Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Fighters that sink battleships?

halbower — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:06:48 +0000

Hmmm, an air unit that attacks on a 4 and defends on a 1...seems like there's already an air unit that does this. Why add an extra unit along with extra rules for it?

Also, have you playtested this?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

umrmeche — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:31:51 +0000

by umrmeche

it is somewhat of a pain but not impossible to keep them all.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

umrmeche — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:07:05 +0000

by umrmeche

thank you greg, i realize the limitations in trying to balance games only by using head to head unit comparisons but i believe one good test of balance is if their is an strategy that works absurdly well and his little chance to have a legit counter than something needs to change. I like the idea of reducing the cruiser so that at least defense vs fighter offense they are the same plus if you give it an extra capability like anti-sub or flak then it actually has a rationale to exist in one's lineup. i don't buy the argument that they should be kept simply to allow a person to buy a naval unit if they don't have enoguh to buy a battleship that round. i like to give people a reason to buy each unit depending on their strategy.

very true that it cuts both ways. i was just trying show how it can help one nation in particular and my post was already quite long. yes i have been thinking that it is a possible flaw to my plan since the atlantic navy for the Allies becomes quite monstrous however it gives the axis some motivation to get subs and use them in concert with planes to attack an allied surface fleet. the nice thing is that if the u.s. during their turn wants to go anywhere other than the zone the brits have moved to they will have to leave the U.K. flotilla to fend for itself.

let me know what you think with trying this out. i would like feedback for others to try get some good balance. A balance theory can't simply be reduced to how certain setups work otherwise you could show that tanks are worthless as offensive weapons by a set up where the defense has 14 infantry and the offense has 6 tanks and 4 infantry costing the same IPCs to both. the likely result is that the defender wins with 4-6 infantry remaining. however this doesn't account for the fact that on offense there is still incentive to attack by finding weak spots in the defense to overwhelm them plus the ability to bring airplanes to a spot where the defense has none.

i like to analyze the math of the game and try to keep their from being too many ridiculous flaws but i'm always discovering things i didn't realize such as how battleships go beyond just their matchup capabilities in sea to sea combat. everytime they are in a battle and win while absorbing a hit they have effectively saved the winning side one ship by virtue of absorbing a hit that would've sunk something else. this means that battleships have value even if they were somewhat more expensive i think. i always just used to look at the heads up comparison of them in a sea battle to just cruisers or destroyers but those units can't preserve units in effect like a battleship can. however you could argue that with extra cheaper units you would have won sooner in your battle anyway so who knows lol. sorry for the insane post.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Fighters that sink battleships?

wargamer55 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:28:15 +0000

by wargamer55

Fishmoto37 wrote:
I realize that the fighters in AA50 represent different types of single engine aircraft and I was never one to make up more complicated rules. But I just feel that somthing needed to be changed. Having seen the little stukas in AAE, I decided that the game needed dive bombers. So here goes with my dive bomber house rules. The dive bombers for the Germans were easy, I just used the stukas. For the other countries I used the fighters from the original AA game. My fighters may not now score hits on b,ships, cruisers, destroyers or carriers. Fighters may hit a submarine if a destroyer is present on the battle board. (one shot only) Fighters may hit any land target except ICs and AA guns. My dive bombers may hit any vessel and any land target except ICs and AA guns. (hits on subs are the same as fighters) Dive bombers may not attack fighters but may defend against them. Dive bombers and multi engine bombers never combat each other. Of course fighters may attack dive bombers. Multi engine bombers never attack ships. If they did,then I would suggest an attack at 1. Heavy bombers were never practical attacking shipping. Dive bombers may be land based or carrier based. My carriers now can carry up to three single engine aircraft. Optional two fighters and one dive bomber or one fighter and two dive bombers. Dive bombers cost 12 IPCs. Move at 4 just like fighters. Attack at 4 and defend at 1. As you can see the DBs are great attack units but very poor on defense. I think that this idea gives one so many more options and more strategy to think about. I am interested to here feedback on this idea.

Dude, it's not a tactical game. "Fighters" represent all tactical aviation. They could be anything from two-engine bombers, to fighter bombers, to actual fighters, to recon aircraft, to spotters, to torpedo bombers, to dive bombers, to skip bombers to etc. etc. etc.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Fighters that sink battleships?

Fishmoto37 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:10:31 +0000

by Fishmoto37

I realize that the fighters in AA50 represent different types of single engine aircraft and I was never one to make up more complicated rules. But I just feel that somthing needed to be changed. Having seen the little stukas in AAE, I decided that the game needed dive bombers. So here goes with my dive bomber house rules. The dive bombers for the Germans were easy, I just used the stukas. For the other countries I used the fighters from the original AA game. My fighters may not now score hits on b,ships, cruisers, destroyers or carriers. Fighters may hit a submarine if a destroyer is present on the battle board. (one shot only) Fighters may hit any land target except ICs and AA guns. My dive bombers may hit any vessel and any land target except ICs and AA guns. (hits on subs are the same as fighters) Dive bombers may not attack fighters but may defend against them. Dive bombers and multi engine bombers never combat each other. Of course fighters may attack dive bombers. Multi engine bombers never attack ships. If they did,then I would suggest an attack at 1. Heavy bombers were never practical attacking shipping. Dive bombers may be land based or carrier based. My carriers now can carry up to three single engine aircraft. Optional two fighters and one dive bomber or one fighter and two dive bombers. Dive bombers cost 12 IPCs. Move at 4 just like fighters. Attack at 4 and defend at 1. As you can see the DBs are great attack units but very poor on defense. I think that this idea gives one so many more options and more strategy to think about. I am interested to here feedback on this idea.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: Official Larry Harris' Tournament Rules for Anniversary Edition

Krieghund — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:41:58 +0000

by Krieghund

Not so far. It hasn't really been out long enough. If there are official tournament rules developed, I doubt the changes will be as extensive as in the ones for Revised were.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

GregDorn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:10:56 +0000

by GregDorn

I like the idea of continued naval movement (2 spaces total regardless of attack or landing). Jon brings up many good points in the value of air power vs. sea power.

I use house rules reducing the cost of Cruisers to 10 (and gaining anti-sub role) and Battleships to 18 which help close the gap in value to the overall military force, but this rule might help augment the navy even more.

The main reason I like this idea is that it promotes the "attacker wins" philosophy of A&A. It allows your navy to probe out on one move excursions before returning to the safety of the fleet. Existing rules lead to massive build-ups in the Pacific where neither side is willing to move the fleet at all because the separation will inevitably lead to its destruction.

The argument about it only helping the Axis is unjust. It may help Japan more than the US in the Pacific, but it favors Britain and US in the Atlantic. The British no longer have to leave the navy off the coast of France begging to be hit by German air force. They can still land units in France and then retreat one space to join new US units for protection.

I look forward to trying this out!

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Official Larry Harris' Tournament Rules for Anniversary Edition

impulse — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:05:53 +0000

by impulse

Has there been any word about official "tournament rules" for the Anniversary Edition (like what was done for the Revised Ed.)?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

umrmeche — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:24:11 +0000

by umrmeche

i feel our rule helps balance sea and air a litle which needs to happen somehow since sea can't effectively ever win you a game since it can destroy units but never actually take anything for you and so will never directly contribute to your income like planes do. i know planes can't secure territory either but one fighter in a land battle makes much more of a difference than one cruiser bombarding at 3 agreed? and that cruiser costs 12 compared to a fighter at 10. plus if you look at cruiser compared to a fighter, the cruiser contributes less to land battles and fights 3 attack and defense while costing more than a fighter who can attack at the same but defend even better AND they're less vulnerable to counter attack AND they can be put into the sea on carriers AND they have greater flexibility. the only advantage of the carrier is that it doesn't need another unit (carrier) to be in the sea and help protect transports. but the only two goals of a fleet ever are to protect transports to get more territory furthering your progress to victory or defending against/attacing another navy to preven tthem from doing the same.

that is true that bookkeeping can be a pain but it still isn't too bad and for us it has worked fairly well. The main reason that we did it ever was looking at how aircraft can consistently pick and choose their battles and bombers can go out strike then return to a haven with fighters. by an IPC cost and battle odds comparison it made any fleet ridiculously vulnerable to air power if a fleet ever fractured a little bit bc they want to hit multiple territories in a turn. i realize the game isn't simultaneous but i see nothing wrong with allowing a max of two MPs still for sea units and allowing them to move that total regardless. The one move for combat one non-com would be a good go-between though, we'll try it. I guess we just looked at how often and easily air power messed up fleets and every time a decent air force was nearby any splitting of the fleet automatically condemned it to death by the other side's air force. in reality or at least the stream of reality that A&A gives us it is entirely in the game's time mechanism that a transport or other ship could leave a fleet perform some task like fight a battle/drop off troops and rejoin at the end in the same way that planes do different tasks and can regroup at the end. this way fleets are a little more flexible and they don't all have to go to one exact place. looking at how even the odds are for if one side brings X IPCs worth of planes against the same value in only-combat ships we thought fleets should get a little more flexibilty and the chance to protect themselves. this was it makes sense for even an air power team to make some navy themselves to help bring down an opposing fleet rather than just constantly spam fleets with air units which is what generally would happen. the reason i feel fleets were too expensive/not flexible enough is illustrated here: lets say that a fleet costs the same as the air power going against it and we'll even for sake of argument not have any non-fighting ships (subs and transports) factored in even though transports are a necessary part of a navy if it ever wants to make a difference by getting more IPCs for their power. if you consider the cost of the non-fighting transports who cost IPCs but can't even aborb hits in a tight spot this is even more difficulty for a fleet but here is just one iteration of many different only air vs sea scenarios.

three cruisers and 5 destroyers vs three bombers and 4 fighters. in both cases a cost of 76 IPCs. the most common outcome for the first round is that the navy is reduced to three CAs and one DD and the airforce is three Bombers and one Fighter at that point the odds are still close but on defense you have 3 dice at 3 and 1 at 2 whereas the offense has 3 dice at 4 and 1 at 3. the great news for the airforce is that if they win they can go back home and be free from easy counterattack buteven if this navy has survivors it has been crippled and the only way for it to survive till the next round is if no other powers have air units in range or if it builds more sea units. i realize only head to head isn't a perfect comparison bc there is value to being able to bombard with ships and forcing an enemy to cover his various coastal positions bc of your possibilities....But it struck me that air units are just so much more valuable not only heads up but bc of their flexibility bc they can contribute way more to a ground assault than even a battleship can so why even build much of a navy unless you need to land troops, just build a massive airforce spread out over various territories and any time the enemy tries to go beyond the slowpoke pace of seizing several territories in one turn annhilate that portion. that is what i would do every game with the U.S. till i got sick of it and went for a realism game of bombing Germany and trying to take europe while fighting a delaying action in the pacific.

the other reason we did this is that if Italy ever wants to build sea units in the same turn as dropping off units in Egypt or Transjordan they must necessarily split their fleet between guarding the transport and the newly built one sea unit since neither will put up much resistance (none in the transport's case) to an air assault. but here is the thing that transport pry never has to carry out any moves from further than the Italian sea zone and yet it can't return. playing the traditional way the U.S. can put about 3 fighters in caucuses and simply wait for this split to occur and nail one piece. if the italians never split then the pace that their navy accomplishes anything is further reduced.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

talrich — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:52:14 +0000

by talrich

umrmeche wrote:
Does it strike anybody else as odd that a transport can pick up troops move two zones and drop them off but can't pick up troops, move one space drop them off and then still have one more MP so as to either move back or go to a different sea zone.

