@crsluggo said in Have you guys seen this big anouncement for A&A?:
I’m glad their first reprint is 1914. Did they mention how long the pre-order window is open?
I didn’t hear about a duration for pre-orders, but the WELCOME20 checkout code will get you 20% off.
@crockett36 said in Interview with the 2021 OOB champion: AndrewAAgamer:
Thank you all. Great opportunity. I hope to do more AnA personalities, dare I say celebrities!
Keeping up with tournament winners across different communities would be terrific - I think you’ve got a rare combination of mechanics knowledge and historical A&A background (Larry playtesting, etc.) to make your interviews potentially very high-calibre and singular. Great work, good questions. Now we just need to all chip in to get you a better webcam :)
@djensen I am, but I’ve had zero time lately to play or even think about A&A. Thanks for thinking of me! I will hit you back when I have some time.
@reloader-1 said in Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies:
- Axis & Allies Advanced - $25 (pieces ONLY - nothing else. Small box, about half the size of the 1941 box, with about 600 - 700 pieces). Smaller size = less cost.
Well, I think that 600 pieces retailing on a shelf in the US for $25 is a bit off, even looking at aliexpress’s bottom-barrel quality as a comparison. Also in your version an “Advanced-only” player would have to pay for pieces he does not currently want, which I was trying to avoid.
But yes, whether it’s pieces packaged as separate from the boards and rules or whether they are generally bundled I think a base game + layered expansions/modules system is the way to go.
Looking at the “waaaaay more complicated” end of the WW2 gaming spectrum, I think that ASL and ASLSK are at least somewhat good analogues for this, for anyone that knows that system. Enticing new players into a complicated system - whether that system is “insanely, ludicrously complicated” (ASL), “very, very complicated” (ASLSK) or even just “mildly complicated” (A&A) - is inherently difficult, and so the barriers should be re-examined from time to time to ensure they are as low as possible. I think the current state of the A&A family leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, even with the entry-level offerings like AA41 out there.
@Midnight_Reaper said in Custom 3D Miniatures: Major & Minor Industrial Complexes, Recruitment Center, Airbase, and Naval Base:
@vdot
So, you’ve done up all of these cool new sculpts, and linked them in ThingVerse. Could you tell us, the uneducated, how to move from looking at these pieces to getting them printed out and shipped to us.
I think they’re great, but looking at them is all I can do, as I don’t know how to proceed from there.
Thanks in advance!
-Midnight_Reaper
Well, the next step for me is testing. I expected to have parts in hand faster than this (I submitted my prints to the internal queue days ago, normally faster turnaround than this). If they come out ok, I’ll try batching them up on Shapeways. That will make them available for anyone to pay to have them printed and shipped out to them. I’ve never used Shapeways before, so there is a bit of a learning curve for me too, like what qtys are the most cost-effective and how to link parts together to cut costs, etc. I would love to print these off on the company machines and sell them at cost for you guys, but that is basically the one thing we are NOT allowed to use the printers for :p
What quantities would people be interested in printing, so I know how many to batch up? Shapeways doesn’t strike me as terribly affordable, but definitions of affordable vary… I’ll be looking at Ebard’s Shapeways shop for inspiration and reference :)
For those of you with a 3D printer, you’re good to go- These designs aren’t all completely desktop-3D-printer friendly (some of them are), but with support material even the unwieldy should come out just fine. I tried to keep the smallest details at 1MM, so resolution should not be a problem. Do let me know if any of you try it and have issues.
@taamvan said in The Polar Express:
I am glad we can welcome open discussion about whether the VITALLY CRITICAL STRATEGIC areas of NORWEG are inaccurately depicted on the map. This seemingly minor country has been overlooked as a potential battleground and since it had the 8th largest sea-going force by tonnage, think that we need to give it several destroyer units as well as fishing boats units that can choose to capture COD or HERRING depending on the season, these fish can be exploited for their valuable OIL which is the reason that NORSKLAND has such a large offshore OIL industry and also has several varieties of SMOKED and PICKLED fish (with accompanying liquor resources) that should be represented as an in-game commodity.
ONce our re-evaluation of Scandinavia is complete, we should move to my homeland, the CENTRAL UNITED STATES which is ill-represented in terms of its full variety of strategic options and should be divided into no less than 12 zones depicting the DAKOTA regions, and some of the lesser-known parts of NORTHERN TEJAS AKA Kansas.
Precisely! :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
If @Narvik gets Atland, then where are my freshwater, bootleg Aircraft Carriers for the glorious Great Lakes of my beautiful home state of Michigan!!?
Inconceivable!
@superbattleshipyamato said in New Renegade Edition:
…Larry technically did that back in the day, but I understand what you mean.
What are you referring to?
@superbattleshipyamato said in New Renegade Edition:
…For your ideas though how would you combine the different tiers? Do you combine the maps? If so, how?
The maps would not be combined, but the other components would necessarily be.
For example, say you wanted to play a G40-alaogous game with the new system.
You would first need “A&A”, the base game, for the basic units and major powers.
You would then need A&A “Advanced”, which would include all the units for Italy (for eample), but for the major powers would include only the new “Advanced” units unique to the “advanced” ruleset (cruisers, AAA units, etc.) - because you’ve already got the basic units from the major powers from the base game.
Finally, you would layer on A&A “Global”, which would include the new bases and all the units for the French and ANZAC powers (for example), but for Italy and the major powers would only include the additional “expert” level pieces unique to the “Global” ruleset (mechs, tacs, etc.) - because you already have the basic and advanced units for those powers from the first two games.
