A&A: 1942 Edition

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

Then why buy it if you have revised and the anniversary edition???

I probably won’t buy it, just like I didn’t buy revised and AA50. I would buy both games if it was a software version which was way better than triplea. Since triplea is freeware we shouldn’t expect too much, but for live games triplea is the best there is today. I know some players prefer GTO, and in some aspects GTO is better than triplea, but overall, the GTO version of A&A cannot compete with triplea imo.

A&A games have sold close to 2 mill. copies, with 1,5 billion Internet users, then why is there no official software versions of all A&A games designed by Larry Harris?? Forget about strategic AI, make software versions available for all platforms, the company (Avalon Hill or WOTC) sets up a server in which we can host and join games.

But for those who mainly plays the boardgame f2f, if AA42 doesn’t come with much more than new rules and new art drawings, there’s no incentive to buy it, you can just use the old revised board and the plastic units from AA50. That’s why AA42 probably will have some slight changes to the map, with only one or two more territories A&A fans will buy AA42 rather than using an obsolete revised map.

[Bluestroke]

If I am WOTC, Mr Leeds is it;

1)I have already paid for the development of new game rules with AA50, lets add them too AAR$.

2)I have already paid for a new map, lets add this to AAR, sans Italy-repaint it as German territory, wait someone was critical of the dark borders, change to light$.

3)I have already paid for new box art, lets add this to AAR$.

4)I can cut money out-lower costs increase profit$.

5)I have already paid for new sculpts-lets add them to AAR, less Italy$.

6. I have already paid for cruisers units-lets add them to the AAR game$.

7)There does seem to be some minor interest in this game, they bought out my limited run of AA50 at twice the cost of a regular game, emm, it does not cost much to repackage AA50 lite and rebrand as something new-I already paid for everything this is all profit$.

God, I hope I am wrong.  The jaded sox I wear.

IL, are you firm on new Mech INF? 
This would indicate, someone has convinced them, an opportunity exists, to do something more then just rehash AA50 lite.

[Lynxes]

If we think more on the lines that someone serious about game design will be involved in the development of the game, and that they think on the lines of a shorter but still well balanced game, let’s see how they can replace some of the complicated but good changes in AA50:

NOs, advantage: makes for a more historical game with a stronger Pacific theater, disadvantage: high learning curve, complicates and prolongs the game. Alternate way of doing the same thing: simply make each VC count for 5 IPCs of income, gets the same effect and this change can be balanced by adjustment to the IPC value of territories.

Italy, adv.: more fun Mediterranean campaign, disadv.: a power no-one wants to play, problems balance-wise (Caucasus invasions). Alternative: make Italy into a minor power, controlled by Germany but with money separate, close the Dardanelles.

China, adv.: more historical Pacific campaign, slows down JTDTM, disadv.: a whole page of extra rules, still of marginal effect. Alternative: make China into a minor power, controlled by USA but with separate IPCs and an IC.

[Funcioneta]

@Lynxes:

China, adv.: more historical Pacific campaign, slows down JTDTM

:lol: do you really think that? Japs killing chineses round 1 and no hope of defendig India?  :lol: Revised had a much more historical Pacific (there were strats involving defending both China and India that worked sometimes, there is no such thing in 1941 scenario)

And the JTDTM … it wasn’t not a need in Revised (you had Polar Express) and is totally not needed in AA50 with new shiny axis economic advantage

Sorry, i had to say that  :-D

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

Yes, the Italy faction back under German control is good.  Splitting the income might just be the way to go on this.  The two powers still get to attack together, but buy separately.

Yes, allies need this. No more can openers with sneaky italians  :-D

[Lynxes]

/Craig Yope

Of course you would adjust the number and placement of VCs. If we start from the AA50 set of VCs, Ottawa, Warsaw, Leningrad, Hong-Kong, Sydney would have to go. Capital would be exceptions to the 5 IPC bonus since you get that instant bonus anyway if you capture them. The at-start bonuses would be: Germany 5 (Paris), Russia 5 (Stalingrad), Japan 10 (Shanghai, Manila), UK 5 (Calcutta), USA 10 (Hawaii, San Fransisco), equalling the NO bonuses in AA50 except Germany but they would still be up to 47 IPCs with Italian territories and almost equal to USA at 48 IPCs. Leningrad as a 2 IPC IC but not a VC is fairly balanced and gives an area to fight for in Eastern Europe.

