News flash: AXIS & ALLIES ANNIVERSARY EDITION due out oct 23 08

lol sounds like a real…party place,i myself am really excited to see all the new sculpts and schemes,especially the board itself.

/Imperious leader

The naval balance could be fixed with a few nice changes, will be interesting to see how they do it. If they could fix the sub unit the way they fixed the battleship unit for AARe I would be thrilled.

Maybe we could have a new special ability instead of “first strike”, that one being taken over by cruisers, e.g.:

"Cruiser special ability: fires in “first strike” if no enemy battleships or carriers are present.

Sub special abilities: 1) May avoid combat if in a sea zone adjacent to a friendly land area (i.e., bunkers).
2) May choose to make a strategic attack: may pass through any units and move to a sea zone containing at least one transport. There it fights a combat vs. carriers, fighters, destroyers and transports only. Only subs may take part in the strategic attack and they may not retreat. If only fighters remain on the defending side, the combat ends."

Probably nothing like what Larry et al have done but subs are broken as it is, and they can be fixed in many, many ways…

Maybe FTR’s / BMR’s can’t attack subs without a navy vessel?  That would be great.

LT

I’ve never played AARe nor looked through the rules, so this BB fix that you guys are talking about has piqued my interest.  Can you explain exactly what it is/how it is different to normal AAR battleships?

Cheers

/Imperious leader

Interesting stuff, I had only a vague idea of how this process has been working out. Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?

Subs are normally used in the Pacific by the US as a part of their fleet, it’s the Atlantic that’s the problem. Every sub the Germans build is blown away before reaching the enemy fleet!! The only counter to this is building a CV but this is of course a bit strange. My “sub bunker” rule would be a simple fix as the subs could be transferred to France and then harass UK and US shipping with air support. I have no problem with subs dying quickly, they had a 80-90% loss rate in the war after all, but they MUST be able to cause serious damage otherwise they won’t be built and even less now that the German economy will lose the Italian IPCs.

Probably Larry Harris thinks the search rules are too complex. I think you could have similar effects with other changes, such as: battleships and cruisers may not fire vs. subs.

Not having an IPC damage rule is OK for me as what the subs did was basically to sink ships. The cargo losses I think was not what worried the Allies, it was about sinking more ships than could be built. For every transport sunk, you must build a new one => IPC damage. If subs are really good at sinking ships then there’s no need for convoy zones.

@Lynxes:

Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?

This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves.  If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them.  Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.

@Krieghund:

@Lynxes:

Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?

This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves.  If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them.  Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.

Which still does not mean a whole lot.

Larry hated the carrier-rule change. The public loved it.

Also, some things Larry “likes” or “created”, such as random casualties or the “battle box” or D12 dice, work fine for theatre games, but are wholly inappropriate for the main large scale game.

I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.

No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

@Lynxes:

Was Mike Selinker a great influence on the AA revised design?

This question will best be answered when the Anniversary game hits the shelves.  If a lot of the rules that changed in Revised revert to something similar to the Milton Bradley version, we can probably assume that they were Selinker-driven and that Larry Harris didn’t particularly like them.  Either that, or the current AH influence is driving the reversion.

Which still does not mean a whole lot.

Of course it doesn’t.  Without “insider knowledge”, any speculation on the topic is merely opinion.

@squirecam:

I think people should forget about “which idea was Mike’s v Larry’s” and focus on which rule makes for a better game.

No matter which “spoke hole” (whatever the hell that is) thought of it.

Agreed.

Should we try to guess the changes to the A&A Ann Ed.? I list only those not confirmed by Larry and compiled on this thread;

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307782

So, bypassing set-up and territory IPCs values:

