Outline for the franchise: A&A, and Advanced A&A

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Rather than making new boards/games every few years, I think the franchise should concentrate on making 2 core gameboards, and keeping them in print for a decade.

    The first board, titled simply “Axis and Allies”, should be modeled on the 1942.2 map scale and style of more simplified gameplay. Comes in a Red Box! :)

    The follow up board, titled “Advanced Axis and Allies”, should be modeled on the Global map scale and style of more complex gameplay. Comes in a Black Box! :)

    The Axis and Allies ‘Red Box’, or starter box serves as the introduction map board and ruleset, for shorter session games, but could also be adapted with additional rules or pieces from…
    The Advanced Axis and Allies ‘Black Box’, or expansion box, for longer session, wargame-style gameplay.

    Red Box: 6 nation board. Variable turn order, roll 1d6 to determine which nation starts.
    Black Box: 12 nation board. Variable turn order, roll 1d6 or 1d12 to determine which nation starts.
    By making the turn order variable the shelf-life of both boards is increased dramatically, enhancing the replay value and staying power over time. I think this could be done pretty easily, if the unit set up was designed for it.

    Each Box should have a core ruleset, and then an optional rules/unit expansion - basically giving you four 4 tiers of complexity: Beginner to Intermediate on the Red Box, Intermediate to Advanced on the Black Box.) You could even do 4 points of sale, 2 starter maps/boxes, and then an expansion set (with just rules or units) for each of them.

    Red Box starter “beginer” might play something like Classic/Revised/1941/1942.2 (without tech)
    Red Box expansion “intermediate” might play something or AA50 (with NOs, tech, and special sculpts etc.)
    Black Box starter “advanced” might play like the Global size map but more on the scale of AA50 in the ruleset/unit roster.
    Black Box expansion “expert” would play basically like Global, with all the specialized rules and special unit sculpts.

    Red Box:
    1 Russia
    2 Germany
    3 UK
    4 Japan
    5 USA (and US supported Chinese Forces)
    6 Italy

    Black Box:
    1. China
    2. Japan  
    2. Poland
    4. France
    5. Germany
    6. Great Britain
    7. Empire and Dominions (Canada, India, ANZAC)
    8. Allied Aligned European powers (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc.)
    9. Italy
    10. Axis Aligned European powers (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc.)
    11. Russia
    12. United States

    If a standard turn order, then this Black Box order would roughly describe (albeit somewhat anachronistically) the order of entry into the conflict, while still allowing a pretty easy separation in a 3-6 player match. Players 5 and 6 can be folded into one of the others in a 4 man. Split Allies for a 3 man, without too much disruption in the pace of the game, or players getting too bored from long stretches without playing.

    This turn order below gives a natural impression of the historical pattern of entry, starting with the war in China vs Japan, then turning to the Blitz in Europe, and closing out with USA (before going back to China to start the next round for the easy flow.) But even though a standard turn order like that might be novel, the main advantage I see to doing something like this is to allow for a variable turn order, where you roll to see which nation goes first. After all, things might have gone differently, had major powers entered the conflict earlier or later. I think it would be interesting, and would increase the replay.

    Player 1.    China
    Player 2.    Japan  
    Player 1.    Poland
                   France
    Player 4.    Germany
    Player 3.    Great Britain
                   Empire and Dominions (Canada, India, ANZAC)
                   Allied Aligned European powers (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc.)
    Player 5.    Italy
                   Axis Aligned European powers (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc.)
    Player 6.    Russia          
    Player 1.     United States

    What do you guys think? I feel an approach like that, if the rest of the set up was designed around it, would lead to a game that might hold up for a much longer amount of time. With a lot of ways to adapt and expand, and explore different strategies. A Red Box handles the newcomer and the casual match, but with variable turn order it has the potential for a lot of different games. The Black Box Advanced game, handles the diehards and the desire to collect new sculpts and play on a larger gamemap. I think if you staged it right you could make something that most players would enjoy, even at different levels of experience, and with different preferences in gameplay.