@Tjoek this is incredible. Printing this out as I type. Now to find a sheet of 36x78in plexiglass…
@LevHunter said in Map of all A&A Players:
It’s disabled right now, but I can enable it.
enable it, yo. Can you import the list for at least the last couple years from the main location thread?
@black_elk said in Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies:
I kinda got my hopes set on North Africa honestly.
ditto :)
This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.
This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.
Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).
@djensen any chance we get a sticky for 3D models, free and otherwise? These collections need curation…
One of the (apparently many) North Africa voters here. It’s such an interesting theater of the historical war, and will be awesome to have fun with alternative scenarios could play out; If Malta had failed to hold out; if the Italian navy or economy or logistics could have been more impactful, etc.
@Argothair What about that spectacularly elegant idea we discussed last year (in this thread) : The Colonial Outpost?
Colonial Outpost
Instead of a bid, before the start of the game the Allies may designate any Allied TT as the “Colonial Outpost” for that game. Add an IC + AAA to that territory and increase it’s IPC value by +1 (but not over 3) for the duration of the game. If the “Colonial Outpost” is ever captured by the Axis Powers, the IC there is destroyed (not captured) and the value of the territory reverts back to the original value printed on the board.
I’m teaching this game to my group soon, and I liked this idea so much that I’m planning to pretend that an “internet quorum” of “unassailable genius” (namely yourself and @axis_roll) had decided this was the best way to balance 42.2 and 50_41… and if the idea completely tanks I can blame said quorum for all failures. :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
@Tjoek will do. if not over the holidays then first week of Janurary.
@reloader-1 Hit dice have GOT to be the next accessory - and I say that as someone who makes and sells them on Etsy! They are a massive time saver, a complete no-brainer for a game where hundreds and hundreds of dice are being gleefully thrown and where high playtime is a significant sales liability.
@CWO-Marc I too wanted to find a more generic term than ‘colonial’ which does have the aforementioned “optics” and historical accuracy problems. Remote was the word (instead of colonial) that I couldn’t think of until I read your post; so “Remote” or “Forward” or perhaps “Frontier” would be good, less politically loaded terms; “Outpost” could then either remain or be replaced with “Command” or “Base” or “Base of Operations”. These names might work especially well with ‘additional consideration’ option where any IC placed as part of a bid (or the whole bid) takes on this rule.
Regarding what it’s supposed to represent, definitely the historical presence of centers of production and vectors of attack that weren’t the very capitals of the powers in question. NO power in AA50 or 42 has a second vector but the US, and vector #2 (the PTO) is basically a giant trap. The very first thing I always tell any new player with the UK is “don’t get excited”. I think it’s apparent that someone goofed when you look at the design in 1941 (or, of course, G40), neither of which commits this same mistake (41, anemic as it is, gives the British TWO extra factories (to place WHAT units, one might ask?). Why should the two most playable versions not do the same?
I have nothing against bids for tournament play, but bids are kinda lame for games with friends until you know what you’re doing- and obviously newbies in particular cannot bid (or understand why a bid would be needed) and instead should have more fun and more options. I think this will work well.
Regarding if a power can do this in a different power’s territory, I think certainly not. That’s confusing and against the spirit of the rule, which is to do something really simple with loads of fun, balance-y potential.
@axis_roll said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):
I can only speak strongly of AA50-41, that is what we mostly play.
Two others on your list might be a USA colonial outpost in brazil. Also, If russian were going to pressure Japan, I think a bryatia IC might be better than the SFE listed. USA can support with fighters off SZ56 based carriers.
BRY is more positionally valued than SFE.Other comments on current list (ordered in highest to least valuable):
India. Best all around, will need initial help from russia to sustain
Egypt. Can you hold it round 1? if so, very key as well
South Africa. Good, solid way to fight the Africa Korps and hold onto UK IPCs. Will the axis commit that much to africa?
Australia. To use most effectively, USA needs a fleet to back up small UK navy that would help to take back UK islands
Hawaii. Don’t see too much advantage to a 2-unit producing 1 sea zone forward naval base.
Soviet Far East. might be acceptable since farther away from Japan mainland
Great ideas, of course. India has got to be the main play, but then you forfeit the IPC boost… Is there a strat where hardcore KJF works with a Buryatia OC and an R1 2tnk buy, followed by UK1 Indian IC? There is a lot of Russian cannon fodder there that only wants for some offensive punch. I think that northern land threat is key to cracking Japan, especially if the UK has to pivot completely to Europe due to Sea Lion or big German tanks or something.
I finished the fixed version with Honolulu moved to SE Oahu and a corrected Iwo Jima- @Tjoek check your PMs. I was going to just rotate it and leave it alone, but the OOB cartography is obviously based on a US pilot’s crude description as he rocketed overhead with bogeys in pursuit (looks very different from the actual island) so I got antsy and just redrew it.
For you purists, Tjoek can probably knock out the rotated OOB version in a couple minutes.
Note: the image below is halved for posting- don’t actually patch your map file with it. Wait for Tjoek to update the masters.
There was also a N/S stitching seam running through the text of “Honolulu” that I hunted down with the clone tool up to Alaska and down past NZ, but it was invisible on anything lower than about 150% on my monitors.
@Nuts I’m proud that they went with a D10 right in the face of releasing their “battle dice” accessory product.
It should go without saying- but it definitely doesn’t- great design should trump a marginal increase in sales. I don’t expect companies to sacrifice significant financial incentives for the sake of minor improvements, but in the world I work in (consumer electronics) it’s often the case that they’re willing to sacrifice significant design improvements for even the potential of a minor financial gain. Good on you, Renegade.
