@djensen Low Luck doesn’t have to be based on autohits. For example, you can sum the total power of what you would be rolling together, divide it by 5, then rolling as many dice hitting at 5, then rolling for the remainder. That would decrease randomness a lot if, say, you would otherwise be rolling most dice at 3 or less.

For example if rolling 5@1, 2@2, 4@3, 2@4, one could:

Low Luck:
Get 4 autohits and roll 1 dice at 5.

Custom Luck at 5/6:
Roll 5 dice at 5 and 1 dice at 4.

@imperious-leader said in More Announcements from Renegade:

They should team up with Beamdog and make online E40 and P40 as well as Global

Why not just only Global, completely ignoring E40 and P40? I think it’s fairly obvious the only reason they exist is commercially to split the Global game (and its price) in twain.

@bigwatcher said in AA50 on Steroids!:

Thanks to Oztea’s suggestions. I had been trying out to improve the current AA50 map and setups that can play on BBR for the past months. Just printed out a copy and test-played with my buddy… so far so good, still some minor balancing to do.
I wanted something in-between Anniversary and Global40…less rules and time consuming but bigger map. Since its a game im playing with my young son, i tried my best to add in some historical battles, figures and events into the map…inspired by Lt.Dan’s BBR Global40 map.
Next I will be doing up a 1940 setup.

Definitely better than the original, in my opinion.

Since you seem fairly serious on putting some historicity into the map (and realizing that is starting from Axis&Allies…) I’ll make a review on this, and, don’t worry, I’m not going to nit-pick on good enough names (like calling the Netherlands as Holland, which is acceptable, or calling Northern France as just France, which I find acceptable too):

