Posts made by TG Moses VI

Updated.

In most cases the game is won or lost in Europe, not the pacific. So fighting Japan is not reasonable. You can do it for fun, but fight germany to win the game.

I don’t agree with this because I’ve seen a number of Kill Japan First or Historical America strategies work.  I understand Kill Germany First was the conventional strategy in earlier versions of A&A, and I also feel that A&A 50 is sufficiently different (tweaked) that you don’t have to focus all your resources on Germany to win the game.  That’s what makes A&A50 such a great game.  Just my two cents.

How does that work?  For example, can the UK AND USA both attack france on the same turn?  Does UK attack first, then USA units?  I can’t imagine a combined attack of both sides, that would be far too deadly in the allies hands.

I’m glad you asked.  Even though turns occur simultaneously, combat (and movement) is still resolved according to turn order.  For Allies: Russia, UK, USA.  For Axis: Germany, Japan, Italy.  In your example, UK would attack the German units in France first.  If UK wins the battle, then the USA units land into France as non-combat movement.  If UK loses, USA tackles the remaining German units.  In either case, planes from UK/USA could not land in France and would have to return to an Allied territory.

The idea of the UK starting with an Industrial Complex in India is one my gaming group has discussed recently.  It would definitely make the South Pacific Theatre more active and interesting.

People say this change gives too much of an advantage to the Allies, but I feel as a whole the Axis are stronger in 1941 and the game could use some balancing.  These are both points you brought up, so I’m glad to find someone similarly minded.

Also, as has been mentioned on these forums, what if UK got to choose the starting location of their free Industrial Complex?  It would make every game feel different.  Egypt, South America, India, Australia, and the East Indies are all examples of where that starting Complex could go.

Finally, my group has also implemented simultaneous turns to allow the games to feel more fluid.  Instead of Germany, USSR, etc. taking their turns separately, all the Axis Powers go together and the Allied Powers go togeher.  This greatly speeds up the pace of the game and allows for more joint strategy.

Thanks.  This definitely qualifies under the AAR guidelines.

I don’t know what was the worse mistake.  Italy not cooperating or Japan not conquering all of China and allowing that 1 infantry to survive.

Looks like you had a complete breakdown in communications.  Didn’t the Axis team try talking some sense into the Italian player?

I’m glad you had a fun time with your House Rules variant and having National Advantage cards seems like a good idea.  However, AARs are for unmodified games, since they’re used to infer trends through statistical analysis. 

Sure.  Having After Action Reports after the Spring 1941 Tournament would be a great idea.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of a IC being placed in India at the start of the game with no build restrictions. 
I haven’t tested it out, but I conjecture it makes the South Pacific a more hotly contested place.

I’d also like to see what the average range of the “correct” Allied Bid is.

Here’s the skinny:

Italy (as a nation) is easy to contain, but impossible to capitulate.

If the Allies made a concerted effort to contain Italy, it isn’t difficult at all to do so.  USA and UK can pipeline troops through Morocco, while USSR makes an armored thrust from the Caucuses.  Of course this leaves Germany open to run wild.  But in truth, this job is doable by only one power (USA), while UK supports USSR, builds up an invasion force, and/or SBR Germany.

Logistically, the placement of Italy makes it the harder Axis capital to capture.  Why should USA and UK coordinate a capture of Italy when they can do something more constructive and reinforceable, such as take France?  And if France falls, why not push into Berlin which will end the game?  Sure, Rome is nice, but as Whackamatt mentioned it’s easier for Germany to take back Italy than vise-versa.

Excellent analysis.  Quoted for truth.

I agree with your assessment for the most part.
A few comments / observations:

1.  There are times a UK India factory is acceptable.  It boils down to what Japan does T1.  If Japan lunges toward SSR, China, or the Hawaiian Islands, then an India factory is not indefensible.  How often this actually happens is debatable.

2.  Agreed.  China is too weak in 1941 to put much resistance.

3.  Agreed.

4.  Sure.  Again it depends on the rest of the Allies hitting the German rear.  Germany can soften Russia up with Italy holding its flanks, though at the loss of operational flexibility.

