found this on A50:
While I was at GenCon, I played the Anniversary Edition of Axis and Allies. I like the changes Larry Harris has made! The map is bigger and with more territories. The territories expansion was most significant in the Soviet Union and in China. Which is as it should be: both places were big, and Revised didn’t fully take that into account. This one does.
Another improvement is that Japan is in a much more difficult situation with respect to land war. China is now a thorn in Japan’s side, with one Chinese infantry appearing for every two territories China controls. (And there are a lot of Chinese territories.) However, non-Chinese Allied forces are not allowed to combine with Chinese forces.
It’s also difficult for Japan to create a significant threat to Moscow, simply because there is so much space it has to cross before it can get there.
The research system from Revised has been significantly overhauled and upgraded. The way the new research system works is this: you buy research tokens. For each token you have, you get to roll one die. On a six, you get a research breakthrough. If your die roll misses, you roll again the next round. And the next, and the next, until you finally get a research breakthrough. Once you finally do, all your research tokens go away, and you get a new technology in their place. To determine which technology you get, you choose from one of two charts. (There are six items per chart.) After choosing an item, you roll a die. Whatever number comes up on the die is the technology you get.
Even if you buy just one research token, you guarantee yourself a tech sooner or later. But purchasing additional tokens before you get your advance will probably get you it faster. Examples of techs include radar (AA guns fire on a 2), heavy bombers (your bombers get two dice for strategic bombing raids and attacks), shipyards (your naval units cost less), mechanized infantry (each of your tanks can carry one infantry two spaces), improved artillery support (each artillery supports two infantry in any given attack), war bonds (each round, you roll a die, and receive that die roll in extra cash), increased production (each factory can produce two additional units), etc.
Strategic bombing raids work differently than usual. Instead of doing IPC damage directly, bombing raids cause damage counters to be placed underneath an industrial complex. To determine the maximum number of markers that can be under a complex, multiply the underlying territory’s value by 2. So a 10 IPC territory can have 20 markers under its complex. For each damage marker, a factory’s maximum output is reduced by 1. So a factory on a 10 IPC territory with 10 markers cannot produce anything. Additional markers simply reinforce this point. To get rid of damage markers on your factories, you must pay 1 IPC per damage marker. I think there’s a technology which reduces this cost.
Another improvement to this rules set is that transports can no longer be used as cannon fodder. Transports sit out any given naval battle, without firing, and without being able to be taken as casualties. If your combat ships and transports are attacked, and if your combat ships are destroyed, your transports are automatically destroyed also. If you have naked transports, they will automatically be destroyed if attacked.
Game balance seemed to favor the Allies, at least in the '41 scenario. (The game also includes a '42 scenario, which we did not play.) However, this was our first time playing, and it’s possible the mistakes Paul, Brian, and I made with the Axis led to the appearance of an Axis disadvantage. If the '41 scenario really is unbalanced, the problem could be corrected by bidding.
The game includes new unit costs: AA guns now cost 6, bombers 12 or 13 (I don’t remember which), destroyers 8, cruisers 12, battleships 20, submarines 7, and transports 7. However, submarines now attack on a 2 and defend on a 1. Destroyers attack and defend on a 2, and cannot bombard. Cruisers attack and defend on a 12, and can bombard. Battleships are still two hit, attack and defend on a 4, and can bombard. Carriers now cost 14 (I think), with an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2.
There are goals for each nation to achieve which will result in an income boost (typically 5 or 10 IPCs). For example, Italy receives 5 IPCs if there are no Allied ships in the Mediterranean at the end of its turn. Nations typically have two or three such goal. The bonus income is not a one-shot deal: you receive it at the end of each of your turns, assuming you’d achieved the relevant objectives.
I’ll have to play more than one game of this before I say anything for sure. But based on what I’ve seen so far, this is the strongest game in the Axis and Allies series. The difference between this and Revised is bigger than the difference between Revised and Classic.
I can’t think of too many more details, but I’ll add a few more things. I played Japan that game. One of my main problems was that if I wanted to expand westward into mainland Asia, I had to contend with a lot of space. If I wanted to take a northern (i.e., north of Mongolia) route, I had to contend with plenty of 1 IPC Soviet territories. Plus the Soviet Union started off with a good 10 infantry in that general area, which were too far to the east to be of much use against Germany. (Not that he needed them there, as the Russians were doing so well against Germany anyway.) When Greg moved his 10 Russian infantry to the coast/Buryatria equivalent territory, I attacked and killed them at a favorable exchange. A move like that is a no-brainer in Revised, but I think it may have been a tactical victory but strategic mistake in this game. Because of my own loss of strength in that battle, I had many fewer units to stop the problem in my center (China) or the problem to the south (that India factory).
There are more territories in the general neighborhood of India, which serve as a sort of buffer against a Japanese attack. I never posed a real threat to that India factory throughout the game. Another advantage the Allies had was their starting income. Germany’s was in the low 30s, Italy’s was 10, and Japan’s was 16 or 17. In contrast, the Soviet Union had an income of 30, the U.K. somewhere in the 40s, and the U.S. also in the low 40s. (This was the '41 scenario.) Obviously the Axis had to expand quickly before this income situation caught up with it. And there were some expansion opportunities: notably the East Indies and Borneo for Japan, and, in theory, Africa for Germany and Italy.
