Outline for the franchise: A&A, and Advanced A&A

Its encouraging to hear that I’m not alone in these views.

Another reason I think that a digital complement would help is simply because of the lack of quality game shops these days. I live in a major metropolitan area here in the states (SF bay area) and there just aren’t very many places like that which exist anymore, even in a densely populated place like this. Its nothing like it was even 10 years ago when there was one in practically every mall. In terms of boxed sales, probably the best most people are going to get is what they can find at a large chain store of some sort. Its kind of depressing.

I can’t help but feel that if there was a large push to integrate the boxed stuff with something that could be played on a tablet, console, or pc, that A&A would have a much better chance at reaching the kind of audience and critical mass necessary to sustain it. I don’t want to give up the plastic sculpts or the experience facing down opponents around the table, I don’t see it as an Either/Or situation.

I think a way to play digitally (that keeps up with the boxed stuff, released simultaneously, instead of lagging way behind it) is the golden ticket.

The problem with the tripleA platform is that it is a general game engine now, and not a legit clone of the A&A boards anymore. It is not supported in any meaningful way by the people who run the show with the franchise, and would surely get slammed if it tried to return to that sort of game clone. And anyway, it doesn’t look particularly great. The graphics are way dated. Also, you really can’t expect a couple dedicated people with insomnia, staying up late to write code or design simple graphics or create new games to carry us. It just isn’t the best recipe for success. Its amazing they have done what they have up to this point, and retained a committed player base, despite the fact that the whole thing uses raster graphics system more than a decade old, and which don’t scale well at all. But people use it all the same, because there is no comparable alternative. I had much higher hopes for GTO, but it has been a major disappointment. No long term integration with successive and timely releases of official boards, no real ability to modify key things for even basic gameplay functionality. We need more. Something with the core usability of TripleA, but which looks clean, is easier to use, and has the benefit of greater official support and promotion to expand the player base. I don’t see why you couldn’t make a digital board look more or less exactly like the physical one if you wanted, with all the same flexibility.

I don’t know, maybe if I keep bringing it up enough times, someone with more influence can start making the idea into a reality. But right now, we are still very far away from where we need to be. I think all the energy and resources available should go into revamping the franchise, taking what works and making it accessible digitally, rather than trying to redesign the wheel on the physical releases. If we could get a really solid board out with a simultaneous digital release to build off of, that would probably be enough to get things started.

The main point is to keep it integrated, the same expanding library, rather than a multitude of separate tomes scatter about. That way things don’t go obsolete so quickly, and have a chance to achieve the sort of popularity that a boardgame needs to have staying power.

Nailed it. Seems we are pretty much in complete agreement :)

Just as an aside, since you mentioned Monopoly and Risk, the thing I find curious is that most people don’t play such games very often. Sometimes years can go by between sessions.  And yet when you come back its basically like riding a bike. This is because once you’ve played one time, its easy to pick up again. The essential rules stay the same. I think A&A should try for similar level of consistency over time. Of course A&A will of necessity be more involved than either of those games (its sort of like a hybrid of the two actually, I often say that when explaining how A&A plays for new users.) But if we can get a solid core that remains, then I see a pot of options for modular expansions.  I have my fingers crossed that we can get something like that put out in the years ahead. DLC would be so helpful in promoting gameplay.

Learning from AA50

Above I suggested that a starter box should feature two possible set ups, the quick game and the long game.

I want to clarify, this should not entail 2 separate start dates for the same box, or 2 distinct maps (in terms of territory possession.) In my experience fewer people play the 1942 start date in AA50. I think this is probably for several reasons, (maybe it is the effect of NOs, the fact that in 1942 more units are co-located with other nation’s units at the start of play, something I always found a bit disorderly) or maybe its because the words “Spring 1941, the World is at War” are plastered in huge letters on the front of the box :) But mainly I think it is two reasons…

The change in standard turn order and the change in territory ownership! These two things, more than anything else, conspired to kill the appeal of the 1942 set up right out the gate for me, and I see that nearly everyone defaulted to the 41 set up, so perhaps I was not alone in this.

The change in standard turn order was the most problematic for me, so I’d like to explore it more detail… Above in this thread I have suggested that a variable start to the turn order might be something worth exploring. What I mean by this is that you roll to see who starts the turn order, but, after the start, the turn order follows its normal progression. Basically once people get used to a certain order of nations for a certain board, you don’t want to mess with the mental logic by suddenly shifting that turn order. This seems to be the case in AA50 under the 1942 start date. You get used to G, R, J and then suddenly its J, R, G which messes with your head. I favor consistency in the order, with variability (if there is to be any variability) only in the start position, eg. which Nation goes first, after which point the order follows its normal progression in sequence. Also, to the second point about changing ownership of starting territories. The territory color as displayed on the map does a lot to communicate what’s what to the players, and part of what makes 1942 weird is that these colors are superseded by the ownership markers. This can raise questions between what is considered a “starting” territory. Is it the start as described by the territory color or the ownership marker? Needless complication.

