I guess they back-pedaled on this for the Revised edition. Sounds familiar; I must have forgotten.
I didn’t play as much Revised - there was only 4 years between that and AA50, during which time we were still playing a lot of Europe and Pacific.
I did enjoy the Minor Victory version. It was a tight game, well balanced, and required a very different strategic approach than the other options.
@CWO:
b) See how much it would cost you to pick up a copy of the 1942 2nd edition game from either your local hobby store (or from a less expensive online supplier, if applicable) and use its AAA units.
I have thought about this, but I would still need AAA for Italy, ANZAC, and France, as well as nicely printed rule books.
Buying 1942 I save:
~$10 on German artillery replacements
The cost of 32 - 40 AAAs
I suspect this is cheaper than buying a full 1942 game.
The trick is I do plan on buying 1942 2nd edition too! This is not very urgent for me though. Any A&A in my near future will almost surely be AA50 or Global. Even 1941 has more immediate use for me, as it’s a good teaching game.
Ultimately I do prefer to have enough pieces for both games. Global is going to set up on my friends shelf for a long campaign. Should I want to jam a game (or lend somebody) 1942 in the meantime, it’s better if they both have their own pieces.
It’s a good idea, but probably doesn’t solve my issues. With any luck my finances will bounce back soon and I can buy 2nd '42, 1941, and upgrade my Global game. :)
Edit - a copy of 1942 2nd edition might include all the pieces I need that HBG aren’t currently stocked with. Maybe I’ll look into that…
Unless it’s 50th Anniversary Edition A&A… it’s always cheaper to cobble together Anniversary then to buy it (unless someone who is legally insane is selling it cheap).
I had 2 copies of AA50. When Global 1940 was announced I figured that would kill the “grail game” status of AA50, so I quickly traded it for some other games before it dropped of in value.
I think I called that one wrong!
:lol:
Thanks! I don’t id design differences as long as the sizes are close.
1st edition German Artillery look a lot like the new AAA guns - so I would rather get Europe or '42 2nd edition Artillery and just use old Artillery for the AAAs.
My problem right now is that HBG is out of stock for some of the pieces I need. If money weren’t tight right now I’d just buy what they have and get the rest later. As it is, I’m hard pressed to shell out for high end pieces is I still have to improvise for the rest - that’s exactly what I’m paying to avoid.
:-(
I guess we’ll be fine with B&W printed rules and old style AA guns for the AAAs until HBG is better stocked.
:-)
I actually run through a mock battle in my head where both sides get average hit.
Total the attack strengths of the units (on one side)
Divide by 6
This will give you the average or expected number of hits for each side. Apply the hits, and repeat this process with the remaining units until the battle is decided. This is a little rough, but it will tell you which side is favoured and how much you can expect that side to survive with. This is particularly important if you are trying to calculate the result of successive allied attacks against a single defender.
Sometimes you have to round. 6 tanks + 7 Infantry have a total combat strength of 25. This averages 4.167 hits. For simplicity, just take the attack strength of 24 (4 hits), and add the remainder to that side’s combat strength on the next round.
You can take some short cuts. If the total combat strengths are close, but one side has considerably more units (hot points), the advantage goes to the larger army. Likewise if combat strength and army size are similar the force with big and small pieces will beat the force with all average pieces. But if you want a sense of what survives, it’s better to play the whole battle through.
It might seem like a lot of work - especially if you like drinking the beers or smoking the pretzels. But it goes pretty fast once you get used to it.
One of the biggest differences is the introduction of AAA.
It’s kind of a shame - AA50, Spring 1942, and Global 1940 all had (mostly) streamlined units. The AAA was a significant innovation/departure. Europe/Pacific/Global and Spring 1942 all got 2nd editions to reflect this major rules change. AA50 got left and very quickly became a “dated” edition where it should be simply the semi-advanced version in between 1942 and Global.
:-(
Even 1941, by avoiding AA & Artillery altogether, is more consistent with the current line.
I wish AH had published a 2nd edition rules update for AA50 to bring it in line with the contemporary editions. Better yet, re-release it and include AAA sculpts. Not likely going to happen though.
@P@nther:
Also (starting from Anniversary) subs cannot be hit by air units unless the air unit is escorted by a destroyer.
That rule started in Axis & Allies: Europe, 1999. It’s been a rule in every edition except Milton Bradley & Nova Games (not counting battle games or WWI).
I haven’t played Star Trek Risk (I’m a Risk 2210 fan), but Star Trek Ascendancy is an instant classic in my opinion. It makes my all time top 7, and I recommend it if you like multi-player empire building games and you don’t mind the science fiction.
@Private:
I would say that the key is to always use your daimyo armies to the full AND then make sure they are safe at the end of the turn.
Defending borders with non-daimyo garrisons and castles can be expensive and yet ineffective. A better defense is the threat of counterattack by your own daimyo. And a better use of castles can be to provide your daimyo army with a safe haven.
The loss of a daimyo army is a significant set-back. The biggest threat is a two or more daimyo attack on one, so always beware this from your opponents and try to create such a possibility for you.
Totally this. That game’s lots of - but very long!
I once had a Shogun edition - not sure what became of it. I have a Samurai Swords edition now.
