New A&A game out in 2004???

[Der Panzinator]

Anyone have information about the new A&A game that is scheduled to come out next year from Wizards of the Coast?

WoTC new A&A article (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/3371.html)

[Taythorian]

its Called Axis & Allies : D-Day

[Der Panzinator]

Tay,

Can you provide anymore info on the new game???

Where did you hear about the new name?

[ October 08, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Der Panzinator ]

[thrasher]

Where did you find this info?

thrasher,
http://thrashersBoardGamesPage.TK -If you like BoardGames smile.gif
FORUMS: http://pub50.ezboard.com/bthrashersaxisandalliesforums
(You CAN post without logging in or being registerd!)

[maelic001]

Found this press release:

"First Major Revision in Twenty Years of AXIS & ALLIES®!

November 7, 2003 (RENTON, Wash.) - For the first time in over two decades,
players of the classic World War II military strategy game AXIS & ALLIES®
will be able to experience a revised edition of their favorite game. Early
next year, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. (NYSE: HAS),
will release a new version of Axis & Allies, created under the direction
of Larry Harris, the game's original designer. The revised Axis & Allies,
scheduled for release in March 2004, will feature more detailed game
pieces, a beautifully charted, full-color world map and updated rules that
promise to make play more exciting than ever.

The redesigned edition of Axis & Allies emphasizes the game's dedication
to historical detail, including the revamping of play pieces to reflect
real-life military vehicles. Now German tanks are shaped like Panther
tanks, while the U.S. and the U.K. tanks resemble Sherman tanks. Changes
to the fighter planes include transforming the U.K. fighters into
Spitfires, the U.S. fighters into P-38 Lightnings, and the German fighters
into Ju-87 Stukas.

While retaining Axis & Allies' historical flavor and complex strategy,
updates to the game's rules -- such as new guidelines for weapons
development research -- help streamline and improve game balance. Other
specific additions to the game include new sea zone configurations and
even new territories. The box size has been reduced by half, making the
game much easier to stock, and easier than ever to merchandise.

First produced in the early 1980s by Milton Bradley, an affiliate of
Wizards of the Coast, Axis & Allies is a classic game of war, economics,
and strategy. Victory goes not only to the team that conquers its
opponents on the field of battle, but also to the individual player who
seizes the most enemy territory. The game is set in spring 1942, as five
world powers struggle for supremacy: Germany and Japan are aligned against
England, the Soviet Union, and the USA. Players control the military and
economic destiny of one of these countries in the titanic struggle that
will decide the fate of the world.

Axis & Allies is part of Wizards of the Coast's Avalon Hill® line of
games, which includes Axis & Allies Europe, Axis & Allies Pacific, Risk,
Diplomacy and many others.

Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. (NYSE:HAS), is a
worldwide leader in the trading card game and tabletop roleplaying game
categories, and a leading developer and publisher of game-based
entertainment products. The company holds an exclusive patent on trading
card games (TCGs) and their method of play and produces the premier
trading card game, Magic: The Gathering®, among many other trading card
games and family card and board games. Wizards is also a leading
publisher of roleplaying games, such as Dungeons & Dragons®, and publisher
of fantasy series fiction with numerous New York Times best-sellers. For
more information, visit the Wizards of the Coast website at wizards.com
<http://www.wizards.com>.

Axis & Allies, Axis & Allies Europe, Axis & Allies Pacific, Risk,
Diplomacy and Avalon Hill are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. Used with
permission. Axis & Allies is manufactured and distributed by Wizards of
the Coast, Inc. Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons are
trademarks of Wizards of the Coast. © 2003 Wizards."

[Y2UAsk]

Yes, we can finally declare that the rumors are true. We'll have many more updates and previews as we close in on March '04.

Steve

[Y2UAsk]

Now that the truth is out in the open, I may as well ask what sorts of previews people would like to see. Marketing and R&D already have their own ideas about how they want to promote the game. What do you, the people who will buy it, want to know in advance? All I can promise is that I'll read the suggestions, insofar as I serve many masters. If you don't speak up now, though, you lose the privilege of having your complaints taken seriously later on.

Steve

[Muddog]

I am very excited about the new games. I am concerned about the market that you are going to. I am a teacher who has introduced many boardgames to my students who have loved them, but they can never find them. Where are you going to market the games to? I would like to see them out in the mass market.
What about setting up some tournaments? I would run some tournys in Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, or Columbus.
I am also concerned about playtesting. A lot of people have commented on the balance of the past three games. What kind of playtesting has been done. Is it possiable to get a printable map and setup to do someplaytesting now?
What ever happens, you have my order already.

[zooooma]

Hi Steve.

I was holding back from saying so, but I think you'd already confirmed that the rumors were true. You wouldn't have not been allowed to comment on a project that didin't exist.

As for marketing, I think we'd all just like to see pictures of the components, and descriptions of any rules updates (Third edition rules?). I would particuarly like to know to what extent the new rules and plastic pieces will be similar to those in A&A: Europe and Pacific.

It's ironic, but there is probably a direct co relation between how certain an idividual is that they will but the game no matter what, and how deep their lust for information. If you could get some people who are not sure if they want to buy it to comment, that might help a lot.

I'm a bit currious as to what to call the game. Are you marketing as A&A:ii, A&A revised, A&A 20th anniversary edition, or just plain A&A (there have already been two maps and three sets of rules each of which packaged under the simple name 'Axis & Allies')?

Finally, this is great news, and I'm sure there are many happy hobbie gamers!

Thanks a bunch.
-Luke

[Y2UAsk]

Originally posted by Muddog:
I am very excited about the new games. I am concerned about the market that you are going to. I am a teacher who has introduced many boardgames to my students who have loved them, but they can never find them. Where are you going to market the games to? I would like to see them out in the mass market.
What about setting up some tournaments? I would run some tournys in Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, or Columbus.
I am also concerned about playtesting. A lot of people have commented on the balance of the past three games. What kind of playtesting has been done. Is it possiable to get a printable map and setup to do someplaytesting now?
What ever happens, you have my order already.We'd all like to see these games in mass market outlets. I don't know what progress has been made along those lines.

The Organized Play team is adding A&A to its frontline program for 2004, so your local hobby shop, assuming you have one, will have the opportunity to run tournaments. As far as you running a tournament as an individual, you'd have to check with the OP guys (link at left). They have an excellent system but it's not my bailiwick, and I don't pretend to understand its ins and outs.

I was personally involved in only one playtest, and I watched part of another, but the game was played a lot here, including a solid week of two guys doing nothing but playing A&A and trying every crazy thing they could think of to break it. Unfortunately, no matter how much it gets playtested here, it will be subjected to a hundred times more playing in the first week after its release than we could do in a year. Unfortunate exclusions and inclusions are bound to pop up. They always do. One of the bigger changes is in the victory conditions, however, and it improves the game's balance, from what I've seen. Details will follow in the coming weeks and months.

Steve

[zooooma]

Hi.

"One of the bigger changes is in the victory conditions"

"Victory goes not only to the team that conquers its opponents on the field of battle but also to the individual player who seizes the most enemy territory."

I hope that the individual winner rules have not been changed from optional rule status to standard rule status - at least not without a serrious revamp. The individual winner rules really screwed up the game. Not only did it cause a tremendous play discrepancy between five player games and two to four player games, but it created imballances beween the individual countries. An axis victory is generally the result of more Japanese expansion and less German expansion, etc. Furthermore, if Germany falls, for instance, the game has to go on and on (and on and on and on) unitl Japan also falls (no concession) in order to determine which Ally gets the individual victory. The rule can also cause an otherwise sound player to play anywhere from less than optimally to downright poorly.

I don't mean to be negative, and I'm sure I'll love the game. I just wanted to mention this incase of the unlikely conjunction of events that the individual victor rules are infact being planned for, not yet being set in stone, and my point being considered by the designers.

Anyway, I'm keen to see the details to follow in the coming weeks and months.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

[Der Panzinator]

Steve,

Great news!!!
The rumor mill has been packed with all kinds of information about the upcoming new game. Glad that an official word is finally available.

I think that the small sized box is cool. Eagle games has done a great job with using about a half sized box from A&A and packing in tons of pieces and huge hard backed boards. There was a lot of empty space in the original game box and while the little styrofoam trays were handy they didn't take the box being turned sideways too well. :rolleyes:

A preview of the map would be great. I think everyone would like to know if the map is the same as the original or if it has extra spaces.

Its a bit difficult to comment on the rules unless you can see the complete rules manual. I doubt that this will be a public release until after the game launches in March.
Is the game slated to launch in March???

Of course we would all ask for the moon and the stars if we could. A map image file and the complete rules document would work... ;)
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.... Know what I mean.... Say no more, say no more.... :D

Now that the original A&A is being revamped is there any plans on redoing A&A Europe. I know that this game was a great addition to the collection but the weakest link in the series. I've created a modified map and rules called Advanced Axis & Allies Europe and have had tons of interest on various message boards. I even created a custom Mapview PBEM module so people could play it online.
I have had some reservations about modifying this game but since Avalon Hill had pretty much dropped support for the game series I figured I was merely doing a service to the community by providing this alternative. If there is any interest in adopting any of these new options to an official version I'd be more then happy to turn it all over. :cool:
I can point you to my website and forum threads if you'd like to see what I've done. You can email me at MaxVertigo@yahoo.com.

For the time being I can't wait to see the rebirth of a classic. I'm happy to see that Larry is back and in the mix. Any chance the online community will start hearing from the Master once again??? ;)

Keep us informed on the launch date.

[The Rat King]

I don't think anyone should be worried about play testing on this game. Its not a new game, its an update of a 20 year old game that has been played millions of times around the world. If Larry Harris is making rule changes its because of feedback that he has received over the years, and I'm sure they are intended to help ballance the game.

As for mass marketing the game, some of the Avalon Hill games (Risk 2210 and the A&A games) can be found at Toys'R'Us. I'm sure that this new edition will get the same treatment. However, if you want people to get into strategy games as a hobby then you should direct them to a hobby store. They might balk at the higher prices, but it will open their eyes to how big the strategy game market is. There are a lot of people who love Risk and Axis and Allies, but thats all they know for strategy games.

[tw252]

Will there be any country-specific techs and a better China--at least that in AAP?

[ElJefe]

Originally posted by Y2UAsk:
Now that the truth is out in the open, I may as well ask what sorts of previews people would like to see. Marketing and R&D already have their own ideas about how they want to promote the game. What do you, the people who will buy it, want to know in advance? All I can promise is that I'll read the suggestions, insofar as I serve many masters. If you don't speak up now, though, you lose the privilege of having your complaints taken seriously later on.

SteveI would definitly order in advance!

As for promoting the game...I think you should buy a Sherman tank, 3 "Duce and a half" trucks.
Then form a convoy and head out across the states with the trucks full of copies of the new game.

Ok but seriously, free stuff is always good.

Maybe some sort of point-of-purchase display for game/hobby stores to put out.

The consumer could take one of these free trinkets that has information about the new game on it.

