News flash: AXIS & ALLIES ANNIVERSARY EDITION due out oct 23 08

I just rated it 8, because I take it for granted that some of the pieces may be wrong colours, like Italian cruisers may come in japanese orange or some thing, plus we may see skinny russian tanks

Thats Corporate America,  bashing on the little guy

@Imperious:

They wont make skinny Soviet tanks.

However the new trick they do pull out of the hat is make the claim that its got 600 pieces, and the reality is is does not have 600 plastic miniatures, but rather they count the freeking dice, chips, and tokens in this total.

Thats bogus. I want 600 plastic TOYS.

Well if that’s what you want…
24 bags of 100 toys for only $60! ;)

This will be radddddd.

China probably wont be in the game and shouldnt be.  I dont really like individual victory either, that should stay as house rules.

My guess is that cruisers will be 3/3 with bombard, 1 hit to destroy, and probably cost 16.  I get the feeling they will have another ability up their sleeve, it wouldnt be worth introducing another naval unit thats not much more powerful than the destroyer unless it had another ability.  Maybe it is just bombard, well wait and see.

Destroyers are honestly way overpriced in comparison to how they were used. They should basically be an anti-sub that attacks and defends on the same as a sub costing the same.

Navy should be like this:

Transport: 0/1/8
Sub: 2/2/8
Destroyer: 2/2/8
Cruiser: 3/3/12, but can bombard. They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
Aircraft Carrier: 1/2/12, they are cheapened to compensate for the defensive decrease.
Battleship: 4/4/20, two hits, bombard. They are simply too expensive to ever buy. At 20, they are still expensive, but investing in a couple for shore bombardment or hit soaking isn’t such a bad idea anymore. Additionally, this balances them out with the new cruiser, which would become more effective in a bombard but less effective in naval conflicts.

That is, 20 cruisers would kill more land units on average than twelve battleships, but these battleships would kill off the entire cruiser force 83% of the time.

This would accompany a fighter alteration to 3/3/8.

Overall these changes would place less emphasis on defending with a navy, because defending wasn’t necessarily any easier than attacking in naval conflicts.

@Nukchebi0:

That is, 20 cruisers would kill more land units on average than twelve battleships, but these battleships would kill off the entire cruiser force 83% of the time.

yeah thats the kind of stuff we need
scissor paper rock action
taking gameplay to a new level

If China shouln’t be, then Italy don’t deserves being a playing power. At least China annoyed Japaneses, managed a draw,preventing that forces going for India or Australia. What did the Italians? Lost lots of battles for nothing. They lost in Lybia against UK and lost in Greece… against the very Greeks  :-D If germans wouldn’t go in their aid, Italy would even lose Albania to the Greeks. I think a power that can manage a draw, even in middle of a civil war, deserves more being a playing power than a power than only could lose battles.

And for the dds costing 8 ipcs… then it would be the end of subs, because subs cannot hit aircraft. Unless, of course you need a dd to hit a sub with aircraft as in Europe/Pacific AND add convoy zones  :|

China was a 3rd rate at best power, Italy although porrly lead was a 2nd rate power on par with Japan and Russia in industrialisation and millitary might. they just made bad strategic moves. that is no reason to say they don’t rate but a nation that got lucky dose rate to have a team. China had such a weak economy that they could not generate Armor to any real degree or generate air power. how fun would it realy be to play as a secound Russia but not even start with air power or Armor and also never be able to afford them to gain flex in combat? Italy atleast had all this and more and had the economy to stand on it’s own.

@Imperious:

Id say destroyers can cruisers cannot be at 3/3. Thats just ridiculous.  Destroyers should be at 2/2 and cruisers at 3/3

Cruisers should move 3 and cost 15 and take 2 hits, BB drops to 20 IPC and destroyers goto 2/2 and cost 8-10

Also, carriers should drop to 15 or so and take 2 hits, but also defend at 2 and not 3.

A 15 IPC naval unit moving 3, attacking and defending on 3, and taking 2 hits?

zomgbbq roflcopter?

@Pervavita:

China was a 3rd rate at best power, Italy although porrly lead was a 2nd rate power on par with Japan and Russia in industrialisation and millitary might. they just made bad strategic moves. that is no reason to say they don’t rate but a nation that got lucky dose rate to have a team. China had such a weak economy that they could not generate Armor to any real degree or generate air power. how fun would it realy be to play as a secound Russia but not even start with air power or Armor and also never be able to afford them to gain flex in combat? Italy atleast had all this and more and had the economy to stand on it’s own.

Maybe China would not fun. Maybe yes. But think in Italy. What can do anyway? Send a couple of inf to Africa? Try a lesser aid against USSR? Italy would had a difficult time building anything greater than an armor, at least with the map we have now (6 ipcs from Seu, 1 ipc from Lybia = 7 ipcs). Of course, China is even worse (4 ipcs), but I said a cuople of posts ago China needs more territories.

China a lesser USSR? No. USSR should be meant for fighting the Germans, not for being crushed between them and Japan. As now, USSR do the most of the job stopping the Japs in Asia in most of games, when it should be China (independent or USA dependent) who should stop the japaneses. Italy would easily be as a 2nd Germany if included…

My thought is both Italy and China at best, and if I must choose, China alone

And no, Italy, even well managed, couldn’t match the power of USSR or even Japan. And China had aircraft (very crappy, of course, but they had). Don’t forget lend-lease also went to Nationalist China

Italy should be in the game for 3 on 3 balance of teams.  Adding china wouldnt be good, and adding china WITHOUT Italy would just be worse.

You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies  :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.

OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos  :-P )

And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”

@Funcioneta:

You have a point. But adding Italy only for balance could even damage Germany, having to divide IPCs for Barbarossa or African campaign. Maybe add Greece as territory, at 1 IPCs so Italy have at least the income to buy trannies  :| Think that, as now, “Italy” and Germant attack as one, an so they can attack USSR best than if they get separate turns. Of course, they could act at the same turn as in Pacific USA/China or India/Australia.

OK if Italy is added only for the sake of balance, but must get serious work or we could back to bids of 16-20 as in Classic (and I don’t want see 2 subs bids for z8, 2 trannies for Sea Lion or another crazy combos  :-P )

And China, even if finally not manages playing power status, must be redone. More territories is needed even if China is still USA dependant. Maybe an IC or built-in NA “chinese divisions”

Im almost positive that there will have to be an at least slight change to the map to accommodate for Italy as a power.  Splitting them up on the current map would make Germany too weak and make Italy almost useless.

@Imperious:

They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.

That ship got a lucky hit in the wrong place, besides the hood was one of a kind.

A true Heavy Cruiser can take more punishment, its supposed to fight anything up to battleships and if it faded with one salvo, it would have no use relative to its cost/value.

The hood was a battle cruiser and this means a fast moving hybrid battleship class guns but with light armor plating to get the high speeds.

Then should there be perhaps two cruiser classes, a battlecruiser at 3/3/12, one hit, bombard, and heavy cruiser at 3/3/18, two hits, bombard?