• RIO DE ORO would be better called SPANISH SAHARA.
• FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA makes me think you are referring to FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. The territory is the eastern (and less important) part of FRENCH WEST AFRICA, so it can be called simply NIGER (as the territory you have drawn appears to be almost only Niger plus the British colonies) or, more correctly, EASTERN FRENCH WEST AFRICA. However, it would be better making it British and calling it NIGERIA (or NIGERIA GOLD COAST) because Nigeria was arguably the most important African colony at the time. Alternatively, I guess you can change the name from FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA to CENTRAL FRENCH AFRICA, but I don’t like this idea.
• ANGOLA is completely outside of Angola. That is mostly SOUTH WEST AFRICA (which was British, game-wise). I understand and agree ANGOLA is wanted on the map, but I just suggest cutting a piece of BELGIAN CONGO for representing it.
• KENYA is completely or near-to-completely outside Kenya: better calling it SOUTHERN ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN or UGANDA.
• ANGLO-EGYPT SUDAN should be called ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN.
• I understand that the map generally follows the convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory, but it is really weird to see a name like UNITED KINGDOM next to SCOTLAND (even calling it GREAT BRITAIN would be too much): I would consider renaming UNITED KINGDOM to ENGLAND.
• BALKANS would be much better called as YOUGOSLAVIA. Also, make sure to use the pre-WW2 borders with Italy (Istria was Italian!).
• Since it borders BELORUSSIA across the marshes, EASTERN UKRAINE is more like NORTHERN UKRAINE, or rather just UKRAINE if it comprises the city of Kiev and you follow the (RUSSIA-territory-like) convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory. If EASTERN UKRAINE is UKRAINE, then UKRAINE has to be renamed to something like SOUTHERN UKRAINE.
• I understand that the point is not having a territory with the same name as its victory city, but seeing VOLGOGRAD is horrible. I suggest calling it STALINGRAD even if it is the same name as the victory city. If that is unacceptable, maybe call the territory STALINGRAD PROVINCE or STALINGRAD OBLAST or ROSTOV or maybe VOLGA.
• SAMARA must be renamed to KUYBYSHEV. By the way, that was the new capital of the Soviet Union from late 1941 until 1943.
• A territory north of Moscow that spans as wide as to border Belorussia in the west and Tunguska in the east is a major challenge for naming (and for making sense as a zone to start with). Consider splitting it west-east into two territories, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG, respectively.
• The Siberian territories as a whole don’t really make sense and some names are just wrong as names (for the period, at least). I’m just going mostly to ignore all the names there and try to find good enough new ones based on their borders, also with respect to lake Baikal as drawn: rename NOVOSIBIRSK to OMSK, rename TUNGUSKA to NOVOSIBIRKS, rename EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG to KRASNOYARSK (albeit it can retain the name as a second-best alternative), rename YAKUT S.S.R. to IRKUTSK, rename STANOVOY KHREBET (or however it is spelled in the map) to BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R., rename BURYATIA to WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R., rename SIBERIA to YAKUT A.S.S.R. (and have the Yakutsk city in it if anywhere), rename SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN SOVIET FAR EAST or NORTHERN KHABAROVSK or maybe KAMCHATKA. As for AMUR, I don’t think there are really much better names for a territory that goes from Chita to Primorye, but it may be better renamed to KHABAROVSK if renaming SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN KHABAROVSK.
• KANSU would be much better called SINKIANG.
• NINGSIA would be better called KANSU if renaming KANSU to SINKIANG.
• HOPEH is completely misplaced by a long shot (so much that I wonder if that is a misspelling of HUPEH): it can instead be called SZECHWAN (where the provisional capital of China, Chungking, was located). If you meant and want it to be HUPEH (which I advice against too), then I strongly suggest renaming SIKANG to SZECHWAN, instead.
• JEHOL would be better called HOPEH.
• TAIWAN (Formosa) would be better called FORMOSA (Taiwan), mostly for consistency with KOREA (Chosen).
• EAST INDIES would be better called DUTCH EAST INDIES or JAVA SUMATRA (and, no, this is not like renaming Madagascar to French Madagascar: East Indies is a much larger area than the Dutch part of it, largely overlapping the Malay Archipelago and comprising at least the Philippines).
• CENTRAL UNITED STATES is largely outside the conglomerations of States known as “West North Central” (whose westernmost States were North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska), “East North Central” (whose westernmost State was Wisconsin), “West South Central” (whose westernmost State was Texas) and “East South Central” (whose westernmost State was Mississippi): I highly recommend renaming CENTRAL UNITED STATES to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES. Moreover, once CENTRAL UNITED STATES is renamed to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES, WESTERN UNITED STATES should be renamed to PACIFIC UNITED STATES. Moreover, if actually wanting to have CENTRAL UNITED STATES, I suggest splitting ESTERN UNITED STATES in two, vertically about on the border between Alabama and Georgia, calling the western part of it as CENTRAL UNITED STATES and the eastern part as ATLANTIC UNITED STATES. As a final note, to have the two westernmost areas of the United States (which, as drawn, are clearly Pacific and Mountain) having a total production of 16 out of 28 is crazy, especially for the time: they were nowhere near that important (but similar observations could be made for other parts of the map, like China). Also, Alaska was almost worthless, and the Aleutians were the definition of worthless.

Of course, I realize that some of the above name-changes will require moving city names around on the map, but I think that’s fairly obvious in every case.

Moreover, if the French roundel means “Vichy-France aligned”, that is wrong for FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. If the game starts at the start of Barbarossa, Iraq should be British or British-aligned.

Also, I want to point out that, in the setup tables, you are using the country flag for every power but using the army war flag for Japan only, whereas I see that the capital of Japan is arguably correctly flagged on the board (although that looks more like the air force roundel than the national flag), but inconsistently with the flag on the tables, while all other flags are consistent between what you have for the capitals and what you have for the setup tables.

@Panther Actually, that game he is referring to has only a resemblance to any Axis & Allies boardgames, and it is actually both strategic and tactic (though you can avoid the tactic part by autoresolving battles). Well, I call it tactic, but anyways it is “real time” battles resolution.

Just saying he wants to play something quite different from anything you can get with what you mentioned.

I’m assuming you never played that Axis & Allies videogame, here.

@the_good_captain said in National Objectives vs balance:

Question for serious players of Anniversary:

Do you play with NOs? If you do what is the bid like?