It could be a paper knock-out with a phrase like "The Blitzkrig begans again in 2004!" and have a German tank.

Or "Overlord begins again in 2004" and have a landing boat with paper soldiers.

For a good example of what I'm talking about see the Secret Weapons over Normandy ad in the lastest copy of Gamepro (November? December?) The ad is on a heavier paper and there are two planes you can knock out of the ad and assemble.

[Todd]

I think television spots (I know they're expensive) would sell a lot of games. Not just on Nick, 'Toon, ect. but, howabout, The History Channel. Market the game to those who are interested in the theme. The adults are the ones who control the household money anyway. Play up the history/educational impact. Plus, those who watch The History Channel probably played A&A as kids.

[mac224]

"As for promoting the game...I think you should buy a Sherman tank, 3 "Duce and a half" trucks.
Then form a convoy and head out across the states with the trucks full of copies of the new game."

Great Idea! <G>

I would love a digital photo of the map. Changes I hope to see:

1. Split Karelia into 2 territories:
Leningrad (west) 2 pts
Karelia (east) 1 pt
2. Split Russia into 3 Territories:
North Russia 1 pt
Southern Russia 2 pt
Ural 3 pt
3. Split Caucasus into 2 territories: Moscow (2pt) and Caucasus (3 pt)
3. E and W Australia (1 pt each)
4. Split West US into Pacific States and Mountain States (3 pts each)
5. Split East US into East Coast and Mid West. (6 pts each)
6. Split West Canada into Mountain Provinces and Great Plains (1 pt each)
7. Split France into Low Countries (2 pts) and France proper (4 pts)
8. Split Brazil into North (1pt) and South (2pt)
9. Split Sinkiang into Sinkiang and Tibet regions (1 pt each)
10. Split Eastern Canada into Quebec 1pt and Ontario 2pt.
11. Split India into North (2pt) and Sounth (1pt)
12. Split Egypt (1pt) from Sudan (1pt).
13. Split Eastern Europe into NE Europe (1pt)and SE Europe (2pt)

As for rules, I hope for 2 things:

1. Eliminate the rule where if you capture the capitol you get the $$ and defeat the nation. Instead you must occupy every territory of the nation to defeat it.
2. Add terrain effects to combat. Infantry get a bonus to defense in mountain and jungle, air and armor get a bonus on steppe and desert (for example)

mac

[NastyMcFatpig]

OINK, please tell me that this will be a cd version! I am A hardcore player on the zone & wee need support! Us older players dont have time for a lot of face to face games. I didnt even own a computer till A&A came out on cd.
Are you going to have something for us?

NastyMcFatpig

[Rommel 1]

I am glad that Avalon Hill is finally making some huge revisions to the original A&A game.I currently have the original game and have found several flaws in the original design.I will definitely buy the new one.

[ December 01, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Rommel 1 ]

[blackwarx]

From my knowledge there will be two games in 2004:

1. New special edition (like Europe and Pacific) called A&A: D-Day in May 2004

2. Revised original edition with no special release date yet!

blackwarx

[Muddog]

Hey Blackwarx, you may want to check out the Avalon Hill Main Page:)

[drsparnum]

Wow. I am totally surprised and excited about this.

I have no concept of how much history channel commercials cost but that does seem like a good idea. I watch the History channel and play Axis and Allies so it would have reached me. Other outlets I would consider are D&D magazines (like Dragon) and video games (an ad on the back of the guide to the next EA Battlefield 1942 game could really help). Finally a special deal on Amazon.com probably won't hurt you sell games either.

I too am most concerned about play testing. Game balance is so absolutely critical to the long term enjoyment of the game I think you really need to take it seriously. I think in addition to putting 2 guys in a room and having them test the rules (and hopefully balance) you should have as many different people play the game. I think the minimum should be teaching 20 people the game (playing it at least 3 times) and then setting up a big tournament assigning teams randomly. The real goal of the tournament isn't to see which human wins but to make sure that the axis and allies each win about half. Especially among the last few games involving what are presumably the best players.

Then after release take advantage of the internet. Don't be afraid to post official revised unit placements and alterations which result in a more fair game.

As for a wish list of what I would like to see:

1. Scalable difficulty (I read the article about 30 optional rules this is good). At its most difficult I would like to see rules for extra units and such - even if such units where only available through online purchase or something.

2. Rules for more countries. Optional rules allowing Italy, France, Canada, and/or China to be their own country. A player could run multiple little countries so they have as much to do as the big 5. This is to accomodate more then 5 people, which happens to me every so often. These rules, as with all of my suggestions, should not disrupt game balance.

3. My friends and I have been using the additional rules available here:
http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/original/houserules/craig/craig.html
Some of these rules come out of the axis and allies expansion packs but rules we like that are new as far as I know are:
-economic conquest of neutrals
-making alot of the units, especially the high priced ones, cheaper. Lets face it, buying carriers and battleships is fun. Too bad it is often also stupid in the standard game.

If you are marketing the game to me I would encourge you to make it as big as possible. More units, more IPCs, more dice, more territory. However, all of this should be done with the optional rules to not alienate new players. Axis and Allies is still the first step up from Risk and it would be a shame for this game to go too far up the ladder to lose this role.

I know this is asking alot and it is probably impossible to fit all of these things in while keeping the game fair and fun. So this is just my wish list - I trust you to determine what is feasible.

[Mike Selinker]

Just to clear up something: I'm not sure what I said to give the impression that there were just "2 guys in a room" playtesting the revision, but that's not what I meant. Warren Wyman and William Jockusch were the lead playtesters, but there were also about 20 playtest groups (more than 100 playtesters) all over the country playtesting the game. Some got different sets of rules than others, and all gave mountains of feedback. They're all credited in the rulebook.

Mike

[Doctor23]

I'd like to see Paratroopers in the new game. I have some ideas on this I'll post later, just wanted to throw that out there.

Doctor

[tw252]

Mike,
Will you go to Don's and see the opinions there? I am sure that you will get benefited a lot.

[Mike Selinker]

Will you go to Don's and see the opinions there? I am sure that you will get benefited a lot. I have been to Don Rae's forum and lots of others, and find a lot of the commentary useful. The reason you don't know that is that I almost never post on anybody else's boards. (These comments apply to all outside boards, not specifically Don's site, which is excellent.)

There are two reasons I don't do this. First, I don't want to make people feel like I'm a hall monitor. It's their message board, and if they want someone like me involved, I'd be happy to answer questions here.

Second, I don't like to get drawn into fights. People on the avalonhill.com boards have been very civil to me. On some other boards, a few people have used negative terms to describe me and Larry Harris and others who worked on the game. If I was posting on those boards, I'd likely say something I'd regret. (One commentator described my talented graphic designer as "a woman who probably never played a wargame in her life," as if her gender alone made her a poor choice. It was hard to hold back that time.)

So, anyhow, if there's something specific you want me to see, bring it up. I do like hearing what fans have to say, even if I don't agree.

Oh, and for the record, the choice of the German Stuka dive-bomber was both intentional and capitalized upon in an optional rule about Luftwaffe fighters doing bombing raids; you can't simultaneously defend a bid system and tell me Japan has too many IPCs; and, yes, I know a Soviet player buying a battleship on turn 1 is not the sharpest tack in the drawer. Not that I'm responding to anything in particular, of course. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the invite, and feel free to post anything I say wherever you like.

Mike

[zooooma]

Hi Mike.

I'm in full agreement that it's inconsistant to advocate a bidding system and object to additional Axis IPCs. Furthemore, proponents of bidding should be at least comfortable with just about anything you do - the bid should reflect the initial ballance. With hope, the revised game will entice frequent bids of zero.

The bidding system has this edge. There is always a theoretically correct bid to equallise the playing field. Personally, I prefer using optional rules and no bid.

I'm sorry to hear that you've been treated poorly. I'm sure you know full well that you can never please everyone. You do please a great many. Personally, I can scarcely find the time to go online and post nice things about the games I like.

Incidentally, while it's obvious that gender does not relate to design abilities, I think that neither does wargaming. One does not have to play games to design nice graphics anymore than one needs to be a sweet tooth to decorate a cake. I think that that person was being illogical at the time.

I like everything I read and see. Thank you.
-Luke

[srvihs]

I saw the box cover for the new game and it turns my stomach. I cant believe that they have not added the other participating countries into the game, especially since they put Mussolini on the cover yet his country doesnt participate in the game.

[Desert Fox]

You would have to have a big board to be able to do anything with smaller countries (otherwise what's the point of controlling one starting territory) and really, now, Italy was under the control of the Germans (more or less) so it really isn't a big deal. Who would want to play Italy when you could play Japan? Or Britian? Or...yeah, you get my point.

The Germans should get some more subs in the Atlantic to start out, like in A&A:E.

[Panzerfaust]

A few thoughts for the designers...

Big board, lots of territories
-Felt Russia in Europe had too few
territories... didn't feel like Russia
should... HUGE!

Change key cities
-No Stalingrad? The Battle of Stalingrad was SO significant to the outcome of WWII that to not include it but to include instead cities like Washington D.C., L.A., and Calcutta where no battles even took place is a crime. Sorry, but it really is.

Forget the individual winner element where cities are concerned and just go by the overall IPC increase from each country's starting total as was proposed in one of your "countdown to invasion" pieces. Then ditch one of the US cities (how many times will battle take place on US soil anyway? I mean really, even with the new rules?? Those oceans made a difference in WWII for a reason!). smile.gif Add Stalingrad.

OR... make it 7 cities on each side (seven's a good number) smile.gif and then add another city to Germany (Bucharest, Romania for instance... to account for those oil fields that were so important to the German war effort or say another minor axis power's capital or something), but whatever you do add Stalingrad to the game. The war in the east WOULDN'T be the same without it!

Seriously, I don't care if this thing's in print already. You should call it back and do this right or you'll hear about it for the next 20 years until someone finally comes along and corrects it. :mad:

And please... don't make me wait another 20 years. :( Sorry if I'm coming across really angry, it's just that I know every time I would look at this new board, myself, and everyone else I know (we have a large Axis & Allies gaming group where I'm from... 20-25+)would say, "man I wish they would've included Stalingrad!"

Signed,
An avid Axis & Allies player for 20 years and owner of 6 Axis & Allies games (2 original, 1 Europe, 1 Pacific, and 2 Xeno Games variants -- "World at War," and "Europe at War").
AND
I hope someone important to the development of the game reads this,
Panzerfaust

[ December 30, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Panzerfaust ]

[Mike Selinker]

I hope someone important to the development of the game reads this Will I do? ;)

First off, if you're Germany and you don't try to take Stalingrad, you will lose at least 80 percent of your games. Stalingrad has an industrial complex and an AA gun that matter a whole bunch. It's just not a victory city. There was no way we could include all the cities that truly matter.

Similarly, there's no way we would have left out the cities in the United States. This isn't a walk-through of what did occur from 1942-45. It's a game about what could occur, and that includes the Axis invasion and conquest of L.A. and D.C.

As I said in another post, you can write scenarios that make Stalingrad a victory city. Just be aware that you may have to change the setup to make it fair.