Suggesting that we think of the starting set ups, not as two separate dates in the war (where borders must necessarily shift), but rather as a function of basic gameplay. One should require less overall time, less time to set up the board and units, less time to play to conclusion. While the second has more overall units, longer set up, longer play time. But both should be on the same basic map, with the same basic start date: 1942

Some people have suggested here and elsewhere that the turn order should be collapsed into a simple All Axis vs All Allies progression. I have given this some thought, and I think I come down in opposition to this move, though I find it interesting. I’m trying to reserve judgement, and welcome more details on how an everyone goes-at-once game might look in A&A. My gut tells me it will jack things up at a pretty fundamental level. At first I was intrigued by the possibilities and the simplification, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a mistake. My reason for feeling this way is that I suspect if we fully collapse the turn order into Axis/Allies, I don’t think you can truly have a multiplayer game anymore. Or can you? Perhaps someone could explain in more detail.

I know that most people play 1v1 anyway, but part of the charm of A&A is that it can be played with 3 or 4 or more players. I’m not sure this would still hold without an alternating turn order. Or at least, it concerns me. It’s a major departure from the traditional way of doing things, so I would much rather this idea be explored in a tactical game or theater game, before it is adopted in the world map games. In any case, even if it does work with multi player, I think maybe it needs to be fully proved before it is adopted as the norm on a flagship board. So until that point, I do favor a turn order of nations. I just don’t like it when that turn order changes on the same map. So again, to clarify

1 map, 1 default turn order, 2 set ups for the units. The fast set up and the long, rather than different start dates or territories trading hands.

Does that make sense?

also, I’d like to see a Russian battleship for a change. The lone sub dynamic has been done so many times, and since AA50 and also in 1942.2 the best it gets you is a fodder hit. I think it would be more interesting if there were less first round battles with large swings in Total Unit Value, and especially first round naval battles, since that is where the largest unit value swings always occur. Just eliminate these battles and have more units in safe zones. It would be easy enough to do, just develoingp an arrangement for the starting units that puts the emphasis on the second round rather than the first.

Just a few potential battles in each theater. Done like this, it would surely be easier to develop a variable start for the turn order, since the first round could be more about purchasing and positioning on non combat, with the major combat actions coming the next round. This would speed up the first round of gameplay considerably, allow for less starting units (less time to set up) and more variation in potential strategies, since you wouldn’t be tied to a bunch of scripted round 1 naval attacks, but could instead build out a war plan according to individual preference. I think each power should have a safe fleet, a safe airforce, and ground, but distributed in such a way that the main battles take a round to set up before massive trading occurs. Its the only way I can think of to design an A&A style of gameplay, that doesn’t require a fully fixed set up, but might instead be made a bit more flexible and adaptive, with greater variation in the starting conditions, as opposed to putting all the variation in the game to the results of the first round battles.

I think a good name for a new box with features mentioned above would be:

Axis and Allies: World War II
Legacy Edition

I’d prefer gameboard artwork that matches the feel of the excellent artwork on the box covers. A more nostalgic 1940s hand-drawn or period look for the map would be cooler than the modern style (digital looking) terrain map of the most recent gameboards. Basically something that looks more like the original Classic board in terms of the art design.

Sectional Map (not folding)
Paper money
Square dice
Plastic Factories
Thick set up cards
New Unit sculpts, with better relative scale by basic unit type. (e.g. all ships of a certain type at a certain length, smaller sculpts for bombers and other space hogs) :)

A streamlined basic ruleset and unit set up for the starter board, and a more advanced set up in the manual, with expanded rules (such as National Objectives or Technology) for this same board.

Make it look nice, and keep it in print for a while!
Those are the biggest things for me. Any other general requests?

The 40th anniversary ed of Risk was glorious.  All the little touches like the velvety bags and nice weighty pieces did not go unappreciated. I bust it out on special occassions. :)
I was always very fond of the 1993 board, colors and deck design. The throw back wooden box is nice in its way too, with the generic blocks and tinier map. I sometimes use it with people who’ve never played. But I never got into the modern boards or redesigns. For me the 1812 look fit the board best so those are my go to’s.

For the future of the franchise it’s hard to say, with the rights and who owns what, but I am definitely intrigued by War Room. Axis and Allis is a strong name, so it would be nice to see it continued with input from the designer, but a War Room game that had a similar dynamic to the gameplay, and I’d happily jump ship. Or call it War Room: Allies and Axis heheh, for the left jab. Whatever it’s called I’ll surely buy it and play.

Eager to hear more about the rules and concepts he’s planning.