• Italy: 20 IPCs, Germany: 35 IPCs, Soviet Union: 28 IPCs, UK: 32 IPCs.
• Italian-related territories: Sicily, Malta, Southern Europe added, four new africa areas added (Marocko, Tunisia, Tobruk and Western Desert), added 4 sea zones in Med.
• German territories: Western Europe divided into Northern France + Southern/Vichy France, Eastern Europe into Baltic States + Poland.
• Italy: Controls Italy + Southern Europe + Sicily + Balkans + Marocko + Algeria + Tunisia + Tripoli at-start (+ Italian East Africa in '41).
• Atlantic: sea zone 12 (Azores) borders Gibraltar.
• China territories: divided into six areas, each allowing for one Chinese inf/ turn in Chungking.
• Pacific territories: French Indo-china divided into French Indo-china, Burma and Singapore. Australia divided into two. Hong-kong, Iwo Jima, New Britain and Marshall Islands added. Six new sea zones added in Pacific, of which two around India/Singapore.
• VCs: added in Honolulu, Sydney, Alexandria, Stalingrad, Tripoli, Ploesti, Warsaw, Djakarta.
• UK ICs: one in Egypt, one in India.
• Naval unit costs: BB 20 IPCs, CV 15 IPCs, CA 14 IPCs, DD 10 IPCs.
• CV: defence down to ‘2’.
• DD: attack/defend ‘2’.
• CA: attack/defend ‘3’. Special ability: shore bombardment at ‘2’.
• Subs: may only be attacked if a DD is present in attacking force.
• Victory conditions: individual or collective.

What do you think?

Finally, Russia gets some additional cash at the beginning of the game. This could help the Allies win faster(in my opinion), but it will be interesting how Italy will fit with the Axis. Perhaps, the new Axis strategy will be:
Italy fights in Africa (possibly the Middle East) and tries NOT to get Germany distracted by Germany being forced to send troops there
Germany can now finally focus its attention on the Eastern front and against D-Day
Japan now can focus on taking mainland Asia
What do you think? :?

@shermantank:

Finally, Russia gets some additional cash at the beginning of the game. This could help the Allies win faster(in my opinion), but it will be interesting how Italy will fit with the Axis. Perhaps, the new Axis strategy will be:
Italy fights in Africa (possibly the Middle East) and tries NOT to get Germany distracted by Germany being forced to send troops there
Germany can now finally focus its attention on the Eastern front and against D-Day
Japan now can focus on taking mainland Asia
What do you think? :?

sounds about right :-D

/Imperious leader

I just try to guess what has been done. I would be surprised if defender retreats is in the game, as I think Larry would think this changes gameplay too much.

I’ve tried to think what changed from original A&A to Revised, and also that some, but not all, of AAE and AAP features will be included, and then extrapolate this to this edition.

VCs are an all-important change, and I base my ideas on that Larry seemed to be very positive to using VCs to promote historial play on a thread I read. So, no VC in China and plenty out in the Pacific fits this well. Maybe Singapore would be chosen instead of Djakarta, of course then UK would have 5 VCs at start of '41 scenario which is why I thought it unlikely. On the other hand, Netherlands East Indies forces might well be UK-controlled anyway, and then the point is moot I guess.

China will probably have been designed to take up a lot of attention from the Japanese, so that an offensive vs. the Soviets is possible only if other fronts are ignored and massive air power is diverted vs. China to achieve victory there. The Japanese will be rewarded if they play historically -> Pacific-oriented. Maybe more land areas will be added in Siberia as well to stall any offensive further?

When it comes to the Russian front I think Italy will be thought to control Romanian and Hungarian forces. This will actually be quite historically correct as the small forces they had never contributed in the great offensives but plugged holes in the front, which will be nicely simulated by the Italian turn coming after both the German and Soviet turns!

One thing I didn’t consider is if naval bases will be in the game, with a similar mechanic as in AAP. Would be quite interesting to see this applied to the European theater as this could make Gibraltar and Malta more worth fighting for.

@Lynxes:

• Italy: 20 IPCs, Germany: 35 IPCs, Soviet Union: 28 IPCs, UK: 32 IPCs.

• Naval unit costs: BB 20 IPCs, CV 15 IPCs, CA 14 IPCs, DD 10 IPCs.

• CV: defence down to ‘2’.

• DD: attack/defend ‘2’.

• CA: attack/defend ‘3’. Special ability: shore bombardment at ‘2’.

• Subs: may only be attacked if a DD is present in attacking force.

I think German production will be more like 40+, with Russia possibly at 30, and UK possibly 34-35.

Your Cruiser unit is severely underpowered for its cost.  Considering you can practically buy 2 subs for 1 cruiser at that cost…And BB would be better for the cost as a bombarding unit AND as a naval attack unit.

IMO, something more balanced would be: DD 9 IPC cost, 2/2 (anti-sub capability) ; CA 12 IPC cost, 3/3 (+bombard? or maybe something completely new).  If they give it a good enough special ability then maybe it will be closer to a 14 IPC cost, but a ‘2’ bombard is certainly not worth it.