Mike

[mac224-2]

For anyone who doesn't like the choice of the Stuka as the representation of the German fighter, consider this:

"Fighter" really represents tactical air. That's fighters AND ground support aircraft such as the Stuka. That is what gives them the "3" on attack. Just fighters don't do squat for ground support.

"Bomber" refers to strategic bombers. Best used for industrial bombing. They were effective in ground campaigns when used en masse tactically, or to destroy rail and road networks, as the allies used them in normandy. (but at 4, too effective in the game imo). Still, these are the B-17s, Lancasters, etc (or can represent lighter bombers used in a strategic role as the Germans did over Britain).

mac

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:

Similarly, there's no way we would have left out the cities in the United States. This isn't a walk-through of what did occur from 1942-45. It's a game about what could occur, and that includes the Axis invasion and conquest of L.A. and D.C.I don't think there was any feasible possibility for Axis to successfully invade continental US. As far as reality goes, entire American continent (especially with unpassable neutrals which eliminates entire almost South America) should be removed from the map and get more space for parts of the world that were actually fought over.

Even gamewise, I see little need for placing victory cities on US. Any reasonable strategy that would enable Axis to invade US could only be possible if Axis already dominate the map. I am 100% certain that there is no chance my group would ever play to achieve total victory since last few hours of such game would be complete vaste of time.

[Kugelfang]

Personaly I hope that in the new Axis & Allies are also Task Forces because this will make the game easyer to play. And I think it would be nice if there are special forces on each side (axis and allies) with special abilities like marine, fast german tank, kamikaze, strong defending russian infantry and so on.

Perhaps there could be a chance to install a counter on www.avalonhill.com (http://www.avalonhill.com) which countdown to releasedate.

I could hardly await the release. Please try to finde a way to sell the game in other countries like germany ;) and excuse my imperfectly english. :rolleyes:

You make a good job.
Thanks for all the nice hours with Axis & Allies

[Desert Fox]

Exactly my opinion, Drax.

[Kiem1331]

Personally I myself see an invasion of US soil very possible. Just imagine if Japan had sent the third wave against Pearl Harbor. That would have effectively destroyed just about any remaining ships. Then just a ground invasion and Hawaii is now under Japan's rule. If this happened odds are any of the Pacific fleet remaining probably wouldn't have been able to make it back to the west coast. All America would have then would be whatever was stationed in or around the west coast. Now if this happened, America probably would have sent next to nothing to Europe since Japan was now in striking distance of the Continental US. Even if the Pacific fleet could be brought back up to strength, retaking Hawaii would be next to impossible. Japan had the element of surprise, America wouldn't. Now the Atlantic fleet would probably head west into the Pacific to reinforce the remaining Pacific fleet. Well Germany can quite easily cut of any supply ships from the Americas to assist England, which is now by itself. Canada wouldn't be able to help England so would probably resort to helping America in the Pacific or isolationism. Africa would most likely fall to Germany due to America not sending anything at all and with England being the only Allied fleet in the Atlantic it would fall quickly to the German and Italian fleets. At this point Japan could either shoot for the continental US or attack the USSR. Germany and Italy could clean up Africa move on up to the USSR and simultaneous wear down England. With this the remaining European powers may join in on the Axis side or hope for the best. With the USSR out of the way and most likely England, an assault on the Americas seems highly possible. America and Canada probably have little to no fleet in the Atlantic so the European Axis could head across the Atlantic with no trouble, and Japan could attack at the same time from the west. Then you have the Continental US being attacked on two fronts. And the rest can be left to anyone's imagination.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Kiem1331:
Personally I myself see an invasion of US soil very possible. Just imagine if Japan had sent the third wave against Pearl Harbor.It would have suffered more losses increased the damage on some of the already damaged battleships and that's it. Aircraft carriers and their cruiser escorts would have been untouched.

Then just a ground invasion and Hawaii is now under Japan's rule.Simply impossible. In order to launch the invasion of Hawaii, Japanese would have had to postpone most of the other invasions they undertook in December (Malaya, Philippines) for lack of troops and transport and would have had to face strong garrison (two reinforced divisions) in Hawaii.

Even if somehow Japanese captured Hawaii, US Pacific Fleet would have been up to strength with transfer of old battleships from Atlantic and newly commissioned battleships and entire complement of carriers, rendering an invasion of West Coast as possible as invasion of the Moon.

Drax

[Epicedion]

The long and short of it is, it is virtually impossible for the Axis to conquer Eastern America. It is -very hard- for the Axis to capture Western America. However, if the Japanese dig in on the Asian mainland and build enough transports and troops in the first two or three turns, they can move in and take Alaska, then amphibious assault the Western US with battleship support. The trick is, they need to have lots of planes to do it, because those infantry are basically only there to absorb hits.

Now, with the advent of Destroyers and Artillery, that's going to make the Japanese press toward America much more feasible, since the Japanese will be able to maintain odds against America's defenses with its ground forces (5 good transports with 5 Infantry and 5 Artillery all hitting on 2s) AND gain the benefit of extra bombardments from the Destroyers. If Japan still holds a Carrier and two planes, their attack power is very high, and they can shuttle in Bombers that can go land in Alaska.

This can be a beautiful attack strategy for the Japanese. Firstly, it puts America on the defensive. This means that Germany can be super-aggressive against Russia and Britain, since Germany will inevitably own the Atlantic (and probably most of Africa by that time). The trouble spot for the Axis is going to be a British India Industrial Complex (with Britain pouring tanks out of India, Japan will have to shuttle infantry to mainland Asia to hold it). Japan -will- lose the Western US unless the American player sucks (if Japan doesn't lose the Western US the next turn, they get to build about.. 10 Infantry there and thumb their noses at further US attack).

--Epicedion

[Kiem1331]

As Drax said the Pacific Fleet would be reinforced by the Atlantic one. Now Germany takes complete control of the Atlantic and England and Africa are sure to fall and most likely Russia. Then the European Axis could just assualt the east coast.

Now I have never seen this in a game of Axis and Allies, probably because we always play by the rules exactly. So the Axis have already won the economic victory before they could invade the Americas.

[Darksideknight]

Now, with the advent of Destroyers and Artillery, that's going to make the Japanese press toward America much more feasible, since the Japanese will be able to maintain odds against America's defenses with its ground forces (5 good transports with 5 Infantry and 5 Artillery all hitting on 2s) AND gain the benefit of extra bombardments from the Destroyers. If Japan still holds a Carrier and two planes, their attack power is very high, and they can shuttle in Bombers that can go land in Alaska. You forgot, in mikes post, destroyer bombardment is going to be a weapons development only!

[ January 04, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Darksideknight ]

[buffdog]

Greetings,

This is my first post to this forum so I'm going to get out all my comments on the release of this new game.

First of all, I'm glad to see the new A&A in the works. A&A revolutionized the board wargames. I practically grew up on it during high school. But, if one game really need reworking, and I know I disagree with a lot of you, then A&A needed it. The spin offs A&AE and A&AP really fell short in my book.

Here are my thoughts....

1) DRAWING OF LAND AREAS: The new map ought to be much different than the first...and I'm not concerned about the color palette here...we need for the areas and sea zones to be drawn much more realistically. Designers, please reassure us that the following places will not look like the original...Southern Europe, Germany, Western Europe, Ukraine, Karelia, etc, etc. A little creativitiy would be apprecieated in the new release. I want areas that make sense. For example, a particular area that I will pay attention to will be from Berlin to Moscow. If you do a good job here the rest of the map will surely follow in quality. Don't give us the 2 large and poorly thought out areas of A&AE or the 3 vertical areas topped by Karelia from the original. This is the spot where most of the land warfare took place in WWII. Make it interesting and make it right. Terrain features, cities, resources should define the drawing of these areas...as should other areas of the map.

Hope you are not copying the original and having only one area for places like Australia, Eastern US, China, Sinkiang. That would be a disaster to the look of the map. Please tell us that you are referring to groups of areas in the new version...not a copy of the old. Many of these areas are absolutely huge. It wouldn't make sense to have an area like Eastern US and Eastern Europe-no sense of porportionality here.

2) RUSSIAN BACK DOOR/JAPANESE STRENGTH Article #5 mentioned a back door to Russia. In the playing of the old game the Japanese player had too easy of a time helping the Germans put the squeeze on the Russians. The actual difficulties that would have been placed on the Japanese in the war to pursue such a strategy would have been enormous. I doubt it could have been done. That area of the world is huge in area mass, very difficult with the cold weather and would have created a massive logistical nightmare for the Japanese. The Japs should be able to exert pressure but rarely if ever be able to 'land' in Moscow.

3)USA: The issue of the US being on the map has created some controversy on previous posts. If we are going to have the gigantic US on the map, it ought to be divided into areas porportional to the rest of the map-okay, this is mainly covered in my previous 1) point. Also, I agree to include it is mostly a waste of space...face it...the Axis weren't going to get there any time soon during WWII and would have suffered massive losses in any attempt. I agree with Drax, more space ought to be devoted on the map to the areas where the war was fought.
Why put US victory cities on the map when they won't be taken?

4)GAME PIECES: If you ask me the importation of the A&AE pieces is the 'easy' way to get pieces into the game. Lots of problems here. Stuka should not be a fighter for the Germans...sorry (whoever made the post), when people say fighters they do not necessarily associate that term with the ground attack role. While a P-51 or ME109 might engage in strafing, etc, Stukas did not willingly engage in air to air combat.

The Panther tank? Not a good choice, how about one of the more commonly seen German tanks like the Panzer IV? The panther could be used as some kind of improved production model.

Are we going to see Flak88 guns for German arty? Weak, thatS for AA use.

5)SETUP: Article 5 seems to copy the setup from the old A&A? Is this what we can expect? A copy from the old game?

Drax writes a good article on the starting forces of the Brits. Let's face it, from what I read the starting setup is flawed for the Brits. What do the other countries look like?

Only one British factory that is located in the Isles? C'mon designers, you could at least borrow from A&AP. It gives India a factory. Did anyone think about the possibility of something like limited and full production factories? Say, full in Britain and limited elsewhere? Let's get creative with the possiblities.

6)ARTY: Why make artillery a seperate unit? Arty is a supporting arm. It doesn't seek out enemy forces and engage them in direct fire. Arty shouldn't be a seperate piece unless a re-vamp of the combat resolution system is done where tactical battles will be included like Eagle Games's Napoleonic warfare game. I believe that the new A&A will be strategic level so arty should not be included. How about including a fortification piece? Historically they would have been seen in/around Moscow, Leningrad, Normandy, Pas de Calais,etc.

***Unfortunately from what I've read in the pre-game release articles there hasn't been much in the way of new and exciting for this game with the exception of the victory cites theme which I really like. The 'new' pieces are actually 3 years old already. Once we get a crack at the map we will know more of how much has really changed.

Here are a few things that I would like to see in the new release...

A) Re-vamp the tech chart-specifically get rid of the heavy bomber giveaway.

