Posts made by zooooma

This is awesome news!

Will AAE40 & AAP40 have the same rules as AA50 in terms of:

• transports

• submarines

• prices

Between A&A (MB), AAE, AAP and Revised, we had four different sets of rules for transports and likewise for submarines.  :?   
It was okay when I owned all four and used to play all the time.  But for people who don’t play that often or who won’t own all of AA50, AA42, AAP40, and AAE40, it would really help to comfortably go from one game to the next if the basic rules are standardized.

Here’s hoping.

@Imperious:

So if USA takes Spain, then builds a factory and places 40 bucks worth of infantry each turn would this be allowed?

Not exactly.  First, USA has a starting income of 3200.  Spain adds 100, so that would be 3300 for 11 infantry (assuming Japan hasn’t invaded China).  Second, there were no chips in this version!  USA can never ever ever have more than twenty infantry total on the board and a given time.

Other points:

• Spain is three sea zones away from North America

• It costs a transport one entire movement point just to load troops.

This means if USA builds an invasion force on turn one, they can’t attack Spain till turn three.  German subs can ambush the fleet on route, (subs are impervious to attack by any units in this version), and Germany should still have a decent counter attack against Spain.

So, while USA can build a factory in Spain and dump their entire economy there, it could take a very long time to secure this situation.  If Russia has fallen by then, it could be too late.  Remember too that Japan can build a factory as well  But Japan actually starts with a foothold on the continent, and with a neutral China there is not much in resistance Asia.  I’m not sure, but this looks to me like a quicker game than we are used to.

I’ve yet to actually play it, but it seems rather rash to think we can determine a fool proof Allied strategy without a more thorough analysis.  If you haven’t played since the early eighties, you (and your opponent) may not have been employing optimal strategy.  I can only assume that thirty years later you have a much better head for A&A?

This was a very early version of the game so it’s safe to assume that it is lopsided, and probably there are some silly and unrealistic rules.  But all versions are like this to some degree.  I’ve no doubt this is not as good as MB’s version - A&A tends to improve.  But this little bookcase game was well enough loved to be bought (and revamped) by a large company, and to begin a legacy in hobby board gaming.  How poor could it have been?

I can’t accept that the potential for a US factory breaks the game until I see exactly how they establish a foothold and hang on to Russia long enough to reap the rewards.  Until I see that, the game’s afoot!

Wish me luck!

@Shakespeare:

Aren’t the neutral rules better than the current rules?

I like the way Nova Games handled neutrals too.

For those just tunning in, the neutrals in the 1981 edition were identical to those in the MB edition with one exception.  There were regular neutrals, but also pro- neutrals.  The pro- neutrals have an IPC value, and are affiliated with a major power.  As long as that province remains neutral (ie, is not violated), that power receives IPCs as though it controlled the province.  eg, Spain is a pro German neutral.  As long as no player violates Spain’s neutrality Germany receives an extra 100 IPCs a turn as though it controlled Spain.  Otherwise pro- neutrals function exactly as regular neutrals.

Yes, this was a very cool system I think; but a poor way to handle China.  That’s probably why they made the separate Chinese pieces.

@Shakespeare:

Why were thay dropped?

Did it break the game somehow?

I think realism issues.  Some nations might have allowed passage for a fee.  Others were literally impassable for ground forces.  But others really were susceptible to brute force - some may have fallen easily, others less so.

We don’t want a lot of different rules for how each neutral can be passed, and how strong they are, and how they each would react to hostility.  I don’t think we do.  That’s not what A&A is about.

Incidentally, do you play Supremacy?  The next expansion in line was to be Client States.  It would have included character cards for all the Warlords of the neutral zones as well as rules for making them your client.  As your client, they would do your bidding!  There were also going to be rules for getting UN support when attacking these Warlords.  There were white UN tanks and red berserk warlord tanks!  It’s a real shame Client States wasn’t released - it sounds awesome and I’d have loved to try it.  :(

@FieldMarshalGames:

Axis & …… what!?  I can’t choose all AAA?  :-D

I don’t see why not.

For me, when a better A&A game comes out my appreciation of past editions lessen.  Before AA50 was made AA Revised was my favorite game.  But now that AA50 is here Revised looses some of it’s draw.  If I want to play a game besides AA50 (for whatever reason) I will look to Titan.  There are times when I’d rather play Titan than AA50 just for the sake of variety, but I would never prefer revised over AA50.

But if I were unable to play AA50 for some reason when I wanted to, I might settle for revised before choosing Titan.  But usually I can choose which A&A game I play, so in practice I want to play Titan a lot more than I want to play A&A: Revised.

