Chicago NFL Team (Bears)
Great work on the new forum… to be honest, I always fear change and it will probably take time for me to adjust, so i’ll just try and get used to the new format.
The following text is all written in HAPPY FORMAT… neither myself, nor anyone else will lose sleep over anything that follows and in the grand scheme of things, YES, this is a VERY MINOR thing… it’s just one that irks me in the “squeeky wheel” category… so remember… happy thoughts… now onto my squeeky wheel finger-wag…
If I may be so bold… I have one small gripe that will probably be ignored, but for the life of me, its the one nagging thing that bugged me about the old forum, and now it’s been moved onto the new forum with a slight change for the better, but the base issue just refuses to die.
It’s the 1980s “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition” forum… that for the life of me, I never have known anyone to refer to the original game as “2nd Edition” as it only confuses people with the more modern versions that are more routinely called “2nd Edition”.
I had voiced several times in the old forum if it was possible to just rename the forum “Axis & Allies Classic”… nobody with the power to do so ever commented… I wasn’t alone, as many people also thought it should just be called Classic.
Now with the new forum change, the word “Classic” has been elevated… but only to parenthesis status… it’s now the “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition (Classic)” forum. That needless term “2nd Edition” is just clinging on for dear life and refuses to die. Why can’t the forum just be called what everyone refers to it as… “Axis & Allies Classic”… heck if you just put “Classic” without the A&A people would understand the forum a lot better than “2nd Edition”.
As a comparison, if this were an NFL Forum and there was a sub-forum about a certain NFL team that comes from Chicago… the average person would probably call it the “Chicago Bears” forum… but I swear, with the naming scheme this forum uses for Classic, it would be known as the “Chicago NFL Team” forum if it were the original forum… and now, after much griping in the old forum as to why it wasn’t just called the “Chicago Bears” forum, finally, with the new forum switch, it’s now called the “Chicago NFL Team (Bears)” forum… [sigh].
I mean I get it… yes, there’s a 2nd edition rules set to Classic… do we need that distinction… is there a 1st edition rules Classic forum to confuse it with? If not, and we only have one Classic forum how but just call it “Axis & Allies Classic”?
Ok… meaningless rant over. Officially loving the changes, even though secretly i’m trying to adjust… if the Classic forum remains 2nd Edition forever and ever (apparently, someone owes 2nd Edition money, cuz that moniker just won’t go), it’s still a big improvement over the old forum and kudos for all the hard work you and others have put into it.
Well done on the forum changes.
And just to add another thought, I’d argue that even “Classic” has a certain ambiguity to it: the term has never appeared on an A&A box cover, and thus requires interpretation. My own preference would be for the ambiguities of “Classic” and “2nd Edition” to be resolved by switching to the term “A&A (Milton Bradley)”, which refers clearly to the only version of A&A – the WWII game with the nation-specific infantry sculpts and the generic equipment sculpts – published by that company. The phrase “A&A (Nova Games)” would similarly refer unambiguously to what might less clearly be called the “first edition”, the original one which didn’t have plastic sculpts.
I’m okay with A&A MB as well… as far as “never appearing on the box cover”, the same can be said of 2nd Edition… while “2nd Edition” does appear on more modern versions of the game, that term was never on the box cover of “Classic” (aka: MB’s version).
Bottom line… having “2nd Edition” anywhere near the Classic/MB version of the game just begs for confusion with the more modern 2nd Edition A&A titles… I really hope I don’t have to wait another decade and another update to the forum to get this nagging issue updated to something more widely understood… Having said that, yes, its still a minor issue in the big scheme of things, but it would be nice to get addressed after all these years and a forum change.
Hey hey… ho ho… 2nd edition has got to go!
Having bought MB’s A&A when it first released, there’s definitely “1st Edition” rules in paper with the game, and definitely “2nd Edition” rules that came out some time later… I’ve owned both rulebooks… I’ve never considered “Classic” to be 2nd edition because of the Nova Games version, which is quite a bit different in many ways, but rather it became the “final” version of Classic and what most people who bought it, ended up with… but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a 1st Edition rules set… I’d consider Nova Games version a completely different animal alltogether… kinda like the early Neanderthal version of A&A… besides, I think all of three people might own that version. No matter how you slice it, the “2nd Edition” moniker used with MB’s Classic version, i have always believed to be a silly thing to call it and confusing on many levels.
