Just a question

[Rommel 1]

I enjoy Axis&Allies greatly.I was wondering if I could find a copy of the first edition rules somewhere.Please respond.

[axis_roll]

I have the first edition rules.

Why would you want them? They were very heavily weighted in the allies advantage with unlimited complexes and commander-in-chief rules.

[Mechwarrior94]

Hmmm... a copy of the orriginal game... would hurt to have it! And about that the Allies a atvantage should have in the orriginal... i dont know, bud i do know that the teams are still not evenly balanced. Bud i don't care about that, it's a great game!

[Rommel 1]

The reason I ask is because I would like to have a copy to see some of the original rules in it.The second edition rules talk about the "Commander-in -Chief" rules I was wondering how you play them.

[ December 16, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Rommel 1 ]

[Mike Selinker]

The 1st edition commander-in-chief rule allowed you to take control of an allied power's forces if they began their turn in a space controlled by one. You can read about it at:

http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/original/rules/aa_rules_first_edition_chief.html

It's a rule whose flavor I liked, but in practice its blanket use was unmitigatedly broken. A three-pronged force crashing into central Europe every round was devastating to the Axis. Plus, since Germany and Japan began so far apart, it only favored the Allies, who needed little help.

The revision will contain an optional rule which will allow some flavor of this without being so damaging to gameplay.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Existing rules of A&A give one powerful advantage to Allies which is ability for Americans to land fighters on the territory captured by British.

If British and Americans were required to play their turns simultaneously (like they did historically) they could launch a stronger attack, but any captured territory would have been more vulnerable to German counterattacks.

The feature I dislike in A&A is liberal stacking of Western Allied units with Soviets. Nothing like that ever happened and was unlikely to happen. Soviets survived using their own resources while Lend Lease allowed them to launch the counteroffensives.

There is one small thing I'd like to be addressed in the new game. The concept of the "original owner" should reflect a 1939 political borders, not the front lines from 1942. So, Ukraine should be Soviet owned, German controlled territory. It looks ridiculous to watch British counter on Ukraine. Same goes for Kwantung which should be American (Chinese) owned, Japanese occupied territory, so when Allies liberate Kwantung it becomes American (Chinese) territory, not British.

Please, pay attention to the fact that French West Africa and French Madagascar were Vichy controlled in Spring 1942 just as Algeria was. It is wrong to label these territories as British controlled.

Drax

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:

...
Please, pay attention to the fact that French West Africa and French Madagascar were Vichy controlled in Spring 1942 just as Algeria was. It is wrong to label these territories as British controlled.

DraxNever even realized that! Good point.

The parts that bug me and hope the revision address are:

1. Karelia, actually a huge forest that's a swamp in summer and arctic in winter, is where the critical battles in the USSR are fought in the game. Karelia should have no factory and it should be 2 IPCs, OR really split into 2 terrs Karela (2 IPC) and Archangel (1 IPC).

2. Japan can easily overwhelm allied forces in China. There should be about 8 infantry there, not 4 (across the 2 territories). Japan should require a major offensive, to the exclusion of everything else, to conquer it in one turn. Not an afterthought. Forces at-place in China should have a real chance of retaking some Japanese territory unless Japan reinforces it.

Thankfully AH is producing a revision. Halleluiah! <g>

mac