Europe 1940 shows up on Wizards site…with screenshot

Lozmoid, no offense…

But while I agree there are errors, I don’t feel that the errors (even in aggregate) are enough to not buy a product that you are interested in.

No one is perfect - but $60-70 is what Axis & Allies games should cost nowadays (the old 2nd edition game was $45 back in 1996 - adjust for inflation).

None taken…

That is my opinion and I’m sticking to it, I’m afraid. I wish Larry Harris would have his games made by a company who cares.

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Lozmoid,
I bought Pac40 the first day (actually the store sold it to me the day before release). Honestly we played quite a few Pac games early on, but lately we have went back to AA50. Your right it’s a great game. I don’t feel I wasted my money on Pac, but I do feel like I bought 1/2 a game. There were some issues w/Pac40 when it was released, but it’s been hammered out now through the Faq/Errata. I’m glad we got Pac40 because now I understand how the new units and bases work along w/political rules. It is kind of like a dress rehearsal. Now when E40 comes out I have a heads up on what to expect. I think (don’t know for sure) that the release of E40 was backed up to re wright parts of the rule book from the feedback they got from Pac 40, so I’m expecting a smoother less problematic game in August. Then there’s the much anticipated placing both boards together, I’m going to need to buy a ping pong table  :-D

@Znieh:

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Yep, AA50 was so brilliant that they did 2 broken scenarios where allies cannot win because they did ubercrappy rules for China (one of then passed to AAP40) and they didn’t playtested Asian mainland :roll:

@Funcioneta:

@Znieh:

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Yep, AA50 was so brilliant that they did 2 broken scenarios where allies cannot win because they did ubercrappy rules for China (one of then passed to AAP40) and they didn’t playtested Asian mainland :roll:

I was just quoting Lozmoid who said AA50 was brilliant, but I will agree with you the Axis do have an advantage in both setups. But I have been finding out that the way the allies can win is through unconventional A&A strategies, but which are actually the historical strategies. For example American wolfpack tactics in the pacific.

@Znieh:

@Funcioneta:

@Znieh:

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Yep, AA50 was so brilliant that they did 2 broken scenarios where allies cannot win because they did ubercrappy rules for China (one of then passed to AAP40) and they didn’t playtested Asian mainland :roll:

I was just quoting Lozmoid who said AA50 was brilliant, but I will agree with you the Axis do have an advantage in both setups. But I have been finding out that the way the allies can win is through unconventional A&A strategies, but which are actually the historical strategies. For example American wolfpack tactics in the pacific.

So you don’t think P40 is broken?

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Znieh:

@Funcioneta:

@Znieh:

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Yep, AA50 was so brilliant that they did 2 broken scenarios where allies cannot win because they did ubercrappy rules for China (one of then passed to AAP40) and they didn’t playtested Asian mainland :roll:

I was just quoting Lozmoid who said AA50 was brilliant, but I will agree with you the Axis do have an advantage in both setups. But I have been finding out that the way the allies can win is through unconventional A&A strategies, but which are actually the historical strategies. For example American wolfpack tactics in the pacific.

So you don’t think P40 is broken?

I think he’s talking about AA50

@Stoney229:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Znieh:

@Funcioneta:

@Znieh:

But wasn’t the brilliant AA50 made by the same uncaring company?

Yep, AA50 was so brilliant that they did 2 broken scenarios where allies cannot win because they did ubercrappy rules for China (one of then passed to AAP40) and they didn’t playtested Asian mainland :roll:

I was just quoting Lozmoid who said AA50 was brilliant, but I will agree with you the Axis do have an advantage in both setups. But I have been finding out that the way the allies can win is through unconventional A&A strategies, but which are actually the historical strategies. For example American wolfpack tactics in the pacific.

So you don’t think P40 is broken?

I think he’s talking about AA50

Sorry, I saw the word Pacific and assumed things

@Imperious:

You’d figure they could at least find one intelligent person to do these things.

They don’t care. They do the minimal crap to just get by. The picture is like some idiot took it from his cell phone and posted it. They probably don’t have any decent cameras. Look at the script on the advertisement… its a total joke… looks like its written by someone who has no clue what AA is about.

