The new map revealed!

[baron]

Originally posted by Der Panzinator:
Arrghh.. Where's my confounded magnifying glass. Can't read the territory names.... :(

I dig the compass and map theme watermarks. :D Forget the territory names, let's see if we can get a closer look at the advertisement that FarsideHobbes posted. There are two setup cards sitting right out in the open. What better source of fodder to hold us until next week's column.

Speaking of which, I'm sure next week's column will be about initial setup. What else could change the nature of every game we play?

Interestingly, I've been a fan of, or at least neutral on all of the graphic design elements revealed so far, but I had a strong negative reaction looking at the map. Fortunately, I'm already accepting and starting to like it, and the picture of the actual map looks much better than the computer reproduction.

I still disklike the orange Japanese pieces though.

Overall though, well done. I applaud all of the layout changes made.

Scott

[Mike Selinker]

Arrghh.. Where's my confounded magnifying glass. Can't read the territory names.... Click on the image of the new map, DP. You'll get a full-screen image.

Glad you guys like it.

Mike

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Der Panzinator:
At last the new map is revealed. After 5.2 seconds of examination I like it.... :D can you say refresh...!! i like the new board, it does appear to even have some space ;) eager to get the new revised game as soon as its out...!!

will any of the next articles contain the set ups for the rest of the countries??

plus the trailer to next weeks article raised an eyebrow from me tongue.gif


I'll discuss the biggest change we made to Axis & Allies, one that will change the nature of every game you play.
the 6 areas that matter section did seem to have an allies are gonna whoop bootie on the axis theme


If the Japanese violate the Russo-Japanese non-aggression treaty, they won't get many IPCs for their efforts.
is this a rule??? how long is the treaty and who violates who???


A new optional rule allows the Soviets to take advantage of the Trans-Siberian Railway and shuttle defenses to the Japanese border much faster.
:confused:

ok..ok...map week...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[baron]

!!!!

The Russians can build a mediterranian fleet now!!!

That's going to be an interesting potential dynamic.

Scott

[ February 27, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Moderator John ]

[baron]

Now, I'm going to put a big diclaimer on this, because I can only sort of read the numbers on the map, but it looks like the layout of UK territories and their IPC values are identical to the original game values. I only bring this up because in article 3, Mike said that they tinkered on the edges of the UK when laying out their IPCs.

Am I missing something?

Scott

[Der Panzinator]

!!!!

The Russians can build a mediterranian fleet now!!!

That's going to be an interesting potential dynamic.

Scott The Black Sea Fleet. I wonder if the initial setup has maybe a destroyer or a transport for Russia in the Black Sea?
I suspect that the Caucusus will be quite a battleground between Germany and Russia. Since its worth 4 IPC's and has a complex.

[ February 27, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Moderator John ]

[elbowmaster]

the uk insignia is kinda confusing, looks like england is connected to ireland???

unit placement there as well???

im sure its covered in the new rule booklet...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Einstein43]

Yeah that confused me for a minute, looked like they were going back to the NOVA game map that had a land bridge between Ireland and UK. What they have done here, though, is cleverly obscure the straits between Northern Ireland and the UK, so that players will not think they have two territories where only one is intended. Basically, if you have units in Northern Ireland they are considered to be in the UK, and vice versa, and if the UK is captured by the Axis, so is Northern Ireland. It is all one Capital territory.

Eire itself, however, is neutral and impassable territory.

Thats what I think, anyway.

Einstein

[ February 27, 2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Einstein43 ]

[ButchOHare1]

Sweet option you might have overlooked in all the excitement....

USSR trans-Siberian railway! 2 MPs for infs in the East. Anything that slows down Japan in the North is great.

Splitting Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and Caucasus into north and south territories is great. This will create a lot more movement and dynamic game play!

And of course adding the Midwest to USA was a huge improvement. smile.gif

[Talonz]

I'm not so sure if I like the bold colour scheme, it looks less of a map and more of a 'gameboard' to me. Miss the roughed in terrain markings as well.

On the other hand, every other change to the map is brilliant imo. Getting rid of the shuck shuck (well not without exposing the transports more anyways), breaking up the eastern front, more impassable terrain areas, more focus on the pacific for Japan and the US, defocus on the russian eastern territories, etc etc.

So where it really mattered...Good job!

[elbowmaster]

whats the new board dimensions?

it is rather a strain to see the picture link to the new map, perhaps something a litter more clear???

i do like the feel of the map, though my initial reaction of it was more that of an antique sea map... i like how its geographically skewed to accommodate more units.. neutrals look cool...

this is more a comment of looks rather than function...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[tank_mechanik1]

Let me start out by saying 'WOW' this board is just what i hope it would be like. One thing i may add that big neutral in africa is going to drive gremany crazy. Know easy africa to start the game with. I love the idea of Greenland, but please explain to me why central usa is there? Seems to me if its to stop usa from going east to west i just wont be moving across usa much anymore.
thank you all at WIZARDS and AVALON HILL makes me think all over again after almost 17 years of playing this game a new version is what i needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

[Atlantikwall]

Hello,

to first point out the positive things of the new map:

1) The additional states at the russian front are great!

2) The addition of extra sea zones, especially in the Atlantic was absolutely nessecary! (No more shuk-shuk from (Western) Canada to Western Europe.)

By the way, you can now make a "double-shuk-skuk", i.e. transport troops from ECA to UK and with a second fleet, transport them to LEN or ARC to help the Soviet Union!

3) The impassible "Sahara" will prevent GER from picking up IPCs from WAF and FEQ in turn one. EGY will be crucial for the african IPCs.

The thing I disklike most is the absence of geographical correctness:

1) Northern Germany and Denmark are still part of WEU. This looks horrible for me! Of cource, you want UK two sea zone away from GER, but therefore you just have to make the Baltic sea zone bigger, including the Danish sea (as in AA-Europe)

2) Central-US is squeezed in the right edge of the map, representing the Rocky Mountains! It defintitely should be on the other side! By the way, a land-frontier from EUS to Panama is far from beeing realistic!

3) Some other geographical aspects are also a bit strage, i.e. the Balkans sould also be there and not moved east. Western Candada can be invaded in one turn from Japan!

The other aspect I dislike is the attribution of IPC to some countries. I may be funny for the game, to give the four extra IPCs for Japan to such "important" countries as Borneo and Sumatra, but compare their value of 4 IPCs with India (3) or China (only 2). You really should at least have given both countries one more IPC (subtracting e.g. the one in East Africa or give ECA only 2 IPC) and have given one extra IPC for MAN and KWA!

I would appreciate a comment on my post Mike!

Bye,

Andreas

[Drewcooter]

Kudos on the map, I love it!

This map alone, without changing any rules would have made for some interesting playouts.

I can not wait to get my own copy of this game.

Great job folks!

