rest of your fleet takes no loses. Thats cheating and not historical.
/Imperious leader
Interesting stuff, I had only a vague idea of how this process has been working out. Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
Subs are normally used in the Pacific by the US as a part of their fleet, it’s the Atlantic that’s the problem. Every sub the Germans build is blown away before reaching the enemy fleet!! The only counter to this is building a CV but this is of course a bit strange. My “sub bunker” rule would be a simple fix as the subs could be transferred to France and then harass UK and US shipping with air support. I have no problem with subs dying quickly, they had a 80-90% loss rate in the war after all, but they MUST be able to cause serious damage otherwise they won’t be built and even less now that the German economy will lose the Italian IPCs.
Probably Larry Harris thinks the search rules are too complex. I think you could have similar effects with other changes, such as: battleships and cruisers may not fire vs. subs.
Not having an IPC damage rule is OK for me as what the subs did was basically to sink ships. The cargo losses I think was not what worried the Allies, it was about sinking more ships than could be built. For every transport sunk, you must build a new one => IPC damage. If subs are really good at sinking ships then there’s no need for convoy zones.
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
He was Larry’s spoke hole and was in charge of writing a few articles, and making sure he was around in case Larry needed some coffee or something. He artificially inflated his role purposely to draw accolades and give himself the stature of a great game designer, but everybody saw thru that. The design is totally Harris with his adjutant mike making only small suggestions of overall nature.
Hes currently working on a new version of ATTACK! which is one of the worst games, except for its diplomacy aspect.
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
Which still does not mean a whole lot.
Larry hated the carrier-rule change. The public loved it.
Also, some things Larry “likes” or “created”, such as random casualties or the “battle box” or D12 dice, work fine for theatre games, but are wholly inappropriate for the main large scale game.
I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.
No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.
‘spoke hole’ is slang for spokesperson. The guy who represents another’s ideas like a PR person.
Larry did just fine with AAE and AAP, except AAE needs some minor tweeks to fix.
Milton Bradley edition was the edition that sold the most. that speaks for itself. I hope its like AAE and AAP except with less territories so Japan cant take out China in 2 turns nor need to get into Russia to win.
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
Which still does not mean a whole lot.
Of course it doesn’t. Without “insider knowledge”, any speculation on the topic is merely opinion.
I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.
No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.
Agreed.
Should we try to guess the changes to the A&A Ann Ed.? I list only those not confirmed by Larry and compiled on this thread;
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782
So, bypassing set-up and territory IPCs values:
What do you think?
sounds good, except Italy seems high and Germany looks weak in IPC
other than that i would be very happy.
You left out defender retreats. This is a must in the game.
Finally, Russia gets some additional cash at the beginning of the game. This could help the Allies win faster(in my opinion), but it will be interesting how Italy will fit with the Axis. Perhaps, the new Axis strategy will be:
Italy fights in Africa (possibly the Middle East) and tries NOT to get Germany distracted by Germany being forced to send troops there
Germany can now finally focus its attention on the Eastern front and against D-Day
Japan now can focus on taking mainland Asia
What do you think? :?
