News flash: AXIS & ALLIES ANNIVERSARY EDITION due out oct 23 08

[Lynxes]

/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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Krieghund]

@Lynxes:

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.

[squirecam]

@Krieghund:

@Lynxes:

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.

[Imperious Leader]

‘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.

[Krieghund]

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

@Lynxes:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

[Lynxes]

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?

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[shermantank]

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? :?

[Krupp Steel]

@shermantank:

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

[Lynxes]

/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.

[03321]

@Lynxes:

• 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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Krupp Steel]

From the little I have read about NA’s (dont own revised :-() do you think they will transfer this to the 50th edition,and if so,what do you think might be Italy’s or maybe even China’s.Or even maybe maybe new ones for the existing factions?lol just curious as to what you were hoping for,do any of you like NA’s or are they overpowered?

[Imperious Leader]

NA should be less significant because the game should be balanced, but random events that may effect a side good or bad would prove to add alot of fun to the game.

[Lynxes]

/03321

Well, maybe the cruiser will be at 13 IPCs and the destroyer at 9 IPCs. The bombard ability is the only one I could think of, and I thought it likely it would be in the game since it featured in research and AAP for the Destroyer unit.

Attack/defence per IPC + hit points per IPC:
BB at 24 : 6     / 12
BB at 22 : 5.5  / 11
BB at 20 : 5     / 10
CA at 14 : 4.7  / 14
CA at 13 : 4.3  / 13
CA at 12 : 4    / 12
DD at 10 : 5    / 10
DD at 9   : 4.5  / 9
SS at  8   : 4    / 8

As BBs have the two hit capability they should be more expensive. I guess for 20 IPCs since then Italy might be able to buy it with their starting cash (and more than 20 IPCs for Italy isn’t likely). If we use this as a starting point then CA would be at 14 or 13, DD at 10 or 9. I doubt if they will weaken subs further, maybe they will stay just the same and their weakness vs. air units will then outweigh their cheap cost. Reducing them to ‘1’ in defence is OK by me if they get other advantages such as lower cost and/or only able to attacked if DD in attacking force, they were only an offensive weapon after all.

[03321]

If they’re going to bombard and only bombard I don’t think they’ll bombard as a 2.  If they did and that were their only special as a 3/3 they’d have to cost 12 IPCs, no more. @14 IPCs you could buy 2 BB for 2 IPCs less than buying 3 cruisers.  In head-to-head the BBs will win 75% of the time, the cruisers will survive less than 20%.  In large-scale battles the differences are still there, and the 1 extra punch from the cruisers (3@3=9 vs. 2@4=8), doesn’t make up for the 2 free casualties taken on the battleships, no matter how much fodder (transports lawl) you have.  Even at 13 cost, 3 cruisers only save you 1 IPC over 2 BB and again aren’t as good.  With a 2 bombard the 3 cruisers will have a bombard punch of 6 vs. the 8 of the 2 BBs.  Even with a 3 bombard the cruisers are slightly better for bombarding, but I don’t feel that would outweigh the naval superiority of battleships.  It seems you are undervaluing the fact that the extra hit taken on the battleship is completely free, meaning you lose no punch at all, where the losses on a cruiser drop your punch by 3.  So the table of ‘this unit has this many hit points/atk value’ doesn’t show the full value of each unit when comparing BB to other ships.

But, personally, I don’t think the only special thing about cruisers will be another bombard ship.  Maybe they are, who knows.

But @12 IPCs, a 3/3 cruiser with ‘3’ bombard, would be about even with a 20 IPC 4/4 BB taking 2 hits with ‘4’ bombard I think.  Facing off 3 battleships (60 IPC) vs. 5 cruisers (60 IPC), would give a 12 punch with 6 hits to take (3 free) vs. a 15 punch with 5 hits to take.  The 3 battleships would win 2/3 of the time.  And again, in large-scale battles those free hits will still certainly come in handy.  However, the cruiser now has enough advantage in bombardment (15 punch vs. 12 punch @ 60 IPC worth) to be worth considering.  But again, considering that in this case the only advantage of cruisers is 1/2 kill worth of punch in bombardment after spending 60 IPCs, I just think cruisers will have something else, possibly combined with a ‘2’ or ‘3’ bombard.

And if you think I’m questioning your 20 IPC cost for BB, I’m not.  I have always felt 24 was too expensive, as has almost everyone I think.  Which reminds me that spending a lot of IPCs on one BB for someone like UK might still not be advantageous in a single round, when trying to keep a steady flow of troops moving into Europe.  So maybe 12 cost for cruiser as a 3/3, ‘3’ bombard would be good.

[Imperious Leader]

Shore Bombardment is a joke. They should get rid of it or just allow them to “boost” +1 the landing infantry (in addition to artillery) or just make the bombard like the AA gun.

Under no record has any supporting fire from offshore warships resulted in the enemy losing anything remotely approaching what would be the equivalent of one piece (roughly an army).

It only acted like heavy artillery to reshape the battlefield a bit. It didn’t destroy entire companies, battalions, divisions, corps or armies like a nuclear weapon. The whole affair only promotes cheesy tricks of constantly landing a few men and getting multiple shore shots as a tactic. It should all go.

[03321]

I agree, amphibious assaults should be at some sort of disadvantage with bombardment only narrowing the defender’s advantage a little, rather than being a normal battle with bombardment making it advantageous to amphib.

[Adlertag]

I love shore bombard, but it should NOT be in opening fire phase