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

i think the real reason Italy is being intoduced is to break up the 2 Allied turns in a row. i have to agree also that China would be all but pointless to play as a nation by it’s self well Italy wouldn’t. Italy was just poorly managed, they should have had more influence on the war, but bad planning/leadership ment they did not.

These are just my thoughts:

For tournament purposes, it may be a good idea with 3 allies and 3 axis, and individual victory conditions. Lets say first player to gain 4 victory cities win. Now this force the players to think strategy, and backstabb friends.

They post rules yet?

My version of the Cruiser is basically a BB with Att 3 Def 3 Bombard cost 12 and Destroyer changed to 2/2 cost 10 stops sub sneak shots (no bombard.)

What’s Avalon Hill’s version?

@Cmdr:

They post rules yet?

My version of the Cruiser is basically a BB with Att 3 Def 3 Bombard cost 12 and Destroyer changed to 2/2 cost 10 stops sub sneak shots (no bombard.)

What’s Avalon Hill’s version?

Well they just announced the game a few days ago. Rules this soon is a bit much to ask.  :lol:

Guadalcanal is the only game so far that has Cruisers and as the combat system doesn’t work the same as Revised all lives purely in the realm of speculation at this point.

Excited as heck about this! I hope we can some new pieces for the British tanks, artillery, and destroyers! Same for at least the Russian Artillery. For a hundred dollars we should get some more unique units for the Allies. Also hopefully the Germans will come with the BOTB planes and tanks. Wasn’t it a Messerschmitt?

@Cmdr:

They post rules yet?

My version of the Cruiser is basically a BB with Att 3 Def 3 Bombard cost 12 and Destroyer changed to 2/2 cost 10 stops sub sneak shots (no bombard.)

What’s Avalon Hill’s version?

If you could buy four (in effect) units with a statistically guaranteed hit each round vs. 2 (in effect) with a 67% chance of hitting each round, why would you ever buy anything but a cruiser?

@Adlertag:

For tournament purposes, it may be a good idea with 3 allies and 3 axis, and individual victory conditions. Lets say first player to gain 4 victory cities win. Now this force the players to think strategy, and backstabb friends.

and also diplomacy, would be fun

3 allies 3 axis would also makes it easier for team bidding

@Imperious:

Kreig says he was too LAZY to add it to his wish list so he just said he has the game. So never mind don’t bug him.

Yes, I was just trying to save a step by setting the status to “own” rather than “wishlist” when I added the game to my collection, since I will be getting it.  I didn’t realize I’d be under such scrutiny!  :-o  I’ll have to be more precise in the future.

I just rated it 8, because I take it for granted that some of the pieces may be wrong colours, like Italian cruisers may come in japanese orange or some thing, plus we may see skinny russian tanks

Thats Corporate America,  bashing on the little guy

@Imperious:

They wont make skinny Soviet tanks.

However the new trick they do pull out of the hat is make the claim that its got 600 pieces, and the reality is is does not have 600 plastic miniatures, but rather they count the freeking dice, chips, and tokens in this total.

Thats bogus. I want 600 plastic TOYS.

Well if that’s what you want…
24 bags of 100 toys for only $60! ;)

This will be radddddd.

China probably wont be in the game and shouldnt be.  I dont really like individual victory either, that should stay as house rules.

My guess is that cruisers will be 3/3 with bombard, 1 hit to destroy, and probably cost 16.  I get the feeling they will have another ability up their sleeve, it wouldnt be worth introducing another naval unit thats not much more powerful than the destroyer unless it had another ability.  Maybe it is just bombard, well wait and see.

Destroyers are honestly way overpriced in comparison to how they were used. They should basically be an anti-sub that attacks and defends on the same as a sub costing the same.

Navy should be like this:

Transport: 0/1/8
Sub: 2/2/8
Destroyer: 2/2/8
Cruiser: 3/3/12, but can bombard. They don’t deserve two hits, as the Hood amply demonstrates.
Aircraft Carrier: 1/2/12, they are cheapened to compensate for the defensive decrease.
Battleship: 4/4/20, two hits, bombard. They are simply too expensive to ever buy. At 20, they are still expensive, but investing in a couple for shore bombardment or hit soaking isn’t such a bad idea anymore. Additionally, this balances them out with the new cruiser, which would become more effective in a bombard but less effective in naval conflicts.

That is, 20 cruisers would kill more land units on average than twelve battleships, but these battleships would kill off the entire cruiser force 83% of the time.

This would accompany a fighter alteration to 3/3/8.

Overall these changes would place less emphasis on defending with a navy, because defending wasn’t necessarily any easier than attacking in naval conflicts.

@Nukchebi0:

That is, 20 cruisers would kill more land units on average than twelve battleships, but these battleships would kill off the entire cruiser force 83% of the time.

yeah thats the kind of stuff we need
scissor paper rock action
taking gameplay to a new level

If China shouln’t be, then Italy don’t deserves being a playing power. At least China annoyed Japaneses, managed a draw,preventing that forces going for India or Australia. What did the Italians? Lost lots of battles for nothing. They lost in Lybia against UK and lost in Greece… against the very Greeks  :-D If germans wouldn’t go in their aid, Italy would even lose Albania to the Greeks. I think a power that can manage a draw, even in middle of a civil war, deserves more being a playing power than a power than only could lose battles.

And for the dds costing 8 ipcs… then it would be the end of subs, because subs cannot hit aircraft. Unless, of course you need a dd to hit a sub with aircraft as in Europe/Pacific AND add convoy zones  :|