Loading, unloading and combat ARE the things that should take time. Cruising across the open water without fighting shouldn't take much time.

Since A&A is turn based, rather than simultaneous, allowing transports to move after battle wouldn't work. You could raid the land AND move away to prevent retaliation. I'd keep no post-battle movement.

I find the opposite problem. Two spaces of movement is quite limiting. I'd be more likely to consider making non-combat moves more generous than combat moves (i.e. 3 spaces for ships in non-combat). This sort of strategic movement better represented reality. It didn't take long to send new ships up to the front. There weren't new task forces at California, slightly older ones at Midway, and old ones off the Phillipeans. The ships were sent to the front quite quickly.

And fleet bunching may not make for a good game, but it was historically advantageous to have a large group of fleet carriers, just like in the game.

I miss the 3-move noncombat moves (port to port) from A&A:Pacific.

-Greg

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

halbower — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:45:21 +0000

by halbower

It is not possible to realistically bookkeep all the plane/ship movements. That is why the rules are what they are.

However, if you wanted to change the rules, here's an easy fix. Ship have a combat move of 1 and a noncombat move of 1. Fighters have a combat move of 2 and a noncombat move of 2. Bombers have a combat move of 3 and a noncombat move of 3.

This would allow you to move ships after a battle without the need for complicated rules. Then you could modify the technology chart to give some ships a +1 movement bonus.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

JohnnyPolo24 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:00:38 +0000

by JohnnyPolo24

Although I understand your desire for additional sea movements, I think the inability to move sea units after a battle is both necessary and more realistic.

For example, a transport looks like a normal sea unit on the board, but in reality they were deployed from a fleet to the shoreline for the land battle. A transport wouldn't retreat from battle and move another few hundred miles away immediately.

WWII era planes simply aren't the same. They would go on bombing runs, support land units during battle, etc all the time. Whenever land units are trying to occupy an area the planes can't simultaneously land at an airstrip, which is why they have to go to a previously owned territory (retreat during non-combat movement).

In reality battle doesn't happen in turns, so the various ships' inability to move simulates their presence in the sea zone during and immediately following a battle. You can create a house rule for whatever you want, but I generally believe that games were tested and rules were subsequently tweaked to provide balance. I think your rule proposal would favor the Axis, specifically Japan as you pointed out, and testing has shown that the Axis already have an advantage in this edition. Any new rules can skew the balance of the game. I think that the inability of transports and submarines to block naval movement adds enough balance to the sea strategy in this edition.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Annihilation Combat

halbower — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:55:58 +0000

by halbower

AnimalMother wrote:
I am intrigued. Tell me more. Supply Rules? Initiative?

Twilight Imperium has strategy cards. Each player claims one. The strategy cards have initiative numbers on them (1-8). Game play is in this order.

1. Initiative
2. Diplomacy
3. Political
4. Logistics
5. Trade
6. Warfare
7. Technology
8. Imperial

Players get the benefits from their strategy cards. For example: Technology gives you one free technology; trade gets you 3 trade goods; logistics gets you more command counters.

Command counters are used to activate systems. You activate a system, move ships and troops in to the system and conduct combat. Thus, if you want to fight 3 battles, you will need 3 command counters.

Command counters are also used for supply. For every command counter you allocate to Fleet Supply, you are allowed to have 1 capital ship in any given system. If you want to have 5 dreadnoughts/crusiers in a system, you need 5 in Fleet Supply.

This is how TI3 handles this problem. TI3 has much in common in A&A (the combat engine for example). But TI3 has a lot more chrome--which I like.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Annihilation Combat

umrmeche — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:07:33 +0000

by umrmeche

I'm glad someone will go up against the self-proclaimed WWII know it all don moody. he constantly reminds us that A&A is worthless as a WWII boardgame and how he knows that everything is inaccurate so we could possibly pull out his codesigned World at War and enjoy the fun filled accuracy while all my A&A friends run in horror at what they already consider to be a long, complicated game.

Plus he seems to think he knows what could ever possibly happen or not happen with certainty. He states that Japan could never have controlled India or that Germany never had a chance of taking Russia bc Stalin wouldn't surrender. Stalin loses Moscow, his regime pry falls with a new one taking its place and suing for peace much like in WWI. Of course the hate level between the two's armies was much higher this time so maybe not but how he thinks he can simply rule it out is beyond me. good posts

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Annihilation Combat

umrmeche — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:59:56 +0000

by umrmeche

actually yamamoto did say something similar to that since he had spent time in U.S. in earlier years and seen our factories and industrial potential. He did call us a sleeping giant and harbored serious reservations about the possibility for any kind of victory against us. However, Japan could easily have obtained a co-prosperity sphere and take India and Australia if not for our involvement. They probably would never have been able to "conquer the world" unless they were able to attract many allies to their cause thus gaining more manpower and material to build their war machine. perhaps they could have done what Rome did to sustain themselves, defeat then conscript your enemies so as to take advantage of the new pool of men and bring any competence they had to your own forces. this was of course unlikely seeing as the Japs treated their vanquished foes with utter cruelty.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: house rule: changing ship movement to give more realism

umrmeche — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:10:02 +0000

by umrmeche

Does it strike anybody else as odd that a transport can pick up troops move two zones and drop them off but can't pick up troops, move one space drop them off and then still have one more MP so as to either move back or go to a different sea zone. Another even better instance would be a fleet battle where say a battleship moves one space fights and wins but can't move any further but the battleship can move two zones first and fight.

To me ships should be treated as planes so that they get their full movement potential whether they battle or not. In a realism sense I believe this makes more sense. After all there is no extra total amount of work in the two cases for the transport as i illustrated. In both cases they have to load up move and unload their troops. If one moves shorter distance before unloading it would still be able to leave the beaches and continue on. I realize there would some additional time needed in the transport situation since it would have to leave from the beach back to open water and move on. But if it is all open sea combat such as in the case of the Battleship why can't it continue moving. The same amount of fuel and time would be spent in moving one zone, battling for say one day and then moving another zone as would the time and fuel spent in moving two zones then battling for a day.

We implemented this rule back in the revised edition when ships were more expensive and so vulnerable for their cost to air power. we still use it at times in the Anniv Ed simply because it makes sense and it allows the Japanese navy for instance to not have to try to always keep its fleet in uberbunches since the U.S. is generally shadowing it with a decent navy and has bombers grouped in whatever island is available. this allows Japan to keep its navy together send several transports out on missions say one zone away then come back to the safety of the fleet. the fleet can still be beaten by a combined force of navy/air if the U.S. wants to go that route and build up their forces but it doesn't force players to have to split up their fleet into little pieces if they want to launch invasions of a few territories nearby.

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

Pero — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:55:59 +0000

by Pero

My personal mod form cyberboard (Map "Yukihiro Sakai")

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: National Objectives: Yes or No?

umrmeche — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:07:18 +0000

by umrmeche

you like to claim that the game super sizes the axis with production which is somewhat true although in the 41 setup the axis have roughly 1/2 the IPC output of the Allies. but at the same time the game doesn't take any of the U.S. production to all the shipping they had to plus logistical planning and resources to even get to the war front. the Axis war machine in teh case of Germany was always closer to the front in that they never had to spend near as much in manpower or goods to get their troops and armaments into position. this idea that you can somehow say if the game truly depicted the situation in 1942 it would be 90% Allies is tough to really claim. it doesn't take into account possible blunders like Market Garden or Hitler's unwillingness to listen to his commanders at times. I read a great article in Military Heritage about how Rommell was always being undermined by the Prussian Aristocratic Military leaders who looked at him as an upstart since he was from a middle class family while they had prussian heritage in their bloodlines. in rommell's counterattack in Africa at Kessering Pass he most likely would have won if the other two arms of his assault hadn't dallied around as he lost the element of surprise and he was the only one who had met his gains and reached badly needed fuel depots.
axis could easily have won some sort of victory in the war but it is impossible to know if they for instance could ever have mounted a serious threat to the U.S. mainland since their manpower resources were getting taxed dramatically.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

ozimek — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:22:55 +0000

by ozimek

I appreciate that the P38 has been replaced. It just seems wierd.

Anyway, one of the P38's from my Revised game, now serves in AA50 as the Flying Tigers. Not that there has ever been any chance of confusion between a US fighter and the Flying Tigers, but it's a nice little detail :)

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:16:30 +0000

by umrmeche

looking over many of your posts in this and other threads i conclude that you definitely point out the many historical flaws with A&A but they often have many accuracies and even a guy like me who doesn't mind steep learning curves and complexity ifthe result is a balanced game and lots of realism can't find many peopleto play the World at War game that you have. to go for utter realism is just too time consuming and degenerates a game for the semi hard core gamers. i like to try to add in historical flavor whenever i can and i change some rules like subs not being vulnerable to airplanes alone but i try to keep the intrusions minimal since it brings to many caveats in and i play with different people and trying to balnace everything perfectly is very difficult.

what do suggest for instance with subs. if they aren't vulnerable to air it is unrealistic but if they are what happens to Germany? in the 2004 game if i was the U.S. i owuld always just stockpile fighters and bombers in range of the baltic or mediterranean and pummel any subs ever built, they were always complete sitting ducks when the reality is somewhere in between. but making them endure one rond of commbat before submerging isn't realisitc or balanced either. i've tried formulating something in between but often that brings on other issues of balance and somehting new that can be exploited

this was meant for don moody just in case

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: China - Can It Be Kept Alive?

Tistel — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:29:17 +0000

by Tistel

You can allways reinforce China with Russian troops in turn 1. But as everything in this game. Reaction is almost everything. The Russian strategy with China and India depends on what the German do in the the first turn, and the outcome of the dices.

Japan can allways kill the Chinese fighter in turn 1 but you can still gather 6-8 inf (some russians) in the last territory. These are not so easy to kill. Normaly you withdraw the russians when Japan can with the fight with low costs. This tactic stalls them in China.

One or two russian armers together with a few infantry will easily counteratack japaneese troops in China. The Japan player has to be a little more careful were to put the troops.

But as i did tell before. Everythins is about the other parts strategy and the dices.

I have allways palyed with without specific country goals (ether one side wins) and with NO bonuses.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

Cleitus the Black — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:42:21 +0000

by Cleitus the Black

Imperious Leader is notably absent from this thread.