[Red Shirt Ensign]

PLease I beg you, when playing me please have Russia build a fleet!

My Germans will thank you for it!!

UNfoprtunately (though historically accurate) the Russians never had much of a fleet and if they did it would be pretty much useless.

I am still trying to specualte what all of this will mean for the survivability of the German Navy

My guess is it still won't be very practical for Germany to build one either

Like the map though!

[Autarch]

New colors: Yay three new colors for variants. Boo burnt orange. Would a deep orange-yellow or reddish-orange have satisfied the PC police? Maybe cherry-blossom pink?

Ack! Still three territories between Berlin and Moscow. At least having Germany start on Moscow's doorstep seems to force the Russian player into going on the offensive right away. It will be interesting to see if this is enough to alter traditional Russian strategy for more than one turn.

A.

[Cruelsader]

Well done! Of course, the map is not georgaphically accurate but I fully agree with Mike that playability is far more important.

The only thing I dislike at the moment are wide edges of the map. Seems to be waste of space. I hope, though, that my opinion changes once I see the real map in front of me. smile.gif

[Jon Waddington]

Some remarks on the map changes:

1. I like that everything in Africa is channeled through Egypt.

2. Breaking up the eastern front was a no-brainer, but it's nice to see it. Note that any bombing campaign against Russia can't take place from Germany.

3. I had thought, given the new Tech system, that Germany might be 4 away from the UK, thus requiring a tough choice between long-range or heavy bombers. Or that there might be a separate micro-seazone in the Baltic to force bombers to pass over Western Europe and another round of AA. This map basically screams to me: if you want to bomb the crap out of Germany, please do so.

4. Mildly confused about how this is supposed to affect the Japanese armor crashing into Moscow "problem." I figured China or Russia would be broken up further.

5. I like the new seazone by Japan. Always thought Japan got too much mileage out of that single zone, both offensively and defensively, in the past. Now you have to make an occasionally tough choice.

6. I like the south Pacific IPCs, though they do seem out of whack with other values. But it's first and foremost a game, and not really even remotely a simulation. Any motivation to island hop is good.

7. I like the color scheme and improved clarity.

Jon

[The Rat King]

It looks great to me. It seems that Larry and Mike have been paying attention to the concerns that people have raised in the past. Some thoughts:

1)I'm very happy to see that the Shuck Shuck is gone. That strategy drove me totally nuts because it was nearly impossible for Germany to do anything about it. I know some people on PBEM groups that are probably moaning right now because thats how they win. With that threat removed Germany might actually be a dynamic and fun country to play again, instead of one that is one the defensive for the entire game.

2) The Eastern front looks much better now. You actually have 2 or 3 viable choices on how to advance. In the original game it was obvious that you had to go through Karelia because it was much faster.

3) Overall I like the graphic design, although its maybe a bit too modern for a WWII era game.

[Red Shirt Ensign]

I don't think the value of the new pacific island countries is out of whack, in fact wasn't it Singapore which was a major source of rubber, which forced the Allies <U.S.> to come up with Synthetic rubber? Damn Jeeps need tires!

Sounds like a valuable thing to me!

I think the new Eastern Europe is going to be fantastic! Caucasus appear to be worth 4ipc's (Damn unclear map, curses to you Mike for fearing the community will steal the map info and play on our own modified boards smile.gif )

Germans capture the caucuses and then have production on the doorstop of the Rodinia !!!

And is the old Karelia split in half? That's nice because it might allow the Germans to resupply Norway and hold it too!

Looks like Southern Europe might be transporting Soldiers to Caucusus instead of Africa. It seems to me that it would be more important to flatten Russia on this map. the Sahara makes Africa even more difficult to gain control over.

So the decision is take Russia out of the game ASAP and connect with my Japanese friends. then go to Africa once the EuroAsian Continent is secured!

[Muddog]

Is it just me or is Australia 3 IPC's and India 2 IPC's?

[FarsideHobbes]

With the increase in IPC value for the S. Pacific, Japan is going to have a difficult time fending off the small UK fleet from Australia in addition to Russia and the US moving in on the 3 japanese countries on mainland asia. This is going to make Japan a bit more difficult to play, before it wasn't worth the effort to island hop and grab the easy IPC. Also, with the addition of a new northern russia country japan now has to go through 4 countries to get to moscow, no easy 3 country northern route anymore. French-Indochina becomes a must hold for Japan as it prevents land unit reinforcement of china by india.

Egypt will also be a major factor. Its importance is now increased as Germany will want it to lead into a sweep through Africa and to prevent the India carrier from moving back up into the Med, and just the opposite for the UK, they'll want to stop the Germany sweep through Africa. Also, the US dropping troops off into africa just got a bit more interesting. They can now only drop off into Algeria from EUS. If Germany fortifies well, they can stop the african expansion of US.

Eastern Europe's breakup will allow Germany to hold onto that front a lot longer. They won't have to immediately give up Ukraine SSR right from the start in order to fend off russia. It also makes Russia's opening move all the more crucial as they now have 4 possible Eastern Europe countries to move into as opposed to 2 before. I also agree that the possibility of germany transporting troop up to caucasus from SE will come into play more.

It will also be interesting to see if the US will try to use norway as its european staging point now that is so far away. Sticking with china and ******* off the japanese from the west and east looks like a good move.

[ February 27, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: FarsideHobbes ]

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Muddog:
Is it just me or is Australia 3 IPC's and India 2 IPC's?its really hard to tell with this teasing preview...i did find it interesting some of the name changes and reasons why...seems kinda silly, but hey, its AH's game. good disclaimer about geography, id prefer the norway / finland name...im sure our scandinavian friends wont especially like it...now this generation will be confused, not about borneo celebes island group...hehe, rather, moscow is located where current day omsk appears...(completely understand that more space was more important than a geography lesson, am im torn if i like that or not...i like the space, but prior geographic confusion with earlier generations, will remain with this version)and the rocky mountains are part of central usa? its hard to comment about playability...good thing the next few weeks with have some more BEEF !!

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Mike Selinker]

Lots to respond to here. Apologies if it's a bit more abbreviated than it would otherwise be.

The board is 33x20. I believe the exterior border is a third of an inch, but don't hold me to that.

I encourage you not to get too wrapped up on either the border size or the exact shading of the colors. I've played on a real printed board, and neither issue is a problem. The image has its full bleed (the border) so that it can account for variances in printing, and it's very easy to spot the pieces on their own territories. The web version is probably a bit flatter in the color spectrum than in real life.

The Russo-Japanese treaty is one of the optional rules. More in two weeks.

Both the UK and Japan territories have their insignias used to create a single territory when geography might suggest two. I'll put that in the FAQ, though, just to be sure.

