No.Â The only thing that voids the option to ignore enemy transports and/or subs is if the defender scrambles air units to the sea zone.
Did Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition introduce “scramble” rules?
AA1942 (the 2009 version) has some much needed small tweaks. These tweaks will reduce many “wtf” from the “logical” thinking new players.
AA1942 s almost identicial to Anniversay edition. Krieghund has a table posted at BGG comparing Revised, LHTR, and Anniversay.
Axis and Allies is a team game and quite different to Risk and Settlers of Catan. The latter being free for all with medium to heavy diplomacy. For what it is, I sugguest that individual victory rules should be tried only later.
Your Catan friends may find the game long. Your Risk friends are probably seasoned long playtime players so no problems there. Either way you should play the minor victory mode in the first few games.
I also wait eagerly for the AA1942 rules to be posted online.
Cool, Krieghund. Thats great.
Besides the four I noted, also like the 1-to-1 bombardment and reduced carrier defense.
(I am a bit slow. Haven’t touched on the game for months and only catching up on AA50 rules now.)
Would be nice if someone owning AAR, AA50, and AA1942 can take some photo with units side by side.
I am hearing conflicting reports about AA1942’s sculpt quality lol.
Krieghund, is AA1942 using AA50 rules exactly?
or are you making a comparison table like the one you made for AA50 vs. LHTR vs. Revised ?
Yeah 4 pages would make it approachable. It’ll be almost as quick as teaching people Settlers of Catan.
I like AA1942. (credit to AA50 rules team) It nicely dealt with some of the main undesired situations AAR house rules wanted to resolve.
flat SBR defense
It came with a price cut too (I think, RRP $65 vs. $80 in Australia) while improving unit pieces. Nice.
Plenty of board games at this price point only give you cubes and rectangles to represent whatever.
The core game really can be covered in like 4 pages.
That, I’d like to see.
hehe you know what I mean
I did say “core” right?
revised was 40 pages
rules start at page 9 (after explaning everything like dice and player colours…)
appendix starts at 24
15 pages in the middle
exclude pretty graphics then maybe 8
take away all the " *** should I *** ? " sections then maybe 6 pages
if I have the time I’ll probably have a crack at making a 4 pages “quick start” sheet to get more of my friends to play
if I get excited I could probably sponsor a competition for the best “quick start” sheet from the community
but there are probably copyright issues seeing the TripleA open source project got hurt
all they have to play is the various versions of “Risk” out there….I can’t even look at that game anymore now that I’ve discovered Axis and Allies.
Yeah one game of Risk got into Axis and Allies.
No tech is retarded, No National Advantages is retarded
I am guessing Larry wouldn’t be upset if you just used AAR/LHTR Tech or NAs.
I totally see what they are trying to do here. Rewritten the rule book. Took away these extras.
The length rule book is a turn off for new comers. The core game really can be covered in like 4 pages.
various styles of distortions exist for practicality
the territories and sea zones look awkward on a real map
I once drew the revised map over a real map
unfortunately such maps may only be practical for game boards larger than A0
The actual playing area compared to my old version is a lot smaller.
could you do a quick measurement?
I would be keen to know size of Classic(1985)
The game board is 33 by 20.
The actual map is 30 by 20, you lose 3 inches on the bottom from the extra IPC tracking board.
just noticed you replied by editing
thanks for the info
so it seems AA1942(2009) is about the same as Revised(2004)
now that its out it would nice to have an update 1st post yeah?
a definitive fact sheet of AA1942 changes
the AA1942 changes do a lot to the game
auto-die transport is bad for UK/US landings
but air raids against navy is more expensive now isn’t it?
cheaper transport is good for Japan
new SBR effectively limits damage 2x territory value accumulating
previously Germany had a hard time taking damage up to 3x territory value per round
IL you need to remove the words “malta” and “azores” to differentiate them from actual game territories like “iceland” and “formosa” right?
yeah a44bigdog needs a plain border to generate the territory info for abattlemap
either IL give him a version without the pretty graphics
or it’ll be faster to star from scratch
when I said weird I meant why is it so flat now?
