Confirmed Details???

[frimmel]

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

Well I thought I would post a list of the details that have been confirmed by Larry on his website, to save people the time of plodding through all the posts there. This does not of course mean they are absolutely guaranteed. I will try to edit and update this as new information comes out.

• D6 combat system similar to that used in Revised Ed., though Larry has left open the possibility of minor tweaks including the use of “special dice”

• The new turn sequence is: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, UK, Italy, USA.

• Two setup scenario options: Spring 1941 and Spring 1942. The board graphics show 1941 ownership of territories.

• The Victory City concept has been maintained from Revised Ed. and will play an even larger role. Victory cities have been added, particularly in the Pacific, to make it more difficult for the Allies to ignore Japan. New victory cities include Warsaw, Ottowa, Honolulu, Hong Kong, and Sydney.

• New national objectives which award each nation an amount of bonus IPC for controlling a certain set of territories. These national objectives will encourage certain historical actions by nations, such as Italy trying to conquer Egypt or Japan attacking into the South Pacific rather than Russia.

• Technology has been revisited. Nations can now purchase “researchers” which assist them in rolling for technologies. There will be 12 technologies available.

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

• The Pacific theatre has been significantly re-balanced with the addition of China as a more active entity (controlled by the US player) and additional land and sea zones.

• China as a minor power controlled by the USA player with its own Infantry sculpt. China has been broken up into 7 territories, each worth 1 IPC. China itself does not earn any IPC but gets one free infantry per turn per Chinese territory that it controls.

• Indochina has been effectively split into 3 zones, with a Burma zone (2 IPC) between French Indochina and India, and a Hong Kong zone (1 IPC and victory city) between French Indochina and Kwantung. Both of these zones start UK controlled.

• Europe has been extensively redrawn. There is now a new Northwestern Europe zone (2 IPC) between France and Germany bordering the North Sea giving the Western Allies a new zone to invade and providing for maneuver warfare on the Western Front.

• Eastern Europe and the Western area of the Soviet Union have a completely new layout to better represent the situation in the 1941 scenario and give more depth to the 1942 scenario, with a number of new and redrawn zones.

• The Scandinavian territory has been split into a Finland territory (2 IPC) and a Norway territory (2 IPC?).

• Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad now all have industrial complexes and are all victory cities.

• The naval units have been heavily rebalanced with the addition of the cruiser unit.

• New Cruiser Unit, which will have 3/3 combat stats and cost 12 IC. Cruisers have the shore bombard ability.

• The rules for shore bombardment has been revised. The number of ships engaging in a shore bombardment cannot exceed the number of ground units conducting the invasion, i.e. if 2 ground units are conducting an invasion a maximum of 2 ships could conduct shore bombardment.

• The Destroyer now costs 8 and has 2/2 combat stats in addition to its ASW powers

• The submarine now costs 6 and has 2/1 combat stats. Submarines can no longer be attacked by aircraft unless there is also an attacking destroyer in that same zone.

• Transports now have no combat ability and are automatically destroyed if ever present alone with enemy units, including air units just flying through their zone. Their cost may also have been changed (not certain yet).

• Italy as a new Major Power with its own unique sculpts. Italy begins with Southern Europe, the Balkans, and Libya worth a total of 10 IPC.

• Italian pieces will a brownish color, barely differentiated from Soviet and Japanese pieces

• German pieces will be a dark shade of gray

• German fighters now use the ME-109 sculpt from “AA:Battle of the Bulge”

• The Black Sea will continue to be a freely accesible sea zone, with no restrictions on passage through the Dardanelles

• No convoy zones

• 24"x46" game board with over 65% more area than Revised Ed. and a substantial number of new zones

• The board will come in three pieces that will be joined to create the playing surface

• The land surfaces are now topographically rendered, with starting control for the 1941 scenario designated using light shading and national icons. Thus the 1942 scenario is set up with some territories already being occupied.

