Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Classic rules, and some disagreements.


  • 2019

    ***Edited"***In the original Axis and Allies, Harris made it clear that the pieces to be used in the box were set as a limit of how many of those “battle groups” you could create.

    forum wont let me post the link… let me try to get fancy:

    www harrisgamedesign com/pdf/A&A_Classic_FAQ.pdf

    The most obvious for this was the aircraft carrier. If you play with the straight up 2nd Edition rules for axis and allies classic, you could never have more than two carrier pieces on the board (white/red chips are ‘unlimited’)***"***

    For me, I would never consider playing without all the extra pieces I have, and so I have to ask, where exactly did this come from? It isn’t in any of the two sets of rules I am familiar with {1st and 2nd editions}, and as the 2nd edition offers additional sets of playing pieces right in the rule book on page #2, lower right hand corner, I have to cry foul on this. A&A is NOT Fortress America, where each army has an EXACT strength, and why in the world would folks be offered in the rules additional complete sets of 299 plastic playing pieces, if they were never going to be allowed to use them?!?!

    I first saw this on a Youtube video, and the fellow held up to the camera some printout {from somewhere} that seemed to be saying this. If the rules themselves offer additional sets of pieces, and the paper that was held up to the camera even said that there were no limits to how many of a type of units a player can have, why in the world would anyone buy pieces that were not going to be allowed.

    This seems to me to smell fishy. I don’t think that this is a hoax or anything along those lines, I’m betting that it is a misunderstanding or miscommunication somewhere in the past, and got grandfathered in somehow?

    So let me ask, has anyone played by this ‘so-called’ rule? The reason I have to use the {so-called} tag here, is that IDK that this was ever in the actual rules of the game, but I think it is unlikely. I think that there was some attempt to justify this stuff, as somehow it figured into game balance, but I really cannot think how that could even work. It definitely would not be historical with regard to WWII.

    I’ll have more later on, but for now looking for an answer to this question first from @AcesWild5049 and anyone else that can provide context.



  • @CrazyIvan

    That person holding the rules up in the camera is me. The supplementary document (FAQ from Larry Harris) I hold up is vetted in the same video with a link in the description. There is no mistake, in fact it is explicitly stated even more clearly in the 2nd edition rules on another page as I have since been shown (I’ll post the page and column as soon as I am able but if someone else gets to it first, please post it up).

    I don’t know how many folks actually play with those rules and is part of the reason I made the video.

    As stated in the video, this rarely comes up with the exception of the communal builds in which it can be extremely important.

    Extra pieces would be on offer to replace those lost or damaged. I myself have had to order a number of new pieces to keep my copy up to par.

    Thanks for your comment!


  • 2019

    @AcesWild5049 I’ve greatly enjoyed your 10 video’s, and am looking forward to some interesting times using the TripleA program. I would hate to think that I’ve been misplaying A&A for 30 something years, lol.


  • 2019

    I found it, page 7, center column, just about the center of the page. "No one could have more than two carriers…!"alt text.

    Boy, do I feel stupid!😲 😖 😕

    A better shot


  • 2019

    So, that is where this is in the second edition rules. I’m not getting the feel that this is for game balance reasons, so much as, hey, that’s all that came in the box kinda thing. I would like everyone else’s thoughts on this, not because anyone is really going to be limited when playing online, but just for the heck of it.

    For instance, with just three additional AA guns for the whole game, the Axis could pull a fast one on turn one, buy all three, put em on transports and ship em off to some out of the way place, thus forcing the allies to go without AA cover for any new complexes they built, and then being open to industrial bombing the whole game.



  • @CrazyIvan said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @AcesWild5049 I’ve greatly enjoyed your 10 video’s, and am looking forward to some interesting times using the TripleA program. I would hate to think that I’ve been misplaying A&A for 30 something years, lol.

    Hey thanks! The one thing I despise about TripleA is it’s inability to do column rolling according to the 2nd Edition rules.



