Why was there no unit descriptions w/the game?

One thing that cannot be defended is the amount of chips or lack of them.
When you spend 100$ and open it up, start to play it, and run out of pieces by turn 5ish…very disappointing

This wouldn’t be as big a deal if the game used the same chips from previous versions, but it doesn’t.

I love the new colored chip mechanic, and I love the smaller chips.
But the only way to use them is to buy 2 games or find some online chips for sale (HBG is always sold out so good luck  :-()

Does anyone else find the number of dice insufficient at times? 36 seems more than enough but sometimes there are massive battles on the Western front and Russia involving around 25 units on each side.

@Harry:

Does anyone else find the number of dice insufficient at times? 36 seems more than enough but sometimes there are massive battles on the Western front and Russia involving around 25 units on each side.

This is stupid flashwoman. All your doing is blowing smoke over the real problem

I doubt anyhow is that concerned they may have to roll more than once in certain battles  :-P

Stick to the real issues so maybe they will fix them in 2nd edition
-not enough chips

This is stupid flashwoman

You mean flashman.

Harry Larris = Flashman

We like the new chips too (smaller, and take up less space), and your right we do scramble for them throughout the game(s), and it should have come w/more. I bought a copy of the beginner 1941 game last year, and those chips match up. They have different colors, but we make it work. It has red for extra CP, gray we use for allies (or CP in a pinch), and the green we use for the US just because their units are green, and it saves the blue for the other allies. I realize that this is a luxury that long time games have, and noobs might get baffled, but many times noobs are introduced to these games by long time supporters, so they too could have access to more stuff, or get chips at various sites pretty cheap.

I know it’s a PITA, and mixing game pieces can be a bitc…. but the game itself is pretty damn cool. I’m enjoying Larry’s newest 2 move mechanic, and the fact the he listens to the community to make these things possible, along with the support help that you get from Krieghund (and others) over rides any of the short coming of production, rule issues, or anything else you can toss in that hat IMO.

Why do people think I’m Flashman?

Because you are?

Do an IP check. We’re not the same person.

*woman

Flashwoman  :lol:

Good one, Unfuckable. :lol:

My biggest concern is the mapsize, especially the small tts of the western front.

Do you think there is a chance, that WOTC will look at this issue when printing the 2nd edition?

Wasn`t the map of the first 1942 edition also too small and they made a bigger one for second ed.?

They could make Africa or Scandinavia a bit smaller or just make the whole map bigger.

I�m such an nerd-idiot I even would pay for a “deluxe-map” with historical borders…  :-P

I’m fairly new to the A&A franchise, so I’m not familiar with how they release these things. Is a second edition pretty much guaranteed or does it depend on how well the first edition sells?

The last releases of A&A games had all second editions - I don`t know if this happened because of good selling or because of improvements (or both) but it seems predictable that there will be a 2nd Edt. of AA1914 too.

I solved two of the problems listed above in one swoop by using a completely different chip system:

Each power has just one stack of units in a tt:

white - 10 infantry

grey - infantry

red - artillery

dark blue - fighter

brown - tank

By mixing in all the chips from all my A&A games I just have enough. Some of the stacks are rather tall, but overall there’s much less messing about swopping chips and shifting stacks, and there’s no overcrowding on the western front; hence, less chance of knocking over stacks.

The artillery, tank and fighter sculpts are now redundant, but the game is a lot more manageable without them.

note: Harry Larris is the chap I interviewed about the game, he is not me.

Flash I would rather shell out another 100$ to get double pieces than use that crap lol
No offense

Part of the fun of Axis and Allies is the unit sculpts
Using all those chips would look horrible and would be a total nightmare esp to new players

I just find it amazing that after more than 25 years (all be it with different publishers and manufacturers) they are still getting this stuff wrong.
I look back at the quick-reference/set-up country cards from my original MB game and those cards are some of the best tools ever included in the game. Remember how the setup cards had a deployment area, tables showing all the values associated with each unit, and some rule references too? I think I actually used the same format and started making the same type of set-up card for 1940 Global. There were not quite enough chips but there was plenty of everything else. The only real short-coming (production wise) were some of the map spaces size and the odd choices for “blow-up boxes” around the edge of the map. 
Which brings me to my question. Which version or variant of A&A do you think was the best produced one? I am not referring to the mechanics of the game just strictly based on the physical product.

How about the marshaling cards included in revised ?
Also the aircraft range markers… I’m so glad I bought revised for those 2 things  :-)
I use those in EVERY A&A game I play
The marshaling cards especially come in handy for 1914

Honestly I think G42 second edition is the best produced, especially when you consider the cost. Tons of sculpts, plenty of units/peices, mech inf and tac bombers, huge map, good battle board, working IPC tracker

The negatives are cardboard chits for ICs and bases, but that doesnt bother me that much
My biggest beef with both G40 games is-
-why so they make Gibraltar so small? Lol use a marshaling card every single game for this tt  :-P

They need to bring back marshaling cards

Spring 42 board was unplayable in my opinion
Ridiculously too small

My view is limited since my first A&A game was spring 1942. I’ve also tried 42 2nd edition and 41. I’ve noticed some small production errors on all of theme (color misprint on map, wrong starting IPC count, manual typos, etc.) These things are annoying but don’t really detract too much from game play.

I don’t really like playing overly complicated board games that have to many things to keep track of, so A&A is just perfect for casual gamers like me. I’ve gotten friends who aren’t normally into board games to enjoy them. It was also popular way to kill time while I was deployed.

For me the worst is 41 which was just a flat unplayable mess for my group. Good source for plastic minifigs though.

It doesn’t look any more horrible than the standard method.

You can actually see what’s going on on the western front.

Separate artillery, tank and fighter sculpts are no longer any fun when you have to shoehorn 12 different stacks into Rome and still keep track of the game, or keep referring to marshaling cards.

I must have spend about half the time in the first game messing about with chips; this system speeds things up considerably.

Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

@Uncrustable:

Flash I would rather shell out another 100$ to get double pieces than use that crap lol
No offense

Part of the fun of Axis and Allies is the unit sculpts
Using all those chips would look horrible and would be a total nightmare esp to new players

Flashman I think it sounds like a very tidy solution. I will try it next time.