    But the whole key is to leave these boxes in print long enough to start getting some traction over time, rather than putting out a new board every other year. Any thoughts?


  • I guess that, from my perspective as a piece junkie, I see a potential conflict between “The Black Box Advanced game, handles the diehards and the desire to collect new sculpts and play on a larger gamemap” and “But the whole key is to leave these boxes in print long enough to start getting some traction over time, rather than putting out a new board every other year”.  Historically, the appearance of new A&A games has correlated with the appearance of new A&A OOB sculpts.  The more often new games have appeared, the more often we’ve gotten new sculpts.  The recent introduction of 1941 (which would be one tier below your Red Box game) even carried this new-game = new-sculpt principle one step further by having all the equipment pieces be new designs.  Under the model you’re proposing, it looks as though the Black box game would give us a great bounty of new pieces…but that we’d then go through a ten-year drought without any new sculpts.  I can already feel myself going through withdrawl symptoms at that prospect.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Actually I was thinking that by focusing on two standard gamemaps over a longer period of time, that you could then release expansions for those boards that had new sculpts more effectively and consistently, and with greater frequency and integration.  So for example, a set of scultps for the tech expansions. A set of sculpts for expanded unit rosters. Sort of like a modular set up, where instead of buying a whole new gameboard map each time, you get the gameboard in the starter box and then can purchase add ons. So basically a board that is designed from the start with future adaption and expansion in mind. The idea being that you build and collect pieces and aspects for the same game over time. So the Black Box (I just chose the names for shorthand, it could be any color haha) would be a gameboard designed to handle global style expanded unit rosters. The red box would be more like what you get in 1942.2, but this could be expanded over time as well, or in conjuction with stuff from the advanced game. Basically I like the idea that all the pieces could be integrated,  but on boards designed to support them from the ground up.

    So just as an idea, one thing that might be cool, as an expansion for the starter boards, would be national sculpts that provided things like Mustangs for USA! With extra national markers or special dice, extra Bomber pieces. A special set of National Objectives,  or rules adaptions. But done in a modular way. So the core game isn’t changing every two years and made obsolete or impossible to buy once out of print, it just gets expanded. Periodically you could release larger packs that include all previous expansion materials. Or how about things like micro sculpts!? Designed to play on the same gameboard, but at 1/2 the normal scale. I mean,  know I’d buy them. Or more factory unit sculpts, or extra paper money. All the things that junkies might want, but which they never seem to sell seperate from a brand new game, that invariably kills whatever game preceded it. :)

    I think if you did it that way,  there is maybe a chance you could keep the same game on the shelves in stores for more than 5 years at a go.

    That was the thought anyway


  • Interesting ideas, however, i don’t think this is a way to go for A&A. I think it’ll be simply revisions of the current games +maybe soo wanted new tactical scale games (Stalingrad, Midway, etc.)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Constant “Revisions” of the current game are problematic, for a number of reasons. First the naming conventions alone are confusing. The current flagship game, is called “Axis and Allies 1942 Second Edition”, but the casual or new player might rightly ask, “well, if this is the second edition, maybe I need to buy the first edition first? or have experience with it?” But of course there is no board called “Axis and Allies 1942 first edition”, that board is called “Axis and Allies Spring 1942”, which is itself already out of print. Consider all the boards that are out of print… Classic is out of Print, and anyway even if you could find it, that board was never called “Classic” on the cover of the box, its simply called “Axis and Allies”, Classic is a convention we players use to distinguish it from the boards that came later. Classic, which itself had 3 editions, has been out of print for ages! “Revised” is likewise out of print. The “Anniversary Edition,” also out of print. Each one of these boards has Tournament Rules too, or ruleset editions which adds to the confusion.

    I think it would be helpful if, instead of all these different boards, with different names (by Year, or Edition, or whatever) to put out a clear starter box, with a clear name, simply “Axis and Allies.” I see this as a way to streamline the game itself, but more importantly to shore up the player base, which is currently fragmented across several different gameboards. Every time a new standard board comes out, it makes the previous board obsolete. Planned obsolescence might work great for cell phones, but its stupid for a boardgame like this.

