Anniversary Board is 24x46 inches, or 1104 square inches
Pacific and Europe boards are each 35x32 inches, for a total of 2240 square inches.
Global is over twice as big as anniversary
Anniversary has 65 sea zones
Global has 127
Global has almost twice as many sea zones as Anniversary
Anniversary has 96 territories, including neutrals/impassibles
Global has 196
Global has over twice as many territories as Anniversary
Thus, Global should cost twice as much right? But Global costs $180 at list price, and Anniversary(on Amazon) is almost $800.
Anniversary was a limited edition,rare things cost a lot
All the reason why units need to move twice as fast, or the game takes twice as long.
@Imperious:
All the reason why units need to move twice as fast, or the game takes twice as long.
Ships move 1.5 times as fast. This slows down ships, which is good because I don’t like seeing Japanese ships in the Med or Atlantic
I bought my 50th the day it came out, so i paid the 100$ it was meant to sell at, well, 75$, box was damaged a bit, poor churchill’s face….
Hello all,
Longtime reader, seldom do I post.
I used to play a game called World in Flames. It is same type of games as Axis and Allies - WWII strategy game.
In World in Flames one could choose not to move units in the combat phase and later move them farther via Strategic Redeployment. (It has been a while. I think that is what it was called.) With Redeployment units could move by rail as far as the rail lines could reach.
In essence by giving up their combat phase units could move a long way across the map in preparation for the next campaign. There is no reason we can’t do this in Axis and Allies. Extend the movement of land units in the non-combat movement phase. It could be far, perhaps as far as 4 spaces. The actual movement rating of the infantry or tanks do not matter, because they are all being moved by train anyway.
I recall being told that these turns represent six months of time on average. In division strength units can travel far in six months.
Redjac
Hello all,
Longtime reader, seldom do I post.
I used to play a game called World in Flames. It is same type of games as Axis and Allies - WWII strategy game.
In World in Flames one could choose not to move units in the combat phase and later move them farther via Strategic Redeployment. (It has been a while. I think that is what it was called.) With Redeployment units could move by rail as far as the rail lines could reach.
In essence by giving up their combat phase units could move a long way across the map in preparation for the next campaign. There is no reason we can’t do this in Axis and Allies. Extend the movement of land units in the non-combat movement phase. It could be far, perhaps as far as 4 spaces. The actual movement rating of the infantry or tanks do not matter, because they are all being moved by train anyway.
I recall being told that these turns represent six months of time on average. In division strength units can travel far in six months.
Redjac
This is a good Idea, but in the game(s) we have, this would give the axis the advantage: the allies have to try to stretch axis lines, which is harder with rail. This would also allow German units to get to Russia faster
@Imperious:
All the reason why units need to move twice as fast, or the game takes twice as long.
Aren`t they trying to make the largest axis and allies ever, does it matter that much if the game takes as long like a Spring 42 game!
@Dylan:
@Imperious:
All the reason why units need to move twice as fast, or the game takes twice as long.
Aren`t they trying to make the largest axis and allies ever, does it matter that much if the game takes as long like a Spring 42 game!
Spring 1942 takes 10 moves. This game will average 20-30
I like the idea of extended non-combat movement via rail movment. this new board definitly would benifit from this. IL posted a thread about this and it makes alot of sense. If you think that this might cause an unfair advantige to one side or the other, what if bombers could be used to proform interdiction and by bombing rail lines stop or slowdown this type of extended movment for a turn or as long as that enemy bomber remains over that TT. Paratroopers could also disrupt rail lines.
Hello all,
Longtime reader, seldom do I post.
I used to play a game called World in Flames. It is same type of games as Axis and Allies - WWII strategy game.
In World in Flames one could choose not to move units in the combat phase and later move them farther via Strategic Redeployment. (It has been a while. I think that is what it was called.) With Redeployment units could move by rail as far as the rail lines could reach.
In essence by giving up their combat phase units could move a long way across the map in preparation for the next campaign. There is no reason we can’t do this in Axis and Allies. Extend the movement of land units in the non-combat movement phase. It could be far, perhaps as far as 4 spaces. The actual movement rating of the infantry or tanks do not matter, because they are all being moved by train anyway.
I recall being told that these turns represent six months of time on average. In division strength units can travel far in six months.
Redjac
Ah, a fellow Europe in Flames player! Man, I need to ask my parents to ship that out back here in Austin…
Also, yeah, Anniversary’s out of print, hence why’s it so damn expensive.
@UN:
Hello all,
Longtime reader, seldom do I post.
I used to play a game called World in Flames. It is same type of games as Axis and Allies - WWII strategy game.
In World in Flames one could choose not to move units in the combat phase and later move them farther via Strategic Redeployment. (It has been a while. I think that is what it was called.) With Redeployment units could move by rail as far as the rail lines could reach.