However, the Axis soon became bogged down. Germany was soon faced with an overwhelming number of Soviet units, which stalled the German advance, and relatively quickly pushed things back into what had been German-held territory. British units in Africa were able to thwart Italy’s efforts there. Japan captured places like the East Indies and Borneo, but didn’t take Australia or New Guinea. (The U.S. was plowing all its money into a Pacific strategy. It used its two starting bombers to bomb Berlin.) Japan starts with fewer land units on islands than in Revised, so (in combination with my low starting income) it was very difficult to make progress along my three land fronts. Plus the Chinese were a pain: they’d take territories from me, then collect one infantry per two territories owned. China was like an open wound, but I simply lacked the land strength to staunch the wound. Because of all my other problems, the British were able to build up their Indian force at a faster pace than I could build up the Indo China counterforce.
Each of the Axis teams spent money on research (5 IPCs for Italy, 10 each for Germany and Japan). In hindsight, this was probably a mistake. There was a long time between spending money on research and actually getting the technology. Once Japan’s technology came, it turned out to be radar. That meant my AA guns fired on a 2. Fat lot of good that did me! Another mistake was that I built more transports than I needed.
With Japan, I made the mistake of trying to be strong everywhere, and was strong nowhere. (Although a portion of my problems were caused by bad dice, especially in China.) I’m not sure if Chinese units are allowed off Chinese soil. If they’re not, it might be tempting to simply abandon China and focus on taking British and Soviet territory. But if Japan decides to take China, it should do so quickly, and with overwhelming force. Letting those Chinese infantry keep cropping up turn after turn is a drain on Japan’s resources which it simply can’t afford. If Japan (finally) makes it through China, it can then begin invading the Soviet Union from the south.
As Greg pointed out, the U.S. player had been in a position to sink my transport fleet–and there were quite a few of them. I’d left a transport as a sacrificial blocking unit. Moreover, I’d placed my main fleet between the U.S. main fleet and my transport fleet. However, you’re allowed to assume that if you’re fighting a battle, all your units will always hit, and all the enemy units will always miss. So the U.S. player was allowed to send one fighter to my main fleet, with the theory being that the American fighter would win the battle. Then the American player would have sent another fighter to my transports off the coast of Japan to sink them. An American carrier would (in theory) move through the sea zone where my main fleet had been, and which that first fighter would have theoretically destroyed. (In reality, both fighters would have been lost, but, technically, they were not kamikazes.) Then the American player would have sent a bomber to take out my sacrificial blocking transport, with two other fighters flying past that sea zone to attack transports located elsewhere. A carrier would then move through the sea zone where the sacrificial transport had been to pick up the second two fighters. This would have resulted in the destruction of my entire transport fleet, as well as the loss of 4 American fighters and a carrier. Even though the American player would have lost a lot, I still think he should have launched this attack. I needed those transports more than he needed that other stuff, and getting rid of them would have gone a long way toward pushing Japan off the mainland. However, the U.S. player decided to conserve his naval strength, presumably because that attack would have slowed his bid to achieve outright naval dominance in the Pacific.
My brother and I identified some things Italy could have done better. It started the game with just one transport. We’ve decided that on its first turn, it should have built another transport, while shipping units to Libya. On its second turn and thereafter, it should have shipped four units to Africa. This would have significantly accelerated the process of taking Africa, which would have given the Axis some desperately-needed income. (When the game ended, the Allies were still getting the Africa income, but the Axis was in a position to take at least temporary control over it.)
The Luftwaffe started with four fighters and a bomber. But it lost two fighters on its first turn when it attacked a British destroyer and cruiser with two fighters and a bomber. (The British lost nothing in that battle.) Germany later spent 20 IPCs replacing those fighters, and it also spent another 10 on research. In contrast, the Soviet Union spent basically everything it had on land units to throw against Germany. With a starting income of 30 IPCs, and with a hefty Soviet land force to begin the game with, it wasn’t long before the German advance had turned into a German withdrawal. In hindsight, Germany should have taken a more cautious approach to naval battles on its first turn, and it should have allocated all its spending to an anti-Russian land war. Also, we should have arranged for the Italians to do most of the fighting in Africa, and for the Germans to end up with most of the African income.
In my last post and in this one, I’ve thrown out hints that the ‘41 scenario might be unbalanced in favor of the Allies. But bear in mind that we were playing without the income bonuses, which I suspect might help balance the game. While those bonuses would probably provide a roughly equal numerical benefit to both sides’ income, the Axis would probably receive more of a benefit than the Allies, especially in the short term. Much of the Allied benefit would be absorbed by the U.S., whereas the Axis benefits would all go to nations which could throw extra units into the front right away. If I as Japan had had, say, 10 or even 15 more IPCs a turn, it would have made it a lot easier to deal with my three land wars (the Soviet Union, China, and the British down in India). Had I been able to achieve a strong local superiority along my central (Chinese) or southern (Indian) front, I could have permanently eliminated that front, while achieving an income boost in the process. Eventually I would have had to contend with the extra American ships the U.S. would have been building with its own income boost. But dealing with that problem could wait until later, and by then my overall land and income situation would have been considerably stronger.