5.  I’m not so sure on this one.  Most ‘successful’ build I’ve seen has USA committing entirely to Europe.  … Or the opposite.

We might give AA50 a try in the future, but we’re having too much fun with AA50 already.

Seems pretty true to life.  Except for the part about the Allies pushing their navy across the Suez Canal.

How successful was Japan pushing inward to Egypt and Russia?

Congrats on your first post! 

Observations/Recommendations:  germany needs to establish a fleet in the atlantic Japan needs to go for US so Britain cant open up another front

Based on your game description, what led you to the conclusion that Germany needs to establish a fleet?  With UK going primarily air and USA building a Western Expedition force, the last thing I would do is to build a German Navy.

I can understand Japan catching a bad break and being set back, but what did Germany and Italy do in the game.  What was their game plan?  If Russia was able to go on the offensive, where were the Axis efforts directed?

@marechallannes:

@TG:

When I was at the Eindhoven Board Game Con, I came across the most remarkable facsimile of Axis and Allies.  It was a Euro-game depicting World War II in Europe.

What’s the name of the game?

Actually, I intentionally left out the name because I’m not 100% sure on it.  It was a German game and I think the title roughly translates in “Europe at War” – but don’t quote me on that.  Maybe our German fans here can help us out on that.

This was at the Eindhoven Gaming Con three years ago.  You might be able to find pictures of the game at the Spellenspektakel website: http://www.spellenspektakel.nl/Home/1/SPELLENSPEKTAKEL.html

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I find it laughable that people think revised and now 42 is some simplistic kids game compared to AA50. So there’s less pieces and territories. Is Chess just a simple game? AA50 is cool but a lot of it is just needless bells and whistles.

Okay, I’m going to have to call you on this one.  Exactly what parts of AA50 did you find “Needless Bells and Whistles?”  Technology?  National Objectives?  Printed Currency?  Because the only missteps I can think of is the placement of the Chinese Fighter and the lack of a Victory City in Cairo.  Other than that, I thought AA50 was a superbly crafted game.

Three points I’d like to touch upon:

1.  Affordablility.

The greatest hoax in the world is that Wizards made you believe AA50 costs $100.  AA1942 retails for $35.  Clearly Wizards had you, the customer’s best interest, in mind with 1942.  Yet, I wonder how much would it cost Wizards to “upgrade” the game components of AA1942 with those found in AA50.  $10?  $20?  $50?   The answer is on the lower end.  In fact, I would be surprised if the manufactuer’s cost per unit of AA50 was more than $5 over AA1942.  It all comes down to economies of scale.  Produce more copies of AA50 and the price goes down.

There could been a version of AA50 on store sleeves right now  – at this moment – for less than $50 retail.  KGB’s argument that even $50 may be too much is certainly justifiable.  However, look at the most successful “toy” on the children’s market for the past two decades: Video Games.  If parents are willing to shell $60-$70 per video game as stocking stuffers, then there’s no reason that copy of A&A (which is larger and more tangible) can’t be underneath the Christmas tree.

Side Note:  I bought my copy of AA50 for $60.  I still have the packaging slip to prove it.  Don’t believe it for a second if Wizards or Larry Harris tells you they barely made a profit on AA50.  The reality is that they made a killing on AA50.  Which is why they’re so quick to rush out AA1942, to milk even more money from you guys.

2.  Play Time.

When I was at the Eindhoven Board Game Con, I came across the most remarkable facsimile of Axis and Allies.  It was a Euro-game depicting World War II in Europe.  Think AA:Europe but at an even grander scale.  What’s important is that the board had breakaway sections to allow players to customize the scope – and play length – of their game.  For instance, if you wanted to portray the Normandy Operations, you could simply swap out the Western Europe tile for a similar tile of France broken up into many territories.  The same could be done with the Eastern Front and Southern Europe.  New board setups were provided for whatever option the player chose.

Why couldn’t Axis and Allies: 1942 be more like this?  Simply have Eastern Europe and China as break away sections.  Or if Wizards is lacking in know how, just include a glossy mat of 1942 with AA50 for beginners.