B) New pieces that make sense

C) Some emphasis on sea-routes, resource management, providing something akin to Special Actions which are included in the recent release of GMT's Europe Engulfed.

D) Ports: allow fleets to avoid battle in a port safe haven. They only go to sea in order to control the sea area, engage in combat, etc. Wouldn't the addition of multiple port areas on the map be a welecome addition to the game?

E) Create an exciting game dynamic between Russia and Germany where so much of the war was decided.

***Come on designers...looks like you still have a lot of work to do.

buffdog

[Kiem1331]

I found a map that may be something that you like: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~swinters/images/oil2.gif

I personally think the new map definately should be more accurate.

[srvihs]

With response to bulldog's statement about the german 88. He is mistaken horribly. The 88mm AA gun was the most valueable peice of artillary in the world during WW2. The 88mm gun was used as anti-air, artillary, and AT. It was the most versital gun that didnt need major adjustments. It fired three shells AT, HE, and HEAT. These shells were extremely potent especially when the AP40 was introduced as high velocity.

[Epicedion]

I'd really like to know what buffdog thinks the word 'panzer' is.

I'm going to be a little critical of your post, buffdog. You make some decent points, but I disagree with much of your logic, and many of your conclusions.

1) The Map: I agree that on the original board, the Karelia/Eastern-Europe/Ukraine/Caucusus area is a mess, and should be separated out a little. However, remember that Russia and Germany were only really separated by Poland, of which they each conquered half. They really were on each others' doorsteps. A&A: Europe is accurate enough. That is, however, too much detail for a world game, and splitting the territories up too much would be a ridiculous waste of time and space. Splitting Eastern Europe and the Ukraine into 4 total territories would be nice, so we would have Poland and Romania (or whatever you want to call Southeastern Europe), and the Ukraine and the Baltics. This would also put Karelia (and Leningrad) a step back from direct influence on the war in Eastern Europe. As for adding more territories than that in Europe, remember: we still have to put pieces on this board.

As to China, China should be 4 to 6 territories, with moderate 'American' infantry defenses (Chinese soldiers). To a conquering Japanese player, capturing China should be about as fast as a one-legged midget slogging through mud and over high mountains.

As for America, it should definitely be on the board. America should be 5 territories: Western US, Eastern US, Washington (Victory City/Capital), New York (Industrial Complex bordering on ocean) and Los Angeles (Industrial Complex bordering on ocean, Victory City). I think that New York should be the main Eastern industrial complex, since it's more important to shipping and production than Washington. Think about it a second -- Germany doesn't have to conquer the world to affect the US. All it has to do is take Iceland or Greenland, then it can do Strategic Bombing on US factories. Japan can do the same to the West Coast from Midway.

Australia isn't really very important in the grand scheme of things, but it would be nice to see it split into maybe 3 territories (Western, Northeast, Southeast) so it's not so damn easy for the Japanese to take. But remember, it's more important to focus on the Grand Scheme of Things <tm> and not worry about time-consuming and unnecessary minutae like the lack of separate Aleutian Island territories.

2) You can solve the Russian Backdoor pretty simply. First, make China much larger and more time-consuming to conquer and cross. Second, make a bottleneck for Russia between China and the ocean or north border of the map (one territory wide) and keep that at least 2 territories away from what we think of as (original map) Russia proper. This way, the Japanese can slog through China's defenses, or try and bypass them through an easily-defendable Russian territory. Either way, they still have to contend with India. Japan should be fighting tooth-and-nail to take India, not swarming across eastern Russia.

3) United States: first, see my above comment on the US; second, realize that Los Angeles is still a viable target for the Japanese. It takes the steam out of their mainland Asia war, but it's still possible. If Japan can take and hold Los Angeles, they'll get an Industrial Complex and a whole metric crapload of IPCs to spend waging war on the rest of the US.

4) Maybe when people say 'fighters' -you- don't think about them in a ground-attack role. However, since the advent of military aviation, fighters have existed for two reasons: (1) to destroy ground targets and (2) to destroy anti-air defenses as to allow other aircraft to destroy ground targets. It's not like everyone collectively decided that people should shoot at each other in airplanes to make war more interesting -- people got in planes to defend their vulnerable ground targets from other attacking aircraft, pure and simple. Certainly some fighters are more balanced toward Air Superiority roles, and others geared toward Fighter/Bomber roles -- but in World War 2, our P-51s took out ground and air targets alike. As an aesthetic choice, the Stukas are perfect for the pieces, since they're visually distinctive from the American P-51s and the British Spitfires. It's not like they're going to be using P-80 Shooting Stars or Japanese Shindens to represent aircraft.

As we all know, the Germans didn't use their Panthers as much as they used their Panzers! Hehehehe...

Also, the Germans loved using their Flak-88s against everything.

6) Artillery is an excellent unit, and its purpose is very clear: to support attacking infantry. If you are attacking with your artillery and no attached infantry, you're doing something wrong. Of course, you might be one of those people that attacks with tank columns and no supporting infantry, and wonder why you lose.

A) I agree, Heavy Bombers are unbalancing. They should replace it with the Nuclear Bomb.

B) The new pieces do make sense.

C) 'Special actions' are great for a smaller-scale game, but we're talking about a game with 5 players, spanning the entire world. The game is already complex enough for its scale.

D) Re: Ports. See above (C), replace 'Special actions' with 'Ports'.

E) The advent of cities with Industrial Complexes (Leningrad and Stalingrad), along with the Victory City status of Leningrad should add alot of goal-making/breaking and tension around the German/Russian front. To win the game, it won't be about Germany stonewalling Russia, it will be about taking and holding those vital production centers.

As for your criticism of the designers, remember that we only have 5 of what.. 15 snippets of information from the designers. Also, try to remember that they're trying to make us a better Axis and Allies game that is still everything we know and love about Axis and Allies. To make some of the drastic changes you suggest would be to many players like running over their family dog and buying them a cat to replace it.

--Epicedion

[ January 04, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Epicedion ]

[Mike Selinker]

To make some of the drastic changes you suggest would be to many players like running over their family dog and buying them a cat to replace it.That's the funniest and most accurate statement I've heard anybody say about how we did our work on Axis & Allies. Thanks for the great one-liner, Epicedion.

Doing some things requested by Buffdog would affect ME that way too. And my cohorts Larry Harris and Rich Baker would be even less inclined to make them. I'm not saying that they wouldn't make a fine game. My team's mandate was to deviate from the original where we thought the original purpose of the game could be served better, not where we thought we could make a new game.

In all cases Buffdog describes, we did get creative with the possibilities. Just because such things didn't make the final cut didn't mean they weren't tried. A factory in India? Sure, we tried that, and didn't like it. We learned that it almost always became a factory for Japanese tanks to cut across Persia. That was the last thing we wanted, so we cut it. Those who say that the UK should have the factories it has in Pacific should remember that London isn't represented in Pacific. India and Australia are the ONLY UK factories in Pacific, and their inclusion there does not automatically demand their inclusion in A&A.

Nonetheless, Buffdog will be happy with at least some of the changes, I think. Epicedion is right that I'm holding back the material in the last ten columns. There are lots of changes to weapons development, pieces, and the map that will be revealed in the coming weeks. I hope you'll stay tuned.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:

A factory in India? Sure, we tried that, and didn't like it. We learned that it almost always became a factory for Japanese tanks to cut across Persia. That was the last thing we wanted, so we cut it.What this means to me is that you did not make Pacific significant enough for Japanese to fight there nor CBI theatre difficult enough for Japanese to conquer it.

If Japanese in your playtests were regularly capturing Indian factory in time for Japanese tanks to have impact on the outcome of the game, it means that US Pacific Fleet is still impotent enough to put the pressure on Japan and China is not the black hole swallowing the bulk of Japanese army like it historically was.

If free factory in India meant a free factory for Japan in the course of the game, how do you envision anyone actually paying 15 IPCs to build it there? If I understand you correctly, British players do not build factories in India, Japanese capture India (and its victory city) without any substantial fighting and that's it as far as CBI theatre is concerned.

I ask you, what is the point of the whole enterprise if you take a major step back from the level reached by Europe and Pacific versions?

Drax

[mac224-2]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
[b] ...What this means to me is that you did not make Pacific significant enough f

[Mike Selinker]

If I understand you correctly, British players do not build factories in India, Japanese capture India (and its victory city) without any substantial fighting and that's it as far as CBI theatre is concerned.
You're putting words in my mouth, Drax. What I said was that a free factory there on turn 1 was a bad idea for gameplay. Plenty of players still build one, and for good reasons. It's not easy for the Japanese to capture India on turn 1, but they can. If they do and the reward is an industrial complex, you get Japanese tanks in Moscow much faster. That's bad. If there's no complex in India, the UK player is not required to divert all resources to stopping it from falling. If it's there on turn 1, they must.

I ask you, what is the point of the whole enterprise if you take a major step back from the level reached by Europe and Pacific versions?I'm glad you asked. Axis & Allies Revised is not the summation of the three games that came before. As Europe and Pacific are more complicated than Axis & Allies, we didn't port in everything we could. We brought only the material that we were certain would make the game better.

The point of the enterprise was to make the best Axis & Allies possible. We don't think we took a step back at all.

Mike

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:

...What this means to me is that you did not make Pacific significant enough for Japanese to fight there nor CBI theatre difficult enough for Japanese to conquer it....

Drax(A forum glitch messed up my first reply to this.)

Drax, if we assume this is accurate - that there is nothing left for the Japanese that's worth fighting for in the Pacific - then it IS historically accurate.

The first 5 months of 1942 saw the massive Japanese advances in the Pacific. They rocked the Allies back on their heels with a massive haymaker - a series of truly brilliant campaigns that conquered an astounding amount of territory.

But then the USA came back with a wild punch at Midway that stopped them in their tracks. The Japanese by June 1942 had pretty much gone as far as they could in the Pacific, and they recognized that. Their goal was to sit tight and defend their gains in the Pacific with relatively few troops, while the Army completed the conquest of China.

However the Allies didn't play into their hand. The US and ANZAC grunts, airmen, and sailors immediately began counterattacking, and never stopped. The horrendous casualties and difficulties of fighting in the Pacific Jungles, Mountains, and Beaches didn't deter them. So, the Japanese miscalculated and were never able to have the free hand in Asia that they'd hoped for.

Just as Hitler intended Barbarossa to be a quick, lightning campaign to knock Russia out of the war while he persecuted the long and grueling war against Britain (Hitler expected the ultimate showdown would be with the Western Naval powers), The Japanses high command figured the Pacific war would be a quick grab for resources and defensive bases that would allow the Army a free hand in China! Neither the Germans nor Japanese realized that these diversionary attacks would end up bleeding them to death.

Anyway enough history. It sounds like the victory cities and IC placements are balanced to make this a likely Japanese strategy. Hold in the Pacific (where you've already got all the big points worth getting) and attack in Asia. However, if you DO want to go for broke and hit Australia, Alaska, and Hawaii, then you can do that. However the incentive is military not economic. Your losses (and those you inflict on the allies) are probably going to be far more costly than the IPCs of the territories. Which is not nearly so drastic a case in Asia.