• The oceans are a lighter shade of blue than the dark shade used in the Revised Edition, but still slightly darker than the original Axis and Allies

• Over 600 plastic pieces, 60% more than Revised Ed.

• Paper money similar to the previous editions

• 48 page Rulebook

• Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price of $100.00 (though note online stores are selling it much cheaper, in the $70 range)

• Larry confirmed on April 25 that the game is finished and locked, no further changes will be made.

Just passing this on.  I cannot speak personally to their veracity although many jive with what’s been flying around.  :|

[Lynxes]

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

[Hobbes]

As equally important as the starting IPC value of each country is the Total Unit Value (TUV) of each country. Using IL’s starting pieces totals and your post regarding the unit costs, we have (I didn’t had time to recheck the sums):

Germany: 230
Russia:  196
Japan: 258
UK: 233
Italy: 110
US: 231 (with China)

Allies: 660
Axis: 598

On Revised the Allies/Axis TUV values were 689/620, so the difference between both is about the same considering Anniversary vs. Revised if you consider a +9 Axis bid.

[variant]

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

If the starting IPCs is correct, I am not buying the game. What the hell kind of imbalance did they create in this game?

[Lynxes]

/variant

Look at the game map pictures on www.boardgamegeek.com!! You can see that Japan grabs a lot of territories very quickly, since the game starts in 1941, and the same goes for Germany as the first turn is the Barbarossa campaign.

I wrote out what my predictions are for turn 2 and I do think that is quite a good balance. The ratio I predicted is probably not right exactly, but all in all the Axis might well have it slightly better than in Axis&Allies Revised.

[variant]

@Lynxes:

/variant

Look at the game map pictures on www.boardgamegeek.com!! You can see that Japan grabs a lot of territories very quickly, since the game starts in 1941, and the same goes for Germany as the first turn is the Barbarossa campaign.

You are assuming that Japan and Germany want to grab those territories. A game should not be balanced on assumption or railroading a player into taking specific actions just so they can survive!

[Lynxes]

Check out the “Throw us a…” thread. These IPCs bonuses seem to be decisive and we’re trying to figure them out.

[Romulus]

Also in Classic and in Revised there are a lot of first turn scripted actions. For example in Revised there are must attacks for Germany: the Egypt, the Med UK BB. Sure you can not attack the UK BB in the MED, but then UK will have two BB. Here UK starts with one BB, no need to sink one in the opening move for germany. Similar things happens for USSR, she have to attack West Russia first turn.

First turn openings are restricted to few options. However this not means that Classic or Revised are scripted. Here we have TWO setup and then two set of opening moves. I think this is more better.

[shermantank]

@Romulus:

First turn openings are restricted to few options. However this not means that Classic or Revised are scripted. Here we have TWO setup and then two set of opening moves. I think this is more better.

I agree wholeheartly. This will make the game more interesting and unpredictable to be certain.

[Romulus]

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

[squirecam]

I think folk should take a step back on balance.

Remember, there are 2 scenarios.

The 1942 scenario should be what you “expect” to see in Revised and Classic. Japan having certain gains, but not having as much units due to losses.

The 1941 scenario grants the axis a “what if”. Can Japan gain more/lose less than at the start of 1942? Can germany do better in its Barbarossa assault?

So the Axis can do better or worse depending upon dice outcomes and tactical choices.

If you dont want to be “railroaded”, then start in 42 like usual.

[Guest]

I don’t know, I am a bit less excited about the 1941 scenario… it looks like all the 1941 scenario does is give you the opportunity to put yourself into the 1942 scenario (since, as said, there are many must-take actions).  Hence, it adds gameplay length, for no necessary reason.

(Plus, 1942 has been the A&A World start for so long… I can’t imagine it any other way!  :-P)

[Imperious Leader]

1941 must be better because you decide how to attack the Soviets. I don’t like the 1942 when your already invested in SU and would at least like to know how it happened. The Soviets have no air power and no offensive punch. The G1 attacks would have little counter with a bunch of crap thrown at it.