Wizard’s criteria for “sound business” is to make the client PAY for a copy of AA1942.  And when he tires of that the client can PAY AGAIN for a $200 copy of AA50 on ebay.  Brilliant.

3.  Pieces.

Not much of an argument can be made here.  You could buy 1942 just for the pieces and the price point would be similar to what you pay for pieces from a third party retailer.  However, to do so is to – again – perpetuate a broken system.  This is a clear sign to Wizards that fans are perfectly content to replace their pieces by buying a new game.  As opposed to Wizard’s quality assurance department providing fans with replacement pieces SEPARATELY when they run out.

I’m with Jennifer here: in this tough economy, how can you justify spending even $20 on plastic playing pieces of 1942 quality?  You cannot.

@Krieghund:

Frankly, I’m amazed at all the hate that this little game has generated, particularly since most people haven’t even really seen it yet.  What AH has done here is to create a new entry-level A&A game.  They took the Revised map and threw out the rules, which many people didn’t like a lot of the elements of anyway (hence LHTR), and applied the highly praised and successful AA50 rules.  The result is a new introduction to the game system for new players, as well as a cornerstone for A&A games to come.  They cut more corners than I would have liked, but the lower price may make it more attractive to potential new players.

If you don’t plan on buying this game because it’s a “step down” from Anniversary, so be it.  I understand perfectly.  However, dismissing it completely out of hand is very short-sighted.  You guys aren’t really the target audience this time around, anyway.  As for me, I’m pretty excited that all of the cool new rules from AA50 weren’t just a flash in the pan.  This edition proves that those concepts will go forward to future games, and there will be future games.

If you’re upset about the cutting back on components such as IPCs, write to customer service and complain.  That will send the message that you don’t like things going in that direction.  Doing so in a manner that expresses concerns about quality and its impact on your future purchases will get much better results than reviling a game you haven’t even played based simply on component issues.

No, you’re wrong.  And I’ll tell you why.  Though I believe squirecam and allboxcars put forth the necessary arguments.

The notion of AA1942 being a “entry-level” game is fanciful – to say the least.  Does someone looking to get into Monopoly start by playing Junior Monopoly?  No, he begins with Monopoly – the real deal – and learns from other players.  I would wager that the transition from AA1942 to AA50 is less steep than in Jr. Monopoly to Monpoly.  After all, the pieces are the same, the rules are the same (mostly), and the territories are the same (again, mostly).  You, Kreighund, praised the very rules found in AA50.  Why couldn’t Wizards just reprint AA50?  I don’t get it.

If Wizards was worried AA50 was too daunting to new customers, then there were alternatives to this spit pile.

(Though based on experience, new players are enthusiastic when they see the oversized board and quality game components)

What Wizards COULD HAVE done was re-release AA50, but packaged with a set of rules tailored for beginnings, intermediates, and junkies.  This could have included optional rules for Technology, National Objectives, Strategic Bombing, and Extra Powers.  What I’m preaching is nothing new.  In fact, MOST strategy games do this already.  See “Conquest of the Empire” for an example of modular rules done right.

The point is new players don’t like being babied.  They don’t like playing an inferior game when they know a more complete game already exists.  Veteran players don’t like to pay for game that delivers NO VALUE OTHER THAN AS A TRAINING AID TO NEW PLAYERS.  Sorry for the all caps but this point can’t be stressed enough.  Personally, I hate it when I’m told I have to play a “beginners game” because I’m incapable of learning the real thing.

(History Lesson: Wizard’s actually tried doing this with their cash cow, Magic the Gathering.  They released a beginner’s version of the game entitled “Portal.”  It was pulled after two seasons due to abysmal sales)

Finally, I don’t agree with this whole “cornerstone” business.  In my mind AA50 is the cornerstone of the A&A Franchise – not this cheap imitation.  Cornerstone in that AA50 will be the game played most often by local playgroups and tournament organizers.  Cornerstone because it’ll be the game discussed most often by fans of A&A, such as the ones on this website.