  • @AcesWild5049 Can you elaborate on what you mean by column rolling?



  • @redrum said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @AcesWild5049 Can you elaborate on what you mean by column rolling?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_u_mOFTcQA&t=306s

    this is video 1 of my series on youtube. column rolling explained begins at 8:15



  • @redrum said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @AcesWild5049 Can you elaborate on what you mean by column rolling?

    I’ll summerize: In AnA classic, all dice are rolled by column, lowest to highest and casualties are applied from that column before moving to the next. If for instance I was attacking with five infantry and three tanks, I would roll my infantry first and the defender would have to declare hits before I rolled for my attacking tanks.



  • @AcesWild5049 Interesting. Never knew that though not a classic expert. I believe that is a classic only rule so given that few people play it at this point, its fairly unlikely TripleA will ever support that.


  • 2019

    @CrazyIvan To be more specific, say the Germans player knew his allied player foes would be building IC’s, and so decided to exploit this by building two on his first turn, and invading switzerland on the first turn. Non combat move, Germany AA gun walks into eastern europe, and the southern europe gun goes into switzerland, and then the two newly built guns replace the displaced ones. If the Japanese player also build an AA gun, and this is the last one left in the game, they can move it into an island, say the philippines, and then on the second turn, when the USA/UK IC would be looking to construct their own AA guns, they are screwed for the duration, and nothing could be done about it. Industrial bombing made safe and easy for the Axis…



  • @redrum said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @AcesWild5049 Interesting. Never knew that though not a classic expert. I believe that is a classic only rule so given that few people play it at this point, its fairly unlikely TripleA will ever support that.

    Yes, this is a classic only rule.



  • @AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @redrum said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @AcesWild5049 Interesting. Never knew that though not a classic expert. I believe that is a classic only rule so given that few people play it at this point, its fairly unlikely TripleA will ever support that.

    Yes, this is a classic only rule.

    I checked your profile and see that you are a developer for TripleA? Would it be too much to ask for you guys to facilitate the option for column rolling?


  • 2019

    Ok, now that I have it:
    Now that I have the thing, I think that my first impression is the correct one, and that the “Limit” is not something involving any ‘game balance’ issues, but rather just about what came in the box. So, when the rules offer additional playing pieces, it isn’t so you can have a spare if/when you lose a piece, but rather that you can use them to further expand your forces beyond what you could have without the extra pieces.

    So, does anyone have an opinion on the proper interpretation of “Limited Pieces”? @AcesWild5049 and I are on opposite sides of this one.

    The reason I am still asking about this, is I was getting ready to do a video showing an evil, exploitive, and gamey strategy that having only 3 extra AA guns in a set would allow folks to try using an actual board and pieces.

    It would be “All to easy” to pull off a stunt like buying up all the extra/remaining AA guns on turn one, and then your enemies would be screwed if they built new complexes, and thus have an Industrial Complex unprotected by AA guns.

    So, who votes buying new pieces:
    = ready made spare parts supply, and nothing else.
    Or
    = removing restrictions based upon too few playing pieces included in the set?

    Just interested in hearing folks own thoughts on this issue.



  • @AcesWild5049 Well you are always welcome to make a feature request for it. Here is the feature request subforum for TripleA: https://forums.triplea-game.org/category/42/feature-requests-ideas

    Here is a list of the existing feature requests: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

    Myself and a few others are the TripleA developers but only do this in our free time so prioritize what we think impacts the most users and what we are passionate about. If you know a bit of Java coding then you are always welcome to contribute yourself 🙂



  • @CrazyIvan

    I don’t think buying three AA guns as the Axis is much of a stunt as the Allies can win without buying a single industry as I am currently discovering thanks to some dedicated forum members.

    Also, the 15 IPC it would cost simply to deny their potential use by the opposing side and basically finding no productive use for them on your own side would put you further behind the power curve, compounding the issue.