I love that Andreas has already staked claims to the three letter acronyms for the new territories. To some of his points: If you put a new territory on the north part of Germany, the Germans can't build ships in the Baltic. The "land frontier" from US to Panama is only to make a clear separation of spaces on the edges of the map. Moving UK IPCs out of Canada means the UK suffers even more when they start to lose eastern hemisphere territories.

The new layout doesn't so much change the Japanese armor problem as redirect it through China as opposed to Soviet Far East. But the real change is Japan has so much more to defend down south that focusing on taking Novosibirsk is very dangerous.

I'll post the territory names and IPC values in a separate post.

Keep the comments coming.

Mike

[ February 27, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Mike Selinker ]

[Red Shirt Ensign]

I do believe its India 2 and Australia 3

This would make having an Aussie Factory worthwhile. as shown in the A&A Advertsiement

I also think that given all this information, I think there are going to be a lot more pieces on the board. And there might be an extra Carrier group for Japan. The one in the Ad shows 1 Carrier with 2 planes loaded 1 sector east of Japan. (Going to Midway? :eek: )

This would make the Battle of Midway more accurate and give the Japanese something to defend against the Pacific UK fleet.

It will be nice to see the Ark Royal and Illustrious in battle for the Brits!

[FarsideHobbes]

The size of the border isn't really that big of a deal, as opposed to what i posted earlier, i'm just surprized that it got a few other responses as well, in addition to a reply from Mike.

Also, now that we have the board, i'm not as disappointed that convoy boxes were not included. If they had been it seems like the board would have become to busy, just too much going on, not that there isn't a lot going on already. It would have reduced the size of the oceans even more and made it look too cluttered.

[Red Shirt Ensign]

You know what might have been nice about convoy zones.

Having the 1 turn direct route from USA to Uk be called a convoy zone... because thats the route the Allies are going to use every time.

So make thate a convoy zone that the Germans subs could raid.

otherwise the U.S. could go an alternate route which takes 2 turns... (north to Canada then East to UK)

This way there would be value for the Germans to hit the "quick" route.

This would cause a slight disruption in timing of resupply to UK

That's the idea but not necessarily the implementation of it :D

[Der Panzinator]

At last the new map is revealed. After 5.2 seconds of examination I like it.... :D

[Der Panzinator]

Interesting Eastern Front bulge. Given that it's 1942 its about right.
Nice to have the extra space in the Atlantic.
Looks like the official naming convention for sea zones is numbers.

Arrghh.. Where's my confounded magnifying glass. Can't read the territory names.... :(

I dig the compass and map theme watermarks. :D

[FarsideHobbes]

I like it. I'm a big fan of the new color scheme. The Sahara, Himalayan, and Mongolian impassible zones will make things very interesting for moving troops around. No more easy IPCs.

The breakup of eastern europe is very interesting indeed. Germany right nextdoor to Moscow, should make for some interesting plays right from the start.

The additional sea zones around UK and the Japan sz spilt in two are some good changes.

On the whole I like it. Not as different as I would have though would make it.

[FarsideHobbes]

My only complaint so far is the size of the perimeter boarder...its friggin' huge. Doing some simple math with the old board of 32.5in x 19in, if you decreased the size of the boarder by .25in all around you would wind up with an extra 25.5 square inches of playing area:) Those solid colors still rock though.

On a different note, can't wait for next weeks article, "the biggest change we made to A&A, one that will change the nature of every game you play." My guess is that of those 30 optional rules, they have some system of forcing you to play a certain number of them in each game in addition to the ones that both sides mutually agree to use.

[ButchOHare1]

All you guys who are questioning the value of Borneo, Sumatra and Caucasus please read a history of petroleum and WWII. Oil is everything.

[Der Panzinator]

I didn't even notice the new sea zone next to Japan. :eek:

Plus the article mentions that Borneo and East Indies are now worth 4 IPC's each. I wonder how the game will play out as far as the potential to capture these islands.

[solitaire77]

Wow...

I love that the colors, including the deep blue ocean. I hope those two art directors work on the next version of the Diplomacy board.

As if Burma wasn't already the forgotten war. Now all the kids playing A&A really won't know about Burma. You can't stop me from using the old names! I won't do it! Joking aside, the only two that bother me are Burma and Finland, which just had too much impact on these historic events to be renamed. I guess I have my first houserule.

Africa: Sahara is a great addition. Distance to S. Africa is increased.

Eurasia: The new eastern front looks great. I like the addition of Northern Ireland vs Ireland with the clever use of the British symbol. The possibility of a black sea fleet could be interesting. The extra Soviet territory on Manchuria increases distance, and makes it easy for the Soviet east forces to defend one area.

North America: Central USA? I can see why that makes sense for gameplay. I won't gripe too much, but I am puzzled why it would be split on the west side of the map. The central timezone has much more economic life than the mountain timezone.

Australia: With the Aussies, I have to assume that a factory can build ships in any adjacent seazone, since a built factory wouldn't have a "default" seazone. It'll be a little strage having ships built in Darwin after playing A&A:P, but that's okay.

[ February 27, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: solitaire77 ]

[ChrisTheCat]

The US can do a traditional shuck-shuck from Eastern Canada to Algeria. The US can do a two-step shuck-shuck from Eastern Canada to Norway or Western Europe. It takes a bit longer to set up and more transports, but it should still be effective.

Finland was an active participant in the Axis. Norway was a conquered country. Why is the territory named Norway???

[ChrisTheCat]

What's up with all the broken links in this week's article? Most of them generate this error:

XML/XSL (D:\AvalonHill\XML\articles\articles_general_aapre view05.xml) is not valid. Error: The system cannot locate the object specified. Location: line 0, column 0

p.s. the list of previous articles at the bottom of the page shows articles 1-12 but not 13. If you read other articles, they also are missing the link to article 13. Thus, when reading article 5 (for example) there is no link to the current article (13).

[ February 27, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: ChrisTheCat ]

[FarsideHobbes]

Here's a partial scan of the A&A add that a few have seen already. Now that the larger pic of the board is out this isn't that big of a deal, however, I like the new black dice instead of red, and it seems that with the new colors contrasting so well you shouldn't miss anyone sneaking up on you, granted those dark german subs will be easily overlooked.

a&a add scan (http://students.db.erau.edu/~hodenp/newaa.jpg)

Okay, that's enough posts from me. I yield my time to others...

[SkyPilot]

I'm liking it the more I examine it. Finally enough space for units in Germany and the UK! Greenland is interesting....perhaps a haven for Germany; unload troops for invasion diversions?

What else...Africa will be fun; uncrossable Sahara. Awesome. I love the new colours, particularily the deep blue oceans. Can't wait to drop my fleet into it. Good job all around!

[ChrisTheCat]

The new sea zone configuration means that sea units built off Washington will take three turns to get to Hawaii. This makes it much more likely that they'll focus on the German threat.Who in their right mind ever built navy in the Atlantic for use in the Pacific? I've seen the US Pacific fleet sail to the Atlantic, but I've never seen the US Atlantic fleet sail the other way before Germany was conquered.

