I did not us this company to print mine so I can’t say. Actually I haven’t played this in some time. Not that it doesn’t work. It’s just global is better. I have no intensions to update this map. Take that however you like.
Posts made by Bob_A_Mickelson
-
RE: Axis & Allies Global Confict - 3rd Edition Released
-
RE: Laboratories & Research Facilities
@Young:
I think a better and simpler solution would be to make research facilities a major IC upgrade for $12. Tech can only be rolled if the IC is not damaged during the PURCHASE/REPAIR phase. Just place the AA50 tech token under the major IC.
By default this simpler rule would hav the following benifits without writing any new rules:
No turn 1 tech suprises
Facilities can only be built on 3+ Ipc locations (but would have to be original powers territory)
Research facilities aren’t capture able since Major ICs are downgraded upon capture.
Facility can still be damaged.
Facility has built in AA.
ANZAC/china/France would likely never be able to research tech.
I don’t believe any country would ever likely be rolling more than 3 dice a turn. And most would likely roll 1 or 2.What if a player wishes to pay for multiple chances to aquire tech, they would need to purchase a $30 unit they don’t want, and than spend another $12 just to upgrade it into the facility they wanted in the first place, is that what you meant by upgrading a new major into a lab, or do you mean that only original majors can be upgraded?
Yes… My rule interpitation seems complicated due to my need to articulate details. However, upon closer examination, it’s quite simple.
Your interpretation is correct. However all major nations already have major industrial complexes. So they could upgrade their starting ICs. True building new research would be expensive if you didn’t have a major or minor already, but how often would you be willing to buy a research in a territory without a complex already.
I think the currently presented system is overly complicated.
However the group seems to be moving in another direction. So I think I’ll refrain from entertaining my hypothetical system as to not detract from the current system.
-
RE: Laboratories & Research Facilities
I think a better and simpler solution would be to make research facilities a major IC upgrade for $12. Tech can only be rolled if the IC is not damaged during the PURCHASE/REPAIR phase. Just place the AA50 tech token under the major IC.
By default this simpler rule would hav the following benifits without writing any new rules:
No turn 1 tech suprises
Facilities can only be built on 3+ Ipc locations (but would have to be original powers territory)
Research facilities aren’t capture able since Major ICs are downgraded upon capture.
Facility can still be damaged.
Facility has built in AA.
ANZAC/china/France would likely never be able to research tech.
I don’t believe any country would ever likely be rolling more than 3 dice a turn. And most would likely roll 1 or 2. -
RE: FLYER FOR 2ND EDITION E40 AND P40 IS OUT- SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2012
I expect they will be grey-green-red chips like 1942.2.
-
RE: Pacific 1940 2nd Edition
Separate detached chart is thebest solution in most cases. However if charts are printed on both maps I strongly prefer a global chart. I really think most people buy pacific for global and not for separate standalone game anyways.
-
RE: Battle Board Casualty Zone Error
Anniversary had the best battleboard IMHO.
-
RE: Pacific 1940 2nd Edition
Has anyone seen the 2nd edition maps of both Europe and Pacific next to each other? Did they fix the ocean color so they match? Did they fix the Russian territory color so they match?
I would like to know this as well. I would also like to know what the top edge of the pacific board looks like. The national production chart was conveniently out of frame in all the pictures. I hav this erie (but hopefully unfounded) feeling that the chart might include 2 rows.
-
RE: History of the World
I own the newer AH version with the plastic pieces. It’s a pretty good light game, but it works best with 5 or 6 players. It’s pretty meh with 3 or less.
-
RE: Pacific 1940 2nd Edition
What about the industrial production chart across the top? How will it work when you put it together with Europe for the Global game?
Also
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
Bob, why are you using the globe “I” invented as your avatar?
not cool :-P
I created my spinning globe not you. Did it 2 years ago and have been using it ever since.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20359.0;wap2
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
Quite ugly. Im glad I still have my 1st edition so I can use the respectable looking mech from that set.
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
The national production marker along the top makes no sense to include in this game…� either it’s correct for pacific (and incorrect for global - adding 40 to each - simple enough but a visual flub) or correct for global and incorrect for pacific game.� It’s as unnecessary as including the 50 on west US in the 1st edition when it would have no meaning for the global game (please be gone, please be gone, please be gone).
But at least this time they didn’t print the markers for starting income, so if someone miscounted on the setup boxes/board ala 41 and 42, it’s not permanently wrong on the board.
I agree that its a visual flub. Completely glaring on 1941 and E40.2. I’m still hoping (delusionally I might add) that the Pacific chart starts off at 41 and goes to 80. I think that would be better than 2 charts going each going to 40. Or worse yet a Pacific chart that is 2 rows deep to get to USA’s at war income.
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
Looks as though the Quebec/new Brunswick/ eastern us boundary wasn’t corrected. I suspect that means we shouldn’t hold our breath for any map corrections on the pacific side. So disappointing. Especially when it would be so easy to do with the original files.
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
By comparing the the photo of the back of the 1st edition box I discovered that it is a Photoshoped version of the original. Three areas are noticeably different. The national production chart is now on the map near the top, and the components on the sides of the boards have been edited over to show the new pieces. Actually the combat strip on the lower right looks to be AA41.1
We should also remember that the back of the box is always a prototype image and cant be taken too literal. Thats typical for lots of boardgames.
AAE40.1
AAE40.2
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
@Imperious:
Does not make sense. No tactical bombers, plus they didn’t use the new German sub from 1941 or the bomber. Why not use all the new sculpts that they already paid for and include as updated components? Why not include a few of those tiger tanks too?
It makes perfect sense. They want us to buy 1941. If the new sculpts were also in global it would hinder sales on 1941. They know that many will buy that game just for the sculpts. It is a bit annoying though.
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
Looks like Germany’s only new sculpts are AA42.2 AAA & Art.
-
RE: 1942SE at GenCon was awesome.
Anybody else notice that the national production chart is now on the map? I guess it’s the new standard. Personally I don’t mind this as long as they don’t croud the sea zones like they did in AA41.
It also begets the question about what AAP40.2’s map looks like. I hope that it will start off where Europe left off, which according to my calculations should be about 47. (or more likely 50). If so we could have a global Ipc track of 100. That would make me feel okay about having it on the maps. 1-50 on each map would be lame since most global is far more popular than pacific.
-
RE: Why are the allies so gimped lately? Why transports suck?
@Cow:
I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.
Look most games are not played the way you play it.
Speaking frankly, if you review your own thread you will find that it is you, not Hobbes who is the minority. I am in no way commenting on the validity or invalidity of your strategy. I’m just pointing out that your assumptions of what “most” players do have been consistently inaccurate. Your gaming group is obviously not a reflection of the A&A gaming community as a whole.
-
RE: Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming
I agree. A gray set with major/minor complexes as well as and and navy bases is long over due.