And you know very well that the game will be shorting some pieces… i just can’t wait for the latest mistake… you know its around the corner… some huge gaff, typo, or only 6 German stukas?, or 6 Mech infantry?  Something is definatly going to be wrong… it has happened too many times before and it will happen again…

We already know of one thing… India does not match up with the other board… It will look like the bottom of a milking cow. ( two peaks)

It just never ends because these people are true minimalists who have every excuse for every occasion. Man i wish i was in charge of that office… id fire everyone and deny severance and pension to all past employees.

Seriously?

Look, Wizards certainly made some serious errors with AAP40, and I’m sure they will have new and improved errors with AAE40.

BUT!!!

Nothing about this image is an error.  There’s a reason (as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread) that every single box back image has a not-even-remotely correct setup.  It’s because they don’t want to let that information out yet.  If they posted a high-resolution picture of the map with the correct setup, there are enough super-excited anal-retentive people on this board (I know, I’m one of them) that we would already have broken down the unit setup to within an infantry or two, and drawn accurate maps of the board.  We would already have games in progress on AABattlemaps and tripleA, and people would be stealing their work resources to print out high-res maps on their large format plotters.  Some people, having gone to the effort of making bootleg copies would not be inclined to buy the real product.  Others who are super excited to see what’s been made will have seen it all, and be less willing to run out and get it right away.  They’ll plan to buy it eventually, but in some cases eventually will turn into never.  Both of these effects will directly affect their sales.  On the other hand, if they build up enthusiasm to a fever pitch with properly timed spoilers, then die hard fans will rush out to buy, and people who are on the fence will get swept up by their friends and the excitement and will make a purchase that they may not otherwise.

Remember, Wizards is selling four things inside the box that you buy:

1. The board
2. The other physical components (pieces, markers, charts, etc.)
3. The rules
4. The starting setup

Now, anyone who bought AAP40 will already have the rules, minus some political rules, national objectives, and technology.  Those additional rules have been spoiled or can be easily deduced in most cases.  Certainly close enough to get a 90% solution
Anybody who has several copies of earlier games (as I’m sure just about everybody on this board does) has enough of the pieces (minus a few Mech Infantry and Tac Bombers that I’m sure they can jury rig out of other parts or painted parts) to provision all powers.
That leaves the board and the starting setup, and a single high-resolution picture of the starting setup would leak that information completely in a matter of hours.

Nothing about this picture is an accident.  They showed us exactly what they wanted us to see.

I’m sure they had a professional photographer take ultra-high resolution photographs, and then spent time figuring exactly how much they needed to down-rez it to show what they wanted.  Similarly, upon consideration, I think that they had someone familiar with the game set it up deliberately so that 1) all countries (particularly the US and France, since they’re one of the new hooks) are represented, 2) the board is “evocative” of what the board will look like in play without 3) looking anything like the actual setup.

This is a movie trailer.  It shows a few big explosions, a couple great one-liners and catchphrases, and makes you want to see the movie/play the game without giving away the farm.

I’m not totally sure yet about if AAP40 is broken (but I only played 3 games until today, take that into account). Anyway I think it’s easier balance AAP40 (if broken) that AA50: for AAP40, I’d add 1 aagun to Szechwan and change the order of turns to make China playing first … that should be enough. In addition, to prevent gamey strats, I’d delete any restrictions to China’s movement, but anyway AA50 also needs that

@purplebaron:

On another thread, there was a discussion about how much time it would take to get German reinforcements (AKA, Rommel) into Africa.  Basically it came down to: T1-capture French TT on Med, T2, build IC, T3 Build transports and units at IC, T4, first opportunity for units to arrive in Africa.  This was deemed long and cumbersome, and people were despairing that Africa would become an Italy-only endeavor.

The setup on the image we’ve seen gave me a thought (with all the caveats on the unreliability of the image as a representation of the actual setup).  Even with Germany having no territories on the Med to start, it would be perfectly reasonable and even likely for the Germans to start with a transport and a destroyer in the Med (Relying on Italy for protection).  This way, the Germans could start shuttling units over on turn 2.

Problem is that Germany doesn’t start with any tt bordering Vichy, so it’ll either be taken by Italy or by Germany on G2. Also, Vichy may only be 1 ipc.