I have found it pretty heavily in favor of the axis so generally leave this optional rule to the side but am still curious.

In the 1941 scenario of the mentioned game, the NOs have four main effects, in order of importance:

1. They unbalance the game in favour of Axis to the point where no good player would seriously competitively play it without a bid (of course, as long as you are not using Low Luck, the randomness will assure a decent chance for Allies to win). This is particularly upsetting as the game without NOs is actually highly balanced (a rare case in the franchise if I may say so).
2. They reduce the importance of bombing raiding, especially of the bombing raiding of Germany (as Germany should have more income whilst the bombing cap is still 20). I believe you don’t need to use the interceptor rule as long as you are using NOs (though bombing raiding is of course still very strong with no interception).
3. They speed up the game a lot, easily cutting out a few hours of gameplay to get your win against a stubborn opponent (especially the +10 Soviet NO). Meaning that, when the game starts going in favour of one side, the NOs help the unbalance to grow faster.
4. They make the game significantly more luck-driven (as bad dice making you unable to take a territory may cause you to lose NOs income too).

As long as you are not using some Low Luck house-rules, I would say a bid of about 9 for either scenario (either 3 infantry or 1 artillery and 1 armour) to the Allies (likely all to Russia) may make for a balanced game while using the NOs but not using Tech.

If you are using some Low Luck rules, I would say bidding with NOs becomes virtually mandatory, and, in the 1941 scenario, the bid should be higher (maybe as high as 15).

@playing-kid said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

There were photographs of the original 1942 prototype Larry Harris made of Axis & Allies in the 1970’s on there. Does anyone have those preserved

Exklusive Bilder aus dem “private War Room” und von der Ursprungsversion von Axis and Allies

@bigwatcher You’re welcomed.

However, I was pondering again my suggestion of splitting the VOLOGDA territory in two, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG. Unfortunately, that would not fit with how and where the Ural mountains are drawn, since the current VOLOGDA territory appears to be all west of the Urals as drawn (so it cannot comprise KHANTY-MANSIA) (By the way, the Ural mountains are rather small mountains, so they are not realistically impassable.).

So now I’m oriented to see the VOLOGDA territory as being an area spanning about from the Vologda province to the Kirov province and possibly also the Perm province: it can be still split in two vertically, calling them VOLOGDA and KIROV, or it can be left as a single territory.

Here are the new rename changes for Siberia, which do not imply redrawing any borders nor splitting any territories:
NENETSIA->KOMI A.S.S.R.
URALS->EASTERN KOMI A.S.S.R.
VOLOGDA->VOLOGDA
SAMARA->KUYBYSHEV
NOVOSIBIRSK->BASHKIR A.S.S.R.
TUNGUSKA->OMSK
EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG->NOVOSIBIRSK
YAKUT S.S.R.->KRASNOYARSK
STANOVOY KHREBET->BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R.
BURYATIA->WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SIBERIA->YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SOVIET FAR EAST->NORTHERN KHABAROVSK
AMUR->KHABAROVSK

As for territory changes:

• I would merge NENETSIA and URALS into a single territory called KOMI A.S.S.R. (because those areas as drawn are currently very narrow east-west in reality).
• I would split VOLOGDA vertically into two territories, called VOLOGDA and KIROV.

The above is, at the end, merely a compromise to temperate the huge distortions inherent in the drawing. I believe that they make more sense than my previous suggestions if you look at the Urals as drawn, but make matters some whorse with respect to western China (Sinkiang) as drawn. If you look at China and Mongolia, the current NOVOSIBIRSK territory (which I suggest to rename to BASHKIR A.S.S.R.) would be actually eastern Kazakhstan, SAMARA would be western Kazakhstan and KAZAKH S.S.R. would be southern Kazakhstan plus Kyrgyzstan, plus Uzbekistan (or at least its Kara-Kalpakian part), plus Tajikistan.

@tmtm1 It does not have a rule-book. I’m not a player, but I know everyone just plays it as the TripleA program makes it work beside what is detailed in the game’s notes.