    Boardgames need durability and consistency in order to resonate over time, which can only be accomplished if you don’t dramatically change the game itself every 2 years. All this is intimidating to the would-be new player. Its one of the reasons why everyone knows games like Monopoly, or Risk, but fewer know about Axis and Allies. If they do know about it, or have seen it before, they might likely refer to it as “That crazy game, with all the plastic army men, that looks way too complicated to play?” Which is depressing to me, since this is one of my favorite boardgames of all time, and I wish more people played it.

    What we really need is one or two flagship games that remain essentially the same over time, with only minor aesthetic changes or ‘optional’ rules added on over. Otherwise the player base splinters constantly. I mean just look at this forum index, with all the various editions, if you want to see how confusing this stuff gets over time.  Here’s an idea. How about a formalization of the bid process in a rule book? This is something we have been doing for decades, but which is mentioned nowhere in any official game manual.

    Tactical boards are all well and good. I don’t find them particularly interesting myself when compared with the world boards, but in any case, I don’t see a major conflict here. The tactical boards are almost always self contained and require their own maps. What I am trying to suggest is that, rather than having 1942 3rd Edition, or Global 4th edition Alpha, or whatever the hell its called now, that we should focus on creating a Starter Box, and an Advanced Boxed. And then everything which follows be modular building off those two core boxes.

    There is no need to put out a brand new board with all the packaging overhead every year. Instead you could sell expansions in a modular way, with things that players typically want. Like additional sculpts, or chips, or money etc. I just think you could get more people playing, and create a more profitable franchise that way.


  • If Larry ever makes Advanced AA, it will use D12, use an all Axis all Allies turn sequence, have new technology rules, new rules for neutrals, and probably one new unit ( paratroopers).

    Because of this and to avoid all the complications due to all the problems with 1940, i bet it will start in 1942 so everybody is at war and all those special rules can go away.

    Also, i predict that the cost and combat value of units will be different by nation to give the flavor of what tenancies they had. ( example cheap German subs, expensive Carriers, Tanks with higher values compared to allies)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Those all seem like cool ideas for an advanced game. To me the important thing is that the starter game and the advanced game be developed together. With a degree of integration, so that playing the starter primes you to play the advanced game.

    Especially if it is to introduce such novel changes as an altered turn sequence, or nation specific unit values/costs. A unified turn is pretty major just in itself. I suggested a variable start to a set turn order, basically a roll 1d6 for the start, with some sort of ascending bonus cash. So the nation that starts +3 ipcs, the next guy +6, 9, 12, 15, and closing out with +18 ipcs to the nation/player who goes last. That assuming a 6 nation game. The idea there would be to enhance replay through variable starts. But perhaps collapsing the turn order into a simple Axis then Allies, and back again order could accomplish interesting gameplay effects as well.

    What would be nice is for a starter game to introduce the core concepts and core units.

    Then expanded through things like a  National Scultps set (with classic style units but at specialized unit costs or values specifiicto each nation). Or a Tech Sculpt set. Or an Expanded Air and Sea set. An expanded Ground set. A Micro set with all the standard pieces at half the scale. An expanded dice set to introduce d12 etc. All these could be sold in a building block sort of way, to create interest and excitement over time.

    Basically you add complexity onto the starter box game in a modular away, (giving some freedom for the players to guide decide the pace at which they add on integrate more complex aspects) until you arrive at the full Advanced game.

    I would suggest a game map modeled on the 1942.2 or the AA50 scale for the starter box map. This could include set up cards for a beginner game (with limited starting units, or limited unit roster) and a set up card for an intermediate game (with more units, or an expanded roster.) That is the core map, that you use to teach games with.

    Then you put out the advanced box, with a more graduated detailed map for a more Advanced game.