AAR had them a lot more tuned to different nations
anyway I noticed Krieghund has posted similar/same numbers on BGG
IL, I am not a regular here anymore
time is tight
can’t remember if the Karma has changed
I’ve been busy and will be for some time
also, this phase of AARHE can’t progress if we keep getting side tracked
or maybe our goals are too different
maybe you don’t see my passion for making a palatable AARHE (for the possbility of making AARHE more relevant)
well we need something with flavor. Let just artillery get preemptive return fire, and limit invasion by IPC each round and leave the SB as per OOB.
well OOB SB is too juicy, its god-like
don’t mind the high value of 4 for battleship nor make destroyer SB standard
its the preemptive fire and lack of 1-to-1 thats crazy
hate to see combats decided mostly by shore bombardment
the new idea is retreat is announced before the start of combat. Retreat declarations do not fire. Extra hits go against retreating units. that solves it.
In the war game it works very well.
better if there was a simpler way
ideally one or two sentences, a modification to existing rules rather than a rewrite of the sequence
anyway all that talk branched from partial retreat
I would like to reiterate that we were supposed to keep it simple and produce AARHE 4.1
removal of certain rules and simplifications was the focus
introduction of new rules was not sought after, it would be counter productive to the removal and simplifications we made earlier
no they destroy units. This is wrong. Its impossible to destroy an army from a Battleship
yes , this is why I sugguest shore bombardment to be +1 to infantry instead of OOB’s shore bombardment where the ship gets to roll a combat die
but the unit can be reduced in effectiveness and i feel this is a good model.
I see what you mean but as mentioned I feel the reality is that you can’t just keep shelling the area once friendly troops are in the area
the suppression rule just feels too powerful to me, I much prefer them supporting the attacking land units
we might be simply over doing al this amphibious assault bonus for defender and attacker
maybe it would make sense to not have this suppression and also not let defending non-infantry land units fire in opening-fire
(my worry is that powerful bonuses is not realistic as the beach fighting is overly emphasised while in reality most fighting is the inland battle afterwards…your territory-IPC-based amphibious landing limit already adds the amphibious favour to the land combat)
And since the BB can effect units defending in a range of 1-4, while cruisers its 1-3. This gives the BB a new advantage as well.
we’ll worry about that in future version when we reintroduce optional units
why would defender allocate the reduced unit (instead of infantry) as combat loss?
unless the suppressed unit is suppressed for 2nd, 3rd, 4th…eycles
Because the invasion may be very close to winning and the defender might want to take out the suppressed unit as combat loss in order to inflict maximum loses and deny losing the battle.
the defending unit allocated as casualty still gets to return fire
unless it was opening-fire
but the only attacker opening-fire for OOB style shore bombardment, which is no more and replaced by my +1 to infantry rule or your suppression rule
The defender may have 5 tanks and 2 infantry and the attacker has 6 infantry and 4 tanks. The defender retreats his tanks and the attacker only gets 3 hits on the first round. That saves most of the tanks and its realistic.
um…yeah thats if we go and add a new rule for the parting shot idea
If we only allow full retreats the defender gets to fire for free with all his units and retreat, because retreat allocations are announced at the end of battles.
well…if we have a parting shot rule it would apply all the time…no reason to let full retreat be exempt
I propose they are announced at the start of the round and retreating units allocated for retreat do not fire. Play it out and see.
yeah I saw that…all that you said sounds better if yet another rule (declare retreat being combat die) is added
I think the reason why in axis and allies you don’t declare retreat at the beginning of the cycle is the time frame
it would be stupid when one side performed well in the cycle but retreats at the end of the cycle because that side declared retreat before the dice rolling
and this would be funny for a turn that represents months