Anyway as far as it's possible to tell from the teasers, the situation of the Japanese sounds about right.

mac

[Maltara]

Interesting comments about the invasion of mainland USA... I tend to side with the more abstract and creative possibilities in war. We tend to forget that what did happen is always so close to what was narrowly missed.

First off, Japan had a major plan to invade Hawaii. I forget the operation code name but they were planning to do it. Perhaps they would have been unsuccessful. But it was a possibility.

Secondly, military might and geography have little to do with the question of whether or not the US would have been invaded. If the UK, then Russia, then China had fallen to the axis, what could North America have done? Very little, considering the Germans were light years ahead in terms of Rocket & Atomic technology in 1942. (the fact that the USA got the A bomb first is because in 1943 they carpet bombed the German facilities producing A bombs, and by that time the allies had turned the tide anyhow.)

So what would have happened? A peace would have been brokered, OR the axis could have forced the Americans' hand other ways. A) advanced technology such as long range bombers, rockets, or nuclear weapons, B) a political coup/revolution, or C) some sort of full scale invasion. Canada or Mexico could have acted as a staging ground. Hitler did try, unsucessfully, to persuade Mexico to invade the US.

In the board game, you'd pretty well need Heavy Bombers to invade the States, but it wouldn't be that hard. 6 heavy bombers for each axis side would deal 21 damage each (total 42) with a replacement cost of 15 per turn per player for the average 1 lost to AA fire. Further heavy bombers along with sacrificial fighters or infantry units would be all that would be needed to invade.

Finally, even in the real war the Axis did, for some crazy reason, send units all the way to North America. A lighthouse North of Vancouver was bombarded by a Japanese sumbarine, and German submarines were observed/sunk in the St. Lawrence River and New York Harbour.

Likely? Perhaps not. But one atomic bomb or an assassination that leads to a revolution would have allowed the Swastika to fly at the White House. Thank goodness for the men and women who fought for our freedom!!

[Epicedion]

The game will probably work better with a more 'basic' setup, allowing the individual players choices over where and when to build Industrial Complexes instead of forcing the issue.

A very common British strategy, for example, is to build an IC in India and reserve the rest of their IPCs. If they can ferry troops in from Africa to defend the IC, they can likely hold it for a turn, and then start churning out infantry. Once they build up infantry (after a few turns) they can start rolling out the tanks and go offensive. If Russia and Britain can keep the Japanese occupied (or at least cause them to stagnate), then the US can build an IC in China and start adding its weight to the war in Asia.

However, the British player doesn't have to do this. Instead, they can decide to abandon the far east and focus on the immediate local threat of Germany, and build an IC in South Africa to defend and reconquer Africa. Or it can go another route altogether and build a complex in Australia, and try to cut off any Japanese transport fleets.

So there are alot of ways Britain can fight the war. Giving them an IC in India from turn 1 locks them into a costly fight they may wish to avoid. Of the Allies, Britain is sort of a 'wild card'. They are very spread out, and unable to bear down on any one location at first, but they're also the most flexible, and usually are in the position to take advantage of any Axis mistakes, unlike Russia who is stuck defending against Germany, and the US which requires several turns to build up forces to really get into the war.

--Epicedion

[ecliptic]

IMO there needs to be an Industrial Complex in India. Matter of fact I was simply dumbfounded when I read that it WOULDN'T have one.

I have never seen anyone playing the UK who didn't build one in India. If they don't build one in India, Japan puts too much pressure on Russia and takes most of Russia's land.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
It's not easy for the Japanese to capture India on turn 1, but they can. If they do and the reward is an industrial complex, you get Japanese tanks in Moscow much faster. That's bad.Agreed. But you had complete freedom to adjust initial setup in such way that Japanese conquest of India on the first turn was impossible providing that British build 1,2 oe 3 units in the complex. There are enough odds calculators around to make very precise deployment. It's not that you were bound by historical deployment, after all.

If there's no complex in India, the UK player is not required to divert all resources to stopping it from falling. If it's there on turn 1, they must.And why is it a bad thing in your opinion? CBI theatre was a second most active theatre for British in June 1942. It is virtually impossible by the existing game mechanism for British to reinforce their Middle East army directly from UK as was done historically. Half of the Montgomery's army arrived from the Commonwealth and there is not a single industrial complex present to provide British player with a gateway to reinforce this most important theatre for them. The game allegedly starts in the middle of war and British have no ready means to maintain their active fronts.

The point of the enterprise was to make the best Axis & Allies possible. We don't think we took a step back at all.I am not entirely certain you made a step forward either except for the better looking pieces and cool graphic.

I'll probably buy the game anyway, if no other reason than to augment the Europe and Pacific pieces and the map, but I sincerely hoped for the fresh look upon the old classic.

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by mac-2:

Drax, if we assume this is accurate - that there is nothing left for the Japanese that's worth fighting for in the Pacific - then it IS historically accurate. Perhaps I did not express myself correctly. I agree with your historical assesment. Japanese would gladly watch Pacific as non-active theatre and concentrate on their real target - China, but US did not let them and this is what I expected from this game. A&A starts at the moment when Japanese player playing the victory point game in A&A:P usually stops the expansion. I hoped for most of Japanese economy to produce naval stuff to replace the losses suffered in the Pacific campaign, with some infantry to enable them to recapture some territory lost from British and Chinese. The emphasis ought to have been in the Pacific. British factory in India would enable British to maintain pressure on Japanese from the beginning and would draw some British IPCs from Europe and make Germany's life easier.

Drax

[mac224-2]

Perhaps I did not express myself correctly. I agree with your historical assesment. Japanese would gladly watch Pacific as non-active theatre and concentrate on their real target - China, but US did not let them and this is what I expected from this game.....
DraxAgain it's hard to make an assessment without playing or actually seeing a game setup. But it sounds to me as if the setup is pretty historical for a June 1942 situation (when A&A starts). In actuality, India was not a major staging area. It would have been a costly undertaking to make it one (like build a factory) and other theaters would have suffered. All the big IPC territories in the Pacific start out in Japanese hands and Manilla is a victory city. So the US will likely put pressure on the Japanese to recapture it, especially if the Japanese help the attack on Russia.

mac

[ January 06, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: mac-2 ]

[Yoper]

Fighters-
The problem with the use of the Stuka is not about the role or use of a specific plane but about the matter of consistency. If you are going to use air-superioity planes for some countries then use them for all countries. If the intent is to represent aircraft that were used in the ground-support role then use planes that come from that category for all countries.
I have come up with the idea of having two different fighters- fighter(air-to-air) and fighter/bomber(air-to-ground).

Fighter- A- 2 D- 4 M- 4 Cost- 8 IPC
Fighter/Bomber- A- 3 D- 1 M- 4 Cost- 8 IPC

The Fighter is a defensive weapon(Cap Air) and the F/B is an offensive weapon(Tac Air). To use either plane in a role that they are not meant for entails a certain amount of risk. I also think that the bomber should be split into medium(two engine) and heavy(four engine) bombers.
Germany had medium bombers because their airforce was designed to be used in tactical support of their ground forces. It was not a strategic force. These limitations were quickly exposed when the Germans tried to use the Luftwaffe against the UK. The planes did not have the range or the capacity and the crews and the organization did not have the training or tactics for the job.
While it would be nice to have the extra units, I can understand not wanting to clutter the already overflowing territories.
Ultimately, I would not want the mistake/poor choice for the German fighter in A&A: Europe to be forced upon the new version of A&A just because the mold is already made. A mistake only truly becomes a mistake when you do not learn from it.
Don't worry, I would have to die between now and the release date for me not to get the new version.
Keep up the good work!

Drax,
Good job over the years at working on new ideas and keeping people on their toes.

Craig

[Mike Selinker]

If there's no complex in India, the UK player is not required to divert all resources to stopping it from falling. If it's there on turn 1, they must.
---------------------------------------------------------
And why is it a bad thing in your opinion?I don't think I can give you a better answer than I already have, Drax. There will likely be lots of fighting over India. But mandating it from both sides on turn 1 was not deemed a good play experience by our playtesters or our designers. It turns a theater which we believe now has lots of strategic choices into a single right way to play. I think I've said about all I can on this topic without repeating myself.

I appreciate the commentary, though. I expect similar thoroughness when you see weapons development.

Mike

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Craig A. Yope:
Fighters-
The problem with the use of the Stuka is not about the role or use of a specific plane but about the matter of consistency. If you are going to use air-superioity planes for some countries then use them for all countries. If the intent is to represent aircraft that were used in the ground-support role then use planes that come from that category for all countries.
I have come up with the idea of having two different fighters- fighter(air-to-air) and fighter/bomber(air-to-ground).

Fighter- A- 2 D- 4 M- 4 Cost- 8 IPC
Fighter/Bomber- A- 3 D- 1 M- 4 Cost- 8 IPC

The Fighter is a defensive weapon(Cap Air) and the F/B is an offensive weapon(Tac Air)....I agree with you, creating a new aircraft type would have been nice (considering they did add the destroyer to navies) but unfortunately it didn't happen. "Fighters" are generalized into tactical air support with both strong attack and defense. If they did I would increase the Tac Bomber's defense to 3 (and raise cost to 10). They could decimate an attacking army more easily than a defending one.

I like your idea of "light" and "heavy" strategic bombers too. The Germans used their light bombers in a variety of roles including anti-shipping and tactical strikes where they were very effective. Something like:

Light Bomber- A-3 D-2 M-5 Cost-12
Heavy Bomber- A-2 D-1 M-6 Cost-15

Both can conduct strategic bombing. But the light bomber is more combat versatile. It is only limited by range relative to the heavy bomber. The heavy bomber would be wasted in most ground attacks, and preserved for strategic bombing.

It would also be nice to be able to adjus the IPC loss from strategic bombing to -1 for the Light Bomber (e.g. a roll of 6 and defending factory loses 5 IPC).

But, they probably thought of this. I'm beginning to think that literally EVERYTHING was considered at one point in the redesign including that smile.gif

mac

[Yoper]

Mac,
I have the medium bomber(two engine) doing 1/2 damage on a 6d(rounded up). The other particulars are as follows-

Medium Bomber- A- 3 D- 1 M- 4/5/6(up for debate) Cost-12

I also thought that it would be interesting to allow an aircraft carrier to operate with 1 medium bomber. It could cause some interesting dynamics for a country like Japan to have an American carrier launching strategic bombing raids at the home island from out in the Pacific Ocean. I also think that the destroyers should be rated lower and then you can slide a cruiser in between the destroyer and the battleship.

Destroyer- A- 2 D- 2 M- 2 Cost- 8
Destroyer Special Ability- Negate Submarine First Shot Ability
Cruiser- A- 3 D- 3 M- 2 Cost- 15
Cruiser Special Ability- Amphibious Assault Shore Bombardment Shot

I also think that if they had stayed with just 6 technologies that the following changes would have been appropriate-
Weapons Development-

1- Jet Power- Fighters defend at a five (5) or less and Fighter-Bombers attack at a four (4) or less.

