If so, what kinds of videos?
I’m sort of new here and I don’t know what kind of videos you normally do. I assume that they’re A&A related, but that’s all I know. So, um, what kind of videos would you be willing to do?
-Midnight_Reaper
News flash: AXIS & ALLIES ANNIVERSARY EDITION due out oct 23 08
-
No i doubt this because AH never could pull off a coordinated marketing effort. The so called marketing staff is way too busy playing D&D anyway to be bothered doing their jobs. The photos will just be released after thousands of pictures instantly appear on every axis and allies site within minutes of Gen Con ( thanks to teams of paparazzi assault groups)
OKW will process these and submit as highest priority.
AH will most likely do nothing till 10 days before the game comes out with articles that are being rushed out at the last minute.
What they did with Revised was adequate . It was a prepared effort. Since then its been dubious efforts.
To get a job at Avalon Hill Marketing department all you need to know is how to handle a mop and empty trash after the employees leave. If AH posted a picture of the blokes that worked for them, you would see a freek show of misfits who obviously could never be employed anywhere else. Tatoos, Pierced earrings, Blue/Green hair, all types of unimaginable riff raff hanging out just sitting around eating…
-
lol sounds like a real…party place,i myself am really excited to see all the new sculpts and schemes,especially the board itself.
-
/Imperious leader
The naval balance could be fixed with a few nice changes, will be interesting to see how they do it. If they could fix the sub unit the way they fixed the battleship unit for AARe I would be thrilled.
Maybe we could have a new special ability instead of “first strike”, that one being taken over by cruisers, e.g.:
"Cruiser special ability: fires in “first strike” if no enemy battleships or carriers are present.
Sub special abilities: 1) May avoid combat if in a sea zone adjacent to a friendly land area (i.e., bunkers).
2) May choose to make a strategic attack: may pass through any units and move to a sea zone containing at least one transport. There it fights a combat vs. carriers, fighters, destroyers and transports only. Only subs may take part in the strategic attack and they may not retreat. If only fighters remain on the defending side, the combat ends."Probably nothing like what Larry et al have done but subs are broken as it is, and they can be fixed in many, many ways…
-
Maybe FTR’s / BMR’s can’t attack subs without a navy vessel? That would be great.
LT
-
LYNxes:
The naval balance could be fixed with a few nice changes, will be interesting to see how they do it. If they could fix the sub unit the way they fixed the battleship unit for AARe I would be thrilled.
Where do i start? Basically all the sub interaction ideas of having ships roll out 2 or less to search–-“the sub interaction rules”
were created by larry in 2004 under advanced axis and allies threads on his site. EVERYBODY else bought that idea and used it for their own variants. Its not an “AARe idea” they took it from Larry. The BB fix was also an idea pushed about by people in 2004 and subsequently mined and allocated for hundreds of house rule systems.
It would be accurate to say “I hope Larry uses his original ideas for advanced axis and allies to fix subs in the new game”
-
I’ve never played AARe nor looked through the rules, so this BB fix that you guys are talking about has piqued my interest. Can you explain exactly what it is/how it is different to normal AAR battleships?
Cheers
-
The idea is this: BB price goes to 20 IPC, most naval except SS and AP move down 2 IPC or so.
Plus BB gets preemptive fire as long as another BB is NOT present to represent long range guns blowing smaller ships out of the water before they themselves get in range. It takes 2 hits, but you cant repair for free… you roll a d6=cost, and if you roll a 6 again you pay both D6 results. Also, you cannot have more than one BB hit at the same time, you must allocate a non-BB unit if you have it to take the hit first, so you don’t end up with a bunch of BB’s with repairs and the rest of your fleet takes no loses. Thats cheating and not historical.
-
/Imperious leader
Interesting stuff, I had only a vague idea of how this process has been working out. Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
Subs are normally used in the Pacific by the US as a part of their fleet, it’s the Atlantic that’s the problem. Every sub the Germans build is blown away before reaching the enemy fleet!! The only counter to this is building a CV but this is of course a bit strange. My “sub bunker” rule would be a simple fix as the subs could be transferred to France and then harass UK and US shipping with air support. I have no problem with subs dying quickly, they had a 80-90% loss rate in the war after all, but they MUST be able to cause serious damage otherwise they won’t be built and even less now that the German economy will lose the Italian IPCs.