It is also now impossible to sail to Western USA from the Caribbean except by going through the Panama Canal.Um, can't you sail around the southern tip of South America? Or circumnavigate the world by going south of Africa?

At any rate, the only direct route from the Caribbean to Western USA in A&A 2nd/3rd edition is the Panama Canal. How is this new?

[Atlantikwall]

Hello Mike,

I didn`t want any new counties, but only a bit of "geographical correctness".

GER should be Germany (including Danmark), WEU should be France & Benelux and to separate the North Sea from GER the Baltic SZ would have to include the danish sea. That would not have changed anything in the game, but looks nicer!

That the Eastern US have a land frontier to Panama is a joke! On that part, the old map with MEX and the Gulf of Mexico as a sea zone is much better. And Central-US is certaily not in the Rocky Mountains!

I think the devellopers (from the US) are either to much worried that the Japanese will conquer Hawaii and threaten the Panama Channel or have missed some lessons of geography in school!

Bye,

Andreas

[Mike Selinker]

We know our geography, Andreas. The trick is to think of "Panama" as all of Central America, which specifically does border sea zone 10 and Mexico. 2nd Edition had a right-side-of-map pocket sea zone which we wanted to close off.

Mike

[Jodl]

I don't know about the colors. It looks to much like Risk I think. I hope it was poorly scanned like you mentioned Mike.

Downing the values of Siberia is also not so good in my mind. Siberia holds massive Russian Oil reserves, like the Caucasas - it is historically inaccurate to down the values so. The Japanese Tank rush to Moscow shouldn't be appealing, but to make it that much less worth while wasn't neccessary I think. If the Southern Pacific is gonna be a hot spot I don't think you'd need to worry about Japan warring on two western fronts while guarding for the US Eastern front.

Country area looks far better and the Russian front looks nice, although I am not sure I'll feel comfortable with my German vanguard so close to Moscow and heavily surrounded.

[Einstein43]

Doesn't look to me like the shuck is eliminated, simply slowed down a wee bit. Move all your new USA troops to East Canada, station one transport fleet in Hudson Bay and another transport fleet on the "other end" of your pipeline. Every turn you can send troops from East Canada into Algeria, France or Norway, move new troops up from East USA, and send the second transport fleet back to Hudson Bay to deliver next turn's troops. Two groups of transports, 3 or 4 transports per group, means 6 or 8 infantry per turn can hit the beaches. Since USA starts with 2 transports in the Atlantic and a larger IPC total, I don't see anything (yet) to stop them from having a "transport relay" (at least a small one of 2 or 3 transports) in place by the start of USA's third turn...with the first landing beginning in USA turn 2.

Meanwhile, the same old standard shuck between ECan and Algeria remains unchanged.

I like the extra sea zones around UK and Japan. Note than troops in Manchuria are now 1 sea zone further away from Hawaii and Alaska. Unfortunately for Japan, the extra sea zone off Mexico slows down any landings there, but no extra sea zones between West USA and Allied objectives in the Pacific is another boon for the Allies.

Lots of other improvements, though.

Einstein

[Jon Waddington]

Originally posted by ButchOHare1:
All you guys who are questioning the value of Borneo, Sumatra and Caucasus please read a history of petroleum and WWII. Oil is everything.The value of territories seems to me to be an abstraction of a lot of things, perhaps most importantly exportable resources (like oil). But surely there are other rationales for the numbers. Or do you think it's quite reasonable that the industrial value of Borneo + East Indies is greater than, say, the Central USA, or Western Europe, and the equal of the UK or Russia? Down this path lies madness, methinks. My point earlier was that the numbers seem high (for many regions, but I'm singling these out in the context of the map changes), and I'll stand by that. Now, if it makes for a better game, I'm all for it.

Jon

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Jodl:
Siberia holds massive Russian Oil reserves, like the Caucasas - it is historically inaccurate to down the values so.I disagree. Siberia has massive oil RESERVES, but was not producing substantial oil volumes in 1940's.

Also, it is easier to fix the map than represent the historical fact that Japan just got beat up by the Soviets when they tried to cause trouble in that area earlier.

[thrasher]

You can also land in Greenland. Its first appearance in an Axis & Allies game is allowed by the removal of the Gibraltar blowup box.

Well, not quite correct. Greenland appeared on the map of the very first version of A&A: NOVA A&A.

Please check:

http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/original/nova/nova_description.html

thrasher,

[Einstein43]

Yes, Thrasher, nice to see that old NOVA map for comparison. That map took 3 moves from EUSA to UK, 5 moves from WUSA to Japan, and 6 moves from WUSA to Manchuria. Kinda wish they had done the larger Pacific Ocean again.

I guess they crammed Central USA on the WUSA side of the map so that EUSA would have a direct route to Panama...this is the first really serious flaw I've seen. Texas is part of East USA? And is it true that there is no direct move from Central USA to Panama? Gotta go thruough Mexico if you are in West or Central USA, but East USA gets a direct border to Panama but not to Mexico?

Maybe---just maybe---this will play out okay, but it sure looks and feels just awful.

Einstein

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
Hello Mike,

I didn`t want any new counties, but only a bit of "geographical correctness".

this weeks article included a nice disclamer about geographical correctness...

Todd originally had a scale of miles and kilometers on the map, and I asked him to remove it to avoid an expectation of geographical accuracy. We wanted a game board, not an atlas page.
though axis and allies wasnt meant to be historically correct, perhaps a better name would be "the good guys vs the bad guys" in order to elimate any historical issues with this game...

mike mentions something about the "Russo-Japanese non-aggression treaty"


If the Japanese violate the Russo-Japanese non-aggression treaty, they won't get many IPCs for their efforts.
did i miss any details to this...??? option perhaps??? ok ok i found it..

the other odd thing to me is the trans siberian railway that speeds the movement from russia to the far east, it was the other way!! siberia to moscow!!

without the rest of the rules and set ups its hard to say...guess we will find out soon enough...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ February 27, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[kagashi]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:
the other odd thing to me is the trans siberian railway that speeds the movement from russia to the far east, it was the other way!! siberia to moscow!!

without the rest of the rules and set ups its hard to say...guess we will find out soon enough...

-cheers

-elbowmasterThats what I thought. It was used so the Russians could move its troops to the eastern front if they ever had to fight Germany.

Also, the ambigious "Russian Japanese treaty" deal is interesting. I think its just a historical foot note, but in our old games, we said that Japan could not attack Russia until Russia attacked Japan first. Reinforcing China with Russian troops constitutes as a break of the treaty.