In essence by giving up their combat phase units could move a long way across the map in preparation for the next campaign. There is no reason we can’t do this in Axis and Allies. Extend the movement of land units in the non-combat movement phase. It could be far, perhaps as far as 4 spaces. The actual movement rating of the infantry or tanks do not matter, because they are all being moved by train anyway.
I recall being told that these turns represent six months of time on average. In division strength units can travel far in six months.
Redjac
Ah, a fellow Europe in Flames player! Man, I need to ask my parents to ship that out back here in Austin…
Also, yeah, Anniversary’s out of print, hence why’s it so damn expensive.
Been a while since I played Wif, but I think the turns were 2 months. The production spiral was brilliant. Pay for a tank unit now and get it in 2 turns. Carriers and Battleships took 6 turns to build the hull and another 6 to fit it out. You took care of your fleet in that game.
compare AA50 to the first Axis & Allies from the 80’s….same kind of jump from AA50 to AAGlobal…
As I recall, the 1986 Milton Bradley A&A game came in a larger box and had a larger board than the size used in later A&A releases.
It’ll be interesting to compare the Global, the Anniversary and the Spring 1942 boards, which use the same general map / art style in three different sizes (large, medium and small) and at three different levels of detail. Since Anniversary came out first, I guess Spring 1942 can be considered a simplified and reduced-scale version of the Anniversary map, and Global an expanded version of the Anniversary map.
@CWO:
As I recall, the 1986 Milton Bradley A&A game came in a larger box and had a larger board than the size used in later A&A releases.
It’ll be interesting to compare the Global, the Anniversary and the Spring 1942 boards, which use the same general map / art style in three different sizes (large, medium and small) and at three different levels of detail. Since Anniversary came out first, I guess Spring 1942 can be considered a simplified and reduced-scale version of the Anniversary map, and Global an expanded version of the Anniversary map.
Actually, 1942 is more of a revised Revised. The map and setup are almost the same
@CWO:
As I recall, the 1986 Milton Bradley A&A game came in a larger box and had a larger board than the size used in later A&A releases.
It’ll be interesting to compare the Global, the Anniversary and the Spring 1942 boards, which use the same general map / art style in three different sizes (large, medium and small) and at three different levels of detail. Since Anniversary came out first, I guess Spring 1942 can be considered a simplified and reduced-scale version of the Anniversary map, and Global an expanded version of the Anniversary map.
Actually, 1942 is more of a revised Revised. The map and setup are almost the same
Calvin, I think Marc is referring to the 1986 original 1942 map version. I have a couple of those inherited from my father. Been a while since I’ve looked at those but I do think it was bigger than the Revised and the new 1942 version. I wonder if it was the same size as the Anniversary.
@CWO:
As I recall, the 1986 Milton Bradley A&A game came in a larger box and had a larger board than the size used in later A&A releases.
It’ll be interesting to compare the Global, the Anniversary and the Spring 1942 boards, which use the same general map / art style in three different sizes (large, medium and small) and at three different levels of detail. Since Anniversary came out first, I guess Spring 1942 can be considered a simplified and reduced-scale version of the Anniversary map, and Global an expanded version of the Anniversary map.
Actually, 1942 is more of a revised Revised. The map and setup are almost the same
Calvin, I think Marc is referring to the 1986 original 1942 map version. I have a couple of those inherited from my father. Been a while since I’ve looked at those but I do think it was bigger than the Revised and the new 1942 version. I wonder if it was the same size as the Anniversary.
No, he said Spring 1942, which is AA42
To clarify:
I mentioned the Milton Bradley edition in response to the post which said “compare AA50 to the first Axis & Allies from the 80’s….same kind of jump from AA50 to AAGlobal…” My point about this was that the board size jump from AA50 to Global should be equated to the board size jump from earlier games (like Revised) to AA50, but probably not to the board size jump from the Milton Bradley edition because the MB edition used a larger board than Revised.
I also mentioned Global, AA50 and AA1942, but my point about those three games was that they are basically three different-sized boards which use a very similar “Google Earth” art style to depict the world.
Ah okay, my mistake. What is the size of the MB version? I have the New AA1942 version (playing it now till Europe arrives) and it’s zones are identical to Revised but unlike revised it has that realistic terrain look.
I don’t have the Anniversary version unfortunately; I hope they reprint in a few years.
Ah okay, my mistake. What is the size of the MB version?
I’ll measure my MB board this evening (if someone else can’t provide the answer before then), but I remember that the box is definitely on the large size compared to most A&A game boxes. The MB box is closer in size (though not identical) to the Anniversary box than to anything else. One complicating factor, however, is that the Global map consists of 4 three-panel folding boards, whereas the Anniversary map consists of three solid (non-folding) boards – so the smaller size of the Global boxes doesn’t reflect the fact that their maps add up to something larger than Anniversary. I think the MB map also consisted of multiple solid boards, but I’m not certain.