    The issue of imbalance will be the topic of my first post-series video titled, “Breaking the Classic: How to win consistently as the Allies.”


  • 2019

    The single biggest thing I think that should never have been done, is allowing the allies to use each others ships!

    A video detailing a B1 carrier + transport + infantry buy, followed by the A1 Carrier + 2 transports buy, and immediately stacking 2 fighters on the newly build UK carrier, without the Germans having any chance to prevent this, means that Germany is doomed. If the German player does not kill the UK fleet on turn one, this just makes it impossible for the Germans to even have a chance. If you would like, I can do a quick demonstration/proof of concept video on my Void Stalker youtube channel, demonstrating this.



  • @CrazyIvan

    You’re pushing at at open door with me if you say that the Axis can’t contest the Allies in the Atlantic. If the Axis have a chance at winning, it is to focus on the middle of the board (in my opinion) and forego the Atlantic after G1.

    I am aware of the B1 or B2 AC build supported by US fighters. Building A US AC seems like much over muchness at that point. German fighters and infantry can hold for quiet some time via the Atlantic Wall (though not indefinitely) and is to me the preferred method of dealing with Allied naval power.


  • 2019

    Ok, so here is the part that debunks all the stuff I see in the Larry Harris FAQ, and the rule book, where folks are trying to (IMHO) misinterpret/misunderstand what is actually in those documents. So, without further ado…

    Now:
    In the Larry Harris faq, and in the manual, the text is seemingly referring exclusively to the situation where a player has just the one set of 299 plastic playing pieces that come with the boxed game, otherwise known as “Out Of Box”.

    This is fine, as far as it goes, and if that were all there was to it, that would be the end of it. However, that is NOT all there is to it, as the same manual has badly worded explanations also makes it clear that folks can buy extra playing pieces. Keep in mind, that the entire box has just 299 plastic playing pieces, so a single extra set (299 additional pieces) will include and entire duplicate of every playing piece in the box! And that this means you get, for each nation:

    15 infantry + 10 tanks
    10 fighters + 3 bombers
    6 submarines & 6 transports
    3 Battleships & 2 Aircraft carriers
    (55 each nation, 275 total)

    And, in addition, you also get:
    12 Industrial complexes & 12 anti-aircraft guns.

    So, when I ordered 3 additional sets of plastic playing pieces back in the day, some 30 odd years ago, that meant that I had 4 times the usual amounts of plastic playing pieces, and by the time I got out of the army, I had amassed 7 boxed sets, and 3 additional sets of playing pieces.

    Later on still, after selling one box and 1 set, I somehow misplaced and lost all 6 of my remaining boards, and had it not been for eBay, I wouldn’t have been able to make good my losses. I currently have 4 boards, and something like 13 sets of plastic playing pieces.

    Up thread, someone tried to claim that these “extra playing pieces” were nothing more than ‘spare parts’, with the implication that they could only be used in the case of replacement of lost pieces. I repudiate that expressed belief.

    In both the rules and the FAQ, it is clearly stated that one can have as many units in A&A classic as they can afford to put on the map, but only are limited to how many stacks they can have, based upon the need for every stack to be topped by the appropriate unit.

    In other words, every stack must be topped by the correct playing piece, at all times, but nowhere (that I can find) is it clearly and unequivocally stated that if you have more playing pieces than come in a single box (which seems to me to be the basic assumption in the FAQ made from a conversation with Larry Harris back in the day), you STILL cannot make use of them!



  • @CrazyIvan

    I made the comment about spare parts. I’m pretty sure its only you and I in here. Virtually any game that is/was in production at that time would offer players spare parts. I don’t know why this is the hill you want to die on. I will make no comment other than to quote Larry Harris from his FAQ (in addition to pointing out the reference to piece count limits on page 7 of the 2nd Edition manual) to allow anyone actually following this to make up their own mind:

    **Q: Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber pieces? If so, how would I mark them?
    A: Marking them isn’t a problem because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.

    Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.

    Q: After everything is set up at the game’s start, there are only four additional complexes left over. Can more than that be built?
    A: No. Once four new industrial complexes are brought into play, no more can be built.**


  • 2019

    Ah! Maybe I’ve finally mastered the arcane workings of the quote button at last!

    @AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    @CrazyIvan

    I made the comment about spare parts. I’m pretty sure its only you and I in here. Virtually any game that is/was in production at that time would offer players spare parts. I don’t know why this is the hill you want to die on. I will make no comment other than to quote Larry Harris from his FAQ (in addition to pointing out the reference to piece count limits on page 7 of the 2nd Edition manual) to allow anyone actually following this to make up their own mind:

    **Q: Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber pieces? If so, how would I mark them?
    A: Marking them isn’t a problem because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.

    Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.

    Q: After everything is set up at the game’s start, there are only four additional complexes left over. Can more than that be built?
    A: No. Once four new industrial complexes are brought into play, no more can be built.**

    Right, so I took the liberty of bolding the questions that Larry was answering, all those years ago, and from which came forth the FAQ PDF.

    Larry’s answers are right and correct, if, and only if, we assume that this conversation is about an OOB setup. In both the rules & the FAQ, nowhere is there any mention of the extra playing pieces that one could buy.

    The problem with both the PDF of the FAQ, and the rules, is that they do not address when extra playing pieces are on hand! The thing that I object to is the assumption, based upon no evidence I see in either location, that this answer is definitive even when the extra playing pieces have been duly purchased. The limit is on the actual playing pieces, not some preset number (unlike in Fortress America, where armies are of an exact composition), and in classic A&A, the RULES state that you can buy extra pieces. Folks misunderstanding what the FAQ is actually saying and then trying to make like there is some rule that is not in the actual rule book is clearly a mistake.

    For instance, if in this conversation the question had arisen, “If I buy a second game, or just a second set of plastic playing pieces, and therefore have more than 2 carriers or 3 bombers or whatever, can I then go ahead and have more stacks than if I just had one set?” and then the answer was given as, nope, not even then could you do that, this wouldn’t be an issue. But the FAQ & the rules don’t include any mention of extra pieces at all, so the assumption being made here (mistakenly in my opinion), is that the question of extra playing pieces had come up, and these answers factored them in seems baseless and unsupported. My own belief is that the question of extra playing pieces was not considered, and that, had it been, the answers Larry provided would have included something like, “unless you buy additional playing pieces”. 🙂

    Basically, I need to see something that establishes whether or not Larry was taking extra playing pieces into account when those questions were being asked and answered, as otherwise we are left with two camps, one that takes these answers as is, and tries to deny folks the use of their property based upon a potentially misunderstood belief, or the other camp, that bought the extra playing pieces in good faith, with the understanding that they would then have enough pieces to have even bigger armies on the board, then being told that all those extra playing pieces must be set aside, and NOT used.



  • This, to me, seems to be an exercise in reaching for a desired conclusion. Your extrapolated argument is so tangential that if the folks at MB and LH himself had intended the exception of simply buying additional playing pieces to circumvent this rule, they would have said so. Instead, it is clearly stated three times with multiple supporting examples to the contrary.

    What is more likely:

    that there is a piece count limitation as stated…

    or that on the three separate occasions where it is stated, the game designer and game company forgot to add in a game altering, critical exception that went against their own examples…


  • 2019

    I want to say that I respect you, and am not wanting to anger/annoy, but you seem to be missing something. See the bolded part below.

    @AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    This, to me, seems to be an exercise in reaching for a desired conclusion. Your extrapolated argument is so tangential that if the folks at MB and LH himself had intended the exception of simply buying additional playing pieces to circumvent this rule, they would have said so. Instead, it is clearly stated three times with multiple supporting examples to the contrary.

