Posts made by Tralis

In the last round of one-theater releases we saw Europe released two years before Pacific. In fact, Europe sold better than Pacific as I recall. Many of the new mechanics and units, such as tac bombers and mech-infantry will matter more in Europe than vice versa (especially the latter). The earlier 1940 scenario makes a bigger difference to the feeling and flavor of the game in Europe than in Pacfic. These games are supposedly going to be balanced for one another and designed to combine, thus Europe is probably largely designed already. So then, why is Pacific the first to be released? Certainly there is some logic behind this. I’m just curious if anyone knows exactly what the reasons are.

@Profile2012:

I know they have a computer game out already, but it kinda sucks. i think they need to do an upgraded version with all the updated rules and new world map.

TripleA does have the new world map and the updated rules. The latest version does, at least.

However you do the math, it means three things:
1: This point is nearly inarguable, tanks are strictly worse than they were in AA50. The only advantages they receive is the ability to attack on 4 with a fighter (This will likely have very little impact), and the ability to carry along a bullet shield two spaces for 4IPCs in the form of MechInf (which may prove more useful).
2: An equal IPC stack of infantry on the attack will win 54% of the time at 6IPCs, and the limit of this figure aproaches 100% as the IPC value aproaches infinity. By only 24 IPCs the odds are 67% in favor of the attacking infantry. If the infantry defend and the tanks attack, the figure is, obviously, even more skewed in favor of the infantry. Thus, if only one space of movement per turn is needed, tanks are strictly worse than infantry.
3: Another two-movement land unit can now be purchased for 66% of the cost of a tank. The MechInf is significantly more cost effective on the defense than a tank, getting the same average number of hits per IPC while costing only 66% as much for 1 wound. Thus, tanks are not useful on the defense in any situation, only in an attacking scenario. The tank does provide an attack value of 3 for 60% of the cost of a fighter, and has twice the firepower per IPC as a mechanized on the attack. However the fighter is much more mobile, is more powerful on the defense, and has the flexibility to participate in naval combat. That doesn’t mean tanks are useless compared to fighters, you can buy a hell of a lot more for the same amount of money, but it does restrict tanks to a much more niche role than before. Tanks are not cost effective for a slow moving attack, infantry are much better for that. Tanks are only effective when you need both to be able to move quickly, and focus on offense much more than defense.

How is the game itself?

@SgtBlitz:

LOL.  ANOTHER A+A variant(s)!  In under 6 months from the last one!!!  WHEEE!!!  SHELL OUT EVEN MORE $$$CASH$$$ FOR ANOTHER BOARD GAME(S)!!!   (HEY KIDS!!!  You’ve got nothing better to do!  C’mon, buy nineteen copies!  We’re even making a new Pacific game which is essentially the old AA Pacific map with its old Revised ruleset now replaced with the new AA50 ruleset!  BUY IT NOW!!!)

While if one tries to independently make a computerized form where you EMULATE all the different board games, IT’S THE END OF TEH WORLD!!!  CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS EVERYWHERE!!!  Even if 50 people in the entire world use it at any given time, from all over the world, and it’s the only way they can play it with real lives and busy schedules!  Wait, I’m not talking about PBF games on the Axisandallies.org website, I’m talking about the freeware TripleA…

Actually, the fact the Hasbro DID sell out ALL its AA50 copies makes me wonder why they NEEDED to go after TripleA.  It’s not like they were losing any business since ALL the copies printed sold out.  Sounds like inefficient business practices to me.  Yet somehow they are shutting down ANY form of electronic competition while churning out MORE and MORE schlock box editions with slightly tweaked AA50 rulesets.  You’d think making/sponsoring an electronic form of A&A with its greater ease and flexibility would be in their best interests, but no…  Boxed sets it is!  Who cares if it’s 2009?  And the fan bois out there will eat this up, you know they will.  WHY NOT JUST RUN A REPRINT OF THE ENTIRE REVISED SERIES OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS FOR $40 A POP???  NEW AA50 MANUALS $10 EXTRA.  EACH.

Great way to run a business.  RUNNING IT INTO THE GROUND.  See ya for Axis and Allies: October 1935 - The Second Italo-Abyssinian War!  I won’t be there.

This isn’t a CCG where you need to have the latest cards to play. You can still enjoy the old editions without any interference from the new. If you don’t like them, don’t buy them. Its pretty simple. Of course WOTC is going to make new editions – people will buy them. WOTC wants money that people are willing to pay. Nobody is forcing you to pay.