I think everone should add their favourite five to their signature!

Now you could straight bid for NOs!  each side has eight, so you could bid any number from zero to eight.  The low bid would chose there side (with no NOs), and the winning side would take NOs of their choice totaling the number they bid.  You could (or not) allow the high bid to take an extra NO for each one the let their opponent have.  This works identically to bidding for NAs in revised.

My problem is that I love NOs and how they affect the game.  I would hate to play without all of them!  But the system is good, I think.

I was never a big fan of the unit bid.  I posted years ago about bidding for NAs in revised.  Also I wanted an option to play minor victory, which I think also helps the Axis.  I used to like to play Classic with Restricted russia and Weapons Development Bonus.  If this doesn’t eliminate a bid it should at least reduce it.  I used to advocate for that option in the Axis & Allies Member’s Cluib (AAMC), but there wasn’t much interest.

I like the idea of playing with interceptors, and I like the option to play with the Dardanelles closed.  But these don’t replace bidding.  nicely.  I’m not much interested in ‘house’ optional rules, but for optional rules to replace bidding, you need lots of them, they each need to clearly favour one side, and none of them should be crushingly powerful on their own.

The Revised NAs were the best system for non unit/IPC bidding.  You could bid up to twelve to play the Axis - which I think is more than high enough a bid.  Best of all, we’d be playing practically OOB!  If the rules for NAs had been to use any, all, or none (instead of strictly even combinations), bidding as such would be playing one hundred per cent OOB!  This is how NAs should have been handled.  :(

Alas, with the awesomeness of AA50, the upcoming curiosity of AA42, and my recent acquisition of the 1981 Nova Games edition (which I’m dying to try), I don’t see much revised in my near future.  I don’t think alternate bidding works nearly as smoothly in AA50 either.  :(

One system I like is to play back to back games switching sides.  A player is declared the winner as soon as they’ve won a game with each side.  This is nice for tourneys.  Sadly A&A is too long for this - especially considering you could play indefinitely with the same side winning.

Best of luck in your endeavors!

@LuckyDay:

=

1. Newly sculpted pieces
2. All new packaging
3. Cornerstone of AA for years

If the game can’t live up to that then we’re in trouble!

I’ve heard that one of the online clubs still has a small group of regular players.  And then there is the casual crowd who didn’t ever buy revised (and may not have even heard of it).  The latter demographic is probably not very active online.

Myself I haven’t played the Gamemaster edition in years, and likely won’t pick it up again unless by special request of my opponent.  I’m keeping a copy handy just in case!  I did just buy a vintage set of the old bookcase edition by Nova Games (1981).  This looks very different than Milton Bradley’s, and I hope to get one half to a full dozen games of it played at some point in time.

@Imperious:

If he has bought any new industrial complex units, he places them last.  They may be placed in any province he controls.

But USA doesn’t control any Chinese provinces.  They are light blue pro US neutrals.  According to page two of the rules these provinces are not controlled by anybody.  This really couldn’t be any more clear - “not controlled by anybody”.  That’s a direct quote.  Note the very next line “Some provinces may contribute economically to one player, even tough they are not controlled by any player”.  USA does not control pro-US neutrals and cannot build factories there.  If USA wishes to control China, they must follow the ‘Violating Neutrality’ rules on page nine.

This is not surprising.  The game had seventeen playtesters!  I’m sure at least one of them thought about building factories.  I could see playing with a British factory in India or Africa, and building a US factory in Finland ASAFP.

I respect and appreciate all that you’ve done and do for the A&A community IL, but you are wrong on this point and hence in your dismissal of the Nova Games edition as being arbitrarily broken.

I would still love to get my hands on rules (even a first draft) for Chinese (and French) counters.

@Imperious:

The game does not say the Americans cant build a factory in China

Page 10 of the rules:

If he has bought any new industrial complex units, he places them last.  They may be placed in any province he controls.

Page 2 of the rules:

Grey, light blue, pink, and light green provinces are neutral and not controlled by anyone.

Italy is one of the coolest additions in the anniversary edition, IMHO.  Italy as a separate entity:

• restricts Germany’s production (one IC)

• takes out Russian “speed bumps” so Germany can blitz (“can opening”)

• disrupts the England/US one two punch (and co ordinated defensive moves)

• provides the allies with a target

• is just plain cool

That’s off the top of my head.

I think the next deluxe version they make (thirtieth anniversary perhaps) should also include Italy, but I am fine with the basic game being five players.

There should be no difference in the cost or function of units in AA50 and AA42.  That way makes it easy for a player seasoned in one version to try out the other.  So far I think we’ve had five A&A theatre scale games, and five different rule sets for subs!  One can get confused sometimes.