:)

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: The thread on AA50 National advantages:

GregDorn — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:53:39 +0000

by GregDorn

The problem with the subs is that they are only good for offense. If you think you can build just subs and defeat a carrier/destroyer fleet, then you are playing against someone who doesn't understand the importance of air power.

Your strategy of waiting for a fleet to get close doesn't have to happen. To defeat subs, only one destroyer needs to be in range of a sub attack. If the subs don't retreat, advance the destroyer and a swarm of fighters over the subs. The sub can (and probably will) sink the destroyer first round, but the fighters (and bombers if in range) will take out over half the subs. The battle ends after one round, but the sub owner suffered many more losses than the attacker. The weakened sub fleet is no longer be a match for the carrier fleet.

I'm not suggesting that super-subs aren't a royal pain. I'm just pointing out a good counter-strategy.

Another idea for you, is to incorporate Anti-Sub Warfare as a technology to research. This allows aircraft to strike at subs without a destroyer escort. Subs must take losses on the first round before submerging (since they can't fire back at the planes).

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: My custom A&A dice

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:46:53 +0000

by umrmeche

how did you get those? i went to chessex and saw many possibilities but no place to add your own symbols. Thanks

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:45:37 +0000

by umrmeche

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: The thread on AA50 National advantages SUper subs too powerful

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:01:04 +0000

by umrmeche

do you feel that subs once researched to super subs and improved shipyards can become a little too ridiculous. i am thinking of tweaking it so that you can't get a fleet of subs that attack at 3 and cost 5 and are invulnerable to air and sea unless destroyers are present. i love that subs now aren't vulnerable to air units just poaching them but at the same time destroyers are weak and often the first to go in a line up of defending ships so super subs can then first strike at will against vastly superior fleets ( say one battleship two cruisers and two destroyers cost 60 IPCs) since you can get 10 of them at the same cost and post them in a sea zone and if a fleet ever gets close to you sic them on that surface fleet. odds are you get 5 hits first cycle defender gets approx 3 if slightly lucky and already the bship is maxed and the destroyers and cruiser are vanquished. next round 7 super subs left and just one defending bship who pry won't even get to fire since the destroyer is gone and the supersubs now get 7 chances at 50% to preemptively sink the hapless Bship. your thoughts.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: Adding a little flavor from Optional Rules in A&A Revised Ed.

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:53:45 +0000

by umrmeche

i definitely agree with adding some optional rules from the revised Ed. I used and modified ours from Larry Harris' rules 2.0 for tourney. take a look at the PDF he gives rationale for all of them and i love how he modified some from the 2004. such as how the original game had the worthless german nat'l advantage of luftwaffe dive bombers doing SBR with 1d6/2 for damage round up. how luftwaffe dive bombers give the german fighters attack of 5 on their first round of combat against ground units when the defense has no defending fighter aircraft. this is a pretty accurate portrayal of the stuka ju-88 devastating abilities while not being unbalanced since it is only one cycle and is cancelled by defending fighters which is what dive bombers were vulnerable to historically since they can't dogfight like a fighter/interceptor. if you don't like the rules teh way they are tweak some of them to your own feel of what is balanced and have fun. it makes the gameply much more varied and unique since Germany can now go for wolf pack and sub interdiction or go panzerblitz and luftwaffe DBs for a ground heavy approach. some nat'l will have to be modified such as chinese divisions for the U.S. since U.S. no longer controls china obviously. but they do give you a good starting set.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Six Players; First Time for All

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:38:03 +0000

by umrmeche

allow scorched earth and losing india still hurts a lot but isn't the end of the world for the Allies. some people amazingly don't know what that is so in case you don't it allows a power who has controlled their factory for at least one round (cant' have just conquered it) to burn a factory if defeated so as to deprive the victor of logistics. this applies to Russia as well and makes Russia much more robust and less vulnerable to the Germany throw pure armor and planes at russia to get their two non-moscow factories approach that many on these forums advocate.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Six Players; First Time for All

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:33:59 +0000

by umrmeche

i think the Anniversary edition is a smashing success. i bought a backup copy on ebay before it gets more expensive. One thing i would say is bring back national advantages albeit slightly modified from the 2004 edition. Google Larry Harris' 2.0 tourney rules which include his A&A 2004 national advantages and modify them somewhat to compensate fo rthe different game. We did and the result is fantastic, panzerblitz for Germany gives them superrealism and their tanks need the ability on the eastern front where infantry are always in short supply and Japan's extra powerful battleships help counter the U.S. who can get war economy or other things like marines for their landings. all in all they are great additions. We tried to come up with some for Italy but they didn't do antying well so.... lol

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is the cruiser really that pointless?

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:26:07 +0000

by umrmeche

i defnitely agree with making cruisers a bit cheaper but just saying heads up doesn't always work since all cruisers rarely meet all destroyers. headsup comparison can give some valuable insight for instance we no longer play heavy bombers the way it says with two dice but instead use the best of two giving it a max of one hit per round. otherwise three heavy bombers 36 IPCs against two battleships 40 IPCs and the bombers will like score 4/6 and take the battleships out in one round while they might take two with them. this doesnt even take into account the helpless transports that might be along and simply getting pounded as well which increases the disparity.

I was happy to see after adding this rule myself that Larry Harris had actually changed that rule for the 2004 edition to the way we played it already in both editions. plus in 2004 we had already reduced 24 IPC Bships to 20 since buying them was almost pointless except for America and maybe Japan.

however i would be careful with heads up comparisons being a main factor for changing unit characteristics. since for instance 6 subs at 36 IPCs on offense against 40 IPCs two battleships will most certainly yield a victory for the subs with much less substantial losses. but that doesn't take into account what could happen if the other power sends one destroyer after your subs with a bevy of aircraft pounding yoru sub fleet in one round and the max return you can do is killing one 8 IPC destroyer. If anything subs may be a little too powerful now especially super subs with improved shipyards.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:13:56 +0000

by umrmeche

definitely not such a high percentage either. do you ever have russia build artillery to help counter the German's high amount of tanks with little infantry protection in your scenario. often times i will attack for one or two rounds with russia trading infantry for their infantry plus some tanks if i'm lucky then pull back my purpose being more than accomplished.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:10:34 +0000

by umrmeche

the tech is quite valuable i think. for the u.s. who can afford to drop down 10 or 15 IPC first turn will get something usually within two rounds. i go for chart two for them which hopefully will yield Improved Shipyards giddyup lol, but long range aircraft heavy bombers are jet fighters are also tremendously valuable. trust me, next time you play even if you are japan or italy get a couple tech dice, they will eventually produce something since you get to keep them until you get a tech. they can be game changers, If italy gets shipyards they can actually be a naval threat.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:06:44 +0000

by umrmeche

if you put all your eggs in the Moscow basket and you bide your time too long the U.S. and U.K. can and will start to sap your production by hitting places like Norway and Finland and France. Norway especially is tough to protect and requires a decent amount of troops to stand up to amphibious assaults from the U.K. who then haev an immediate base on the continent. Then factor in the U.S. incessant bombing campaign that can be used plus sending fighters and that is a whole nother scenario. i can tell you know your math and understand a lot of the underlying concepts of winning such as giving up valuable territory to keep heading towards moscow since it is the golden ring and taking it pretty much assures you of victory but i think you need to reexamine the possible allied strategies.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:00:15 +0000

by umrmeche

if the luftwaffe stays close enough to hit sea zones off of france then they won't be able to be used that turn for the eastern front correct? plus an opening move for U.K. is almost always to destroy the navy Germany has. The U.S. can do the same.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:55:44 +0000

by umrmeche

or even send units from U.K. into Archangel where they immediately start defending vulnerable territory and can help Russia considerably.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:48:43 +0000

by umrmeche

sorry about the wait i had a tough spring semester. It is simply that if a power has controlled a factory for at least a turn they can scorch (destroy it) if they so choose. This allows Russia to fall back as they lose ground and hunker down by burning bridges behind them/ though that isn't always necessary if they get some help from U.K. and U.S.

I never play without this game variant bc it is so realistic and helps balance the game play considerably. Nobody can deny the historical accuracy of scorched earth's use in history and for Russia it has been their M.O. for centuries from Napolean to Hitler. I strongly suggest people try it out and maybe tweak it to their liking. Even if they don't use Scorched Earth Russia is far from being a goner. I'll have to playtest this without scorched earth.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Midwest players help

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:41:07 +0000

by umrmeche

I love this game i've played it since the 2004 version came out and i love this one even more. Are there any tourneys in the state of Missouri or the surrounding states? i can't get enough of this game and i'm constantly looking for fun challenges (luckily i have some college buddies who are up for playing once a month or so). All of the tourneys I can find are for A&A miniatures. Please help thanks

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:37:32 +0000

by umrmeche

exactly good call my man. nothing in this game is unstoppable. sorry to beat a dead horse but does anybody ever play scorched earth. this makes a quick take of Moscow all but impossible if Russia doesn't do anything boneheaded lol. scorched earth is exactly how Russia prolonged the battle so we always allow Russia to burn its factories. usually karelia falls early and gets razed but caucuses and moscow are tough cookies.

i especially like wheat you said about the Axis putting all the eggs in one basket too true. the same can be said for what people often do who i play with with Japan. everything goes for India at the expense of the rest of the theatre. good enough if you get it without losing too many fighters but if not you have put yourself at a serious disadvantage. when i'm russia i make it extra tough by diverting 3-4 infantry (a paltry amount by eastern front meat grinder standards:) ) to India but plenty enough to make sure the U.K. has a fighting chance in India.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:30:58 +0000

by umrmeche

but if all the axis does is build up they'll never get ahead in the IPC war. U.S. will be virtually tied with Germany and Japan with U.K. and Russia leads Italy. If you play with bonuses that can change some but if you wait even four turns the U.S. and U.K. can already have started landing troops quickly in Archangel only a turn from the capital plus they start sending fighters which will reach in a couple turns. My favorite strategy for U.S.S.R is to send about three infantry immediately to India for the U.K. to give it some backbone. This allows the U.K. to build a factory there since they can send some of their own troops that way as well.

this all becomes moot if you allow scorched earth which you should since it is accurate and adds depth to the gameplay.

if Japan puts all its attention on India the Russians move to Manchuria and china's troops can help make a push on the easter chinese provinces as well. this makes it a big gamble for Japan. Sure they can go balls out for India and might get it despite the allies max efforts to halt their advance but if not they've spent two rounds of precious time and will most definitely lose precious fighters in combat there as well as teh opportunity cost of not starting to push china. then factor in the U.S. can start being a thorn in their side in the pacific and it requires a flexible strategy to deal with the allies and what happens.