2- Increased Transport Capacity- A transport can now carry three (3) Infantry, Marine, Artillery, or Airborne units (or combinations of). It can carry one (1) Infantry, Marine, Artillery, or Airborne unit and one (1) Mechanized Infantry or Armor unit. It can carry two (2) Mechanized Infantry or Armor units (or combination of).

3- Super Submarines- Submarines now attack at a three (3) or less.

4- Long Range Aircraft- Fighters and Fighter-Bombers have an increased range of six (6) spaces. Medium Bombers and Heavy Bombers have an increased range of eight (8) spaces.

5- Increased Ship Range- All ships have an increased range of three (3) spaces.

6- Increased Bomber Firepower- Medium Bombers now attack at a four (4) or less and Heavy Bombers now attack at a five (5) or less.

Here is my full unit run down.
UNITS
A D M C SPECIAL ABILITY
GROUND

INFANTRY (15) 1 2 1 2 -

MARINE (8) 1 2 1 3 ATTACKS AT (3) OR LESS DURING
AN AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT
AIRBORNE (8) 1 2 1 3 COMBAT DROP RANGE OF 2 SPACES
CAN BE SHOT DOWN BY AA GUN
ARTILLERY (10) 2 2 1 3 EACH ART RAISES A MATCHING
INF/MAR/ARB TO A (2) OR LESS
MECHANIZED 2 2 2 4 BLITZKRIEG
INFANTRY (10)
ARMOR (10) 3 2 2 5 BLITZKREIG

AIR

FIGHTER (10) 2 4 4 8 -

FIGHTER- 3 2 4 8 -
BOMBER (10)
MEDIUM 3 1 6 12 STRATEGIC BOMBING RAID-
BOMBER (5) DMG ½ OF # ROLLED (ROUND UP)
HEAVY 4 1 6 15 STRATEGIC BOMBING RAID-
BOMBER (3) DMG EQUAL TO # ROLLED

SEA

TRANSPORT (6) - 1 2 8 CARRY- 2 INF/MAR/ART/ARB OR
1 ARM/MECH INF
SUBMARINE (6) 2 2 2 8 FIRST SHOT ATTACK, DEFENDING
SUB CAN RETREAT OR SUBMERGE
DESTROYER (5) 2 2 2 8 NEGATES SUBMARINE FIRST SHOT
ATTACK
CRUISER (5) 3 3 2 15 AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHORE
BOMBARDMENT SHOT
AIRCRAFT 1 3 2 18 CARRY- 2 FTR/ FTRBMBR OR
CARRIER (2) 1 MEDIUM BOMBER
BATTLESHIP (3) 4 4 2 24 AMPH ASSLT BMBDT SHOT, TAKES
2 HITS OF DAMAGE TO SINK

Even looking at this for the first time in a while I can see things that I would change from when I first came up with this list. That is part of the fun. Ultimately that is what it boils down to. It is a hell of a lot of fun. Enjoy the food for thought.
Craig

[Yoper]

My last post had a list of unit information that became a bit jumbled. After each unit is a number in parenthesis, that represents the number of plastic parts I would have in a game if I were putting together such a game. The numbers after that are the attack, defense, movement, and cost values. Then after that comes the unit's special ability. I hope that helps in deciphering the information.
Craig

[Bridger]

As far as the Stuka being the wrong type of plane for the "figher" role. I think they were just trying to pick planes that were unique and idendified with their country. The P-38 Lightning was a very unique design (as far as mass produced fighers go) so it makes good sense for it to be the US fighter.

The only real well known British fighters all look about the same as every other single engine figher (as far as the detail level in A&A goes). So the spitfire (or hurricane, whatever) would have to be chosen, even though it's not very distinguishable.

Now the Germans main fighter were the BF-109s and such, the same kind of regular single engine fighters that would be hard to differentiate from japanise zeros or british spitfires if they were game peices. Thus, since the stuka is a much more unique plane if you made it into a playing peice, it makes sense that they would choose it.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Bridger:

As far as the Stuka being the wrong type of plane for the "figher" role. I think they were just trying to pick planes that were unique and idendified with their country.If it were up to me to pick the models to represent the unit with both air-to-air and air-to-ground (sea) I'd use Fw 190 and P 47 Thunderbolt for German and US fighter units respectively. Both types were excellent fighters and fighter-bombers. British equivalent would be Typhoon, but it is difficult to argue against using Spitfire. I guess noone complains against using Jaks and Zeros for Soviets and Japanese.

In the bomber department I am sad that Lancaster wasn't used. It was far more representative of the British strategic bombing effort than any other plane.

With tanks, I would prefer some British model (Churchill or Cromwell or any other) rather than Sherman. If no other reason than for variety.

I agree that 88 was the most (in)famous German gun in WW2, but the actual piece looks more like some sort of insect than a model of the gun.

I think designers were wrong to use Iowa and Resolution classes of battleship for USN and RN instead of types that saw more action, South Dakota and King George V classes.

The choice of Wasp as model for US carriers instead of Essex or Enterprise is astonishing, to be modest.

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by mac-2:

In actuality, India was not a major staging area. It would have been a costly undertaking to make it one (like build a factory) and other theaters would have suffered. All the big IPC territories in the Pacific start out in Japanese hands and Manilla is a victory city. So the US will likely put pressure on the Japanese to recapture it, especially if the Japanese help the attack on Russia.By June 1942, Indian divisions already took part in several campaigns (Italian East Africa, North Africa, Middle East). When Japan declared war in December 1941, India was going to become a large staging area no matter what especially in the aftermath of loss of Malaya and Burma.

One thing that I miss in A&A games is the strategic redeployment phase which would simulate railroads and other long range movement capabilities. In the absence of such a phase, industrial complexes are the next best thing to simulate capabilities of worldwide deployment of men and material to fight a global war.

If you look industrial complexes not only as recruitment centres, but as concentration of transportation facilities and necessary logistics than an easy argument could be made for industrial complexes in Eastern Canada, India, Australia and Egypt. Yes, some of the would have a chance to fall to the enemy, but that's what made these territories attractive to Axis in the first place.

In addition, what was preventing design team from introducing an optional rule from CD "Scorched Earth" where defender is allowed to destroy IC and AA gun from the lost territory?

As far as US Pacific counteroffensive is concerned, there was rarely a one in the 2nd edition providing that Japanese destroyed the fleet around Hawaii. Unless there's something to prevent such a destruction, can you imagine American player investing in fleet while German player with additional IPCs marches towards Russia?

Drax

[Drewcooter]

Let's all calm down. It appears that a few people on the this thread are about ready to condemn the game after only 4-5 articles have been released.

None of you have playtested this new game so I think it is a little early for you to itimate, or in some cases just flat out state, that the New A&A game is probaly flawed.

It may very well be the case that the Japanese player has a lot of options on where to make their first strike and that a factory in India simply presents too tempting of a target.

By not placing the factory in India it may free up the British player to choose between many, rather than few strategic options.

More initial factories can definitely mean fewer variantions in outcomes, i.e. fewer viable strategic options.

Many key aspects of the game are yet to be revealed: (1) Map, many new additional zones (I hope). (2) Unit Costs, (3) Unit capabilities, (4) Turn order (5) Technology (although I have always hated tech, maybe they have spruced it up in a way that is more palatable) (6) Penalties , or lack of , for losing your capital.........
Plus many other issues.

The game is about 75 days away so lets take it easy, sit back and enjoy the previews we are honored to receive without prejudging the game; because obviously we have a lot to learn about it and personally I will not be judging the playability of the game until I have played it several times myself.

Thank you Mike for the previews!

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Sniper in the Ruins:
Let's all calm down. It appears that a few people on the this thread are about ready to condemn the game after only 4-5 articles have been released.
That's right and it's what I've been trying to say. Some of us (not me of course!!! smile.gif are making far too many assumptions. It's ok to speculate, guess, criticize, and/or applaud. But let's not execute the game before we see it.

mac

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
....As far as US Pacific counteroffensive is concerned, there was rarely a one in the 2nd edition providing that Japanese destroyed the fleet around Hawaii. Unless there's something to prevent such a destruction, can you imagine American player investing in fleet while German player with additional IPCs marches towards Russia?....Drax,

I do see your point. The basic problem I think is that it is just too easy - in the game - for the Japanese (or anyone else for that matter) to expand into Asia. The vast distances, terrible or nonexistent transportation network, severe weather, inhospitable terrain (tibetan mountain ranges, siberian swamps, endless forests, deserts, etc) are not taken into account. Add to this the lack of any rules of guerilla warfare, the lack of true supply rules, and the lack of any limitation on how many units can be built!

Adding all these in would make it a very different game and no longer A&A.

Maybe though, there will be added strategic war rules that effect Japan (like the UK) so the US can strangle Japan in the Pacific economically if the Japanese don't do something about it.

mac

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by mac-2:

I do see your point. The basic problem I think is that it is just too easy - in the game - for the Japanese (or anyone else for that matter) to expand into Asia. Precisely. That's why I expected an Indian and hoped for Chinese factory from the beginning of the game. I wanted for Japanese to feel like Germans did in the 2nd edition of the game. Pressed on all sides, hoping to hold on, until Germany wins the war for the Axis, just like fascist dictators hoped for. My expectations were predominantly based on the existing A&A mechanisms and perhaps some simplifications like abolition of transporting units of different nationality or sub-to-sub combat.

I remember when first rumours about the Pacific game started. Almost immediately there were ideas about creating a linking module for Europe and Pacific games.

When Pacific game was released, Avalon Hill started to work on the module but nothing eventualyl came from this. We have some more or less detailed sets of house rules available. I hoped that new A&A game will pick up where the unsuccessfull attempt to link up Europe and Pacific games failed, but instead realised that developers picked 20 year old classic as a basis.

Of course, I can't and won't blame anyone else for my expectations, but what was announced in the first essay does not entirely reflect what was offered in the following ones. It seems to me that "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" was a leading maxim in the developing process after all.

Drax

[mac224-2]

Related to this issue, one house rule I've played around with in my mind but never used is this:

Players can build 1 infantry unit per turn at the normal cost on any starting territory worth 2 or more IPCs held at the beginning of the turn. To build more than 1 infantry per turn or to build anything other than infantry would require a factory.

This would help the allies far more than the Axis, but in a realistic way imo.

The UK could raise armies in Canada, India, Australia, and Egypt without transporting infantry there or building a factory. Basically, they actually have a chance of holding onto their empire.

The US could reinforce the chinese front with native chinese soldiers. It could raise armies in Alaska, Mexico, and Brazil.

Russia could raise new armies in the far east.

mac

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mac-2:

I do see your point. The basic problem I think is that it is just too easy - in the game - for the Japanese (or anyone else for that matter) to expand into Asia. Precisely. That's why I expected an Indian and hoped for Chinese factory from the beginning of the game. I wanted for Japanese to feel like Germans did in the 2nd edition of the game. Pressed on all sides, hoping to hold on, until Germany wins the war for the Axis, just like fascist dictators hoped for. My expectations were predominantly based on the existing A&A mechanisms and perhaps some simplifications like abolition of transporting units of different nationality or sub-to-sub combat.

