Gents
A curiosity question here.
There is a whole discussion group for A&A Deluxe. Is this new Anniversary Edition basically considered the Deluxe version? A lot of what was discussed there seem to be incorporated into the new Anniversary version.
The original Deluxe concept was basically a redo of Revised with premium components (unique sculpts for each country/unit type, poker chips for IPCs, etc.) and a 2nd edition set of rules. Anniversary is probably as close to Deluxe as you’ll ever actually see.
Also, there has also been a lot of discussion about creating a new A&A game based off a 10 or 12 sided dice. What is this version referred to as?
That would be Advanced A&A. Some of the concepts from it actually made it into Anniversary, such as the new SBR rules.
@Imperious:
I want to see a Axis and Allies: Korea game by June 2010 because it will be 60th anniversary of that war.
Axis of Evil & Allies… ? lol
@Imperious:
NO this is not the same thing, but if it does not do well enough, we may not get a deluxe game. I suspect a delux game would be limited production to be sure.
Advanced AA is another topic entirely and wont be appearing anytime soon until at least 1-2 more “campaign” style games arrive: Stalingrad/Afrika Corps.
I want to see a Axis and Allies: Korea game by June 2010 because it will be 60th anniversary of that war.
AAA is D12. Alot of the energy from that dissipated and may have been used to create AA50 as a testing ground for further ideas.
Lastly everything here is my opinion only.
Ugh, an Axis and Allies game not in WWII… WOULD BE AWESOME!
I would really like an Axis and Allies Vietnam, but idk if we’ll ever see it. It would obviously need a new name, as well. Commies & Capitalists: Vietnam? lol
IL Krieg
Thanks for your reply.
It seems the Anniversary Edition will satisfy most of the changes that I wanted to see. The only thing I really want at this point are the unique sculpts for each country/unit type. Maybe they can make something similar to the A&A miniatures but on a scale more suitable for the A&A board games. However, if they do make something like this I will only buy them as a set of the same units for each country. Something similar to the way GHQ sells their Micro Armor http://www.ghqmodels.com/ I have refused to buy the A&A miniatures because because you have no control on what you are buying.
Yes these are good changes the onlything i would like to see is that russia can have a small democracy spot were the allies may make men for them wouldnt it be cool?
small democracy spot
what is this? huh? please explain
ok my explanation is that russia has a small spot were the democratics may take power unhistorical like but look at the game a lot of it doenst deal with historical happenings
Well to be frank its quite impossible for the Soviets to permit even one plane or soldier to fight in Soviet territory as long as Stalin was around. They remember 1919-1920 all too well.
small democracy spot
One of the most bizarre requests for game changes I have seen amongst these posts… I agree with IL, Stalin would NEVER relinquish any sort of territory or military command to foreigners to help fight the Germans- especially foreigners of the filthy capitalist lot! haha. The most that the Western Allies could do to help the Russians was by sending war materials and foodstuffs into the Soviet Union up through Iran. Sorry italiansarecoming, ‘small democracy spot’ isn’t going to happen.
No doubt that is a rather unusual request. It is quite ironic that one of the “objectives” of the Soviet Union in A&A AE is to have no allied soldiers on your territory, in which case you are rewarded an extra 5 IPCs. So I can hardly believe they would even consider doing such things, the Russians were far to proud for that.
It is a good rule to reward the Soviets, because real players would have British units attacking Germans in the Soviet Union. This happens all of the time in Revised games.
Agreed, I’ve seen far to many games where people just used mass Russian infantry and British supporting planes, this way it makes the game more historical by encouraging Russia to stand on it’s own, as it essentially did in history.
Ahh, you are all in for an education. Actually using British aircraft to support Soviet infantry is historically accurate!
In 1941 shortly after the beginning of OP Barbarosa. RAF aircraft were moved to the Murmansk area in the USSR were they fought along side Russian troops! After about 6 months the aircraft were turned over to Soviet troops. More info can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_151_Wing_based_at_Murmansk
The US had also establish a support base in I believe the Amursk area to help train the Soviets how to use American equipment that was being shipped over there. However, I don’t believe US troops ever provided any direct combat support.
Well the history lesson is all well and good, but my beef with the Karelia/Archangel stack, has more to do with the gameplay mechanics, than with the history.
Its generally safer to stack and shuffle troops to Russia, then it is to confront G in France, so many players have adopted this kind of strategy as a matter of course. The new Russian National Objectives are good step in the right direction, since they provide an incentive for the Allies not to do this sort of move.
I worry that it won’t be enough though. Compare the extra 5 IPCs per round from the NO, to more than 24 ipc worth of units that the British can park into Archangel. This might be one of those National Objectives that gets trumped by the need for boots on the ground.
Any thought of keeping a force of UK troops in Finland as future Soviet support in order not to lose the N.O IPC’s.
That might work actually, and I was indeed contemplating a seizure of Norway and Finland by the U.K., especially since Germany will be hard put to take it back by sea. Simply send in planes to attack and fly back to Finland and you get the best of both worlds, you get to help the Russians and they still get their extra 5 IPC’s.
Well the history lesson is all well and good, but my beef with the Karelia/Archangel stack, has more to do with the gameplay mechanics, than with the history.
Its generally safer to stack and shuffle troops to Russia, then it is to confront G in France, so many players have adopted this kind of strategy as a matter of course. The new Russian National Objectives are good step in the right direction, since they provide an incentive for the Allies not to do this sort of move.
I worry that it won’t be enough though. Compare the extra 5 IPCs per round from the NO, to more than 24 ipc worth of units that the British can park into Archangel. This might be one of those National Objectives that gets trumped by the need for boots on the ground.
Bear in mind that a Western Allies invasion of France nets both the UK and US 5 IPCs each for their NOs, while preserving the Soviet NO and costing Germany an NO worth 5 IPCs. Along with the value of France itself, the Allies gain 21 IPCs (France plus 5 each to UK, US and USSR) and Germany loses 11 IPCs if the Western Allies invade France rather then shore up Karelia and Archangel. The opening of a second front and dividing Germany’s attention adds to the value.
Ah, I didn’t think about that. Yes the prospects of gain are to much for me to pass up. I would leave Russia to fend for themselves until I could land in France, or move into France from Italy.
i can see italy being scared at that point since the americans/ british would love an industrial complex near germany to get so they can make men. This will make most likely a turn of tanks/men going to russia. Instead they willb doing a battle of the bulge.