i hate how much luck there is too but what can you do. often very unlikely results occur in real life combat too so i'm sure sometimes real commanders have been beaten and wondered how that was possible. i would support using a chart or something for each round so that X infantry would say assure you of a minimum number of hits in that combat cycle plus a variable like 1d6/3 or something like that so there is some variability which there should be but prevents a situation where 5 fighter planes all miss in a defensive cycle while my younger brother's attacking infantry artillery with 8 total dice in all score 7 hits lol (this has happened before he's the luckiest A&A player I know). That said this game is always modifiable by the players with house rules and nat'l advantages molded from Larry Harris' tourney rules 2.0 for A&A revised edition.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:15:24 +0000

by umrmeche

Britain can bypass all that and drop troops off directly in Karelia or Archangel. The U.S. first turn is to by fighters and beef up the atlantic convoy. The U.S. if need be starts sending one figher or more per turn to Russia. they arrive in two turns providing great defense plus the U.S. then starts landing in France every two turns or so and if Germany wants to deny them that bonus plus the distraction that means less troops for the front. You pry don't even need scorched earth option to keep Russia viable but we play that way in every version bc history is replete with Russia burning everything and retreating. Got Napolean and it go Hitler. Btw we play that rule for every power so that not just Russia and scorch its factories but we make the rule it must control it for an entire turn. i think it is a great addition to the game's realism and makes things extra dicey on the front.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Unstoppable Opening Axis Move (1942)

umrmeche — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:57:48 +0000

by umrmeche

I've commented on this before and I'll do it again. If you don't allow scorched earth maybe it would be unstoppable though pry not since the U.S. can immediately start sending troops to France in two turns ditto U.K. We still play with some of the nat'l advantages that were made in the 2004 edition then modified and posted online by Larry Harris. Mobile factories as well as scorched earth which we play with always for any power is accurate, historical, and tons of fun. Germany pushes deep into Russia only to find its supply lines dwindling as Russia quickly burns the Karelia factory and forms a wall in Russia and Caucuses counter attacking with mostly infantry and returable fighters whenever Germany has too little meat shield and lots of tanks vulnerable to the counter which happens often. Then if I'm the U.S. in the first turn I have spent half my income strengthening my convoy in the atlantic to ferry troops constantly and U.K. goes for Norway or Finland for some instant help. If Germany wants to stop this threat it can but at the cost of bleeding off precious infantry to man the western territories and keeping fighters there.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Statements in A&A Anniversary edition sessions:

Viracocha — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:20:30 +0000

by Viracocha

Yep. The post was in the "tongue and cheek" spirit," not to be taken as "slagging" on the Italian role in the game (I actually love the anniversary edition).

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

pajaromuerto — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:01:22 +0000

by pajaromuerto

I agree with not seeing what was wrong with it. The P-38 was the mount of the U.S.'s top two aces, and was also the only front-line fighter serving from the beginning to the end of the war.

People are just such crybabies sometimes.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Statements in A&A Anniversary edition sessions:

vonAdlertag — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:24:57 +0000

by vonAdlertag

monteslu wrote:
It's fun to play as Italy in a 6 player game and wait an hour to make one move.

Yes, if you want very short turns, and like being a pain in the butt to UK and USA, then you should consider playing Italy. This joke of a nation play only the 6 first turns, so it is practical to play if you have to go somewhere and cant stay for the whole game.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

wargamer55 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:18:43 +0000

by wargamer55

I'm not sure why it would be an unpopular piece, but it's a little bit of a more appropriate plane because it was carrier-based.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

Krieghund — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:27:21 +0000

by Krieghund

Unfortunately, it was an unpopular piece, so it was replaced with the Hellcat from Pacific and Guadalcanal. I miss it, also.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

ASLChampion — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:03:46 +0000

by ASLChampion

Biomage wrote:
I just found a copy of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition at Hobbytown USA, on sale ($84.00 USD)! I am very please with the game. But what happened to the P-38 lightnings that were used with A&A:E?

THAT would be in the A&A:AE;P-38 version...

I just picked up the Messerschmidt version last week at my FLGS.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Just picked up A&A:AE, what happened to the p-38 lighting?

Biomage — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:30:54 +0000

by Biomage

I just found a copy of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition at Hobbytown USA, on sale ($84.00 USD)! I am very please with the game. But what happened to the P-38 lightnings that were used with A&A:E?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Statements in A&A Anniversary edition sessions:

Viracocha — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:56:21 +0000

by Viracocha

heheh - I hear that. :snore:

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Statements in A&A Anniversary edition sessions:

monteslu — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:19:27 +0000

by monteslu

It's fun to play as Italy in a 6 player game and wait an hour to make one move.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Statements in A&A Anniversary edition sessions:

Viracocha — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:53:45 +0000

by Viracocha

What? Germany doesn't start with a battleship? Does this mean I can't sing the Johnny Horton song?

What's the deal with the Italian roundel?

Look, the T-34 is almost 2-D!

Italian U-boats?

Wait... these chips aren't the same size...

One-sided money?

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

tyvek — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:54:18 +0000

by tyvek

Build Up in the Pacific

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: With holding IPCs Illegal?

Krieghund — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:43:34 +0000

by Krieghund

Yes, you're correct.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: With holding IPCs Illegal?

JohnnyPolo24 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:55:01 +0000

by JohnnyPolo24

Seth and Kevin are both correct. No one is required to buy units.

However, if a player buys units then that player is required to place them during the mobilize units phase of the turn. I know there is one exemption from that last rule, but I can't remember when it applies. I believe it is that units aren't mobilized if the factory cannot accomodate the total number of units built, in which case they remain on the mobilization square until the players next turn. Also, if during the interim round the player loses their capital then the units are discarded without ever being placed. Am I correct?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: With holding IPCs Illegal?

Krieghund — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:27:58 +0000

by Krieghund

Seth is correct - this is legal. However, you must also bear production limits in mind. No matter how many IPCs the UK saves, it can still only mobilize eight units per turn. It is the IPC value of the IC's territory represents its production capacity (in units), not the number of IPCs collected per turn.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: With holding IPCs Illegal?

wargamer55 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:07:34 +0000

by wargamer55

I don't see anything in the rules that REQUIRES you to spend IPCs. The rules say you may spend IPCs to buy units. Indeed, some countries will absolutely HAVE to save up IPCs over a couple of turns if they want to build expensive units like aircraft carriers or battleships.

I think, as a general rule, it's probably a good idea to spend IPCs as fact as you get them because you usually need the units in action as soon as possible. But if you think it's in your best interest you can save them.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: With holding IPCs Illegal?

malstrom — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:54:56 +0000

by malstrom

It has been of debate that withholding IPc moneys in Axis and Allies is illegal for the game ..Or should be revised in the

Rules. An Example is when Brittan is so blasted by the Luftwaffe every turn when trying to build a fleet that Britain can never gain a sea to air superiority and survive to get off the island!! So the strategy is to hold all cash on one turn then on your second turn spend something like a combined 50plus dollars and boom! Instant fleet!!

To analyze the games correlation to reality. Is it not bending the reality to build fleets that take months/years to build in underground bunkers away from seaport bombings? Is this not what withholding the money represents? How would a rush build beyond the country’s’ normal production strength and GDP be possible? When say you only have a few ports that can only build one ship at a time. Should not unspent moneys be lost!

What do you think!

Lawrence

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

mitchiapet — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:11:59 +0000

by mitchiapet

Or you go find an older copy of the 2004 revised edition or the the old Gamemaster series copy. I believe you can find those for at least what AA1942 will cost you, if not cheaper.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Hints for Axis players for 1941 scenario.

Kevin02 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:36:50 +0000

by Kevin02

This post assumes playing 1941 w/NO.
I disagree with Germany playing very aggressive. Germany must prioritize preserving it's initial combat power (tanks) over taking Russian territory. It should seek to achieve one NO every round. There is no need to attack Karelia or Caucus the first round, that only leaves you vulnerable to a counter attack. The German air force is for destroying the brittish fleet. Every plane and bomber with the starting fleet. No transport can ever be allowed to live, other ships should be killed if possible.
Maneuver:
Rnd 1 split north and south so that you are one space away from Karelia and Caucus. Take eastern Poland with the minimum forces necessary or ignore it and acheive that NO next round.
Rnd 2 take either Karelia or Caucus depending on where the Soviets decide to reinforce. Preferably Karelia as it is usually more lightly defended and cannot be counter attacked by Moscow.
Rnd 3 Use the forces in Karelia to eat up Soviet territory.
Rnd 4 take Caucus. You want every unit possible here in Caucus. If the Soviets counter attack anywhere they will be making Moscow weaker and more likely to fall. Begin the build up. When you have as many tanks as Russia has infantry in Moscow and as many infantry as they have tanks take the city. You get those tanks and infantry by a 1st round infantry build that marches east and a second round tank build. All other reinforcements will come from Karelia and Caucus after you take them. You will make 6 tanks a round to the Soviets diminishing 6 infantry. Time is on your side as long as you keep the UK at bay. builds from round 3 on should be aimed at containing the UK, ie bobers, fighters and infantry after the 6 tanks for the eastern factories are paid for.

Meanwhile that build up is occuring how do you stop the UK from amphibiously assaulting all over Europe?
Answer: a combination of air power and solid play by Italy and Japan. With NOs Germany can afford a plane or bomber every round. Be wary of a UK player building NW of England. Only fighters in Norway can range. If you keep the seas clear though the home base of the fighters doesn't matter. Psychologically it is difficult for the UK to repeatedly build fleets. They want enough transports to make a meaningful Assault but then they won't have enough surface warships to protect them. A Good UK player will build a fleet that survives a round then build transports. It's hard for them though because the invasion is at least three rounds away and they feel the pressure to make a difference now. Russia is screaming for planes in Moscow and it's just easier to build those and bombers for SBR than it is to build for a far off invasion. When the UK wastes money on factories in India or Australia keeping the waters clear becomes even easier.
Italy is improperly used if it builds infantry for France. Italy needs to take Africa and deny the UK that production value. If they are not aggressive in getting their troops into Africa (I would buy a 2nd transport Rnd 1) then they will find themselves quickly SBR into irrelevance. The troops they start with won't make a difference in france, but they will dominate Africa unless the UK and US put significant effort into stopping them. If the Allies do, then Italy has succeeded in taking the heat off Germany. If the Allies don't then Italy triples its value becomes largely immune to SBR and begins building up a fleet and troops that will delay future invasions.
Japan is not going to reach Moscow fast enough to make a difference. Every little bit they take away from Moscows production value helps but their main mission should be to take money away from the UK and to antagonize the US. I build an industrial complex in Manchuria for tanks, and position the fleets and transports close enough for a round two assault of India. You want the UK to build that complex for you and then take it away before it builds a thing. If they don't make that mistake focus on Japan's NOs and always take money from the UK if at all possible. Aggressively attack China and grind it down, kill their plane as soon as possible. Japan is the only country that can afford to be extremely agressive because they can reinforce in Asia while other nations cannot. The US job is to protect UK money, but with NOs Japan will always outpace the US in a naval arms race. As Japan get your NOs and then consolidate your fleet so that you don't get picked off piece meal. You want to provoke the US into a hopeless arms race. The US is in the difficult position of being forced to protect Africa and slow Japan. It's likely they will be found wanting in one theater if not both. Japan cannot allow the US to ignore them. If they do and the US protects UK amphibious invasions and successfully defends Africa I guarantee that Germany will fall and an unchecked Japan running rampant in Asia won't matter. Japan can't get to Moscow fast enough.