[elbowmaster]

i think what messes up some folks about this game is the historical axis and allies title...its not a game about history, its just set in a historic time period that everyone is familiar with...historians want historical accuracy especially when such a passionate subject like ww2 is involved...if this were a history game, axis would never win...

i bet there would be less resistance to the theme if the game where called, "ants and spiders"...who would really care about the map colors or geographic correctness, and having to worry about political correctness on the use yellow spiders...

but that title prolly wouldnt sell many games...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Atlantikwall]

Sorry Elbowmaster,

"Axis&Allies" is defenitly a game set in an historical background (WW2)! And the countries represent almost exacly the front in spring 1942. To make it an exiting and balanced game, you have to use some "tricks" (e.g. moving MOS further east, giving the axis more IPCs and/or units than "historical correct")! The Russian front is really great and I`m really looking forward playing the game, but nevertheless, I can criticize some "incorrect" geography (e.g. EUS borders PAN)! With some minor changes (geography and IPC-values) the new game would be both exiting and kind of "historical and geographical correct"! And saying, that the Axis had no chance of winning WW2 is a bit exaggerated as german troops were short of taking LEN and/or MOS and what would have happend than? I´m glad, that it didn`t happen and speculations about history are off-topic too!

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
I can criticize some "incorrect" geography (e.g. EUS borders PAN)!The full name of that territory in the MB edition would have been "Eastern Central America Panama", but it was shortened in the Avalon hill edition to "Panama".

It all makes sense. Just call it by it's other name, and realize that the East half of Texas is part of the Eastern USA territory.

I don't remember having to base many troops in Panama in my Axis and Allies games anyways.

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Atlantikwall:
Sorry Elbowmaster,

"Axis&Allies" is defenitly a game set in an historical background (WW2)!
didnt say it wasnt...

but OMG, lets please not get the history thing going... :eek:


And the countries represent almost exacly the front in spring 1942.
almost exactly? and...


And saying, that the Axis had no chance of winning WW2 is a bit exaggerated as german troops were short of taking LEN and/or MOS and what would have happend than?
well we know what happened...

USA rolled and got heavy bombers ;)

dont get me wrong, i cant wait to play this new game !!

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ February 27, 2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[Carico67]

Appears very good IMO. I LOVE the Sahara Desert block-off...I simply hope the rulesets give the Germans a chance.

On the other hand, land and re-inforcing through the early rounds will be a tall order for the allies, as I think was intended. The major flaw is that with new tech rules GER is wide open to the US Heavy Bomber start early game... very sad, the map confirms it. I was wondering if there were gonna be limitations on allies mixing troops w/Russia but from the looks of the map I think not. Russia is gonna be under some heat from a superior IPC foe (GER) and the allies are a long ways away if turn order allows GER to come out firing and kill the UK navy early on... but for that time will tell!

ANyways, excellent work overall. Looks like some ideas were taken from World at War, which is to be commended to both you and them, as the ideas referred to make the game and map much better!

C2

[FarsideHobbes]

If the fact that Panama and EUS are adjacent is your biggest complaint, then I'd say the board is a success. I must agree with solitaire in that I don't believe that I have ever had troops down in panama or central america. Its a country that holds little value other than letting the US run ships through if they so choose.

I love spirited debate as much as the next guy, but I would encourage any new people to the forums to go back and read the forums from the earlier columns in order to get some perspective on why Mike and Co. did what they did in certain situations.

And while the game is set in a historical period, set up to reflect the balance of power at the time, certain creative liberties have to be taken. You won't please everyone, you just try to please as many as you can. The fact that all sides use the same units with the same firepower and movement abilities is in itself not 'historically accurate', but for the sake of gameplay you have to draw a line somewhere before you get too focused on making it too historically accurate at the expense of playability.

I'm sure that most of the nitpicks that everyone has on these forums, myself included, were all looked at by Mike and Co. during their rebuilding, I'm curious as to how many websites they visited and people they spoke with about what to change, my guess is too many to count. If something didn't make the final cut it was most likely either too inconsequential to make much of a difference in the overall scope of things, too radical of a change, or it was just kinda dumb.

I'm sure that many personal pet peeves that people had weren't addressed in the new version. Myself, I didn't know what to expect from Mike, so most of the changes were met with anticipation and interest. I'll wait until I play a bit with the total package before I can offer a complete opinion, but for right now, I gotta hand it to the AH team, they have so far done quite a job and I tip my hat to them:)

[Einstein43]

When I am the Axis, Mexico, Panama and Brazil are almost ALWAYS in play as Japan sends some island troops that way after taking Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand.

Einstein

[Einstein43]

I wonder if the designers took a poll of their playtesters about the map. My only real complaints are (1) Pacific Ocean is too small and (2) the Panama-Mexico-EUSA geography is screwy. They said they did it that way to get rid of the little Gulf of Mexico sea zone under West USA, but I always thought that was a great little sea zone that didn't need to be changed. So my question is was that an executive decision or the map-makers idea, and did the playtesters have a chance to voice their opinions on that particular sea zone change?

Einstein

[elbowmaster]

i noticed that japan can land in western canada in one move??? bypassing alaska??? talk about a heimlich maneuver of the japanese kind...guess the axis have the super snow shoe option???

:confused:

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ February 27, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[Der Panzinator]

The solution to the US dilemia is to just create another space in the Eastern US space from the Great Lakes to the panhandle of Florida and call it Midwestern US. This would split Eastern US and Panama as well as basically follow the time zone split.

[Drewcooter]

Elbowmaster

What map are you looking at that allows Japan to land in Western Canada on one move?

[DY]

The official map in Mikes Strategy Article clearly shows that transports in the Japanese East sea zone can reach West canada in one turn (by clearly, I mean it's clear if you stare at the magnified board for a few mins and realise that West Canada now has a North-Western coast line depicted, that borders the sea zone surrounding Alaska).

[Einstein43]

Yeah, I see it---Japan can sail NORTH of Alaska to land in West Canada. How bizarre. Might as well have opened up all the North Polar sea zones, in that case.

Einstein

[Einstein43]

I think they did a pretty good job with the map, but they messed up around the edges---East USA, West USA, some of the sea zones in the Pacific, maybe s few other sea zones on the bottom of the board.

Why they did it I can't figure out, maybe just assumed these areas were not that important or would not see much play. If so, I think that was an error.

That Gulf of Mexico sea zone offered the USA a spot to build naval units when building in East USA was too dangerous. Now it's not an option.

But aside from these all-important edges, the center playing field looks pretty good.

Einstein

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Einstein43:
I think they did a pretty good job with the map, but they messed up around the edges---East USA, West USA, some of the sea zones in the Pacific, maybe s few other sea zones on the bottom of the board.

Japan can sail NORTH of Alaska to land in West Canada. How bizarre.
yeah kinda strange...can you imangine 1 turn to drop off all your troops from japan to...western canada???

That Gulf of Mexico sea zone offered the USA a spot to build naval units when building in East USA was too dangerous. Now it's not an option.
yeah but now its 4 spaces from western europe instead of 3, so that should be ok...


