Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro

@WILD:

Balance would be achieved if the Anzac & UK are still separate units (they have different colors) but are both controlled by the UK and allowed to take their turn as one nation.

:?, that would not change anything at all that is how it noramlly is. Allow australia to take their turn with the US, that is fairly hisotrical and that would defently encourage the US to invest in the pacifc. With the UK controlling austrilia they mainly let if die or beg the US to send some fighters towards it.

Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.

@Brain:

Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.

that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,

the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general

Emperor, I don’t think you read all my remarks.
@WILD:

I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so.

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game. There could also be a NO for commonwealth linked to it. Money talks.
Also it sounds like there will be an IC in some of the commonwealth tt. What stops the UK from investing in those areas is they have to first buy the IC only to see Japan target it. Now that that decision will be made for them I think the UK will invest $ down under (maybe forced to by rule).
I am wondering when/how Anzac will take its turn in the global game.
1)Two separate nations (like Germ & Italy)
2)Separate but together (like US & China)
3)All together, Anzac & Uk separate units but attack/def as one power.
Although the US had command of the pacific the Anzac was still part of the UK commonwealth. However if the Anzac were given option#3 it would be cool if they could give up there part with the UK and attack w/US later in that round. Kind like a joint strike.
I think the allies will try to get the most out of their minor powers Anzac, China and even the French.
I also agree the oob should dictate balance in each theater, not a house rule.

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game.

If they dont keep them in the game then Japan would spend the money so I fail to see your point.

@Brain:

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game.

If they dont keep them in the game then Japan would spend the money so I fail to see your point.

My bad! I read that wrong. I agree with you 100%

@SgtBlitz:

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Brain:

Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.

that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,

the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general

Heh, guess I’m a troll, any threads I make invariably devolve into discussions involving historical accuracy or gameplay mechanics… OR…

OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!!  No wonder WoTC has such an easy time shoving 4023423908 box editions of Axis and Allies down your throats.  Apparently you LIVE for the next variant/edition.  Which usually doesn’t fix ANYTHING, cause you’d need something with the complexity of Hearts of Iron to please the historical fanboys, something like Squad Leader to please the tactical base, and something simple like RISK to please the strategic masterminds.  AXIS AND ALLIES DOESN’T EVEN REMOTELY COVER ALL THOSE BASES.  SO YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY, OK?  JUST ENJOY THE GAME FOR WHAT IT IS.  Play something else that is more suited to what you’re interested in, TONS of different WWII video/board games out there… (which IS part of the original point I’ve been making, video game programs simplify the HELL out of this discussion).

As for Japan threatening Moscow… IF Japan had headed WEST instead of EAST in its plunge for world domination, there were MANY 2nd 3rd world semi-industrialized post-colonial countries RIPE for nationalization/liberation from the Allied powers.  LOTS of countries were pissed off at being colonial powers.

IF Japan had liberated/nationalized Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East AND kicked the British out of Africa it would have possessed all the oil, gas, rubber AND probably pissed off colonial manpower the Axis would have EVER needed.  Russia would definitely have been fighting on two fronts in the Caucaus.  Would America have joined the war IF Japan hadn’t pulled a Pearl Harbor?

With America’s standing as a neutral power in 1941 (! even up to the last minute before Pearl Harbor !) I don’t think so.

SgtBlitz, I have been very please with every A&A game I have bought, I finish a face to face game of AA50(best one) at least twice a month. So it dosnt follow that I think A&A is horrible because i have many suggestions for improvement. If you think classic is the greatest game ever then what is your problem?

Also, A&A is very historical in a number of respects and with simple additional rules it a very resonable representation of the war and your simplistic explanation of why A&A is unhistroical or why certain powers joined the war shows a negligible lack of respect for the complex nature of history.

OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!!

SgtBlitz,

I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and Wizards of the Coast.
And you make some great points, but when you start of by insulting people they tend to not here the rest of your message. Try to be a little more constructive in your critique and realize that none of us are perfect but as a team we can accomplish much.