I prefer to play with NOs because it means the production caps matter and more expensive units are built. That alone requires nations to anticipate and react to each others builds far more than previous editions. The Axis can acheive superior production without taking Moscow. Moscow is the key, but an all or nothing race for it is no longer necessary.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Strategies for Italy

Sspifffyman — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:31:41 +0000

by Sspifffyman

Caucasus

I think the Caucasus is still interesting, but its a lot less explosive with only two Transports on Italys turn 2. Actually, even if it can be taken, I don't think its realistic hold Caucasus from the coming Russian counter attack on RU3.

On the 41 setup, If Germany doesn't go for Leningrad, and in G1 takes Baltic States, East Poland, and Ukraine, then Italy can really help with the Stalingrad invasion. Assuming Russia doesn't put more than 6 or 7 infantry or worse in Caucasus, then Italy can send in an infantry and artillery, plus get the lovely 3 bombardments. That would kill plenty of infantry so that Germany would be poised to easily take Caucasus on G2 with 4 tanks, and a good amount of infantry/artillery. If the russian player defended Leningrad with much, then he won't be able to take caucasus back, at least not very easily.

Also, if this tactic is used, Italy should send its ground troops toward Ukraine to defend it as best as possible. Also, German planes could be sent to Ukraine, and any extra tanks Germany has.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

essen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:16:43 +0000

by essen

A new player should get the 1942 edition...it's cheaper, so in case you and your friends arent too fond of it, it won't be such a big loss. The rules are probably easier too...I doubt the China rules from Anniversary Edition will make it to 1942 edition since the mapboard is smaller.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

anpd — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:08:19 +0000

by anpd

So what should a new Axis & Allies player get the 50 year anniversary or 42 edition :(

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: AA50 House Rules: By Imperious Leader

GregDorn — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:41:21 +0000

by GregDorn

I love the detailed maps you have here to demonstrate opening moves. How did you make them? Do you have a "blank" map I could use as a template?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is the cruiser really that pointless?

halbower — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:02:25 +0000

by halbower

Being a TI3 fan, I find some of these discussions pretty interesting. In TI3, we have destroyers, cruisers and dreadnoughts--vis a vis the discussion above.

How would I handle the cruiser problem? I would implement a new technology: cruisers and battleships can carry 1 infantry. This makes both cruisers and battleships better but requires some research to get there.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is the cruiser really that pointless?

GregDorn — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:19:09 +0000

by GregDorn

The IPC cost of the Battleship and Cruiser are skewed compared to the Destroyer. Using the standard cost 8 IPC Destroyer and 12 IPC Cruiser, you can get a 3 to 2 ratio of Destroyers to Cruisers for the same cost. Try simulating battles between Destroyers and Cruisers purchased for the same cost to see what I mean.

Destroyers win almost 70% of the time. Add sub-detection to the mix and buying Cruisers becomes wasteful. It would only make sense in a situation where you can produce more Destroyers than you have production capacity.

Battleships at a cost of 20 IPC suffer a similar (60% loss) fate to Destroyers.

I, along with input from other threads, have adopted a few changes that correct this and make each boat a valid choice.

1. Cruisers perform anti-sub. Same rules as Destroyer. Keeps bombard ability.

2. Cruisers cost 10 IPC / 8 with Shipyards.

3. Battleships cost 18 IPC / 15 with shipyards.

These changes provide a perfect balance between the ships (also keeping a Destroyer & Cruiser pair equal in price to a Battleship).

If you are worried that this makes the Cruiser too powerful, try a battle simulation with these prices. The Destroyer/Cruiser equal value battle now has a 5/4 ratio, and the Destroyer group still wins by a slight margin (49% Destroyers win, 5% mutual destruction, 46% Cruisers win). That is why the Cruisers need the anti-sub ability to close the gap on value.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Churchill's Glory or a Six-Player Game in Three Parts

raolsson — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:11:19 +0000

by raolsson

The Axis ended up having a lot of money throughout the game, but they really needed it because they have to defend from so many sides. Although I like to represent the Allied victory as destiny in our game, it could have gone either way. I think the National Objectives added to the game, personally. It had me considering making moves that I might not have made otherwise.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Churchill's Glory or a Six-Player Game in Three Parts

Viracocha — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:44:29 +0000

by Viracocha

Yep - those are the ones. Was just wondering because everyone seems to be of the opinion that using National Objective's in the 1941 setting tips the play balance to the Axis, yet you say the Allies won. Personally, I have the impression it's pretty well balanced (I also include the "Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement" and "Fighter Escorts and Interceptors" rules, + tech.)... but I don't think I've played it enough to have a firm opinion yet.

Liked the review btw, and thanks for responding.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Churchill's Glory or a Six-Player Game in Three Parts

raolsson — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:55:03 +0000

by raolsson

If those are the objectives on the cards that give you more cash if you satisfy them, yes! They worked out for Britain on turn one, but after that is was kind of slim pickings.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Churchill's Glory or a Six-Player Game in Three Parts

Viracocha — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:12:32 +0000

by Viracocha

Question - did you play with NO's?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Russian Sub

Saan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:07:06 +0000

by Saan

quebec128 wrote:

Russian Sub

Please, please. This clearly isnt just a russian sub. That sub is more aptly termed "The Motherlands' Grand and Terrible Navy."

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

vonAdlertag — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:47:23 +0000

by vonAdlertag

This is a waste. We would be better off if they combined A&A Europe with A&A Pacific. Like two maps in the same box. They could be used single or combined. Then you could choose to play the European theatre, or the Pacific theater, or the global war. Its like 3 different games in the very same box. Now that would be nice

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

JohnnyPolo24 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:18:34 +0000

by JohnnyPolo24

GROGnads wrote:
JohnnyPolo24 wrote:

It's not a cheaper one. A&A 1942 is a remake of the Revised edition. This thread is about a reprint of A&A 1950.
:what: ummm... you might have also conducted an EDIT for 'inaccuracy'?

Okay, okay... So there were two errors, and I only fixed one of them. I meant AA50. :laugh:

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

GROGnads — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:35:54 +0000

by GROGnads

GROGnads wrote:
:what: Does this then 'mean' that they're discontinuing that cheaper 'one'? :surprise:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/405385

JohnnyPolo24 wrote:

It's not a cheaper one. A&A 1942 is a remake of the Revised edition. This thread is about a reprint of A&A 1950.

:what: ummm... you might have also conducted an EDIT for 'inaccuracy'?

JohnnyPolo24 wrote:
They both say Axis & Allies on the box, but they're not the same game. They're more like brothers.Edited for grammar error.

:angry: Ever SINCE the "reviled" edition had made its appearance, then they've constantly been ONLY interested upon one lone 'aspect': the $$$$; and JUST how much they can 'gouge' the "ignoramus masses" for such, just so's we GOT that 'aspect' "clear as glass".
K? thx!
:robot:

Session: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Churchill's Glory or a Six-Player Game in Three Parts

raolsson — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:15:44 +0000

by raolsson

On May 27, 2009, I learned of a massive game that Malloc and VuduJoie were preparing for the war room at Bobby Tweaks Mittwoch Spiele and somehow wormed my way into the contest by showing up early enough to help set up the board. Grabbing a seat in the six-person contest was not a problem after that, and a chance to look over Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition was indeed a bigger bonus.

Malloc has a thing for the big-boxed game, and Avalon Hill had not disappointed in this rendition of the classic world-conquest game. Each nation has its own box of tanks, troops, planes, and boats with a setup for the year you want to start printed on a card that acts as a box top.

I was playing Britain (mostly because of the seat I was sitting in) which I knew might be an issue for a neophyte like myself. Britain has the distinction of sitting across a small body of water from Germany and although they start out strong in the game, they often lose much of the empire that the sun does not set upon in the early turns as the grab for money begins.

For our game, Bobby Tweaks played the U.S. and Wargame Jason played Russia. Malloc played Japan and VuduJoie represented Germany. Deuber and Chuck alternated as Italy and Dan and I alternated as Britain.

After setup, I got to play one turn as Britain, taking France in a daring first move and adding a few troops to the Island Kingdom before checking out three hours later and handing off the map to Dan. Japan and the U.S. played a delicate dance in the Pacific, the U.S. building up a fleet of aircraft carriers while Japan worked to completely eliminate the Chinese threat in Asia. Russia lost a northern factory to Germany, and Italy looked down to Africa where a lone Germany tank harassed the British troops in South Africa.

By the time I returned for week two, Dan reported that we had lost France. He had made a bold move in India to build a second factory (and to start the British war against the Axis on two fronts) but we had lost the factory to Italy. Nevertheless, the British fleet in the Atlantic was most impressive when I came back to it. All of those troop ships, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers really only needed an aircraft carrier and two planes, which I was happy to provide. Britain had a bomber operating from the UK and Germany was none too happy with us. Germany was also very wealthy, and built up quite a fleet of submarines to take out the British threat.

Seven submarines made up the lion's share of the Axis fleet. Britain would need to role a lot of ones and twos to keep the Axis forces on the continent from moving ashore in England, so we rolled the dice. Germany had about three hits. Britain had seven out of nine, which essentially ended the German fleet. The British forces celebrated on our turn to invade Poland, Finland, and Norway, then I had to leave again and Dan took over.

Russia and Germany were staring at each other in the east over mounds of tanks and troops. In China, Bobby Tweaks managed to keep the frustrated Japanese at bay with miraculous rolling (one defending Chinese troop on three Japanese troops resulting in a Chinese victory). Under Chuck, Italy built up its empire in the south.

By the third evening of gaming, the board looked very similar to the one I had come to the previous week. Germany had reclaimed Poland but Britain still had Norway. But Germany looked a little weaker for the wear and tear of the previous week. Beleaguered by forces all around, Germany itself looked open to invasion. A combined eight troops and tanks to defend against an attacking eight troops and tanks, supported by a plane and three ships. After consulting with the Allies, everyone agreed that it was risky, but that ten dollars was a better payout for that than reclaiming Russia's northern factory for two dollars.

VuduJoie was eager for the contest. His anti-aircraft roll took out both of the planes I had sent in, so for Britain (and indeed the world) the contest all hinged on the ships, after which it would be a straight-up dice rolling contest where Germany's tanks and troops would have an easier time. Fortunately, all three ships hit. And in the end, two British tanks sat in Berlin. VuduJoie handed over the fifty seven dollars Germany had collected on the previous turn, in addition to the thirty eight dollars Britain collected for all of its holdings.

While I was dreaming of battleships and bombers, Italy made an attack at the eastern U.S. Bobby Tweaks rolled remarkably well, so that no Italian troops invaded the U.S. The Axis players conferred and conceded.