@Wolfshanze Your analogy is not quite the same but it was hilarious nonetheless. My new plan is to change the name of this forum on a monthly basis.
Next up: Classic (2nd Edition) Axis & Allies (MB)
Well… here’s a picture of the original gamebox…
CWO Marc is of course quite correct… it doesn’t say “Classic” anywhere… nor does it say “2nd Edition” either.
Maybe, since we’re all about parenthesis… we should do:
“Axis & Allies: MB (Gamemaster Series)”
I kinda like “MB (Gamemaster Series) Axis & Allies”
In all seriousness I don’t want to change it too many times. Ideas:
- Axis & Allies Original
- Original Axis & Allies
- Axis & Allies Classics
- Axis & Allies Classic
- Axis & Allies MB Gamemaster Series
- Axis & Allies MB
- Axis & Allies Gamemaster Series
My least favorites are 3 and 5.
Of the seven numbered suggestions, I think Axis & Allies MB would be the best option. It has the twin virtues of being concise (it’s the shortest of the seven options) and of including the unambiguous reference to Milton Bradley, the only manufacturer of that version of the game. In fact, it even replicates the initialism “MB” found on the box itself, which is a nice touch. The options which mention the Gamemaster Series element strike me as being a bit long, and also unnecessary: the Gamemaster Series didn’t contain any other A&A games, so in my opinion referring to the series simply complicates the picture without adding any information which clarifies who produced this version of A&A; the MB part does that quite satisfactorily.
“Axis & Allies MB” is my favourite, too.
Cernel last edited by Cernel
Axis & Allies (Classic) 1st/2nd/3rd Editions
and for the description:
Published by Milton Bradley (1984/1986) and Hasbro (1998), retroactively known as Classic
Probably, then, updating all other games’ descriptions, to tell the publishers.
Edit: Also, not all Classic editions are Milton Bradley’s. The 3rd edition, as well as the 3rd.1 edition (Iron Blitz), were published by Hasbro.
@Cernel Thanks for the suggestion but I think that’s too much. I’d like to keep the title more simple and add the details in the description.
Description: Also known as Classic, includes Nova, MB Gamemaster Series, and CD-ROM 3rd Edition
Cernel last edited by
@djensen Uhm. I’m almost sure the Nova edition is not Classic.
@Cernel Okay, I’ll drop Nova. If people want to talk about it they can do it in “Other”
Cernel last edited by
You might want to consider the fact that the description will have to go in the moment you would put it as a subforum, since, popularity aside, that would make the most sense, if more recent main/successor out-of-print games (Revised and Spring 1942) are already out of main page.
I think that numbers 5 and 6, from the numbered list, work best as a title for the Milton Bradley edition.
That said, I would keep the Nova Games edition out of the description of the Milton Bradley edition. The Nova Games edition had many differences from the Milton Bradley edition (different map, combat rules, and turn structure, just off the top of my head) and conflating them helps no one.
My 2 IPCs.
@Cernel There’s a few reasons why I don’t think I’ll ever put it in a sub-forum.
Page rank. The deeper you bury a page, the more it won’t show up in Google searches.
Reverence and nostalgia. This is the game that started it all. Sure, the Nova version was first but by and far the MB version is the first one many of us played.
People still play this despite owning more recent versions, including tournaments. A lot of the other versions don’t get much play. There is an argument to move D-Day to the top level as well. IIRC, D-Day is listed on the AH Wizard’s site.
Okay everyone, I was looking up the release date for Revised (2004) and the Wikipedia page refers to the original as Classic. Sorry but the case is now closed. I was starting to like MB but this is also what Larry calls it on his forums but IMO with excessive use of colons.
Ah man, i started this and didn’t even get to vote… I was going to say 1-3 was ick, but I was okay with anything from 4 through 7.
So… what will it be again… “Axis & Allies Classic”?
@Wolfshanze Yeah, like I said MB was growing on me especially because the the nostalgia factor. If you played this game you definitely remember that MB prominently in the upper left corner.
But I guess it was decided by Larry some time back to call it Classic. I can ask Wizards what they call it internally, if anything. If there is something official, maybe we can get them to put out an official “statement” via an interview or something. But for now, it’s Classic.