But aside from these all-important edges, the center playing field looks pretty good.
we will have to see how this all plays out...

i know on the original board is a little confusing for some, but the cd version cleared all of that up...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[DY]

Why are we even bothering to suggest changes to improve the map? It's not as if they haven't already mass-produced thousands of copies of this semi-flawed map already. Like there's no way that we can do anything to change it now.

I suppose someone can re-do the board in mapview for a PBEM advanced edition.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:
i noticed that japan can land in western canada in one move??? Wow. Good catch there. I wasn't even looking that far north. Ummm...

I've been positive about just about everything in the new game, but I must admit that a one turn Japan to Canada move is very disconcerting at the least. It is a bit worse in light of the knowledge that Western Canada begins with only one infantry.

Karelia might be fixed and Canada might be broken? Wacky. I hate those massively ahistorical polarbear fights.

A Japanese occupation of Western Canada would mandate a US counterattack, or defense of Eastern Canada, Western US, Central USA and Alaska? That makes for a pretty strange forced move if Japan lands.

If it is a turn one issue, the Eastern Canada armor can go join in the defense before Japan gets to move. Fighters from the UK would also be in range to go defend...

I have to assume that the Japanese transports start in the Sea of Japan, and so don't start the game in range, but it is still odd.

[Darksideknight]

My guess at why they did this was to prevent the USA from rolling on the first turn. This might be the Japanese "shuck". Interesting, kinda infuriating since they did fix the American shuck. Well "shuck!" What the '"shuck?" The playout will be the test, I don't mind non-historical rules, so long as they make for better and more balanced play.

-Jason

[elbowmaster]

another interesting note...

notice how you can now get to caucasus, via kazahkstan?? should make for some interesting battles...or a nasty german / japanese 1, 2 punch if UK is not in correct position to assist...

persia is no longer the only way...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[kagashi]

There is nothing saying that Japan will start with a transport in the Eastern Sea Zone on turn one...SO Canada may still have a chance to reinforce its Western border before the Japanese can afford to move transports from the Western Sea Zone.

Anyway, if Japan decides to attack Canada on turn one (or two), they will cut their own support line to main land Aisa, loosening the pressure on the Americans and British, allowing them to build IC in China and India, thus loosing the mainland in one flawed tactic.

I just do not see the trade off to move 2-6 units into Canada (depending on how many transports Japan starts with anyway), just to NOT be reinforced next turn and take on the combined British and American IC-filled territories and ignore main land Aisa for a mesely one turn 1 IPC (or does W Canada say 2 or 3?).

[elbowmaster]

im amazed how this thread has died down...all the ooohs and aaaahs, but little on really analyzing the possible playout...too much time on speculation on next weeks announcement of "how AH changed the way youll play AA forever"

there are some significant changes to this new aa map that will have some obvious / and not so obvious playouts...

im going for focus a this on the right side of the board...from russia, to japan, to west usa...

i still think the 1 turn from japan to western canada will cause significant slowdown for the usa in europe...having to counter for a couple of turns the threat of japan placing a "distraction force" a new "shuck" area.

also, persia is no longer the only way to get to caucasus...look how you can take a southern route under moscov / russia territory... this is a major change!! and wonder how it will play out...??

east indies has an interesting ocean boarder, you can no longer sail from india to eastern aussie...and the sea zone on southern aussie that is now split...

looks like most have looked at the germany problem...it seems ok, but we will know in a few weeks i guess how this plays out...

i wonder what mike would of said in his article about these changes...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[mac224-2]

The map does look terrific. I like Eastern Europe, the Sahara and Himalayas (pleasant surprises).

But North America/USA: groan.

Removing the inset maps added substantial space to russia, where they used the space to add a couple of new zones. But the inset removal added just as much extra space to North America. In Alaska and Canada, they just stretched existing territories northward. As a result the map distortion is even worse.

With the extra space the whole continent could have been redrawn and rescaled: Alaska could be larger, even split N/S separating the Aleuts and southern Alaska worth 2 from Northern Alaska worth 1. Western Canada could simply be given an "arctic" northern impassible territory, and two splits in Easter Canada (1 N-S, 1 E-W: Quebec, Ontario, impassible Northern Territories). An enlarged US could have been given another extra "Midwest" territory (splitting EUS). Oh well.

Nitpick: Greenland should have been replaced with Iceland.

[ March 01, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: mac-2 ]

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:
im amazed how this thread has died down...No doubt. The map is a radical, clear and tangible change. It should provide more fuel for speculation on playout than any other post has.

Originally posted by mac-2:
But North America/USA: groan..It does appear weaker in appearance AND playout.

Western Canada could simply be given an "arctic" northern impassible territory, Yea, I am really worried that we are going to see a foolish number of invasions of Artic Canada. It'll go both ways though. We'll probably also see a comical number of USA invasions launched from Artic Canada.

I keep thinking about the hundreds of reasons that the Japanese couldn't invade artic Canada. The difficulties of distance, temperature, and sneaking an invasion force past St. Lawrence Island and through the Bering Straight are obvious enough.

Maybe someone with photoshop and artistic leanings can work out a "patch?"

Nitpick: Greenland should have been replaced with Iceland.Yea. I was thinking that myself, but I can see why the choice makes sense visually, and is irrelevant to gameplay.

[elbowmaster]

quote from solitaire77

Yea, I am really worried that we are going to see a foolish number of invasions of Artic Canada. It'll go both ways though. We'll probably also see a comical number of USA invasions launched from Artic Canada.

I keep thinking about the hundreds of reasons that the Japanese couldn't invade artic Canada. The difficulties of distance, temperature, and sneaking an invasion force past St. Lawrence Island and through the Bering Straight are obvious enough.

Maybe someone with photoshop and artistic leanings can work out a "patch?"

yeah talk about an easy 9 IPC...

1 for western canada
2 for alaska
6 for the central usa

ill-be-it wont be for very long holding those, but yes, very SILLY...

my other area of concern is the kazahk / caucasus connection, by passing russia...i think that change is huge!! the funnel used to be persia...not it seems there are two land ways of connecting east to west...

ive thought more about the victory city wins...it just seems to me like a verbal IPC victory, replacing city names with IPC amount...

if you look at the territories with the VC's, its easy to do the math on what the numeric IPC victory is...

to me, its a simple way to say the same thing, so to say IPC victory is gone, IMO is wrong...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[solitaire77]

I'm wondering about the viability of the US doing a Western Canada to Buryatia S.S.R. effort.

1st buy DD, carrier, sub (cost 36)
2nd trans, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 armor, 1 fig (cost 41)
3rd navy to Alaska SZ and 2nd turn army to W. Canada
4th dropoff in Buryatia
5th, 6th, etc... attack on Manchuria and further shuck

It'll be tough to figure how that would interact with existing forces.