    I like 1942, it is the start date I associate most with A&A


  • I like the idea a lot black elk and think you should have a job for axis and allies R&D but in the end it’s all about the cash the more games they put out the more cash they get.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I buy doubles every time a new world map gameboard comes out. Sometimes I will pass on the Tactical or Theater boards until I see a review or catch a glimpse of the rulebook, but in general I am willing to drop a lot of cash on these things. How much more cash might I be willing to drop on sculpt sets, or expansions? Probably quite a lot, but I never the get opportunity, because they don’t exist and this model is never pursued. From a strictly numbers standpoint, I think you could generate more points of sale through modular releases than you could just with one-offs.

    Also, every time I buy a new world map board, I notice how long it takes for the player base to get behind it and to build enough popularity that I can start actually finding pick up games. Or when that fails, I have to start teaching new people how to play A&A again.

    I can’t stress enough how nice it would be, in conjunction with a boxed release, to have a digital format which mirrors it for each game AT THE TIME OF RELEASE!

    It would be so helpful. Then for each physical expansion, you could expand the digital materials as well. PDFs of manuals are one thing, but I envision something more integrated. For example, if there is an update to the rules on a board, then the digital package could be updated automatically, so that there is more consistency across the whole player base. I don’t mean a third party GTO type experience (which invariable lags behind the board for years, and is basically separate from the physical stuff in point of sale) but an official digital game designed to compliment the physical one. It would assist immeasurably with teaching A&A, and for new players to find pick up games, or engage with the community the way we do here.

    If anything the digital version of the game should be tied to the purchase of the physical materials, and should ideally be worked out well before the physical game is printed. Just like the Red/Black Box Sets, the digital game could be done with a core game and then modules that build off the core. This way, you don’t have to create a physical game to start testing during pre-release and would surely reach more people for testing. To figure out whether sz X needs another destroyer, if Nation Y is really supposed to have 1 more IPC, or tweak things in the beta before you put it up for general release. You can get all the kinks ironed out in the months before the full release, and generate steady interest in the meantime. I’m convinced more games would sell if we did it like this.

    I was born in 1981, and I fear I might be among the last generation of players who were introduced to this franchise on a rainy day recess in Elementary school, or from older friends in the 80s. We need to hit hard while the Nostalgia for this time is still strong, and start producing digital content, for the kids who are growing up right now!  :-D

    Because those same kids are the ones who are going to grow up using all the cool 3d printers and making the best sculpts like 10 years from now! (Or ever sooner!)

    Again, I am willing to drop a lot of cash on these things, but how about me x100? I just think of all the people who might turn into A&A fans, but who aren’t going to experience this game unless we provide an official digital game. Something you can play on a tablet, with ongoing support and integration and community, that ties into the physical sales as part of the overall plan. Because the physical board is the coolest part! The plastic and the cardboard. But its easier to teach, and reach other players, and to learn using a digital game. These have existed intermittently, going back to the Hasbro CD, but the problem is in the lack of long term integration, and the splinter effect over time and across different games. Basically you need a Core game engine, with a single player tutorial, and multiplayer support, the ability to edit the game on the fly, and a website like A&A.org all built into the digital game itself. And then tie that game directly to the core physical materials, so they mirror each other.

    That would be glorious, if it could only be achieved

  • Official Q&A

    Interesting stuff, Black_Elk.  Believe it or not, what you’ve outlined above is very similar to the direction I was pushing for the line to take after AA50 came out.  Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to make those decisions…

  • Customizer

    Black Elk you are so correct! Not trying to take anything from tripleA, but an offical A&A digital game released accross consoles and PC that mirrors the board games is needed for this franchise to thrive. Sure it’s great to have a small dedicated following, but why not make it a household name?

    I can’t tell you how many game stores I’ve gone into litterally crinkle thier nose as if they smelled something rotten when asking about A&A games. The conversation usually ends with directions and “ohh by the way you should check out game X…it’s better because of …X” While I don’t agree with them, they make a point. A&A is great but could be so much better.