/Funcioneta

With the slowing down of the JTDTM I refer mainly to the geographic changes, that makes marching ground units over Asia cumbersome (appropriately). Also only one 3 IPC territory to place an IC in instead of three as before. China can sometimes be kept alive a few turns, but I agree the Chinese production is insignificant in most games.

With the change I propose you would have one Capital territory at 2 IPCs away from the front, a China income of around 8-9 IPCs so you could build one infantry and one artillery or tank per turn. The low IPC value of the capital territory is because the Japs shouldn’t get too much of an advantage by grabbing it. Giving the Chinese a fair amount of infantry at the set-up and availability of reinforcements from Russia and USA could make this type of Chinese minor power a viable thing. For example, if you by sending some Russian inf shielded the Chinese from Jap attacks you could transfer american air to China and really boost them.

The problem with minor powers and splitting income is which power gets extra areas and to what bag of income that adds. Maybe Africa to Italy and the rest to Germany, and for China only home areas? A simpler rule would be to keep all income together, but then you would probably have to still have some popping China infantry rule and Rome would be a non-capital VC with maybe 4 IPC map income.

[Funcioneta]

Try my mod: stronger China, but greater reward if Japan beat her :wink:

[Lynxes]

/Funcioneta

Well, it’s a nice mod but you need a new set of units to play it. Also Japan will be severely boosted if they get China and we really should be careful about boosting that evil imperial economy more than it already is.

Even my idea is to good for Japan, a free IC if captured. Maybe you could have a partisan rule so that Japan gets NO IPCS WHATSOEVER from any China territory (and no builds in ICs allowed). Manchuria would be considered a Jap territory but just as Kwangtung belong to China’s sphere of interest. With this rule you could have a 3 or even 4 IPC capital area for China without adverse effects for game balance.

(Realizing the possibility that the thread will be exported to house rules, maybe we should get back to how the 1942 edition will look… )  :wink:

[Funcioneta]

@Lynxes:

/Funcioneta

Well, it’s a nice mod but you need a new set of units to play it

I use USA’s units for tanks and such, and chinese markers from AA Pacific for chinese eeerrr… conquests  :-D

[Krieghund]

@Craig:

(Rumor has it that Avalon Hill will re-release Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition in time for the 2009 holiday season.)

I know of no plans to re-release Anniversary.  I believe the source of this rumor is confusion caused by the fact that the 1942 Edition box art strongly resembles the Anniversary box art.

[DarthMaximus]

If they are using the Revised map, I wouldn’t mind seeing a couple of tweaks:
Add at least 1 more Northern Russia territory
Split China into 4 territories.  You have Sin on the far west as the bottleneck then Chi is divided so that a J arm in Fic/Kwa/Man cannot get to Sin in 1 move.
Reallocation of Pacific IPCs.  All islands at least 1 ipc and HI/Sol/Mid get a significant boost in IPC value.

But these are probably too drastic for just a reivented Revised.

If it is pretty much exactly the same then they just need to give Ger about 3 inf to Egy for a well balanced game or at least an extra inf and arm.
Maybe throw a German cruiser in the Med or Baltic, but that might have to be balance with an addition to the UK and/or US.

[frimmel]

@Krieghund:

@Craig:

(Rumor has it that Avalon Hill will re-release Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition in time for the 2009 holiday season.)

I know of no plans to re-release Anniversary.  I believe the source of this rumor is confusion caused by the fact that the 1942 Edition box art strongly resembles the Anniversary box art.

Betcha can’t wait for the rules confusion this will cause.

[Bluestroke]

Craig,
what does gone cardboard mean?

My cynic gets the day off, some positives on AA42;

WOTC, is continuing to develop the AA franchise.

AA42 at $35, nice price point, draws new players.

Using AA50 development ( with good new game mechanics, ) less positions to play - no Italy, with 1942 starting point will offer a shorter game run option.

The Map- my greatest interest, what will they do?  More Territories? reflective of AA50?  Something totaly new….

I would love to see them add optional house rules.  Remember all the National Advantages from Revised, hope they survive.

I think many players print large table size maps for f2f games, so game map size will only be slightly relevant.

Rules and Sculpts are the jib.  Include anything new and bam, most vets will buy.