Interesting, but probably not worth the effort. It is probably still a Germany first game.

[elbowmaster]

i agree, will play the germany 1st strat as well...

not a negative knock on the game either, i think that the new "polar express" will just be more of an annoyance factor if anything else...

certainly looking forward to the rest of the articles and checking out the initial setup for the rest of the countries...cant wait to start talking about all the T1 playouts, strats...etc's...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:
not a negative knock on the game either, i think that the new "polar express" will just be more of an annoyance factor if anything else...Well, I'll take it as a strike against the game, but it is the only non-optional one I've counted.

certainly looking forward to the rest of the articles and checking out the initial setupAn odd concern I've had, carrying over from A&A:P.

In A&A:P, I felt like the setup put too many pieces on the board. It made the game overwhelming to newbies, and made for a slow setup and first turn. It worked for A&A:P, but I'm wondering how successful Avalon Hill will be at accomplishing the global war without overdoing the number of initial pieces.

[FarsideHobbes]

I gotta admit, I like the 'polar express' name. First one to notice a new movement strategy and post about it gets to name it. Granted solitaire was the first to post about, but we'll give the naming rights to elbowmaster this one time. The WC/Buryatia S.S.R. shuck shuck is now called the Polar Express smile.gif

[ March 01, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: FarsideHobbes ]

[PaschatKing]

Mike, what is the ipc value of India? the map is unclear. Its looks like 2 or 3. I will be disappointed if its only 2 - especially compared to the new 4 ipc *** territories. :eek:

[Cruelsader]

Originally posted by PaschatKing:
Mike, what is the ipc value of India? the map is unclear. Its looks like 2 or 3. I will be disappointed if its only 2 - especially compared to the new 4 ipc *** territories. :eek: Look around. Mike has posted the names of territories and their values somewhere in this forum. India has value 3.

[PaschatKing]

i thought it was 3, but i couldn't remember seeing it.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by FarsideHobbes:
I gotta admit, I like the 'polar express' name.Yea. Apt name.

Granted solitaire was the first to post aboutNope. I wasn't the first to notice it. Just the person who refuses to stop thinking and posting about it. smile.gif

Despite the polar express pressuring forces to move north, I think we'll still see southern strategies more often.

I do feel that the historical actions should be the default appealing tactic, and ahistorical actions should develop to surprise the enemy or in response to opportunities that develop.

I think the board does accomplish this for two reasons. The Coral sea was the first allied offensive in the Pacific, therefore the board should encourage this move without ruling out other tactics. The fact that the Philippines (3 IPC and victory city), Borneo (4 IPC), and the East Indes (4 IPC) are all threatened by a taskforce at the Solomon Islands is a great incentive for this move.

MacArthur would be proud.

[gh0st]

Are we the only space hogs??!?

Ok, one of my big beefs with the original board was the size. It doesn't seem like this is addressed much (I think I read 33x20?) so I am wondering, do other players find the board to be too small?

And by too, I mean toooooooooooooo small. We play on a special ed. board (which is fantastic and this edition will have its work cut out for it to get our group to come back to the 'official' line: Check It Out (http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/expansions/picture2.htm) It measures something like 39x27 and we find this to be a little cramped.

Does anyone else find the board too small? Is anyone else turned off by this in the new edition?

[ March 02, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: gh0st ]

[gh0st]

Oh, and I also wanted to point out something regarding all the historical accuracy broo-ha-ha.

Fah, I say. And "fah" again!

This is a strategic board game, not a military simulation. If they wanted Japan to be purple and made Midway worth 30 IPCs, then you or I nor anyone else has a legitimate gripe anywhere in that. They are designing a game, not a history lesson. If there is a reason Midway should be worth 30, then it is. Regardless of what history says or not. I just don't get how in the world something like where the central us zone is or how much the Phillipines is worth matters at all.

Yah know, I refuse to play chess 'cause the bishops do not have an accurate hat and the knights do not wield period-accurate swords. Let's not even get into rooks...(This, IMOHO, is exactly the same concept as what you guys are saying.)

[axis_roll]

Don't forget that in many games, USA used to just ignore the pacific and go directly after Germany... so the Polar Express may be a more efficient axis manuever to force USA pieces into the western hemisphere. Don't forget they added an additional US territory in Central USA to slow troops movement across the US of A.

[elbowmaster]

Does anyone else find the board too small? Is anyone else turned off by this in the new edition?
yes, board is too small for me...

i game on a 35 x 72 inch topographical map...

elbowmaster's traditional axis and allies map (http://66.125.84.108/aaa/maps/trad/aatrad01.htm)

i dont have enough information to be turned on or off yet...

is the polar express a threat???

lets consider that AH wants the pacific more in the game, thus the aussie navy is a southern threat that wasnt there in the original...

we know that there are at least 2 transport in eastern usa, but doesnt mention if there are more ships in that zone.

which brings me to the fact that the usa could probably afford to funnel cash to pac, while getting the "shuckX2" ready in europe / note there is now a "safe place" to put a carrier uk / transport t1 in the sea zone off ireland and greenland, only ftrs in finland / norway can treaten it...

so...the usa doesnt abandon the german 1st strat with a heavy pac build on US T1...it just gives the pacific an initial jolt...

japan can basically be hit on at least 3 different fronts...

if usa starts with a bbs and transport in western (like the original game), with the additional cash usa now gets, IMO the threat is real...

even a power navy t1 (similar to solitair77's idea) build all on western usa seems now viable with the additional uk navy in the south pacific...note that there is now two sea zones on the west coast the the usa can place..

thats alot for japan to cover...

thats about as much speculation i feel comfortable with...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ March 02, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[Mike Selinker]

That's good stuff, EM. You're definitely thinking like a player of the new game.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by gh0st:

This is a strategic board game, not a military simulation.Agreed. Now rearrange the map in order to avoid any similarity with earth, change the name of powers and insert all sorts of imaginary units but retain the rules as written. Do you think such game would have sold as well as WW2 Axis&Allies? I think it wouldn't. The WW2 theme was (and still is) an important aspect of the popularity of the game.

If they wanted Japan to be purple and made Midway worth 30 IPCs, then you or I nor anyone else has a legitimate gripe anywhere in that. They are designing a game, not a history lesson. If there is a reason Midway should be worth 30, then it is. Regardless of what history says or not.Such a decision should have made some sense in the context of WW2, otherwise what's a point of creating a fixed initial deployment, fixed targets, fixed alliances?

A game with historical context must have enough historical elements to retain its appeal. It doesn't mean that things that didn't happen should be forbidden, but a good designer ought to know what was feasible and what wasn't. A game where Russia routinely build a ocean going fleet and invade Japan wouldn't have been as popular as A&A.