The Newcastle Brown Ale tasted very good as we cleaned up the board, but one could tell that there would be other games to fight through in the future. I hope this is not the last we see of the Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition. Having six players (or eight in our case) made it a fun game indeed.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

Krieghund — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:31:52 +0000

by Krieghund

A reprint will still quite likely be a limited edition. I don't see the Anniversary game becoming a permanent addition to the line-up. AA42 will be the "flagship" A&A game.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

JohnnyPolo24 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:50:41 +0000

by JohnnyPolo24

GROGnads wrote:
:what: Does this then 'mean' that they're discontinuing that cheaper 'one'? :surprise:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/405385

It's not a cheaper one. A&A 1942 is a remake of the Revised edition. This thread is about a reprint of A&A 1950.

They both say Axis & Allies on the box, but they're not the same game. They're more like brothers.

Edited for grammar error.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

GROGnads — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:26:23 +0000

by GROGnads

:what: Does this then 'mean' that they're discontinuing that cheaper 'one'? :surprise:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/405385

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: A Reprint of AA50 confirmed!!!

ejwrobel — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:44:41 +0000

by ejwrobel

A reprint seems to be coming sometime...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1204736

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

rarbelaez — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:12:04 +0000

by rarbelaez

My wife, playing the Axis

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Strategies for Italy

Toronado3800 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:39:08 +0000

by Toronado3800

I prefer playing Italy in the 41 game. Turn order makes all the difference.

In 42 if Italy takes a square Germany gets to jump in and defend it. Kinda a passive aggressive way of leaping forward.

BUT in 41 Italy can take a lightly held no man's land type square like Belorussa or the Eastern Ukraine and then Germany blitzes into Russia with its half dozen tanks and whatever air force.

Usually Russia doesn't let this happen but it distracts them and makes em play different.

Just curious, how much trouble do you all go through to try defending that Italian navy? Life's rough once it gets sunk.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: A question on Aircraft Carrier defense

rarbelaez — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:05:48 +0000

by rarbelaez

thanks, Greg, I missed that one.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: A question on Aircraft Carrier defense

talrich — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:15:27 +0000

by talrich

The rules are here: http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AxAl-AnEd_Rules.pdf

There aren't many restrictions on when you choose the carrier. In fact, you have to lose the carrier over the fighters if the hit was from a submarine.

Your question regarding defending carriers & fighters is addressed on page 27, under the description of fighters.

"A fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land. It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move one space to a friendly territory or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s Noncombat Move phase begins."

Best,
-Greg

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: A question on Aircraft Carrier defense

rarbelaez — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:21 +0000

by rarbelaez

If your carrier is attacked, you can defend with your 2 fighters, using their regular defese values (4), plus the defense value of the carrier (2).

However, if you get a hit, can the defending player sacrifice the carrier instead of one of the fighters?

If sacrificing the aircraft carrier is allowed - what happens to the fighters after the combat (what happens after they destroy the attackers, or the attackers retreat)?

Are they destroyed? (they're not "cargo", so I'm inclined to think no).

Are they left at sea where the carrier used to be, to be moved on their next turn? (I also tend to think this is not a reasonable answer, as at the end of the turn all planes should be safely landed or else, be destroyed).

Do they have to be moved to a close friendly location and landed, or else they're destroyed? (This was my first guess, however I'm not 100% sure).

I'd appreciate your input on this.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: USA Containing Japan

THE_NINJA1001 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:20:37 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

In my opinion us can focus on japan i dont agree w splitting the money to attack germany and japan.
you should focus on either the pacific or the atlantic but for a sure win i always just put all US money towards germany us and uk can overpower germany then italy easily if they work together. I dont always play it tho it makes the game to boring i always like to try new things.
with that i think i'll try the splitting of money to work towards both..

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Reprint?

ozimek — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:18:14 +0000

by ozimek

Henry Rhombus wrote:
One rumor that I've heard – something that I haven't reported on Boardgame News as it is only a rumor at this point – is that Avalon Hill will reprint the Anniversary Edition in October 2009 and again in subsequent Octobers as long as demand holds up. This rumor makes sense as the Anniversary Edition makes for a nice, pricey gift for the holidays, but would be unlikely to sell consistently throughout the year.

Anyway, we'll know whether this rumor has any truth behind it come October...

Eric
Editor, BoardgameNews.com

Please be right about this, PLEASE!! Then there is hope that the main community of A&A geeks will also be focusing on AA50 three years from now :) (Edit: and not AA1942)

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Reprint?

Henry Rhombus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:41:48 +0000

by Henry Rhombus

One rumor that I've heard – something that I haven't reported on Boardgame News as it is only a rumor at this point – is that Avalon Hill will reprint the Anniversary Edition in October 2009 and again in subsequent Octobers as long as demand holds up. This rumor makes sense as the Anniversary Edition makes for a nice, pricey gift for the holidays, but would be unlikely to sell consistently throughout the year.

Anyway, we'll know whether this rumor has any truth behind it come October...

Eric
Editor, BoardgameNews.com

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Reprint?

james_bond — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:11:11 +0000

by james_bond

Thanks... I was curious to own the anniversary edition cause of Italy. I'll pass on the new version 1942....

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Reprint?

desertfox2004 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:48:00 +0000

by desertfox2004

From what has been discussed, the Anniversary Edition was meant to be just that, a special, one-time Anniversary Edition, and not a regular, on-going product. Reinforcing this point, Hasbro/WOTC/AH has announced a new edition of the standard A&A game, Axis & Allies 1942 Edition , which will replace the 2004 A&A Revised game for big-box store sales, and appears to be a scaled down version of the Anniversary Edition (five players instead of six, fewer pieces, but using the new sculpts and many of the new AE rules). It would seem if one has missed the opportunity to buy the Anniversary Edition, the new "1942" version will be the next best thing.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Reprint?

james_bond — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:13:11 +0000

by james_bond

I read on an italian boardgame site that AH will not release a reprint of the Anniversary edition, is that true? ... If yes why?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Missing UK fighters?

jedik77 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:17:57 +0000

by jedik77

Thanks Krieghund!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Missing UK fighters?

Krieghund — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:48:38 +0000

by Krieghund

The piece counts in the rulebook are correct.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Missing UK fighters?

jedik77 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:55:35 +0000

by jedik77

No, it's not a flame bait, Einar. I usually take good care of units, so I was wondering if I lost not one, but two of them. Is it forbidden to ask, man?

Peace!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Missing UK fighters?

vonAdlertag — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:41:48 +0000

by vonAdlertag

Is this some kind of flame bait ? The chimps at WOTC never do mistakes when counting beans, so I figure you lost them during battle of Britain. Bend over and look under your table, man. Geeezz.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Missing UK fighters?

jedik77 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:16:05 +0000

by jedik77

Hi there!

In my "regular inspection" of units after few sessions, I found out there are only 10 UK fighters, and not 12 like it says in the rulebook.

Did I loose them in "Battle for Britain" or is the rulebook wrong, just to be sure?

Thanks!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Reviews:: Re: A negative review.....

kaufschtick — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:15:49 +0000

by kaufschtick

mjornelles wrote:
What Hasbro has done to the good name of Avalon Hill is a travesty!

I can't agree with you on anything else, but on this I do agree with you, and wholeheartedly!:thumbsup:

Imperious leader wrote:
The game is by far the best version ever.

I'm in this camp.

mjornelles wrote:
Well, I have to go because a mob of axis and allies fans with torches is coming up to my castle........:)

LOL!!!:laugh: Very funny!:D

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

autumnweave — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:14:49 +0000

by autumnweave

The copy that I received had a cardboard insert that filled up the air gap. I would recommend leaving it in to help support the box cover and keep it from getting bowed or dished.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

bert_nerdsen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:58:11 +0000

by bert_nerdsen

wargamer55 wrote:
There's a new 1942 coming out in a month or two.

Really!?! I always thought it would be end of the year (even though I haven't read anywhere about the release date). ~~What are your sources?~~

Edit: okay...was not that hard to find out...:blush:

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

SilentHitz2 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:12:52 +0000

by SilentHitz2

Thanks for the help. It should just fit in my suitcase.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Reviews:: Re: A negative review.....

mjornelles — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:06:42 +0000

by mjornelles

I agree with you...I think that Hasbro is the culprit. They have a track record of poor quality. Remember when they tried to do the computer version of Axis & Allies? It was so full of bugs the game barely worked and then instead of fixing the bugs they came out with another edition in an effort to grab more money. What Hasbro has done to the good name of Avalon Hill is a travesty! I wish some other company had purchased the rights and actually done some quality remakes/updates. I own many older Milton Bradley games from the 60's and 70's and the parts are still holding up well today! That shows the committment to quality. I would rather pay more for a game knowing the components were high quality and going to last. Let's just keep getting the word out and support those companies that make quality products and respect their consumers and don't try to make a quick buck off of them without providing value in return.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

wargamer55 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:46:26 +0000

by wargamer55

Tredogg wrote:
Thanks for the comments Udu. I have talked myself out of the AA50 version due to price. I am going to pick up the Revised based upon the comments here. It sounds like it is the best deal for my money.

Don't get Revised! There's a new 1942 coming out in a month or two. Might as well get that one. It is supposed to be around the same size and price as Revised while incorporating some of the changes introduced by AA50.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

Tredogg — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:16:57 +0000

by Tredogg

Thanks for the comments Udu. I have talked myself out of the AA50 version due to price. I am going to pick up the Revised based upon the comments here. It sounds like it is the best deal for my money.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

malloc — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:57:17 +0000

by malloc

It also has a lot of air in the top so is easily crushed or at least bowed. This box design sucks.

-M

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

Cruelsader — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:26:00 +0000

by Cruelsader

In case you have not bought the AA50 yet here are my two cents: Revised is the best option now and 1942 will be probably the best option in the future. Why?

1) Revised is soooo much cheaper. Do you really need to pay 5 times as much (or more) ? It is not worth it unless you are really obsessed with A&A series

2) AA50 is not a 6 player game. It is not half as fun to play Italy as other powers - its resources are too limited. So the AA50 has no real advantage here.

3) AA50 components are not top notch. First, the map looks pretty but is less functional. It is more difficult to understand where the borders are. Especially true for the German-Soviet Union front, which tends to have lots of units. Moreover, the map comes in three separate pieces which tend to move during the play and wrap. Finally, the unit pieces look crap when you inspect them closely (except new unit models such as cruisers). The models are the same as in Revised but the molds have been over exploited. As a result the minis in AA50 look worse than minis in Revised (at least my copy of Revised looks very good compared to AA50).

4) Revised is much better than 1984 edition for many reasons - most importantly the map was changed significantly resulting in much improved gameplay.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

Dr Lucky — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:56:27 +0000

by Dr Lucky

SilentHitz2 wrote:
I need to make sure I can fit the box in my suitcase.

You can't.

You just can't. I assure you. The damn thing is like the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

autumnweave — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:55:54 +0000

by autumnweave

24.25"x15.75"x3"

Best of luck. You've called and they have a copy in stock right?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

monteslu — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:51:04 +0000

by monteslu

Huge by Huge by medium sized.

actually I'll measure, hold up ...