SgtBlitz, I agree that Japan should not have pissed on our pacific paradise :-o. BIG MISTAKE. I don’t think those other countries you mentioned would have met them with open arms however :|. Of coarse without its younger (better looking) big brother around the UK very well would have caved in the region leaving it to the orange monster. Your right about Persia and Caucaus a little coordinated effort between the 3 axis powers could have set them up very well. If only Hitler would have waited till 2010 when Larry Harris lifted the no invading neutral Turkey rule so he could hit Russia from the south (cutting off her fuel) and the east. Just think if Germany/Italy gained control of the French fleet and had the fuel/man power to use it. Can you say REALLY BIG SEA LION!!
:evil: :-D :evil: :-D

I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and Wizards of the Coast.

That should have read:
I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and that you are upset with Wizards of the Coast.
I’d bet that you would be happy with the closure of WOTC.

@WILD:

Emperor, I don’t think you read all my remarks.
@WILD:

I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so.

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game. There could also be a NO for commonwealth linked to it. Money talks.
Also it sounds like there will be an IC in some of the commonwealth tt. What stops the UK from investing in those areas is they have to first buy the IC only to see Japan target it. Now that that decision will be made for them I think the UK will invest $ down under (maybe forced to by rule).
I am wondering when/how Anzac will take its turn in the global game.
1)Two separate nations (like Germ & Italy)
2)Separate but together (like US & China)
3)All together, Anzac & Uk separate units but attack/def as one power.
Although the US had command of the pacific the Anzac was still part of the UK commonwealth. However if the Anzac were given option#3 it would be cool if they could give up there part with the UK and attack w/US later in that round. Kind like a joint strike.
I think the allies will try to get the most out of their minor powers Anzac, China and even the French.
I also agree the oob should dictate balance in each theater, not a house rule.

I see what your saying, but i it is my bet that even in the global game they will have sperate turns. If pacfic is being balanced for austrlia and the UK to half seperate turns then it will not change simply because europe is thrown in the game.

I vote for at least separate economies

@Brain:

I vote for at least separate economies

yah defenetly, i dont think anyone disagrees with that

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Brain:

I vote for at least separate economies

yah defenetly, i dont think anyone disagrees with that

Oh I assure you somebody does.

Sounds like in AA40P 2 separate nations :In the global game they take their turn together.

Q  1. Being as Canada is a Commonwealth of UK, and ANZAC is a separate power, how will that play out in the “full” game, both economically and with territories?
Larry:
In the Global game both the ANZAC and Canadian forces will probably be controlled by the UK player.
Q    2. Will ANZAC control all of the UKs territories in the AAP map, with UK controlling the ones on the Europe map?
Larry:
No, again the UK player will control all commonwealth territories in the global game. I’m not 100% sure about this however… In the AAP there will be a dedicated UK player - based out of India and the ANZAC player out of Australia/New Zealand.

Sounds like in AA40P 2 separate nations :In the global game they take their turn together.

They take their turn together, but are their economies separate.

@Rakeman:

The problem isn’t one of making the game “more historical,” but into a game about World War II in some way.  The fact is, in WWII, the Japanese and Russians were not at war, while in Axis and Allies, if you are playing to win, Japan will likely conquer much of Russia.  This didn’t happen in WWII solely because of a piece of paper, but rather because Japan would not have been able to conquer Russia.

Yes, give the players options.  But why make the BEST option also one that would have been 100% impossible in WWII?

I’m all for abstractions, such as all units costing the same and functioning the same for each nation, units not representing real world units in a 1:1 ratio, etc.  By all means, give the player an option to invade Russia as Japan- but make it so that, like in the real war, this course of action proves to be extremely difficult- NOT the best strategy.

Same thing goes for America and Britain completely ignoring Japan.  That would have been absolutely insane, yet in A&A, it’s the best thing the Allies can do.  Just imagine it… “Well, we got Berlin.  Yeah, Japan owns the entire world outside of North America and Europe, but we have Berlin!”

Maybe we need an altered “Economic Victory” option.  If any one Axis power gets 20 IPC more than they started out with, automatic victory for that Axis power and loss for the Allies (and perhaps the other Axis power, if played by separate players).  Or with victory cities, give Japan and Germany their own unique targets.  If one Axis power gets their targets, they win.

Use victory cities. they add much fun to the gamen especially for shorter games (12VC’s)

At this point we don’t know Larry said he’s not 100% sure how the global game will handle the Anzac (still testing?). Looks like he is leaning towards the UK controlling both. I would sure like separate units (they are given different colors anyway), which would allow for separate  economies, even in a single UK turn. We’ll just have to wait until word comes down.