PS:  Why should I be forced buy to Wizard’s product before I have the “right to complain?”  Is that not perpetuating a broken system?  No, I should be free to express my disapproval for a product whether I purchase it or not.  To me this 1942 foray screams “Cash Grab” by Wizards and I’ll respond in due kindness.

PPS:  Keep up the good work Kreighund!  I find your rules clearifications to be extremely informative.  

Actually.  I quite like the ads.  They do a good job of targeting the alleged Axis and Allies demographic.

The most immediate counter to such a strategy is for UK to rush-build bombers.  That way they can simulatanously threaten the German and Italian fleets.  Of course this keeps the British limeys - temporarily - off the mainland, which may assist in a Moscow push.  Still, I’d like to see more of this strategy in play.  Be sure to pick the Germans on your way to the table.

I’ll stick with my copy of AA50, thank you.

IF I need to replace my pieces, maybe I’ll consider this.  Though I’m hoping Field Marshal Games has something better by then.

Sounds like a lot of fun!  That’s quite an impressive feat to pull off with Japan and Italy as no shows.  The German navy build is a new strategy, though I question if it’ll work a second time now that the Allies are wise.

This was funny seven years ago…

And guess what…

It’s still funny.  

After reading Sean Shaw’s review on BGG and listening to everyone’s responses, I punched this letter to WOTC.  Don’t expect a response.

Topic:  Axis and Allies 1942

Dear Wizards,

Do you know what attracts new players to Axis and Allies?  Older players. I have never known anyone who got into A&A based on your non-existent marketing campaign or lame attempts to peddle the Avalon Hill Brand.

What I have seen, time and time again, are new players brought into the fold by veteran players.  It’s their love for the game and all its strategy that hooks new players.  New players are able to find groups of like minded people and, in doing so, are enticed to buy their own copy of the game.

This is the system from which your revenue flows.  Players bringing in players, encouraging each other to develop their skills and collection through competition and affirmation.

But that depends on certain things.  It depends on a certain level of continuity and improvement over successive generations of A&A.  It depends on a rich and “complete” strategy game being available (A&A Anniversary).  It depends on Wizards respecting their fan base and not insulting their intelligence.

In the case of Axis and Allies not all change is bad.  The Revised brand was in desperate need of a face-lift.  I agree with that.  Anniversary did a admirable job of reviving a storied franchise.  However, the conscious decision to cheapen the Axis and Allies brand with 1942 is bad.  Changes made only to make the game “easier” and “more accessible” to players, without a thought as to how it affects strategic depth, is most certainly bad.  Especially when these changes include – or rather “exclude” – the removal of Tech, Printed Currency, a Battle Board, and/or enough Playing Pieces.

I am not currently planning on quitting this game.  I have my copy of Axis and Allies Anniversary, and I enjoy it quite well.  However, for those players who do not own Anniversary and won’t pay the outrageous prices for one on e-bay, then understand that pissing off your existing playerbase has significant risks.  Especially when you refuse to do a second printing of Anniversary and instead opt for this piss-poor version of Revised.

On a more constructive note, rather than conducting market research only on potential clients, maybe you should address the clients that are responsible for most of your income.  Because neglecting them is probably a bad idea.

No Russian tanks.

Actually, seeing how this is a complete repackaging of AA:Revised minus  neat things like money, a battle board, or enough chips, the playtesters realized that previous iterations of A&A favored the Allies.  This is their creative attempt at balancing the playing field.

You know if Wizards had bothered to print A&A:50 in mass, not only would we have a complete game, as opposed to NO-TECH '42), but it would be affordable too (~$50 vs. $100).

What is IFP?  Increased factory production?

I’m assuming you played the 1941 version of the game.  Under game bias you stated that each player had played 8 games.  Yet, under Observations you state this was the first time the Axis won.  Furthermore you stated you don’t see a good Allied counter to this strategy.  Am I missing something?  :? Were your first 7 games Allied victories?

Bitten by the Axis bug I see.  How many times have you played the 1942 scenario total?

I like the suggestion.  We may actually see a German navy beyond round 1…

However, how would you indicate that the ship is in harbor?  Flip it on it’s side?