I remember when first rumours about the Pacific game started. Almost immediately there were ideas about creating a linking module for Europe and Pacific games.

When Pacific game was released, Avalon Hill started to work on the module but nothing eventualyl came from this. We have some more or less detailed sets of house rules available. I hoped that new A&A game will pick up where the unsuccessfull attempt to link up Europe and Pacific games failed, but instead realised that developers picked 20 year old classic as a basis.

Of course, I can't and won't blame anyone else for my expectations, but what was announced in the first essay does not entirely reflect what was offered in the following ones. It seems to me that "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" was a leading maxim in the developing process after all.

Drax</font>[/QUOTE]

[Yoper]

Mac-2,
That is similar to a Xeno's World at War rule.
Craig

[buffdog]

Mike,

Maybe you should have put your design effort into writing a book titled "Gambling for Dummies". :D

Anybody else find it funny that two paragraphs of the lastest A&A post are about gambling in Las Vegas? We need more substance in the articles and less fluff.

Sorry, but I'm disappointed that the tech chart is essentially a reproduction of the original but with lots of eye candy. "Combined Bombardment"? That's an interesting weapons technology development. Where did you do your research for that one? How does combined bombardment compare with a real technological advance like jet power? Not impressed with that 11th hour addition.

Here's what I see as the "major" developments in the game as of article 6....

1) Victory Cities (sounds good)

2) New Pieces (actually old ones from Europe and Pacific-and the pieces aren't necessarily the best choices)

3) Weapons Tech (with the exception of this combined bombardment thing I could use my old tech chart)

4) Adjusted National Incomes (we will see but not a huge deal in my opinion)

...we can only hope for real change in the following articles. When do we get a glimpse of the map? I could probably color my old A&A map to make it look like the new one-but let's hope not.

[Desert Fox]

Yes, Combined Bombardment is crappy. I will definetly replace it with something else, and just give the destroyers it, like they should have. So far I do not like the attitude of "We only wanted one special ability per unit," and "Convoy Zones are too complicated." People aren't stupid, y'know. And those add a lot to the game. :(
I also understand not wanting to make it too complicated for new gamers, but as I stated earlier the concepts are not hard to grasp, and A&A would benefit greatly by them, IMO.
Of course, there have been some changes for the better too, like Weapons Development not being totally random, and Victory Cities.

[ January 10, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Desert Fox ]

[Bridger]

I think that maybe a new type of region should be represented. Not uncrossable, but "inhostpitable" terrain might be a better word. The sahara, norhern asia, the jungles of indochina, places like this would get a small movement restriction. Tanks are restricted to 1 movement space per turn if they are moving into or are leaving an "inhospitible territory."

In addition to adding a few more territorys in siberia (to simulate the long, long way across the continent), i think this would solve problems of asia being conqured too easily, or at least the problem of japanise tanks in moscow by turn 5.

[simply4est]

Desert Fox posted, "So far I do not like the attitude of "We only wanted one special ability per unit," and "Convoy Zones are too complicated." People aren't stupid, y'know. And those add a lot to the game. "

I agree, the idea of a new AA should be an improved game and one continually building on what made AAE & AAP good, not leaving out huge improvements like Convoy zones. I was really looking forward to a worthwhile graduated investment Weapons Development system.

So far, I'm not seeing a reason to buy this - just a tweaking of map territories, rules, and nice graphics (and I'm sure the sculpts for the new pieces will be nice, but not price-of-new-game-nice).

[buffdog]

That's the big question...why should anyone shell out around $50 to buy this game? Definately not enough new and exciting here to warrant the purchase. There are too many other good and original designs being produced to justify this 'new' A&A. But I'm still hoping that something drastic will happen like the release of the game being delayed so that others are given a chance to turn it into something worthwhile.

A lot of potential exists to make the new A&A something great. Unfortunately we haven't seen that yet.

[Bone_Roller]

I was barely able to wade though the first 2.5 pages of this thread and it got so boring I just decided to reply without going further.

I played my firsy A&A board game in 1983. I began cd play in Jan 99- and have played about 3500 games since then.

I do not understand the point in making a revised board game. Almost nobody plays the board version anymore- it is too cumbersome, too slow and games never get completed. I highly doubt it is possible to recover the cost of a new board version. It will sell to a few hardcore board addicts but that is it.

My guess is 99% of all Axis and Allies games are played on the net with the CD. If there is not a CD version, it will not sell.

I am an avid online player and I dont care what the pieces look like, how the board is colored etc etc. All I, and most players, really want is a CD version free of bugs and with a decent dice generator. Build that and many will buy.

I see most of this as an arguement over whether chess pieces made from wood or stone are better. Whether moder design or historical design is better. The fact is it is the game and the rules and the functionality that count, not the decorative issues.

I might also add that those folks who limit themselves to board play are also the least skilled at the game and are not able to compete with decent online players.

Wake me up when you fix the CD not when you make a new board version I will never buy.

[Darksideknight]

Epicedion you hit the nail on the head. This bone head thinks that players who only play board versions of the game are less skilled?? Maybe inexperianced ones are but that goes both ways, the more you play the more you pick up. What a moron! Kudos on your response.

[Epicedion]

Upon further examination, I have come up with two possibilities:

1) Bone_Roller is simply a forum troll,

or, more likely,

2) Bone_Roller doesn't really understand what is the purpose of this forum.

In the case of the latter, and for informative purposes, this forum is regarding the new -board game- version of Axis and Allies that will be available hopefully sometime later this year. It is safe to say that Avalon Hill under Wizards of the Coast has nothing to do with any PC version of Axis and Allies, unless a totally new PC version is in development. The reason for this is that the A&A computer game was produced by Microprose and published by Hasbro Interactive. Hasbro Interactive was later bought by Infogrames, which now produces games under Atari. I'd be willing to wager that it would take Indiana Jones to find and recover the license for that one.

--Epicedion

[Bone_Roller]

After making ny post above I stopped into the MSN Gaming Zone A&A room where there were 85 players, I asked in the lobby how many folks played the board game any more. Three people said they occasionally played the board game.

My mistake was thinking that Avalon Hill might have the rights to the CD version.

I can see from the replies to my post why those who still play the board game are so few and unskilled. The thing that makes online players run the fastest from newbies is the line: I am new to online play, but I have played the board game for years.

Have fun with it guys, I wont bother you any more.

[msjells]

Let's not get too upset over Bone_Roller's comments. They obviously represent a particular point of view, one that doesn't consider the interests of others. While many of his points have already been refuted, I would ask Bone_Roller to consider some of the following before rejecting board games entirely:
1) Successful computer ports are often done after the board game has had wide distribution, and "perfect plans" and other game flaws have been worked out over the course of thousands of games played.
2) Granted that boardgamers are not a huge segment of society, there are still plenty of people around who play the traditional version of the game. The annual WBC convention draws over 1,000 people who spend close to a week playing boardgames, and it's not a cheap week (due to hotel and food costs rather than convention fees, which are very reasonable). That implies a fairly high level of dedication.
3) Forums such as this, Web Grognards and Consimworld draw large numbers of posters and even larger numbers of "lurkers". In these areas, computer gamers are a minority and those who exclusively play computer games are almost nonexistent. To come to one of these areas and make claims like "nobody plays boardgames any more" can hardly be viewed as anything other than trolling.
4) I hope that you're able to enjoy playing your computer game after another few generations of computers. Personally, although I still play many 30 - 40 year old board games, my operating system doesn't care much for anything even 1/4 that old. Even if you keep your old machines and operating systems around, you may find your pool of opponents diminishing as time passes. Incidentally, games like Risk have likely been around longer than you have and still get extensive play. When was the last time you played Pac-Man, which is not even half as old but was once the hottest thing going?
5) Naturally, playing a variety of opponents improves one's skills. Granted that it sometimes is more difficult to find local opponents for a board game than online opponents for a computer game, your sweeping stereotype that implies that all online players are brilliant beyond measure while board game players are stuck at a third-grade level almost has to be designed to be an insult and nothing more. You've never played an online player who didn't exhibit great skill? Do these people somehow start out as experts? I find that amazing. Your informal poll was of little value - you go to a site that predominantly attracts computer gamers and ask them if they play board games. I could easily go to consimworld, survey a much larger group of people, and come to the conclusion that computer games have no future. Neither is a representative sample of society at large, and drawing the conclusion that one format or another is doomed is useless due to the flawed sample.

I'm glad that you enjoy the computer game that was made possible thanks to the efforts and skills of countless boardgamers. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you don't share our enthusiasm, just as I don't share the enthusiasm that you have for your branch of the hobby. We can each enjoy gaming in our own way - I don't see a need to claim that one branch or the other can't produce skilled players or is doomed to disappear.

Moderator John

[hicup]

I think Bone_Roller is a troll of mega proportions. I have played the game for all of it's life. I've played the CD version about as much. I've played on-line/LAN/PBEM. I find both forms of the media the exact same in terms of competition!!

I do however know one thing. An arguement can be made that "Hot Dice" is a real tangeble truth. You do NOT get hot dice with the CD. Furthermore there is a sense of urgency when playing the board game and in light of real opponents mistakes can be made even from the best of us. There is a brotherhood when playing the boardgame version that you can't get from playing the cd game itself.

One is not better than the other but they do have distinct differences.

I sir would play you anyday...you wanna know why? Because personalities like your are 100% predictable.. That's a crutch in this game my friend both cd and board versions. Wanna go?

Tim-

[Epicedion]

Wow, Bone_Roller... what Bizzaro universe are you from? "99% of all Axis and Allies games are played on the net," and "almost nobody plays the board version anymore" are wonderful generalizations with absolutely no supporting facts.

The truth is that your post is sheer egotism. It stands to reason your entire logical argument is based on the fact that -you- only play on-line with other people who -only- play on-line, thus limiting your research to people who never leave their mothers' basements.

In fact, there are organizations, large and small, dedicated to board and other table-top games. Go to a university or college and you're likely to find plenty of people who play the Axis and Allies board games. You'll also find people playing Diplomacy, Risk, Shogun (Samurai Swords), and some of the 'rarer' games like Squad Leader.

Saying that board games are on the decline due to easy-access online play is like saying that PC games are on the decline because everyone likes console games better. Sure, if you poll a high school class, the numbers will support that hypothesis. However, even if only three-hundredths of one percent of the US population actually buys the game, you're still looking at millions of dollars in income (approximately $5 million, actually).

You know, all I really ask for in a message board is that people A) think before they post something and B) aren't stupid. That really helps things run smoothly.

--Epicedion

[Epicedion]

It isn't so much anger at Bone_Roller's comments as it is disbelief at his assumptions, John. The combination of arrogance and ignorance is, frankly, laughable. I especially like the part about his poll of the 85 players on MSN, which is flawed for two reasons: the first being, as you stated, that MSN is a great place to look for computer gamers, but not board gamers. The second being that 85 people is hardly good evidence, considering the many tens or hundreds of thousands of computer and board gamers. Gallup doesn't just poll Main Street of Pierre, South Dakota to determine the standings of mayoral candidates in Islamorada, Florida.