So, if you want to play it as “people” do, practically, you have to know the TripleA behaviour and make yourself a “mental rulebook” out of it, then collate what is detailed in the World At War notes as if they are “erratas” of this “rulebook” given by the program’s behaviour.

Obviously, persons also except for the program’s problems (mainly whatever obvious bug), but this may become a highly disputable matter.

@redrum is currently the owner of the map (unless he is not any longer), so, if you need an “official” ruling whenever you and your opponent are in disagreement, I guess you may make a question in the official map’s thread at the TripleA forum and hope for an answer (just like you would ask any map-maker how his or her game is supposed to work).

A fifth point may be that they considerably increase the complexity of the game.

It is quite unfair (and likely quite unfun for them) to play with NOs if any number of the players are still in the process of learning the rules. NOs, like tech, are more for players who are starting getting bored of the basic game yet not bored enough to move on.

As to add my personal opinion, I theorically dislike NOs in Anniversary, even not considering the unbalance that they cause, because I think every territory giving its own income is good enough and cleaner and I do not believe the game needs more money (which turns into more units to stack on the board and manage), but practically recognize that they are a good thing to make the game reach a conclusion faster (if you like to finish games within 12 hours) and to offset the dominance of bombing raiding (if you don’t want to use the interceptor optional rule, which I believe virtually kills bombing raiding as a strategy, rather than rebalancing it).

@DoManMacgee said in Rules clarification for rolling separately:

I thought Column Rolling literally only existed in Classic 2nd Edition (maybe 3rd too, I don’t remember completely).

It has been clarified progressive “column” rolling was the process for Classic 1st and 2nd editions, but not for Classic 3rd edition, and for no Axis & Allies games thereafter.

@general-6-stars said in Which Aircraft Carrier is this:

I read it’s probably the Intrepid. Was launched in April 43 in New York Harbor.

According to Wikipedia, the USS Intrepid was launched at Newport News in Virginia (not at New York), and it sounds like it was either in the Carribbean for shakedown or in Norfolk during October 1943.

Still according to Wikipedia, no Esssex class carriers were launched in New York before 1944.

If the time of the foto is indeed October 1943, I’d say that either this carrier is not an Essex (which is however still my guess) or it was not taken at New York as I tend to exclude that an Essex class carrier would be at New York unless it was built there.

@abworsham4 I’m far from sure, but I would guess it is an Essex (all commissioned in the Atlantic). Thus, I’m also guessing the photo was taken in the United States of America.

@krieghund said in Nomenclature:

As for Classic 3rd edition, I’m not sure what you mean by “original”. There was no 3rd edition of the physical board game, only the computer version.

There is not “the” computer version: there are two computer versions. I’m very surprised you don’t know it.

Original would be the 3rd edition (called just as “Axis & Allies”), followed by “Axis & Allies: Iron Blitz”. Should we maybe consider “Axis & Allies: Iron Blitz” as the 4th edition, instead (I’m asking seriously.)?

The “original” third edition was followed by the “Iron Blitz” variant of the same. I’m not sure what are the differences, but I’m sure that “Iron Blitz” (but not the original 3rd edition) adds marines and destroyers, and this is not even an option! I would say this is a major difference between the two computer versions.

This is the original (non Iron Blitz) 3rd edition of Axis & Allies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKaz_lXxPtw

This is the Iron Blitz edition of Axis & Allies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkuGJvpZEc

I personally disliked the “Iron Blitz” edition (which is either the 4th edition or the 2nd edition of the 3rd edition) because being able to purchase destroyers while there are zero destroyers on the board is like saying destroyers were invented in 1942.

Now, you could say that “Iron Blitz” is an “expansion set” of the 3rd Edition, but it adds items which are not optional, meaning that (once you have it) you won’t be able to play the original 3rd Edition. I would say that you need to distinguish between the two, don’t you. What do you think?