EDIT:

62.5cm X 41cm X 8cm

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Anyone? Box Dimensions?

SilentHitz2 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:49:35 +0000

by SilentHitz2

Hi, I'm thinking of buying this game in the next few weeks, but I would like to know the box dimensions. If anyone could measure their copy and post the measurements I'd be very grateful.

The store I buy my games from is in another state so I need to make sure I can fit the box in my suitcase. Thanks for any help.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Axis and Allies Liberation Drinking Game

vonAdlertag — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:04:44 +0000

by vonAdlertag

sinners

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Axis and Allies Liberation Drinking Game

talrich — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:54:46 +0000

by talrich

We used to do the same with Diplomacy - a beer selection for each power in the game (Turkey was always tough).

Good times...

Best,
-Greg

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Re: Axis and Allies Liberation Drinking Game

Viracocha — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:11:08 +0000

by Viracocha

My own group does something similar. Each of us bring drinks from one of the powers in the game. Good times... :p

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Variants:: Axis and Allies Liberation Drinking Game

panzer-attack — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:31:55 +0000

by panzer-attack

We were playing a team game of Axis and Allies the other day and my Allied team mate brought round a bottle of red wine to share. When he offered some to me I said "No, we'll save that until we liberate France. It'll be like reaping the rewards from some French chateaux or something."

This comment naturally lead on to a discussion of the possibility of an A&A Liberation Drinking game. Every time you liberate/capture a country you have to take a drink of whatever alcoholic drink you most associate with that country. Brilliant!

Ok, this idea has its drawbacks.

For starters you're going to need a pretty big selection of drinks.

Secondly, it's probably going to be a more fun game for the Allied players than the Axis. What're the poor old Axis going to end up drinking?

Germany - vodka, vodka and, ooooh - more vodka.

Still, that's probably preferable to Japan - if they end up going across those northern Russian territories I don't even know what they'd have to drink - fermented horse's milk or something?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Reviews:: Re: A negative review.....

Gruumsh — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:44:49 +0000

by Gruumsh

Just wanted to add a quick note to let you know that there are others who agree with your take on the components.

Yes, there's something to be said for game pieces that are miniatures that replicate actual military units from the era... but NOT when it is at the expense of game play. If I hadn't bought it online, this would have gone back to the store ASAP. And I'm referring to ALL the Avalon Hill versions here... I'm beginning to think that Avalon Hill should stick to cardboard counters.

Even though the newer units are missing, the old Milton Bradley edition had much better playability just because of the component design. I mean, the subs alone in the new set were so annoying, I found myself wondering if anyone even bothered to play-test this thing before it went to market.

And let's not forget the unit reference cards. Lots of great new graphics. Too bad that the charts are now practically impossible to READ. In the unlikely even that I ever want to actually introduce people to this game, I'm going to have to print my own charts. While I'm at it, I may as well build the rest of the game, too.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

bert_nerdsen — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:19:51 +0000

by bert_nerdsen

Here 's another point of view. To me, it has always been important that a game has a great fan base. A community of players who play the game often will lead to a lively discussion on strategy and balance issues. Strategy articles on A&A are one of the best around (see the caspian sub page for example), while discussion on game balance is important to every game and mostly results in house rules and errata that improve the gameplay. Of course, for this to happen it is necessary that the game is played by quite a number of players for quite a time.

Now take a look at this:
Axis & Allies 1942 Edition

It seems to me, that AA50 is in fact a *real* limited edition (not only a *so called* "limited" edition as I have thought in the first place) which is owned by very few players and will be displaced by a new standard edition after only a year or so (or maybe it's rather like the 1942 edition will displace revised while aa50 must be considered as being completely out of the line of succession). Considering that and considering that AA50 is only avaiable for a collector's price I would strongly suggest that you wait for the next standard edition to be released and stick for now by AArevised. The latter will surely be avaiable as a bargain somewhere.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

Subota1 — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:13:57 +0000

by Subota1

If you play w/o NOs, then allies are favored. So with somewhat equal decent players, allies should win most games.

Edit: with NOs, axis are slightly favored, but not more than allies are favored in Revised. You will not capture Russia before rnd 5-6, or sooner, against decent players, but often axis will win by "economic" victory. With "average" dice, axis will win more often than allies, so it's not so much about strats (w/o bids) but the dice is very important in AA50 during the first rnd.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

ozimek — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:46:28 +0000

by ozimek

THE_NINJA1001 wrote:
ozimek wrote:
Your tanks in Ukraine seem very vulnerable to Russian counterattack in their second turn.

Has this not been a problem in your games?

I generally mass all the German tanks in East Poland on G1 to avoid exposing them. I use Inf/Art + Fighters for the first round attacks instead. (and thus take Baltic, East Poland and Ukraine in G1 for the NO)

Edit: This also gives the mass Inf i buy on G1 time to reach the front with the tanks.

I don't typically play w NOs.
If the Russians do counter there most likely doing more harm than good.

And i havent had time to run this strategy just yet, Most of the time i just ignore Ukraine on trn 1 and mass everything in E Poland then move to E Ukraine Placing all the planes and new tanks in E Poland then hit Moscow.

In my experience, in turn 2, G can't mass enough troops in Eastern Ukraine to deter a Russian counter attack. Is you R opponent buying pure Inf and stacking it in Moscow? If so, I can maybe see your strategy work.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

THE_NINJA1001 — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:05:01 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

talrich wrote:
To paraphrase Ghostbusters:

"Get 'em? Your plan is get 'em?"

It's the standard turn 3 German attack that goes back to the MB edition. It used to work...sometimes, but left you out of options if it stalled. Hard to imagine they won't see it comming. It does suffer from being an all-of-your-eggs-in-one-basket strategy.

How's it working for you?

Best,
-Greg

Haven't tried it yet.. I can't find any other way to play germany with out being over powered by the 3 allies jap tkes to long to reach moscow..

I need to play more games w NOs i guess.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

THE_NINJA1001 — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:00:49 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

Subota1 wrote:
There's no mention of NOs, and if we play 41 w/o NOs, allies are favored. With NOs, then the whole issue of strats and balance are very dice dependent. Very much is settled from the first rnd attacks.
I assume most players on this forum do not use low luck.
Usually all German navy is gone by end of UK1, with possible exception of the German med transport.
If we assume NOs are on, then an axis victory is very likely, but not by rnd3. For +NOs, the axis will win by ecenomic strenght, not by knocking out Russia in rnd3 or rnd4.

I don't play w NOs, most of the time.
and yes the german navy is usually gone by uk trn 1 but you have a high chance of dropping the uk bb w 2 subs and 1 fighter this should slow that by one trn but maybe not.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

THE_NINJA1001 — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:53:41 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

ozimek wrote:
Your tanks in Ukraine seem very vulnerable to Russian counterattack in their second turn.

Has this not been a problem in your games?

I generally mass all the German tanks in East Poland on G1 to avoid exposing them. I use Inf/Art + Fighters for the first round attacks instead. (and thus take Baltic, East Poland and Ukraine in G1 for the NO)

Edit: This also gives the mass Inf i buy on G1 time to reach the front with the tanks.

I don't typically play w NOs.
If the Russians do counter there most likely doing more harm than good.

And i havent had time to run this strategy just yet, Most of the time i just ignore Ukraine on trn 1 and mass everything in E Poland then move to E Ukraine Placing all the planes and new tanks in E Poland then hit Moscow.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

THE_NINJA1001 — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:45:24 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

vonAdlertag wrote:
Why wait until Turn 3 ?
Why not just knock Moscow out in Turn 2 ?
Am I the only one to see this possibility ?

How can you reach Moscow in 2 turns in 1941, i just don't see it?
If you would please elaborate..

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: "Building" a Industrial Complex at a fully Damaged Industrial Complex

MadCatRI96 — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:26:08 +0000

by MadCatRI96

Kevin, thank you for your clear reaction on my question.

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

Executioner — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:01:59 +0000

by Executioner

I just noticed an Italian colored tank with the Britsh sculp. Anyone ...

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

JohnnyPolo24 — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:12:05 +0000

by JohnnyPolo24

In answer to your thread title: yes. It's going to be very tough to find a copy of AA50 at this point, and you'll probably have to pay for it. If you can get one of these then do it.

This is my personal favorite of the A&A games. The original 1984 edition holds a special place for me, but it's a real slugfest. The Revised 2004 edition is an updated edition of that; it's different but not drastically so. There's definitely more nuance to the 50th Ann. Ed. because of the 6th playable nation and additional territories on the map. I'd recommend it to anyone over the other already-released maps. The upcoming 1942 edition is going to be an updated edition of A&A Revised, so it's not going to have the nice features of AA50 that I just mentioned.

You can try to limit the gameplay to 3–4 hours, but it's going to be tough. You may play to the mimimal victory conditions and still feel like the losing side would have a very good chance of winning if a more thorough victory condition had been used. I'm not saying that it will ruin the game for you, but whenever I've played with the minimal victory condition I can't stop imagining the "what-would-have-been" scenarios. Maybe that's what one of the things that keep me coming back for more, though, because whenever we play "to the death" I always go over the "what-could-have-been" scenarios.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

Tredogg — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:04:02 +0000

by Tredogg

Thanks HH. Now I just need to find a copy at a reasonable price.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

Subota1 — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:25:57 +0000

by Subota1

AA50 is not very much more difficult to start with than Revised, as for side balance, it's reasonable balanced. Some say allies can't win but thats not true, although with experienced players axis should win most games, using NOs. If you're starting from scratch there shouldn't be a need for a bid, AA50 probably as balanced as Revised.

Been a while since I played f2f, but even if AA50 is a 6 player game, I would not bother with the 6th player, Italy is so small that I consider AA50 a 2-5 player game in reality. It could take more than 3-4 hours to finish it depends.

If you want to buy an A&A global war game, buy this one, it's the best A&A game to this date.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

Tredogg — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:17:58 +0000

by Tredogg

If I play to 8 VPs shouldn't we be able to fit a game into 3-4 hours on average? If that's the case it shouldn't be a problem to finish. I mean we have played 8-12 hour Twilight Imperium games, we just prefer to keep the game time down to 3-4 hours if possible.

Also how does the Anniversary edition stack up to some of the other games when playing with only 4 or 5 players?

Thanks for the comments!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

wargamer55 — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:06:52 +0000

by wargamer55

On the other hand, it may be a tad long. You may want to consider getting the A&A 42 when it comes out. If you rarely have more than 5 players the smaller edirtions of AQ&A are adequate. A&A50 can accomodate a sixth plyaer.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Is this the best AA for my group?

da pyrate — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:04:25 +0000

by da pyrate

The Anniversary edition is certainly the best looking of the games. Based on what you have told me I am sure that your group will enjoy the game. If you have up to five players that takes out games such as A&A: Europe and A&A: Pacific, as well as the two-player games D-Day, Bulge and Guadalcanal.