Colors and Fonts emm, seems every game set revision, sports new colors.

They go a lot right with AA50, this can only help AA42.

[johnnymarr]

Per Larry Harris:

“There will be NEW sculpts! Really Cool sculpts actually.”

his own words

[Lucifer]

We know that the map territories will be exactly the same as revised. We know that the naval rules from AA50 will be implemented in AA42. It has not been confirmed that all the other rules from AA50 will make it into AA42. My guess is that all rules from AA50 will enter the new AA42, with possible exceptions of the 4 optional rules in AA50.
At this time it’s only speculations, but it would be cool if also the optional rules from AA50 will replace the current revised rules.

At least we won’t have a broken China in AA42 :-D :-) :lol: :roll:

[Adlertag]

@johnnymarr:

Per Larry Harris:

“There will be NEW sculpts! Really Cool sculpts actually.”

his own words

Funny, FMG say they will make new sculpts and sell to us, cause the WOTC-sculpts are lame.

Surprisingly, WOTC now claim they’ll make all new and really cool sculpts ?

Competition is good. Competition will give us quality. This is a win win to us.

[I like Ike]

@Adlertag:

@johnnymarr:

Per Larry Harris:

“There will be NEW sculpts! Really Cool sculpts actually.”

his own words

Funny, FMG say they will make new sculpts and sell to us, cause the WOTC-sculpts are lame.

Surprisingly, WOTC now claim they’ll make all new and really cool sculpts ?

Competition is good. Competition will give us quality. This is a win win to us.

Well, I’m gonna be Debbie Downer again.  I believe a win for us would of been new sculpts in AA:50 to begin with.  Having to buy new sculpts for a Anniversary (or Deluxe game) that cost $100, because the current units are sub-par, just doesn’t seem fair.

I think that replacement units for AA:50 should be complementary for the people that have proof of purchase.

[tin_snips]

i agree completely. why give the AA50 (the a&a game to beat all a&a games apparently) sub-par sculpts, and set the RRP at $100, then bring out another version of revised with BETTER unit sculpts and set its RRP at $35?! someone should be taken out the back and shot for this

[Lucifer]

Axis & Allies 1942, designed and developed by Larry Harris, will utilize the updated rules established in A&A Anniversary Edition. Cruiser class ships will make their debut in A&A 1942, forever changing the naval line-up. Newly sculpted playing pieces and all new packaging will position this game as the cornerstone of the Axis & Allies game line for years to come.

* Rulebook updated by Larry Harris, creator of the Axis & Allies game system
    * Packaging, play components, and game board map feature updated art
    * 370 game pieces featuring refreshed sculpts plus new models for cruisers
    * Updated naval unit rules as debuted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
    * IPC is now recorded, no more play money
    * Map has look of AA50 using Revised Territories
    * New Battle board
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can this be misinterpreted?

If AA42 had more territories than revised, then the wording would be different.

“Updated naval unit rules as debuted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition”, I cannot imagine that this could mean that the only change from revised is the cruiser unit.

If AA42 doesn’t implement the rules from AA50, with exception of NOs, tech etc. there’s absolutely no point in buying it, unless revised is out of print, and you don’t have revised, and you wanted to buy revised… :?
There’s no point in a game called AA42 if it only has fancy colors. If AA42 has most of the rules from AA50 it’ll be fun to play probably, we could also do this now, but we don’t know all the rules yet.

[Lucifer]

Pain taken…eh…point taken… :oops:

It does not specifically say that the map is exactly the same TTs as revised.

It does say that the rules are “utilized” from AA50, and the naval rules are confirmed.

It would be cool if more TTs was added, but my impression from the little info that is given, AA42 is mostly about revised + AA50 rules. And that’s a good thing.
My point is that more changes makes the game better, as AA50 is out, though AA50 is still not supposed to be the main game(?), but the rules in AA50 is better than revised rules. The more AA42 resembles AA50, the better it will be. While AA50 is A&A “advanced”, AA42 will replace revised, but if not most of the rule changes in AA50 make it into AA42 then there’s no point in playing AA42, imo. So really I’m only optimistic on behalf of the gaming community.
This is the way I see it. Also, most players are happy with AA50 and think it’s better than revised, to do only minor changes in AA42 (from revised) would be a really bad strat.