Yah know, I refuse to play chess 'cause the bishops do not have an accurate hat and the knights do not wield period-accurate swords. Let's not even get into rooks...(This, IMOHO, is exactly the same concept as what you guys are saying.)It is not, because chess is an abstract strategy game. Take a look at the bottom of your MB A&A box and see how the game is advertised. Are you saying that marketing people from MB were deliberately trying to mislead you?

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:

lets consider that AH wants the pacific more in the game, thus the aussie navy is a southern threat that wasnt there in the original...I suppose British player would not dare to risk its impossible to replace asset unless certain in crippling Japanese war effort. The problem from MB game was that once Allied fleet was destroyed in Pacific, Japanese one becomes an expendable item. The question is can Russia hold if US builds naval units in the Pacific?

we know that there are at least 2 transport in eastern usa, but doesnt mention if there are more ships in that zone.Mike wrote how transport fleets in NY and CA are "well defended" in Essay No 5. In MB there was a battleship in CA. Perhaps there's one in NY as well. We do know there's a US destroyer near Panama.

note there is now a "safe place" to put a carrier uk / transport t1 in the sea zone off ireland and greenland, only ftrs in finland / norway can treaten it...British may build a carrier with fighter on the first turn, but in Minor victory games I'd expect for British to build a factory in India and destroyer in UK. Note that bomber from Germany can attack Royal Navy and land in Norway.

so...the usa doesnt abandon the german 1st strat with a heavy pac build on US T1...it just gives the pacific an initial jolt...Major victory games will allow more freedom in play for Allies since they have to lose UK or US in order to lose. But in minor victory games, Allies must work with an utmost precision to prevent Axis from capturing Karelia and India and going away with the game. I am becoming much more in favour of playing a minor victory game.

japan can basically be hit on at least 3 different fronts...British Indian fleet can either strike at Japanese held islands (and expose itself to certain destruction) or stay put. British Australian fleet can, depending on its actual location (I can't see which sea zone is which) join Americans at Hawaii or flee to Indian ocean to unite with Indian fleet. In either case Japanese can concentrate against US carrier fleet at Hawaii and hold the initiative.

if usa starts with a bbs and transport in western (like the original game), with the additional cash usa now gets, IMO the threat is real...I think Japan can afford to exchange the queens in the Pacific in Axis strategy is to kick USSR out of the game. In fact, I don't believe Axis can win against competant Allies in major victory game unless they eliminate Russia first, even if that means losing a victory city or two for a moment.

Drax

[elbowmaster]

posted by drazen krameric

I suppose British player would not dare to risk its impossible to replace asset unless certain in crippling Japanese war effort. The problem from MB game was that once Allied fleet was destroyed in Pacific, Japanese one becomes an expendable item. The question is can Russia hold if US builds naval units in the Pacific?
hard to tell with out the rest of the initial set ups...uk's south pacific fleet includes carrier, ftr, 2, trans and a sub, i think the us and uk task forces can combine somewhere in the south pacific...notice how the south pac sea zone boundries have changed, ill-be-it subtle, but just enough to "loosen" movement...who knows what japan can do without seeing the set up...so im sure there will be some exciting discusions on playout...


British may build a carrier with fighter on the first turn, but in Minor victory games I'd expect for British to build a factory in India and destroyer in UK. Note that bomber from Germany can attack Royal Navy and land in Norway.
i dont plan on using the victory city (IPC victory) rules...thats just me, and not perhaps what others will use...

yes uk can build ftr carrier combo t1, depending if any uk navy is left after germany T1, i still think id buy a carrier and tranny and let a usa ftr with its two transports and what ever else to ireland / greenland sea zone...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[baron]

I do plan on using victory city rules at least some of the time. I think the difference between a major and a total victory is academic, and just a matter of building up long enough to take over the US, and anyone who can be losing at the major victory level and come back and win before his opponent gets the total victory is either incredibly lucky, or better than their opponent enough that they shouldn't be losing that badly. Even with the old rules, I almost never play to victory, we just play until the outcome of the game is obvious (often with the fall of Russia and the failure of any desparation counter-attack) and then the loser concedes.

A minor victory, on the other hand, is quite interesting. We've already discussed the possibilities for a quick axis victory, forcing the allies to be aggressive and not giving them time to just build up. I like that. Also, because it takes time to assault Europe against a competent German player, I think Manilla and Shanghai are going to become much more tempting fast victory targets for the allies.

Another interesting aspect of this is that victory is checked for at the end of each turn, which means America doesn't need to hold a victory city to get an allied victory, they just need to take it with minimal force.

Another thing that I like is that the victory condition doesn't feel contrived at all. It's the "get this far, and the world will start suing for peace" victory.

I predict that I will either be playing minor victory games, or total victory games (with concession at a reasonable point).

[elbowmaster]

good points barron!!

your senerios are reasonable for sure...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ March 02, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[Darken]

Sorry Mike, but I don't like the new map. Sure, the optic is functional, but I miss the little details (as mountains) of the old map.

The map-change with the Sahara is great, the map-change with the possible first-turn-attack of Western Canada (only two sea-areas away from Japan) is lousy.

All in all I expected more of the new map. The Atlantic part is all in all fine, but the Pacific part should also bring longer distances (more fields) between Japan and US.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by gh0st:
They are designing a game, not a history lesson. Actually gh0st, they are designing both. Axis and Allies is a history lesson to many poor victims of public education.

Axis and Allies is not a highly accurate or detailed game, nor does it need to be, but it certainly is based on history.

Just like any fictional book, movie, or story, Axis and Allies must be historical enough to maintain adequate suspension of disbelief.

I just don't get how in the world something like where the central us zone is or how much the Phillipines is worth matters at all. Yea. Sounds like you don't get it. Considering that I am a moderate on the historical accuracy topic and you emphatically disagreed with me, I really hope you get to talk to one of the real accuracy sticklers.

Besides, the boards are here for people to speculate.

[Talonz]

Originally posted by elbowmaster:

i dont plan on using the victory city (IPC victory) rules...thats just me, and not perhaps what others will use...So basically you don't plan on playing A&A then. That is an integral part of the gamebalance I would imagine and one of the best new rules in the game imo.

How the heck are you going to determine victory without major balance issues then?

[elbowmaster]

i should have been more clear...

meaning i dont plan on minor victory...i like long games...

like mike said...ill play to 9 or 10, usually game is over when a capitol falls anyway...

IMO victory city win, is the same as IPC victory, just another name for the same thing...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[ March 03, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: elbowmaster ]

[axis_roll]

A simple way to spruce things up would be to make certain victory cities count for more than just "one" victory city. For example, in a game to 9 victory cities, LA could be worth 2,3, or even 4... game play would help determine their value.

I do like this new way to win, as it allows alot of flexibilty in the goal(s) of each game you play. Different emphasis means different strategies means new buys and units and all the fun stuff!