@questioneer:

I predict people will be less bored with AA50 and quickly bored with AA42.

I don’t get bored with A&A.  I am not bored with the 1986 MB edition.  But I did stop playing it very much after Europe and Pacific were released.  I can’t see any half way decent A&A game ever getting boring.

Furthermore, I am not going to play much AA42 right away - maybe once or twice to check it out.  I’ll play it a little more as AA50 becomes less new and exciting (but never boring).

@questioneer:

The setup will be very similar to Revised so it will not be that new, as well as the map and such.

The new rules for subs and transports alone should make this a radically different game than revised.  And we’ve yet to see how AA42 will handle tech and SBRs.  I expect this will be almost as different from revised as revised was from Gamemaster.  To be certain your tried and tested openings and strategies from revised will need a major overhaul.  Hence new and exciting.

@questioneer:

We’ll see if your “half glass full” approach holds up 6months after the game is out.

Half full or half empty - it’s a third the price of AA50!  But I’ll be sure to pipe up next January and tell you what I think.  :)

@questioneer:

By the way, get ready for the cheap cardboard charts! :-)

I’m not too concerned about this.  It is the cheaper version.

@questioneer:

The Revised-AA50 hybrid ought to be interesting at first, but I’m just not convinced it will live up to the hype. :|

My 2cents,

Questioneer
  :? :? :?

What hype?  I understand this game is expected by all to be not as good as AA50.  Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Some of us are glad that AH is indeed making new A&A games at all.  Some of us are excited for new sculpts.  Some of us are glad A&A will be cheaper and more accessible to the masses.  And some of us are keen on a new set up - even if it’s not as good as AA50.

@questioneer:

After a short while the new artwork is gonna wear off and the product itself will probably not be that impressive…

Or rather after the novelty of AA50 wears off, and we have played both set ups many times each, AA42 will be an interesting twist.  Why have steak every night when you can enjoy the occasional burger?  Variety is good.

I just ordered a copy of ova Game’s Axis and Allies from 1981.  I’m expecting to be underwhelmed playing it, but still look forward to something a little different.  AA42 is the same.

Gee IL, it seems to me that whenever an A&A game is perceived to be “broken” I see hundreds of posts devoted to “fixing” it.  Incidentally, USA can’t build a factory in China because it is not American controlled - only a pro American neutral.  The States would have to occupy it first, and they’ve no units in Asia at all!

I think there is no section because there is no interest.  This edition is OOP, hard to find, predates the popularity of the internet and of Axis & Allies.  Most of us learned on the Gamemaster edition.  I was faking the surprise and disappointment.  :)

Re the Chinese/French expansion I have a feeling that counters were made but the rules were never completed.  :(

@Romulus:

Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc.

Maybe the time is right for Axis & Allies: Supremacy edition!

I can’t remember the first time I saw it.  It appears on eBay every so often, T&T have it now - http://www.trollandtoad.com/p226621.html

Basically look anywhere you’d find out of print games online.

@FryBoy55:

Im a huge fan of Axis and Allies…

Then you’ll love it!  It is totally worth buying, as is AAP.

DD, BOTB, & GC are good games and I like them too.  They are not really like A&A very much though, so you might or might not like them.  Worth trying though, I’d think.

Hi All.

No section for the original?  WTF!!??!?

Does anybody who still plays this (or even remembers playing it) having any strategy tips for a newbie?

Also, I’ve seen you can buy French and Chinese chits online.  Were rules ever made for playing with them?

Thanks in advance to the old vets!

@Lynxes:

Well, if AA42 is like AA50 in rough terms Germany should be able to hold off the Allies for something the three turns Japan needs to gobble up India, Aus and Hawaii. Then Allies would be forced to defend those places and we would have a more balanced game.

That sounds like the minor victory in Revised.  Germany could grab Leningrad, and hold off the Allies for a few turns.  This forced the Allies to hold India (at least until they could secure another city) which I thought made for a more balanced game.

Note though, that this works because the Axis could win (with Leningrad and Calcutta) in an unstable position.  That is to say if you kept playing after the minor victory was achieved, the Allies may well have gone on to win the global war.  The economic victory from MB was similar.  Usually an 84 total would mean certain world domination, but sometimes the Allies could lose by the economy when Germany’s demise was immanent (and the allies may have proceeded to conquer the world).

This is the only way a victory condition can affect play.  If you can’t accomplish your victory condition without a tight stranglehold on the world, then you simply play for that stranglehold.  The victory condition (whatever they may be) will surely follow.  In all versions to date, this means focusing on Europe and Moscow first.