    Firstly, it isn’t a rule and never was. please bear with me, while I explain why this is so. I promise, even though I have a very tough time explaining things, I am doing my best to shed light on an area where folks are making something out of nothing, and coming away with a misconception. I apologise if this takes more time and effort to straighten out than it should, but in the end, I’m 100% sure that everyone is going to see the mistaken beliefs as what they are. 🙂

    Actually, let’s approach this from a different angle, and perhaps this will shed some light on the subject, and get my point across.

    Once upon a time, a really great game designer Larry is working with MB, back when A&A was young, and they made massive numbers of extra playing pieces, which cost them a lot of money, and if folks can use whatever they like to designate a particular piece, rather than, say, buy the actual pieces that are being offered for sale in the official rules {and, to reiterate a point I have already made, that have already been paid for by MB}, then they are going to be taking a financial loss for any of these additional plastic playing pieces, that they have made and are offering for sale.

    Along comes a question and answer session, where Larry Harris does indeed make clear, “You cannot use anything else to substitute for an actual plastic playing piece!” And, as noted, this is indeed done several times, in various places, both in the rules and in the FAQ.

    Now, let’s look at this from the perspective of a toy company. The facts:
    #1 You cannot use substitute for the real thing, you must cap every stack with a plastic playing piece.
    #2 We are offering additional playing pieces right in the rules.
    #3 We already paid for these, and need to sell them or suffer a loss.

    So, my contention is that, they want folks to buy their pieces, not limit the ‘stacks’ within their game, and this is probably a very good example of how they went about it wrong!

    MB wants to sell these pieces, rather than waste the money on their production, so the whole thing with the FAQ/rules is NOT about making folks be limited in their gameplay, but rather, to get them to buy the pieces! 🙂

    Hopefully, this attempt clears away all the misunderstandings and misconceptions about what Larry Harris was really saying way back when, and everyone can now put the flawed concept of there being a rule against buying and using the extra pieces to rest.

    It isn’t in MB interest to make the pieces, and try to sell them, only to make a rule against their use, for then no one is going to buy them.

    Like the kid in the Matrix said: “There is no spoon” === “There is no rule”.
    🙂


  • 2019

    I missed this the first time round…

    @AcesWild5049 said in Classic rules, and some disagreements.:

    What is more likely:

    that there is a piece count limitation?

    or that on three separate occasions the game designer and game company forgot to add in a game altering, critical exception that went against their own examples…

    The answer is, there was a miscommunication, somewhere along the way, and folks came away with the misunderstanding that one couldn’t have more stacks than they had playing pieces to top them with, based upon what came in the box, rather than, say, that they simply could increase their maximum potential stacks by just buying the extra playing pieces offered on page one!

    Instead, what was supposed to have happened, was that folks would shell out the extra bucks, and use the parts being offered, rather than using proxies.

    So, it isn’t that MB wanted some weird “Piece count Limitation” in the game, but rather, that they wanted to sell extra playing pieces, that they had already made at their expense, but they did it so badly that… 🙂

    What is more likely, that a toy company made massive numbers or extra playing pieces, at a significant cost that they intended to offset by offering them for sale, despite some ‘rule’ that forbid this…

    Or somebody goofed, and there is no such rule, only a misunderstanding?



  • Well, I think Larry Harris wanted us all to have Heavy Bombers by world turn 10 if nobody had them. I think there was an oversight when the manual was printed. In fact, I’m 100% sure of it. He just forgot to say it despite the rules about technology dice.

    ^ That is a joke.

    Your anecdote is purely conjecture. There is no mystery here. It’s stated with perfect clarity supported by specific examples esp in regards to the restriction of building no more than four industries after the initial setup. Anything else is a house rule.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 35
  • 12
  • 5
  • 14
  • 16
  • 13
  • 2
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games

33
Online

13.2k
Users

33.4k
Topics

1.3m
Posts