Probably Larry Harris thinks the search rules are too complex. I think you could have similar effects with other changes, such as: battleships and cruisers may not fire vs. subs.
Not having an IPC damage rule is OK for me as what the subs did was basically to sink ships. The cargo losses I think was not what worried the Allies, it was about sinking more ships than could be built. For every transport sunk, you must build a new one => IPC damage. If subs are really good at sinking ships then there’s no need for convoy zones.
-
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
He was Larry’s spoke hole and was in charge of writing a few articles, and making sure he was around in case Larry needed some coffee or something. He artificially inflated his role purposely to draw accolades and give himself the stature of a great game designer, but everybody saw thru that. The design is totally Harris with his adjutant mike making only small suggestions of overall nature.
Hes currently working on a new version of ATTACK! which is one of the worst games, except for its diplomacy aspect.
-
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
-
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
Which still does not mean a whole lot.
Larry hated the carrier-rule change. The public loved it.
Also, some things Larry “likes” or “created”, such as random casualties or the “battle box” or D12 dice, work fine for theatre games, but are wholly inappropriate for the main large scale game.
I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.
No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.
-
‘spoke hole’ is slang for spokesperson. The guy who represents another’s ideas like a PR person.
Larry did just fine with AAE and AAP, except AAE needs some minor tweeks to fix.
Milton Bradley edition was the edition that sold the most. that speaks for itself. I hope its like AAE and AAP except with less territories so Japan cant take out China in 2 turns nor need to get into Russia to win.
-
Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?
This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves. If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them. Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.
Which still does not mean a whole lot.
Of course it doesn’t. Without “insider knowledge”, any speculation on the topic is merely opinion.
I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.
No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.
Agreed.
-
Should we try to guess the changes to the A&A Ann Ed.? I list only those not confirmed by Larry and compiled on this thread;
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782
So, bypassing set-up and territory IPCs values:
- Italy: 20 IPCs, Germany: 35 IPCs, Soviet Union: 28 IPCs, UK: 32 IPCs.
- Italian-related territories: Sicily, Malta, Southern Europe added, four new africa areas added (Marocko, Tunisia, Tobruk and Western Desert), added 4 sea zones in Med.
- German territories: Western Europe divided into Northern France + Southern/Vichy France, Eastern Europe into Baltic States + Poland.
- Italy: Controls Italy + Southern Europe + Sicily + Balkans + Marocko + Algeria + Tunisia + Tripoli at-start (+ Italian East Africa in '41).
- Atlantic: sea zone 12 (Azores) borders Gibraltar.
- China territories: divided into six areas, each allowing for one Chinese inf/ turn in Chungking.
- Pacific territories: French Indo-china divided into French Indo-china, Burma and Singapore. Australia divided into two. Hong-kong, Iwo Jima, New Britain and Marshall Islands added. Six new sea zones added in Pacific, of which two around India/Singapore.
- VCs: added in Honolulu, Sydney, Alexandria, Stalingrad, Tripoli, Ploesti, Warsaw, Djakarta.
- UK ICs: one in Egypt, one in India.
- Naval unit costs: BB 20 IPCs, CV 15 IPCs, CA 14 IPCs, DD 10 IPCs.
- CV: defence down to ‘2’.
- DD: attack/defend ‘2’.
- CA: attack/defend ‘3’. Special ability: shore bombardment at ‘2’.
- Subs: may only be attacked if a DD is present in attacking force.
- Victory conditions: individual or collective.
What do you think?
-
sounds good, except Italy seems high and Germany looks weak in IPC
other than that i would be very happy.
You left out defender retreats. This is a must in the game.
-
Finally, Russia gets some additional cash at the beginning of the game. This could help the Allies win faster(in my opinion), but it will be interesting how Italy will fit with the Axis. Perhaps, the new Axis strategy will be:
Italy fights in Africa (possibly the Middle East) and tries NOT to get Germany distracted by Germany being forced to send troops there
Germany can now finally focus its attention on the Eastern front and against D-Day
Japan now can focus on taking mainland Asia
What do you think? :? -
Finally, Russia gets some additional cash at the beginning of the game. This could help the Allies win faster(in my opinion), but it will be interesting how Italy will fit with the Axis. Perhaps, the new Axis strategy will be:
Italy fights in Africa (possibly the Middle East) and tries NOT to get Germany distracted by Germany being forced to send troops there
Germany can now finally focus its attention on the Eastern front and against D-Day
Japan now can focus on taking mainland Asia
What do you think? :?sounds about right :-D
-
/Imperious leader
I just try to guess what has been done. I would be surprised if defender retreats is in the game, as I think Larry would think this changes gameplay too much.
