Axis And Allies Anniversary Now Out Of Print

@always-wanderer

That one looks great too! Thank you again for sharing these great resources!

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

The main Problem is, the game isn’t fun for every player, if you can only win as allies by almoust complete neglection of Japan. The Japanese Player will have a poor gaming experience. On the other hand, you won’t win the war in the pacific.
I recently invested loads of Russian troops, a UK factory in India and the US heavy into the pacific (1941 scenario) and didn’t come close to a win in the pacific and lost to europe. Eventough the Japanese player made a major mistake and i got lucky when he attackt some groundforces with mainly planes. The best I could achieve was a stall with Japan earning somewhat 50 IPC a turn (playing with NO).
While Germany on the other hand was playing extremely conservative, but finally crushed the USSR (rolling really good dice), so the US Invasion froce stationed in the atlantic.

Whats missing in this game?
I guess a industrial complex in India to start with could slow the japanese advance, while still saveing IPC for UK (doesn’t have to build one). This would make the game more challanging for the Japanese Player (otherwise there is no opponent on the continent) and gives the UK player more action on the pacific side of the board, while still able to build up some fleet to fight the Germans/Italians.

The wood board are 40 x 96 ! I can move them by myself, but it’s pretty heavy.

Local hobby shop finally got its delivery! Going to pick it up tomorrow!!!

@Imperious:

Larry has stated many times that the units don’t generally fit standard military models for classic formations (divisions, corps, army) and in some cases these are corps and others they are armies. They are not the same in every case, allowing for the corps in Africa to be symbolized as perhaps 2-3 units, while in the Soviet union one infantry may represent an army ( 3-5 corps).

Yes, IL thanks,
I have been reading those old posts.  I note he (Larry Harris) stated the Naval units abstraction was a greater dilution of unit strength, or a direct correlation to vessel numbers from standard representation of Classic fleet/squadron/Battle groups.  I am thinking more in chess terms, where tempo or position is sometimes of more value then individual pieces.

Even then you may have two first place winners.  For example the Allies may have won as a team but Germany won as a player.

LT

@Hobbes:

There are a few interesting differences from the map pictures:

Japan is now surrounded by a single SZ, instead of the 2 in Revised. This allows for US bombers to attack any ships there and land on that new Russian territory adjacent to SFE and Bur. Japan has a lot of hard choices to make: to take out the 7 inf Russian stack on Buryatia (after moves on R1) or to prevent Manchuria from falling to the Russians; to take Borneo/E. Indies/Phillipines; to hit Pearl; plus Burma/HK/China Egypt is tougher to crack for G1: running a calc gives G 73% odds of conquering it, where before 2 inf 2 arm 1 bmr gave it 95% odds. The Italians seem to have 2 choices: either reinforce Egypt or try to retake it in the case of a UK counterattack, or do the same for the Ukraine. Which would open the way for a German tank rush on Caucasus…i guess that’s why there’s no German INF on Austria, otherwise they could be moved to Rom/Bulg and the G transport on the Med could be used to lift INF for that attack on the Caucasus. G has the option of making an attack on Kar on G1 using the Finnish INF and the transport, plus all of the Luftwaffe, but the AA makes it risky. It can really pay off though because it secures the Baltic countries from any Russian counterattack.

The single seazone around Japan deters even more invading Russia and trying to achieve its historical objectives.