    A base box set that will last for years with expansions at frequent intervals, plus an official digital game and online community is the future. It keeps the base happy and expands to new customers.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Its encouraging to hear that I’m not alone in these views.

    Another reason I think that a digital complement would help is simply because of the lack of quality game shops these days. I live in a major metropolitan area here in the states (SF bay area) and there just aren’t very many places like that which exist anymore, even in a densely populated place like this. Its nothing like it was even 10 years ago when there was one in practically every mall. In terms of boxed sales, probably the best most people are going to get is what they can find at a large chain store of some sort. Its kind of depressing.

    I can’t help but feel that if there was a large push to integrate the boxed stuff with something that could be played on a tablet, console, or pc, that A&A would have a much better chance at reaching the kind of audience and critical mass necessary to sustain it. I don’t want to give up the plastic sculpts or the experience facing down opponents around the table, I don’t see it as an Either/Or situation.

    I think a way to play digitally (that keeps up with the boxed stuff, released simultaneously, instead of lagging way behind it) is the golden ticket.

    The problem with the tripleA platform is that it is a general game engine now, and not a legit clone of the A&A boards anymore. It is not supported in any meaningful way by the people who run the show with the franchise, and would surely get slammed if it tried to return to that sort of game clone. And anyway, it doesn’t look particularly great. The graphics are way dated. Also, you really can’t expect a couple dedicated people with insomnia, staying up late to write code or design simple graphics or create new games to carry us. It just isn’t the best recipe for success. Its amazing they have done what they have up to this point, and retained a committed player base, despite the fact that the whole thing uses raster graphics system more than a decade old, and which don’t scale well at all. But people use it all the same, because there is no comparable alternative. I had much higher hopes for GTO, but it has been a major disappointment. No long term integration with successive and timely releases of official boards, no real ability to modify key things for even basic gameplay functionality. We need more. Something with the core usability of TripleA, but which looks clean, is easier to use, and has the benefit of greater official support and promotion to expand the player base. I don’t see why you couldn’t make a digital board look more or less exactly like the physical one if you wanted, with all the same flexibility.

    I don’t know, maybe if I keep bringing it up enough times, someone with more influence can start making the idea into a reality. But right now, we are still very far away from where we need to be. I think all the energy and resources available should go into revamping the franchise, taking what works and making it accessible digitally, rather than trying to redesign the wheel on the physical releases. If we could get a really solid board out with a simultaneous digital release to build off of, that would probably be enough to get things started.

    The main point is to keep it integrated, the same expanding library, rather than a multitude of separate tomes scatter about. That way things don’t go obsolete so quickly, and have a chance to achieve the sort of popularity that a boardgame needs to have staying power.

  • Customizer

    As much as I have to say, I’ll keep it simple. Two games, one easy and one complex, with four levels of complexity between the two. Update Classic as the base model and simplify Global as the premium model. Add modules/expansions for both for the fanatics/piece junkies. At the same time make DLCs included with the boxed games for PC and consoles included with boxed games for online play. Lastly, make campaign level boxed expansions for the major battles of the war that use the pieces from either base or premium games.

    2012 was a big year for A&A. I however doubt this game will last without evolving. Monopoly will always be played in any incarnation. Risk! even has a Battlefield 4 edition and doubtlessly will be played for ages in some incarnation. KISS, Axis & Allies will always be loved by some of us, but I fear without something drastic happening to bring this game out from a dedicated but smaller cadre of enthusiasts, we may not see too many more years of this amazing game. A simple downloadable game from Steam, Xbox Live, Nintendo, and PSN included within the boxed game would solidify A&A in the tabletop and video game world. Going along with this line of thought, the games already on GTO and digital versions of the current games. could be ported to console and PC at a low cost. Honestly, how hard would it be to make a downloadable version of G40 like the 1998 Hasbro game? …REALLY? Integrate this with some advertisement for the “new” basic and premium A&A board games that include the “free” DLC included in the box and you have a winner!