@purplebaron:

Nothing about this image is an error.  There’s a reason (as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread) that every single box back image has a not-even-remotely correct setup.  It’s because they don’t want to let that information out yet.  If they posted a high-resolution picture of the map with the correct setup, there are enough super-excited anal-retentive people on this board (I know, I’m one of them) that we would already have broken down the unit setup to within an infantry or two, and drawn accurate maps of the board.  We would already have games in progress on AABattlemaps and tripleA, and people would be stealing their work resources to print out high-res maps on their large format plotters.

Revealing the setup will be only bad for them if the game is broken. If setup is OK, then people will have more desire of buying it. If setup is broken (as Classic, AA50 and maybe AAP40), people would have less desire of buying it. If undecided, I can still wait a couple of months for someone deveploing a AABattlemap module and then decide. I’m not itching anyway to buying the game the very first day. As much, this type of bad treatment to the customers is giving me less desire of buying future A&A games, and it’s pretty probable that AAE40 is the last buy for me. It maybe intentional, but I think that is damaging them

My bet is that they failed to test the game enough just to save money (again), they have or suspect have a broken setup and so they don’t want reveal it

Also, I’m wondering why they released the game in such odd date: students are going to be studying for September exams, workers are going to re-start the work soon… it would be better releasing it now so we can play the game this summer (I doubt they are going to change much the setup from today to late August)

@Funcioneta:

@purplebaron:

Nothing about this image is an error.  There’s a reason (as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread) that every single box back image has a not-even-remotely correct setup.  It’s because they don’t want to let that information out yet.  If they posted a high-resolution picture of the map with the correct setup, there are enough super-excited anal-retentive people on this board (I know, I’m one of them) that we would already have broken down the unit setup to within an infantry or two, and drawn accurate maps of the board.  We would already have games in progress on AABattlemaps and tripleA, and people would be stealing their work resources to print out high-res maps on their large format plotters.

Revealing the setup will be only bad for them if the game is broken. If setup is OK, then people will have more desire of buying it. If setup is broken (as Classic, AA50 and maybe AAP40), people would have less desire of buying it. If undecided, I can still wait a couple of months for someone deveploing a AABattlemap module and then decide. I’m not itching anyway to buying the game the very first day. As much, this type of bad treatment to the customers is giving me less desire of buying future A&A games, and it’s pretty probable that AAE40 is the last buy for me. It maybe intentional, but I think that is damaging them

My bet is that they failed to test the game enough just to save money (again), they have or suspect have a broken setup and so they don’t want reveal it

Also, I’m wondering why they released the game in such odd date: students are going to be studying for September exams, workers are going to re-start the work soon… it would be better releasing it now so we can play the game this summer (I doubt they are going to change much the setup from today to late August)

No, if the setup is okay, people will start playing on ABattlemap instead of the real board.

No one is perfect - but $60-70 is what Axis & Allies games should cost nowadays (the old 2nd edition game was $45 back in 1996 - adjust for inflation).

It was going for £65 or more over here. I’m not sure that $100 plus shipping is good value for money. Especially not in a game with barely enough units, no paper money, and no factory units. If I see some good write-ups for Europe - I’ll get both. If not - neither, and Anniversary will be the way to go.

@purplebaron:

Nothing about this image is an error.  There’s a reason (as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread) that every single box back image has a not-even-remotely correct setup.  It’s because they don’t want to let that information out yet.  If they posted a high-resolution picture of the map with the correct setup, there are enough super-excited anal-retentive people on this board (I know, I’m one of them) that we would already have broken down the unit setup to within an infantry or two, and drawn accurate maps of the board.  We would already have games in progress on AABattlemaps and tripleA, and people would be stealing their work resources to print out high-res maps on their large format plotters.  Some people, having gone to the effort of making bootleg copies would not be inclined to buy the real product.  Others who are super excited to see what’s been made will have seen it all, and be less willing to run out and get it right away.  They’ll plan to buy it eventually, but in some cases eventually will turn into never.  Both of these effects will directly affect their sales.  On the other hand, if they build up enthusiasm to a fever pitch with properly timed spoilers, then die hard fans will rush out to buy, and people who are on the fence will get swept up by their friends and the excitement and will make a purchase that they may not otherwise.