:-(
The closet game to Star Wars Axis and Allies is probably Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition. Have you tried looking at that?
Perhaps Buck Rogers: Battle For The 25th Century?
Zoooma,
Sorry man.
There are some good house rules out there for making Canada it’s own country.
Also, look up Young Grasshopper’s Halifax House Rules.
If Canada was it’s own country in the game (with UK increased values to make up for the loss, and a tad bit higher for Canada), then perhaps Canada could add some blockers (Pacific), or some can openers in Europe. It might be enough to balance the game enough to end the high bid that Allies players sometimes get. Definitely be interesting to try out a HR with Canada as another power.
I was hoping the roundels meant a separate economy, but not a separate power. Or a back up home base where UK can build if London falls.
Imagine a game where early Sea Lion is common but the game could still ,ast many turns and go either way.
Pretty much ready to order my top-ups.
I realised I think it’s been 5 years or more since I’ve played A&A, and that that’s the longest I’ve gone since discovering the game in 1990. :-o Have any of you ever gone 5 years?
One last question before I order pieces - are the 1942 2nd edition Artillery & AAA pieces size compatible with Global? Some of them are a little cheaper.
Thanks!
@CWO:
- It’s good marketing. If you look at the rulebook, you’ll see that Wizards of the Coast’s Renton WA headquarters is responsible for both the US and Canada, and I’d like to think that they were perceptive enough to realize that their Canadian customers would be happy to see Canada get its own roundel in the big 1940 game. I certainly was.
Roundel: Even though Canada could operate as it’s own independent country in this game (it was granted full independence in 1931), I think the reason for Canada getting it’s own roundel is NOT due to gameism reasons. I think it partly due to marketing reasons (Canadian patriotism which is great) as well as to add more eye candy to the board!
I’m a Canadian boy myself. I was delighted to see the roundel at first, but I think that was followed by profound disappointment in learning that it was no more than a glorified, dressed-up UK roundel. :-(
So disappointed that I must have blocked out the memory - hence my asking if it had special rules.
France starts with 1 but can easy be replaced by any one from another nation ( not like it survives past round 1 and will never be build anyway)
Saves you some units :D
Good idea. Probably I will get the 1 because I’m a little OCD that way.
What about ANZAC? In my memory they never do all that much (though I mostly only played 1st edition OOB). Surely they wouldn’t need more than 4 or 5?
Refresh my memory, was the Canadian roundel meant to indicate that BC was part of the European economy? Has this changed in 2nd ed?
Be cool man.
:-P
I had good cause to believe AH had not officially endorsed this rule - the FAQ link I followed came from this site!
When a designer retroactively wants to change a game rule after it’s published, and the publisher (apparently) does not acknowledge the change - it’s a very reasonable and defensible position that the publisher has the official word.
It’s not by fault AA.org has an out of date link and WotC has taken their link down. No need for the eye-rolls, they’re not very friendly. :)
This is kind of academic, seeing as AH FAQ & HGD FAQ are on the same page…
But I would argue that IF AH had not officially endorsed that FAQ it would not be official. Dropping support is kind of irrelevant. Star Wars: Queens Gambit is oop and unsupported - that doesn’t mean the designers can make “official” changes to the rules. Rather it means the official rules are set in stone.
Again, this is academic. WotC got behind HGD 100%. If AH chose not to recognise the change, then we’d have a fun debate!
@P@nther:
I was referring to Krieghund’s following post:
I can assure you that it’s official, as all material posted by Larry or myself on the HGD site is official (in fact, it’s the only source for official information on out of print games, as the AH site no longer supports them). While the link to the FAQ no longer exists on the AH site, the page is actually still there. As you can see, the erratum in question is in there, so it was also official published by AH.
The link behind the words “still there” is :
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Errata.pdf
Sorry - I missed that.
Thanks guys!
I suspect I will play by my out-of-date FAQ. Not quite a house rule - just an older rules set,
Those nerfed HBs are truly garbage - scarcely better than regular Bombers. :x
@P@nther:
http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf
This document is outdated (March 2009). The last official FAQ (as mentioned by Krieghund) has been from September 2014.
If AH released a more up-to-date FAQ, lead me too it! Kreighund’s link takes me to a designer site - not an official Avalon Hill source.
AFAIK this proposed errata was never published by the producers of the game; who have the final only “official” word.
That thread (not even a PDF anymore) is about as official as LHTR for Revised. These are fine option for so inclined tournament organisers, but they do not supplant the official rules.
Is anybody aware of the motivation behind the merging of Yukon & BC for the second edition?
This seems pretty trivial - unless perhaps the idea was to hinder Japan’s ability to mess around in NA? Was that necessary? Is Operation Hollywood OP? What’s going on here?
I would go with 6-7 for each country, as you can always put chips under them. Most that are in the setup are 5 stacks so you got some spares to split up stacks if you got 7.
Cool. I’ll go with 8! Maybe fewer for France and ANZAC! Does China build AAAs?
@CWO:
I have been know to experiment with Operation Hollywood against an unprepared America players - so BC could make a difference. Did LH ever express his motivation for the change?
Beats me. The “Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ November 24, 2014 Errata” sheet simply says “The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.” It doesn’t say why the territories themselves were reconfigured.
Maybe I’ll make a separate post…