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Nailed it. Seems we are pretty much in complete agreement :)

    Just as an aside, since you mentioned Monopoly and Risk, the thing I find curious is that most people don’t play such games very often. Sometimes years can go by between sessions.  And yet when you come back its basically like riding a bike. This is because once you’ve played one time, its easy to pick up again. The essential rules stay the same. I think A&A should try for similar level of consistency over time. Of course A&A will of necessity be more involved than either of those games (its sort of like a hybrid of the two actually, I often say that when explaining how A&A plays for new users.) But if we can get a solid core that remains, then I see a pot of options for modular expansions.  I have my fingers crossed that we can get something like that put out in the years ahead. DLC would be so helpful in promoting gameplay.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Learning from AA50

    Above I suggested that a starter box should feature two possible set ups, the quick game and the long game.

    I want to clarify, this should not entail 2 separate start dates for the same box, or 2 distinct maps (in terms of territory possession.) In my experience fewer people play the 1942 start date in AA50. I think this is probably for several reasons, (maybe it is the effect of NOs, the fact that in 1942 more units are co-located with other nation’s units at the start of play, something I always found a bit disorderly) or maybe its because the words “Spring 1941, the World is at War” are plastered in huge letters on the front of the box :) But mainly I think it is two reasons…

    The change in standard turn order and the change in territory ownership! These two things, more than anything else, conspired to kill the appeal of the 1942 set up right out the gate for me, and I see that nearly everyone defaulted to the 41 set up, so perhaps I was not alone in this.

    The change in standard turn order was the most problematic for me, so I’d like to explore it more detail… Above in this thread I have suggested that a variable start to the turn order might be something worth exploring. What I mean by this is that you roll to see who starts the turn order, but, after the start, the turn order follows its normal progression. Basically once people get used to a certain order of nations for a certain board, you don’t want to mess with the mental logic by suddenly shifting that turn order. This seems to be the case in AA50 under the 1942 start date. You get used to G, R, J and then suddenly its J, R, G which messes with your head. I favor consistency in the order, with variability (if there is to be any variability) only in the start position, eg. which Nation goes first, after which point the order follows its normal progression in sequence. Also, to the second point about changing ownership of starting territories. The territory color as displayed on the map does a lot to communicate what’s what to the players, and part of what makes 1942 weird is that these colors are superseded by the ownership markers. This can raise questions between what is considered a “starting” territory. Is it the start as described by the territory color or the ownership marker? Needless complication.

    Suggesting that we think of the starting set ups, not as two separate dates in the war (where borders must necessarily shift), but rather as a function of basic gameplay. One should require less overall time, less time to set up the board and units, less time to play to conclusion. While the second has more overall units, longer set up, longer play time. But both should be on the same basic map, with the same basic start date: 1942

    Some people have suggested here and elsewhere that the turn order should be collapsed into a simple All Axis vs All Allies progression. I have given this some thought, and I think I come down in opposition to this move, though I find it interesting. I’m trying to reserve judgement, and welcome more details on how an everyone goes-at-once game might look in A&A. My gut tells me it will jack things up at a pretty fundamental level. At first I was intrigued by the possibilities and the simplification, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a mistake. My reason for feeling this way is that I suspect if we fully collapse the turn order into Axis/Allies, I don’t think you can truly have a multiplayer game anymore. Or can you? Perhaps someone could explain in more detail.

    I know that most people play 1v1 anyway, but part of the charm of A&A is that it can be played with 3 or 4 or more players. I’m not sure this would still hold without an alternating turn order. Or at least, it concerns me. It’s a major departure from the traditional way of doing things, so I would much rather this idea be explored in a tactical game or theater game, before it is adopted in the world map games. In any case, even if it does work with multi player, I think maybe it needs to be fully proved before it is adopted as the norm on a flagship board. So until that point, I do favor a turn order of nations. I just don’t like it when that turn order changes on the same map. So again, to clarify

    1 map, 1 default turn order, 2 set ups for the units. The fast set up and the long, rather than different start dates or territories trading hands.