@krieghund said in Nomenclature:

I think IL is on the right track, but some iterations are left out (even though they are not popular, they do exist). A complete list of grand strategic games would be:
Nova
Classic.1
Classic.2
Classic.3
E
P
Revised
Revised LHTR
50
E40.1
E40.2
P40.1
P40.2
G40.1
G40.2
41
42.1
42.2
14

While I agree that “.0” and “.1” might be more accurate from an academic point of view, it’s just confusing that the numbers don’t line up with the edition numbers. Also, having no number after games that have no second edition differentiates them from games that do.

Thanks for the list, but I would then rather not use the point in this case. I’m not sure what is best, but maybe the slash is.

Also, I think I’d rather call “50” as “Anniversary” before someone gets all excited about a Cold/Korean War Larry game. Also, wouldn’t you split the third edition of classic between original and Iron Blits?

My take:

Nova (Original?)
Classic/1
Classic/2
Classic/3/Original
Classic/3/Iron Blitz
Europe Original
Pacific Original
Revised Original
Revised LHTR
Anniversary
E40/1
E40/2
P40/1
P40/2
G40/1
G40/2
41
42/1
42/2

@imperious-leader I disagree. The first edition should be the 0 and the second edition should be the 1. If you call the first edition of 1942 as 1942.1, that would imply that there was a 1942.0 before that edition.

For example:

1942 First Edition = 1942.0

1942 Second Edition = 1942.1

@all-encompassing-goose said in Ways to make the game better?:

@cernel I do have a bad track record for accidentally making posts in the wrong topic but I got Spring 1942 from Ebay. Unless the seller makes a mistake and gives me the 2nd edition, I know I’m receiving Spring 1942. Also, you cannot get 2nd edition anywhere in new condition for less than $60 which I state in the post I ordered SE for $30 (with all the shipping added)

Definitely worth the money (assuming it’s like new), but your decision to pick the 1st edition does not make a whole lot of sense to me. If you wanted a game that could take less than the 1940 games and still have the Axis&Allies experience, I would think the 2nd edition of 1942 is the most obvious choice (unless you are still playing the first edition of the 1940 games).

This said, one thing that Spring 1942 has going for itself is balance: the game is fairly balanced (being only very slightly unbalanced in favour of the Axis) and can be reasonably played with no bid (and no optional rules picking) at any skill levels, which is rare or even unique for any Axis&Allies world games.

My suggestion, however, is to alter the starting set-up by relocating the American destroyer into the sea zone next to the Eastern United States territory: it near-to-perfectly balances the game (by giving a very small advantage to the Allies) and avoid the very dicey attack by the German sub in than zone on round 1 (being either a +26 or a -6 swing value for the Axis).

@imperious-leader said in Ways to make the game better?:

@domanmacgee the worst game is 1941, its too simplistic. It’s for Toddlers or animals that just learned to walk on land.

How is 1941 not a better game than Classic, at the very least? I mean with the errata added.

@panther said in Ways to make the game better?:

@domanmacgee

This category / topic is about Spring 1942 (of 2009), an edition following AA50-rules but simplified compared to AA50. You are mixing it up with 1942 second edition (2012).

My hunch is that @All-Encompassing-Goose actually bought the 2nd edition of 1942. It sounds like he ordered a new copy, and I guess they are not selling the 1st (Spring) edition any longer.

So I guess let’s see if I’m right and be ready with that “move topic” button.:slightly_smiling_face:

@imperious-leader said in More Announcements from Renegade:

They should team up with Beamdog and make online E40 and P40 as well as Global

Why not just only Global, completely ignoring E40 and P40? I think it’s fairly obvious the only reason they exist is commercially to split the Global game (and its price) in twain.

It appears that is all the P-63’s pilot’s fault: what I understand is that the pilot encroached on the air-space of the B-17, and, upon noticing it, he hastily tried to go back within his fly zone, but, in so manoeuvring, he made himself blind (due to the limited visibility afforded to him by the aircraft) to what was on his flight path, so he crashed into the B-17 without even seeing it.

I hope the families of the men who died in the B-17 will have a fair monetary compensation.