I think you have made a fine choice.

;)

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Is this the best AA for my group?

Tredogg — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:51:25 +0000

by Tredogg

Guys,

I need some help determining the best version of AA to pick up for my group. Here is a little background about myself and my group of friends. There are about 10 gamers I play with. I can usually get 4-5 of them together at a time on the weekends. They can easily commit 3-4 hours for game time. On occasion I can get all of them together with a greater time commitment.

None of us have ever played AA before. We all grew up playing Risk in its different versions. Most of us loved Risk:LoTR Trilogy edition. Over half of the group has put in more than 7 games of Twilight Imperium with the Shattered Empire expansion. So we have a lot of experience with meaty strategy games that are heavy on the rules.

I am not concerned in the least about the group learning the game. My biggest concern is that the game play wont be balanced for 4-5 people. I also don't want to get a cheapo version of the game. If we are going to sit down and play a game for 3-4 hours I want to make sure the quality of the product that we are staring at are top notch. Since there are soooo many versions of AA out there can a few of you steer me in the right direction. I have already read several reviews of the different versions of AA on the forums here at BGG. I am leaning towards the anniversary edition.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Thanks,
Tredogg.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: "Building" a Industrial Complex at a fully Damaged Industrial Complex

Krieghund — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:02:54 +0000

by Krieghund

Your view is the correct one. New ICs are not mobilized by ICs, so production limits do not apply to their mobilization. Also, "mobilize" and "produce" are interchangeable terms for the purposes of the rules.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: "Building" a Industrial Complex at a fully Damaged Industrial Complex

MadCatRI96 — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:45:22 +0000

by MadCatRI96

I have a question regarding the bying and placing of an Industrial Complex build at an IC which is completely damaged, which lead to a pretty discussion during an session of this game with my brother. First I will give an example, then the opinions during the discussion and then my actual question.

Example:
For example, Germany has only one IC which is completely damaged. Can Germany buy an IC at the start of its turn without paying for the damage markers and place the IC in France at the end of their Turn?

Opinions:
My brothers view is that no IC can be bought by Germany, since its only IC is completely damaged and that should be repared up to the point that atleast one unit can be placed before any units can be bought including an IC. In his view a completely damaged IC cannot produce an IC since its damaged and an IC can only "build" by another IC.

My view is that when a IC is completely damaged no Units (an IC is also considered a Unit according to the rules) can be mobilized (read placed on the board) in that territory. Eventhough an IC is considered a Unit according to the rules, it differs from other units since it can and must be mobilized in any territory not yet containing an IC. In my opinion a completely damaged IC does not influence buying an IC and placing it in another territory since the rules only state that no units can be mobilized in the IC's territory and it does not use the words "produce".

Final Question:
Can you buy an IC at a completely damaged IC, without paying for any damage markers, and place the IC at another territory at the end of turn since the IC is not mobilized at the territory of the IC?
(Subquestion: does mobilize also mean produce???)

Hope to hear your views on this.

Greets

Dennis

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

ozimek — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:56:31 +0000

by ozimek

Your tanks in Ukraine seem very vulnerable to Russian counterattack in their second turn.

Has this not been a problem in your games?

I generally mass all the German tanks in East Poland on G1 to avoid exposing them. I use Inf/Art + Fighters for the first round attacks instead. (and thus take Baltic, East Poland and Ukraine in G1 for the NO)

Edit: This also gives the mass Inf i buy on G1 time to reach the front with the tanks.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

vonAdlertag — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:26:33 +0000

by vonAdlertag

Why wait until Turn 3 ?
Why not just knock Moscow out in Turn 2 ?
Am I the only one to see this possibility ?

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: America and 1st Turn limitations.

Hawkeye 6 — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:18:50 +0000

by Hawkeye 6

Finally, someone gets it...

Its a beer and pretzel game, so I just let it go...

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

Subota1 — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:09:06 +0000

by Subota1

There's no mention of NOs, and if we play 41 w/o NOs, allies are favored. With NOs, then the whole issue of strats and balance are very dice dependent. Very much is settled from the first rnd attacks.
I assume most players on this forum do not use low luck.
Usually all German navy is gone by end of UK1, with possible exception of the German med transport.
If we assume NOs are on, then an axis victory is very likely, but not by rnd3. For +NOs, the axis will win by ecenomic strenght, not by knocking out Russia in rnd3 or rnd4.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Re: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

talrich — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:01:55 +0000

by talrich

To paraphrase Ghostbusters:

"Get 'em? Your plan is get 'em?"

It's the standard turn 3 German attack that goes back to the MB edition. It used to work...sometimes, but left you out of options if it stalled. Hard to imagine they won't see it comming. It does suffer from being an all-of-your-eggs-in-one-basket strategy.

How's it working for you?

Best,
-Greg

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Strategy:: Germany 3-Turn Strategy (1941 Scenario)

THE_NINJA1001 — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:04:39 +0000

by THE_NINJA1001

First Turn:
Buy - 6 tanks

*Attacks:
Bomber in Germany SBR UK, lands in Poland.

2 subs in sea zone 7, and 1 fighter from Norway attack battleship and transport in sea zone 2, fighter lands in Norway.

Cruiser and sub from sea zone 5 plus fighter from North Western Europe attack destroyer in sea zone 7, plane lands in Poland.

Fighter in Germany, fighter in Poland, 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tanks in Poland all attack East Poland. Fighters land in Poland.

2 tanks in Hungary with 3 infantry, 2 tanks and 1 artillery from Romania attack Ukraine.

**Non-combat moves:
Move transports for protection, 3 infantry, 1 artillery move from Germany to Poland.

Second Turn:
Buy - 10 infantry for defense

*Attacks:
Bomber SBR Moscow, lands in East Poland.

-Sea Combat is Optional-

All units in East Poland with 2 tanks, remaining infantry and/or artillery from Ukraine attack Eastern Ukraine. ((Important!! Make sure to leave 2 tanks in Ukraine))

**Non-combat moves:
3 fighters in Poland move to Ukraine, fighter in Norway moves to East Poland, 6 tanks in Germany move to East Poland.

Third Turn:
Buy - whatever you deem necessary.

*Attacks:
3 planes plus all remaining troops from Ukraine, 1 bomber, and 1 fighter and 6 tanks from East Poland, and remaining troops in Ukraine all attack Moscow.

Use your small navy to keep the Allies off your borders as best you can.

Moscow should fall unless they’re prepared for it; they can build up on it with the surrounding units, which would leave Stalingrad wide open. They can’t defend both at once, so you have a good chance of taking one or the other.

That’s it, let me know what you guys think, I’m open to suggestions on how to improve it.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Rules:: Re: America and 1st Turn limitations.

Polish5 — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:16:52 +0000

by Polish5

clearly not logical...as that implies that the Germans have only just captured Eastern Poland ( there 1st turn move ) by December 1941 !!...when they should be next to Moscow !!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Heavy bombers and super subs

hecose — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:34:47 +0000

by hecose

I guess this being a Play-by-E-Mail game made it easier for us to play till Round 12. Also all the way up to that point it wasn't really clear yet how the game will swing (or maybe I was just stubbornly optimistic about my position).

Han and I are not A&A veterans, so what you see in this game may not be "normal".

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Sessions:: Re: Heavy bombers and super subs

AnimalMother — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:19:44 +0000

by AnimalMother

One suspects few play groups have the dogged determination to play for twelve rounds. This was most admirable.

One wonders if the Japanese march to Moscow is still a probable event, as it is in all previous A&A editions, despite the addition here in A&A AH50 of extra territories in the Far East. On this evidence it seems so.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: In a battle units are worth the square root of their att. OR def. number.

AnimalMother — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:39:39 +0000

by AnimalMother

Attsteve is correct. After one round there will be 8 Infantry and 4 Fighters, exactly the same 2:1 ratio as before.

So are any units under cost or over cost for value?

Infantry's value is SQR (1+2) = 1.73;
Artillery's value is SQR (2+ (1) + 2) = 2.24;
Tank's value is SQR (3+3) = 2.45 (plus a bit more for speed.)

Naval units are easier to compare since they all have the same speed.

Carrier = SQR (1 +3) = 2 (plus a bit more for aircraft handling.)
Cruiser = SQR (3 +3) = 2.45.
Destroyer = SQR (2+ 2) = 2,
Submarine = SQR (2+1) = 1.73 (plus a bit more for first strike.)

So, on this analysis the costs look about right.

File: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: AnA quick referance sheet

Striker511 — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:24:29 +0000

by Striker511

AnA quick referance sheet for Board Game: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition ]]>

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

FieldMarshalGames — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:38:11 +0000

by FieldMarshalGames

CHINA set up with COMBAT DICE

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: News:: Re: Axis & Allies: Spring 1942 (New A&A Game)

Arontje — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:28:35 +0000

by Arontje

Lets delete this thread please.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: News:: Re: Axis & Allies: Spring 1942 (New A&A Game)

Arontje — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:14:00 +0000

by Arontje

ozimek wrote:
The game already has it's own entry on BGG, and it has been discussed in a couple of other threads under AA50. You may wan't to take a look at thoose before starting a new thread.

Hi there,

Thanks for the reply. An Admin showed me that there already was a game entry for it. Sorry to bother you all with my pointless news.

I did search for the game but I could not find it. Therefore I thought I was the first...

Me still too noobish on this site. I better spend a day on how this site works and how to search properly.

Sorry all!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: News:: Re: Axis & Allies: Spring 1942 (New A&A Game)

ozimek — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:30:33 +0000

by ozimek

The game already has it's own entry on BGG, and it has been discussed in a couple of other threads under AA50. You may wan't to take a look at thoose before starting a new thread.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: Reviews:: Re: A negative review.....

autumnweave — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:15:45 +0000

by autumnweave

While I don't necesarily agree with your points, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to write up a review on a game that you were disappointed by, and pointing out what you didn't care for. It's always good to hear a variety of views.

Thread: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: News:: Axis & Allies: Spring 1942 (New A&A Game)

Arontje — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:17:17 +0000

by Arontje

New Image for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

FieldMarshalGames — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:29:48 +0000

by FieldMarshalGames

ITALY set up with COMBAT DICE

]]>

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: Official Game Pieces

FieldMarshalGames — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:10:28 +0000

by FieldMarshalGames

We are working on our next product COMBAT UNITS

We are starting with ITALY and we will be making new units for AAA and other WW2 games.

You can follow this project on AAA.org fan site.

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: News:: Re: Get it while you can. Axis & Allies 50 was a one-time thing

bkoppe — Sat, 16 May 2009 10:43:52 +0000

by bkoppe

Yes, please! I'd really like to get the Anniversary Edition, but it gets to be so expensive on eBay!

Reply: Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition:: General:: Re: question about Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition

Subota1 — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:37:00 +0000

by Subota1

For those who don't like a non-US Pac strat, just divide the US income with 5, then use 20% of US production in the Pac, use the rest in Europe. This would make it more historical.