I liked the reply “you don’t have to buy it in the first place right?”. Sounds to me like people need to get girl friends or something else to occupy the time. It sounds like no real game could ever satisfy what they want or are unknowingly looking for in life. Get out and enjoy the world!

Actually my GF loves to play A&A with me. We are both looking forward to Pacific.

How are you guys handling France? I hear France is an independant country as far as rules are concerned, but it seems odd to have a fully independant power there to be conquered so quickly. Is it such that another player controls France, sort of like China/US?

Yeah, 6 is too much to pay for a tank. The real solution isn’t more expensive tanks, its more options to make Artillery and Infantry more mobile. If Mech Infantry moved were (A1/D2/M2/C4) and had the special power that they could “carry” one other land unit with them (inf or art) then they would be perfect. Tanks would still cost 5, but you’d build fewer because its easier to get infantry to the front lines.

Anniversary really made subs have a nice defined role. Their cheap status (6 rather than 8) means you can build 33% more for the cost. This means you can get much more firepower and ability to kill with subs than before. The addition of cruisers and the nerfing of destroyers means more ships are vulnerable to first strike than before, and the ship that hoses subs is weaker (although, admittedly, less expensive). Finally, their reduction in defense means that they are made into much more purely offensive weapons. This means a naval aggressor builds subs, not someone looking to protect their navy and shipping. This means subs are more powerful in their specific role than ever, and have a nicer, clear role.

I meant controlled by ANZAC or something.

Maybe they are just completely undefended, belonging to essentially no power (yet not being nuetral).  Perhaps then if liberated, it only denies the Japanese income and doesn’t add to the Allies?

Yet, they are shown as a specific entity with its own roundel. That means to me there’s something special going on rather than them just being neutral. They were a part of ANZAC in Pacific. Perhaps they will be essentially ANZAC in AAP40?

I have a few questions about the new powers in AA40. We know ANZAC is its own power in AAP40 at this point (although it was mostly so in AAP). We also know France will be a power in AAE40.
On the board pics we can see these new powers. In addition to the French spaces we can see Dutch and Canadian spaces. This leaves a few questions:
A: The USSR spaces in AAP40 are said to be completely off limits unless playing AAG40. Obiously there is no USSR player in just AAP40. That’s all well and good. What about France? Two of the spaces on the board are French, one of which was historically conquered by the Japanese. France can’t be a player, but it has to be able to be attacked. Anyone know how this is going to be done? I would assume it would have peices just sitting there, except what color would those peices be? Would they include French peices in the Pacific set just for Indochina?
B: We can see a number of teritories with the Dutch roundel. Are they a new power? How is that represented in just AAP40? How is that represented in AAG40, especially considering the occupation? Are the Netherlands just assumed to be part of the UK for simplicities sake, and shown with a different roundel only for the sake of flavor?
C: Pretty much the above question except for Canada.

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.

Whenever I try to introduce someone to A&A I wonder which board to use. I think BOB and DDay are kinda a seperate game, so I am wreally just refering to the three:
Revised
Europe
Pacific
Which one do you recommend for teaching new people.
I usually use Revised, but I starting to wonder if it would be better to use Europe.

Armor defends on a 2.

If your roller uses value to determine what dies than:
Carriers cost 18, fighters cost 12.

On first sight, I like it. How much have you played with it.

Well there are no supersubs in Europe or Pacific. Plus, I know a lot of people play without tech anyway.

Yeah, I like that too.

Basically I see three big revisions that can translate. Sorry if this is beaten to death, but obviously I’m new here, and a quick search turned up nothing.

Tanks defend on 3
Fighter and Carrier cost 2 less
Tranports carry 1 Infantry + 1 land unit (changed for Pacific anyway, although not the same as revised)

Europe:
Tank: Gives Germany an advantage, mostly.
Transports: Gives alliies the advantage, mostly.
Fighter&Carrier: Carriers help allies. Fighters are rather neutral.

Therefore I play with all three. They seem to balance out nicely.

Pacific:
Fighter&Carrier: Helps equally, though argueable helps Japan since a carrier and fighters defend much better than they attack. Of course the arguement that carrier borne fighters also really help in amphibious assaulting a teritory somewhat nullifies this theory.
Tank: Helps equally, makes armor much more worth the transport space.
Transports: Screws with marines a lot, also a problem becuase the starting locations dont take the extra space into account. The starting location problem with transports doesn’t matter as much for Europe.

I never play with the revised transport rules here. I always have tanks defend on three, it makes them actually useful. I waiver as to use cheaper carriers and fighters.

What do you guys think? Did I leave out any major translateable changes from Revised?