[Romulus]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Thanks for the clarification! I have misunderstood the term “hits”.

[axis_roll]

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

[squirecam]

Your CAP would defend at 2 though.

[Guest]

@axis_roll:

@Craig:

@Romulus:

@frimmel:

Here is a post from Boardgamegeek:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

The gentlemen has collected a list of supposedly confirmed details.

…

• Strategic boming now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. (i.e. if an industrial complex in Germany is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired). Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point.

I have a doubt: what it means strategic bombing hit? The value rolled on the dice or the result of the rolled value compared to the attack level of the bomber?
I make an example: 2 USA bombers attack Germany. AA gun miss. First bomber rolls a 3, an hit comparing to the bomber attack level of 4. The other one rolls a 5, so a miss. The damage inflicted is 1 hit to the IC or it is 8 hits?

SBRs go like this:

Bombers that survive AA fire will then roll.  Whatever that roll (or rolls) number is, that is the number of damage markers placed under the IC.  The owner of the IC then has a decision to make on his turn.

He can use IPCs in the build phase to remove any number of damage markers immediately at that time or he can choose not to.  If the damage markers are not removed, the IC can only produce a number of units up to the ICs damage-limited number that it now has.

Example: If Germany is damaged by a US bomber for 4 “hits” upon its IC, then the German player has to either spend 4 IPCs (in the Build Phase) to bring it back up to full production (10 units), a number of IPCs less than 4 IPCs to bring it to any other production number that they so choose, or spend nothing and leave the IC production number at 6 units.

The choice is up to you.  You may not have enough IPCs to actually produce 10 units, so why would you spend the IPCs to fix the damage?

Craig

Obviously I can not tell for sure since I haven’t played the game, but this really seems to make SBR’s much more powerful, especially if bombers now only cost $13 and Germanys base income is $10 less.  And I am not sure I want to get involved in a game whose outcome depends on how well you can roll “1”'s to keep the bombers off you.

Well, if it makes it worse for you… the winners at GenCon say they dominated because US just shipped bombers to Germany…  :x

I dunno, I might just try out Enhanced if this game isn’t balanced  :-D until of course an AA50 Enhanced is made!

[shermantank]

I like the Strategic Bombing Rule Larry made for the Anniversary. It makes the bombing much more realistic than before. Do you lose IPC’s AND lose production at your factory or just the second option?

[Guest]

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

[variant]

@timerover51:

@Lynxes:

On IPC values in -41 scenario:

Germany 30  (+ 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5 bonus)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

I assume only the confirmed IPC bonuses of “no enemy ships in Med” worth Italy 5 IPCs and “Japan takes historical islands and holds at start territories” 5? IPCs.

Turn 2 would be around (assuming Germany taking Baltics, East P and Ukraine, Japan NEI, Borneo, Hong-Kong, Phil. and Burma, and the Allies not having any ships in Med):
Germany 34
Soviet Union 26
Japan 35
UK 31
Italy 15
US 43 + 9 IPCs worth of free China inf

Allies: 109, Axis: 84, compared to AAR: Allies 96, Axis 70.

Ratio: AA50 1.30 in Allied favour, AAR 1.37 in Allied favour.

Hmm, if that Japanese figure is anywhere near accurate, I will be doubling the IPC production of the US, and still adding Lend-Lease rolls for the UK and Russia.

Japanese production greater than the UK is so totally ridiculous that it is laughable, and also not to be allowed.  The US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Analysis Division, put the size of the Japanese wartime economy at one-tenth of the United States, and that included Manchurian and Korean production.  Using that criteria, if the US is 45, the Japanese should be 4 or 5.  If you give the Japanese the initial value of 17, then the US should be valued at 170.  Hmm, now that would be an interesting value to use.  Take Japan and multiply by 10 to get the US.  Have to give that some thought.

Good luck finding someone to play Axis.