Remember, Wizards is selling four things inside the box that you buy:

1. The board
2. The other physical components (pieces, markers, charts, etc.)
3. The rules
4. The starting setup

Now, anyone who bought AAP40 will already have the rules, minus some political rules, national objectives, and technology.  Those additional rules have been spoiled or can be easily deduced in most cases.  Certainly close enough to get a 90% solution
Anybody who has several copies of earlier games (as I’m sure just about everybody on this board does) has enough of the pieces (minus a few Mech Infantry and Tac Bombers that I’m sure they can jury rig out of other parts or painted parts) to provision all powers.
That leaves the board and the starting setup, and a single high-resolution picture of the starting setup would leak that information completely in a matter of hours.

Nothing about this picture is an accident.  They showed us exactly what they wanted us to see.

I’m sure they had a professional photographer take ultra-high resolution photographs, and then spent time figuring exactly how much they needed to down-rez it to show what they wanted.  Similarly, upon consideration, I think that they had someone familiar with the game set it up deliberately so that 1) all countries (particularly the US and France, since they’re one of the new hooks) are represented, 2) the board is “evocative” of what the board will look like in play without 3) looking anything like the actual setup.

This is a movie trailer.  It shows a few big explosions, a couple great one-liners and catchphrases, and makes you want to see the movie/play the game without giving away the farm.

Now, I agree with just about everything here… All I was saying is that to a trained or even mildly educated eye, the board looks kind of ridiculous at times (as promo shots). Like Imperious Leader said though… they probably just don’t care… No… they OBVIOUSLY don’t care. I guess that we need to consider the fact that they don’t really have to care. I mean, they are still selling games. And does it matter to all of us in the long run: NO. We take the game 99.5% for what is inside. That other .4 % is probably the box Art, as we have seen (ha, ha) and the remaining .1% is the back of the box. So all this jabbering really doesn’t matter in practice. It only matters in that it lessens our belief in the company that puts it out there.

I would agree that they do not want to give too much away… that is good marketing. They want to draw interest, as they have with all of us here. And I do believe there are people out there who are already trying to develop strategy, unit placement, map features etc… (many of the people here) and bootlegging is a legitimate problem. They have to protect against that. I don’t think they should give us everything now… In fact I don’t even want it, nor would I take it if it were offered. Unfortunately, not everyone is patient enough to wait. Don’t get me wrong… like everyone else here, I will look for what I can get now, because I know they won’t give us too much.

But for those who are trying to figure every little thing out now… I think you can over analyze a bit too much. For me, most of the fun and excitement is taken away when you see and know too much before the game is in your hands. I don’t know why some people cannot delay their gratification… I for one enjoy doing it. It makes the final experience so much more enjoyable.

I would not totally agree with the statement that, “They have shown us exactly what they want us to see.”, because for my 2-cents I think part of it is ignorance on the part of some dopey chimps at WOTC or Avalon Hill or wherever. But I would say that probably more than 60% is for marketing purposes. My main message was that they coould have at least had someone take an intelligent picture of a plausible setup… it would just show that htey are thourough and interested in details.

However, we have seen in the past that those at WOTC are not totally thourough…

@calvinhobbesliker:

No, if the setup is okay, people will start playing on ABattlemap instead of the real board.

Most important reason to not play on board is not having time or not having rivals. If I can choose, I always prefer real board over my PC screen

@Funcioneta:

@calvinhobbesliker:

No, if the setup is okay, people will start playing on ABattlemap instead of the real board.

Most important reason to not play on board is not having time or not having rivals. If I can choose, I always prefer real board over my PC screen

Perhaps, but some people don’t mind it if they save $60-90

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Funcioneta:

@calvinhobbesliker:

No, if the setup is okay, people will start playing on ABattlemap instead of the real board.

Most important reason to not play on board is not having time or not having rivals. If I can choose, I always prefer real board over my PC screen

Perhaps, but some people don’t mind it if they save $60-90

Yes… but in my opinion, nothing could replace the real and genuine thing. I hate looking at computer screens… the board is where it’s at.

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Funcioneta:

@calvinhobbesliker:

No, if the setup is okay, people will start playing on ABattlemap instead of the real board.

Most important reason to not play on board is not having time or not having rivals. If I can choose, I always prefer real board over my PC screen

Well, they know people like you will buy it anyway, but other people won’t, and they want those other people’s money.

Perhaps, but some people don’t mind it if they save $60-90

Yes… but in my opinion, nothing could replace the real and genuine thing. I hate looking at computer screens… the board is where it’s at.