I’ve tried to think what changed from original A&A to Revised, and also that some, but not all, of AAE and AAP features will be included, and then extrapolate this to this edition.
VCs are an all-important change, and I base my ideas on that Larry seemed to be very positive to using VCs to promote historial play on a thread I read. So, no VC in China and plenty out in the Pacific fits this well. Maybe Singapore would be chosen instead of Djakarta, of course then UK would have 5 VCs at start of '41 scenario which is why I thought it unlikely. On the other hand, Netherlands East Indies forces might well be UK-controlled anyway, and then the point is moot I guess.
China will probably have been designed to take up a lot of attention from the Japanese, so that an offensive vs. the Soviets is possible only if other fronts are ignored and massive air power is diverted vs. China to achieve victory there. The Japanese will be rewarded if they play historically -> Pacific-oriented. Maybe more land areas will be added in Siberia as well to stall any offensive further?
When it comes to the Russian front I think Italy will be thought to control Romanian and Hungarian forces. This will actually be quite historically correct as the small forces they had never contributed in the great offensives but plugged holes in the front, which will be nicely simulated by the Italian turn coming after both the German and Soviet turns!
One thing I didn’t consider is if naval bases will be in the game, with a similar mechanic as in AAP. Would be quite interesting to see this applied to the European theater as this could make Gibraltar and Malta more worth fighting for.
-
-
Italy: 20 IPCs, Germany: 35 IPCs, Soviet Union: 28 IPCs, UK: 32 IPCs.
-
Naval unit costs: BB 20 IPCs, CV 15 IPCs, CA 14 IPCs, DD 10 IPCs.
-
CV: defence down to ‘2’.
-
DD: attack/defend ‘2’.
-
CA: attack/defend ‘3’. Special ability: shore bombardment at ‘2’.
-
Subs: may only be attacked if a DD is present in attacking force.
I think German production will be more like 40+, with Russia possibly at 30, and UK possibly 34-35.
Your Cruiser unit is severely underpowered for its cost. Considering you can practically buy 2 subs for 1 cruiser at that cost…And BB would be better for the cost as a bombarding unit AND as a naval attack unit.
IMO, something more balanced would be: DD 9 IPC cost, 2/2 (anti-sub capability) ; CA 12 IPC cost, 3/3 (+bombard? or maybe something completely new). If they give it a good enough special ability then maybe it will be closer to a 14 IPC cost, but a ‘2’ bombard is certainly not worth it.
-
-
VCs are an all-important change, and I base my ideas on that Larry seemed to be very positive to using VCs to promote historial play on a thread I read. So, no VC in China and plenty out in the Pacific fits this well. Maybe Singapore would be chosen instead of Djakarta, of course then UK would have 5 VCs at start of '41 scenario which is why I thought it unlikely. On the other hand, Netherlands East Indies forces might well be UK-controlled anyway, and then the point is moot I guess.
yes the pacific must be revamped. Since the 1941 Scenario is presented, Japan must have Singapore, Dutch oil wells, Guadalcanal ( Solomons), even perhaps hong kong and borneo as new VC…along with Australia getting something and Hawaii too. I think Aleutians will be a new territory. From this USA will have to pay more attention to the Pacific to prevent the Japanese land grab.
China will probably have been designed to take up a lot of attention from the Japanese, so that an offensive vs. the Soviets is possible only if other fronts are ignored and massive air power is diverted vs. China to achieve victory there. The Japanese will be rewarded if they play historically -> Pacific-oriented. Maybe more land areas will be added in Siberia as well to stall any offensive further?
yes. totally makes sence to me.
When it comes to the Russian front I think Italy will be thought to control Romanian and Hungarian forces. This will actually be quite historically correct as the small forces they had never contributed in the great offensives but plugged holes in the front, which will be nicely simulated by the Italian turn coming after both the German and Soviet turns!
Right again. Italy and the minor axis allies ( except finland) should be under their control
One thing I didn’t consider is if naval bases will be in the game, with a similar mechanic as in AAP. Would be quite interesting to see this applied to the European theater as this could make Gibraltar and Malta more worth fighting for.
Suggested Topics
