Axis and Allies 1942 Edition Fact Sheet ( AA42)

[Adlertag]

@Rakeman:

So the ‘new board’ is identical to revised, but with new artwork?  Lame!

I am pleased to see a better map.

[jim010]

Larry Harris has now stated on his site that the map is the same, but the scuplts are new

Cheers

[Imperious Leader]

Thats what i said before.

[Stoney229]

@jim010:

Larry Harris has now stated on his site that the map is the same, but the scuplts are new

Cheers

do you have a link?

[jim010]

I have been more than negligent with you guys… But I’ve been busy, busy, busy… Not that you haven’t been but I don’t handle pressure as well I guess. I think it’s ok for me to let you know the following - The AA42 is based on the Revised Map. There will be NEW sculpts. Really cool sculpts actually… The price tag will be VERY low as well. Love you guys!

quoted from Larry Harris from
:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1805&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8

I’m guessing this means new - not refreshed - sculpts with the addition of cruisers.  I’m curious to see if this is really the case.

Cheers

[jim010]

“Based on” doesn’t mean the same as.

Maybe not - hopefully you are right and the map has more than just cosmetic changes.

Cheers

[Imperious Leader]

Its not the same as revised. It it were it would not have new pieces and new cruisers and a new map.

Its an updated version with some of the ideas from AA50 that seemed to work better than revised ( such as cruisers at 3-3 and destroyers at 2-2)

I would expect even a few new ideas, BUT it will be based on the 5 player revised. Consider it 4th edition Axis and Allies.

This could mean some minor changes on VC locations and perhaps a new territory or two…but still revised overall.

I hope he redoes the technology and adds some neutrals, but probably not.

[Constantinople]

Revamping neutrals would be awesome!!

[Adlertag]

@Constantinople:

Revamping neutrals would be awesome!!

it will never happen ILO (in larry’s opinion)

IMO, I would love to conquer and utterly destroy Sweden, cause they helped Hitler, and I am confused Stalin did not do this during the real war

[Imperious Leader]

Because Finland gave him so much trouble, Sweden would have been impossible.

[Lucifer]

The A&A rules regarding neutrals, (AAR&AA50) are not realistic, they’re unhistorical, and it makes the game more “boring”, in the sense that allowing for neutrals to be attacked would make a more interesting and fun game.

In Europe, many countries were neutral in 1939, and before that, but when the war began, they were occupied. This didn’t only happen to Norway, but many other nations as well.

Hitler had many plans, one of them was Operation Tannenbaum. It was one of the plans which didn’t make it from theory to reality. Some countries were invaded and some got away, it was not up to the smaller nations, but the big 5.
If Germany didn’t invade Norway, it could very well be UK instead. Or we could be lucky, and keep our “neutrality”.

When Larry Harris explains some of the rules, he often states that “In WW2……during the war…”.
There are many factors that are implemented in A&A which happened in the real war.
So why not keep the neutrality rules from classic, or make some minor changes.
There are no good reasons why we can’t attack “neutral” countries, when it happened in the real WW2!

[Imperious Leader]

He wont do it. Its too problematic to him. The same reason why we get no 1939 game.

But i really don’t know why he does not just make these kind of rules as optional or released as a free gift, kinda like the DVD release that would contain extra scenes not in the movie, he could have posted rules that were close but didnt make it or it was felt didn’t have enough time to gestate before the games publication.

Invading neutrals is what started the war in the first place.

[Funcioneta]

Well, Sahara, Gobi desert (Mongolia) and Himalayas should remain impassable for physical reasons. Switzerland also, because it was too costly for germans to invade. Those 4 should remain impassable

The Classic system could work for South America and maybe also for Sweden, but Spain, portuguese colonies and Turkey should have at least a small defense force just to make anyone thing two times invade them  :wink:

[Woodstock]

@Funcioneta:

Well, Sahara, Gobi desert (Mongolia) and Himalayas should remain impassable for physical reasons. Switzerland also, because it was too costly for germans to invade. Those 4 should remain impassable

Or…just like the original neutrals…should cost you some (and thus…more then “normal” neutrals) money or units.
It wouldn’t be impossible to cross the Sahara…it just would cost you 25% of your tank force, breaking down to the heat and sand…

[Richter von Manthofen]

The only reason we get no 1939 game is that there is no US activity until late 41 early 42…

[Funcioneta]

Also not italians until mid 40 or soviets until mid 41. Also, they should make something about the french and make a non-broken China (that can hold japs until 1941 at least). That last seems pretty difficult until today for some reason  :roll:

[LuckyDay]

I agree with Craig, it’s the simplicity of the game that gets skewed when adding politics into the midst.  AA is setup for the battle aspect and putting the diplo aspect into it muddies the waters. 
  if we think that the addition of Italy caused a swelling of debate, or the quality of the pieces, one would have to know that any detailed plan of diplomacy entering the game will be bashed around and need it’s own forum. It’s a headache that Larry probably doesn’t want to bring on.

We have Classic rules (too simple) and house rules (spectrum of varieties) but it would be great for Larry to take and give his current view of them to expand on.

[Adlertag]

Why is this thread still in Anniversary forum ?

IL, pay some attention !

[dondoolee]

I can see no way to add France, neutrals, and minor allies especially in a pre Soviet pre US set up with the game design and philosophy of AA.  It would really be a boggled down game.  Not only that you would have to set up Germany and Japan with either such an amazing head start in terms of equip, and somehow make the Allies strong enough to take it and then have the game even out at some point.  Too difficult to do.

Also the game would be set up where France would HAVE TO fall, and probably some really boring other automatic moves for maybe even more than 2 turns.  On top of that it could turn to a “special rules” type of game, that is something I would not be a fan of (at least not for AA).  That’s my 2 cents

[templeton]

There are other WW2 games out there- that include the option to attack neutrals.

It gets to the point that if you have using too many house rules, you have another type of game…

Axis and Allies is not a ‘serious’ wargame - it’s a good fun, solid game with a strong WW2 theme. It’s one of my most played WW2 games, but it just seems easier to play another game with all the rules for neutrals, production, occuption, base industry growth, etc etc…

I’m waiting for the holy grail of a game that sits between Axis and Allies and A World at War - the Europe Engulfed games are pretty good. They would be worth looking at for some ‘house rules’.

http://www.gmtgames.com/bleu/main.html