To make matters worse, the egotistical and hostile stance of Bone_Roller's blatantly incorrect allegations virtually -guarantees- a hostile (or at least openly contradictory) response. His final post (summary: "I'll leave now, you all suck") would seem to indicate that he felt the need to reinforce and justify -to himself- his own superiority in the face of logical and contradictory data to his own argument, leading me to the conclusion that his presence (in its entirety) on this forum was just an effort to tweak the collective nose of the posting body. The effect of this has been the waylaying and sidetracking of a forum topic that has already begun to sprawl, which is amusing in and of itself in that Bone_Roller did not read past, if I remember correctly what he posted, the second or third page. In other words, he didn't really care about the topic, he just cared about bothering the posters on the topic.

In summation: what's up with that guy, huh?

--Epicedion

[Desert Fox]

Yes, Bone-roller was using weak inductive logic. He made a hasty generalization, or apriorism. Yes, it is easier to get people together and play online, but you have no proof that 99% of games are played online, or that:

those folks who limit themselves to board play are also the least skilled at the game and are not able to compete with decent online players.
What the heck is your reasoning? Oh wait, there is none.

[zooooma]

Hi everyone. I wanted to add my comments regarding the claim that board game only players are less skilled than online players. I have palyed countless many A&A games over the past 13 years, and have played face to face as well as online. Here are my opinions on the matter.

If a player developes more skill from playing online it is for this reason - e-mail players tend to spend much longer making moves than FTF players. In an e-mail game, the moves are not expected for a couple days, and this gives each player a lot of time to digest their position.

In this time, many hours of analysis and arithmetic are easilly possible. Naturally, when one devotes this amount of attention and thought to a game as strategically vast as A&A, their understaning of the game increases in ways impossible without such extensive measures. Many chess players find their PBEM games to be invaluable to their eductaion.

That said, it should be noted that computers are not essential for this process. I used to have a shelf which always had an in progress A&A board set up on it. The games would last weeks or months. The board would come down for a couple hours whenever the active player wished to move, or when either player just wanted to look and think. When I find myself trying to finish a game in a single evening, I usually settle for moves which are most likely second rate, rather than taking the time for a thourough analysis.

It is incorrect to asume that only online players have put the time and thought into alalizing and understanding A&A. However, those who have never played a agme at a leisurely pace are probably not learning as much as they could.

Incidentally, Bone roller spoke primarilly of CD games. I recall from Don Rae's forums the PBEM players, or some of them, thought that CD-ROM players were generally less skilled - probably because most CD-ROM games are played just as quickly as a FTF game, and those who play them never have taken the time for mass arithmetic and carefull study. the fact that Bone Roller plays mostly CD-ROM detracts from his stance on this.

One other thing, Computer generated randomizers are just as erratic as dice or cards. I once lost every german air unit on the first turn, using an online dice generater.

Happy Gaming.
-Luke

[Epicedion]

Yes, computer dice are just as quasi-random (ie, unpredictable, which is the important part) as any other random number generation system. However, computer dice don't give the tactile feedback of real dice, and a little bit of tactile feedback is good when playing a game -- it makes you feel more involved, and like your actions have more of a real effect.

It's the same reason why your computer mouse and keyboard keys click when you press them. They could probably develop a very reliable touch-sensor system with fewer moving parts to break and get fouled up, but everyone would miss the pressure 'click' that lets them know they did something. People just like to have physical indicators that they've done something. Actually rolling real dice is one of them.

--Epicedion

[Geezer]

I think its great that a new version of the board game is coming out. Even if the old one is a fun game, there are some things that could have been done better.

Also, about Bone_rollers comments,
"I began cd play in Jan 99- and have played about 3500 games since then."
That it is almost two games per day every day for five years. I think playing A&A that much would be bad for your health. =)

[FarsideHobbes]

We know that the game is being released in March of this year, but when in March are we talking about? Beginning of march, end of march? I don't know if it was mentioned anywhere and I just missed it.

[ButchOHare1]

I have been playing Axis & Allies online for the past 4 years, and because of a lucky streak I'm currently rated #1 in the Balance of Power ladder club russia restricted rule set.

I have mets hundreds of players who have a great deal of experience in face to face or PBEM clubs who expect to be rated very highly when joining the online clubs. Almost universally they are disappointed. The level of play is just so much higher than they are accustomed to. I have seen that happen hundreds of times.

Maybe this would not be your experience.

[Darksideknight]

I understand that online players do get more experiance in many circumstances than your average gamer who sits and plays the same ol' people. But many people like myself have played online, and play the board game. I myself like the board game better. I like to sit down and play the game the way it was intended. I like to roll my own dice and control my own peices. I like to speak french when the dice rolls don't go my way. I like to stack my piles of infantry and tanks and remove them myself. I just like the feel of the game and the face to face game of one, two,three, or possibly four allies or enemys. Yes if you are a newbie you will get more knowledge from online play most likely. But after you have equipt your self with the knowledge can you not find someone else to play? I don't know about the rest of you, but I always held some suspicion for the dice rollers in the pc game.
I first was introduced to A&A four years ago by my friend who is thirty five and has been playing online and board for fifteen years. I learned from him and now I beat him more than he beats me. I just recently played online and beat three out of four masters players, first time playing online. Still I didn't like the generater rolling my dice, pet pieve I guess. Point is, from Bone_Rollers point of view he is completly right. He is misinformed, he doesn't know about play groups like mine! We have played both forums and prefer the feel of the board game. Do I agree with him, no! But he is entitled to his opinion, and I am entilted to my opinion. I think I would skin him alive on the pc or board game. Anyway Bone_Roller you can live in denial and unaware that their are strictly board gamers who can whip you. But I guess you will never find out unless you come back and play one who knows what their doing. Just because Bone_Rollers play group can't stand up to his play doesn't mean mine can't. I've played both forums, and veteran players in boths forums can have great skill. Now I'd like to play him, both ways, online and board and see who's left standing. Just wish someone could set it up and if not,...... well, we'll just let bone roller and his asinine comments slip into irrelevance.

-Jason

[elbowmaster]

is it just me, or does there seem to be a domineering hostility to this forum...??? personally i find the "my way is the best, the your point is pointless...etc..." takes away from the "gamesmanship" or "lack there of" / in defense of mr_bone_roller,

Also, about Bone_rollers comments,
"I began cd play in Jan 99- and have played about 3500 games since then."
That it is almost two games per day every day for five years. I think playing A&A that much would be bad for your health. =)

actually 2 games a day at the zone is pretty easy...and bone is retired as well, and does truely have a passion for the game...there is little to no set up time online, and like anywhere else, there are good gamers and not so good. mostly 3rd edition is played with an axis bid of 6 - 8...normally amoung the regulars...the thing that destroys the online game are all the bugs in the pc version. so some of the movements and game play has been adjusted just as to be able to game...the pc game didnt do axis and allies any justice...

i have gamed with bone_roller, member of dons forum, though i do not consider myself a minion of anyone...i agree bone_roller can be quite brash and has an ego as large as many others here. i think he is upset because hasbro originally put out a horrible product (pc version, followed by iron blitz (waste of money)) and then bailed / sold on it.

even someone here in this forum defended that practice...then blame it on the software company...

i actually like the gaming on the board game, the zone or online gaming gets you gaming with people all over the world, which appeals to me, and brings the aa world closer together.

as to this new version of axis and allies, i prefer to wait and see, yes i will buy it, and other axis and allies versions, just because its fun for me, its a game, thats all...its when a game becomes something else, it truely takes the "fun" out of it...like those who have to win, at any cost...whats that point then...all this "know it all" historic rhetoric makes my head hurt...do what i do, game while watching the history channel... smile.gif

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[msjells]

elbowmaster,

I don't think that this board is dominated by hostility. One of the problems with the web is that the subtle cues available in an in-person confrontation are absent when only print is available. Bone_Roller might have had tongue firmly in cheek when he stated that boardgamers are inferior in skill to online players and that virtually no one plays the board game any more. Had he been here in person, some of the rest of us might have seen that as a sort of humorous put-down of our interests, much in the sort of way that you might needle an ardent Vikings fan about their loss to the Cardinals. Unfortunately, when it's only out here in plain black-and-white, it comes off as an attempt to belittle the skills and interests of a substantial number of board members.

Certainly some valid points are out there. Online gaming frequently leads to a greater variety of opponents and consequently new ideas and skills, much as play-by-mail did starting in the 60's. I certainly won't argue your points about the computer version, which apparently allows rules violations and/or has a disappointing AI, features(?) shared by all too many computer ports of board games.

The main point is to have fun - isn't that why we all play games? Sometimes we get a little too upset when we hear about undesirable features in upcoming games (or even existing games we haven't played) and our comments, reduced to letters on a computer screen, come off as more harsh than they are perhaps intended to be. I'm with you in your concluding comments - let's wait and see how things develop, try new things out, and each enjoy the format which mosts interests us.

Moderator John

[elbowmaster]

I certainly won't argue your points about the computer version, which apparently allows rules violations and/or has a disappointing AI, features(?) shared by all too many computer ports of board games.
AI? i think ants are smarter. worse than disappointing. muti player feature makes up for it though.

normally there is a gentleman's agreement not to take advantange of game bugs, thats an online glitch about this game.

unit lock, or too many game pieces, i think the number is arround 380 total unit on the board, the game locks due to a database history file that only alows for X amount of game pieces.

i really enjoy setting up the games / using updated figures ive made, including larger game boards that i (shameless plug time) make as well.

http://www.elbowmaster.com

the time feature of on line gaming is great, no chips, bumping boards, ipc markers, all the other manual events are really handled nicely with the pc version. no set up, not pickup up at the end...

plus the fact that i can game someone in europe, aussie, new zealand, east and west usa, all at the same time...now that too me is the best part of on line gaming. very hard to get that same mix on a consistant basis playing the board game within a group or even at conventions.

im a huge fan of the board game, but truely ONLINE gaming IMHO is a very easy way to boost your skill set, quickly.

You will even get to game against the some of the largest egos of the A and A community. smile.gif

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[leadhead21]

Is there anyway someone can give me some info on this yearly board game convention i am a online player and would love to go head to head with some board game players

[trentlanthier]

Just found the boards today read all the articles, it says the game is due March 2004... 1 month away.

Anyone know if its been pushed back at all?

[Mike Selinker]

It's right on time. Should be out in five or six weeks, depending on how your retailer and distributor order things.

Yesterday, Rich Baker and I played the first game on a real board with real pieces and rules out of a real box, and let me tell you, it's very cool. Sadly, we only have one....

Mike

[trentlanthier]

Mike I cannot tell you exactly how exciting this is.

I've been setting a re-union of my highschool buddies to have a Axis and Allies day... now I'm going to wait for the game to come out then set one up.

Thanks for the update!!!