    Does that make sense?

    also, I’d like to see a Russian battleship for a change. The lone sub dynamic has been done so many times, and since AA50 and also in 1942.2 the best it gets you is a fodder hit. I think it would be more interesting if there were less first round battles with large swings in Total Unit Value, and especially first round naval battles, since that is where the largest unit value swings always occur. Just eliminate these battles and have more units in safe zones. It would be easy enough to do, just develoingp an arrangement for the starting units that puts the emphasis on the second round rather than the first.

    Just a few potential battles in each theater. Done like this, it would surely be easier to develop a variable start for the turn order, since the first round could be more about purchasing and positioning on non combat, with the major combat actions coming the next round. This would speed up the first round of gameplay considerably, allow for less starting units (less time to set up) and more variation in potential strategies, since you wouldn’t be tied to a bunch of scripted round 1 naval attacks, but could instead build out a war plan according to individual preference. I think each power should have a safe fleet, a safe airforce, and ground, but distributed in such a way that the main battles take a round to set up before massive trading occurs. Its the only way I can think of to design an A&A style of gameplay, that doesn’t require a fully fixed set up, but might instead be made a bit more flexible and adaptive, with greater variation in the starting conditions, as opposed to putting all the variation in the game to the results of the first round battles.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think a good name for a new box with features mentioned above would be:

    Axis and Allies: World War II
    Legacy Edition

    I’d prefer gameboard artwork that matches the feel of the excellent artwork on the box covers. A more nostalgic 1940s hand-drawn or period look for the map would be cooler than the modern style (digital looking) terrain map of the most recent gameboards. Basically something that looks more like the original Classic board in terms of the art design.

    Sectional Map (not folding)
    Paper money
    Square dice
    Plastic Factories
    Thick set up cards
    New Unit sculpts, with better relative scale by basic unit type. (e.g. all ships of a certain type at a certain length, smaller sculpts for bombers and other space hogs) :)

    A streamlined basic ruleset and unit set up for the starter board, and a more advanced set up in the manual, with expanded rules (such as National Objectives or Technology) for this same board.

    Make it look nice, and keep it in print for a while!
    Those are the biggest things for me. Any other general requests?


  • i think your ideas are pretty well written out…i dont know…but i feel there might be something brewing up at avalon hill…we are actually in the 75th anniversary of the start of ww2…

    i would like to see an A&A legacy edition…sounds kewl


  • I don’t think “Avalon Hill” will be releasing anymore AA games for a long time. Larry took this and decided to make his own games, which is why his War Room will not carry the AA tag.

    He should team up with HBG to supply the pieces and another game company to fund the project.

    Hasbro should release a nostalgia version of old Milton Bradley AA with prepainted pieces and optional pieces and rules, the game would contain a 100 page booklet tracing AA from the beginning to present. The map would be the same except 36 x 48 ( which is larger)

    Similar to 40th anniversary Risk, which Larry also worked on incidentally.

    But first finish this Civil War strategic game which is a no brainer.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The 40th anniversary ed of Risk was glorious.  All the little touches like the velvety bags and nice weighty pieces did not go unappreciated. I bust it out on special occassions. :)
    I was always very fond of the 1993 board, colors and deck design. The throw back wooden box is nice in its way too, with the generic blocks and tinier map. I sometimes use it with people who’ve never played. But I never got into the modern boards or redesigns. For me the 1812 look fit the board best so those are my go to’s.

    For the future of the franchise it’s hard to say, with the rights and who owns what, but I am definitely intrigued by War Room. Axis and Allis is a strong name, so it would be nice to see it continued with input from the designer, but a War Room game that had a similar dynamic to the gameplay, and I’d happily jump ship. Or call it War Room: Allies and Axis heheh, for the left jab. Whatever it’s called I’ll surely buy it and play.

    Eager to hear more about the rules and concepts he’s planning.

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 3
  • 4
  • 2
  • 2
  • 42
  • 19
  • 53
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts