First pics from GenCon

Looks like all the Chinese territories are worth 1 ipc apiece. This is different than AAP where there were only a couple territories worth anything. I guess this will boost the weak economy of Japan. It won’t be a complete waste of time to swat the Chinese off their back. All this income is going to the USA at the start or what?

Another thing I noticed was that Africa didn’t change. I think i see 1 new territory in Egypt. I was hoping for a few more to simulate the vastness of the continent and make a few of them worth 0 ipcs to also simulate how undeveloped it is. Still seems a little to easy to get to S. Africa

I said this before, alot of people look at the setup and it seems the Axis is screwed. Old germany divided in half, unable to use the full force of a 40 ipc economy that is now down to 30. But we have to remember The (smart)USA player will not be playing a KGF ever again with the new VCs in Pacific. I wish we knew exact IPC value of each country. USA and UK is unclear from what I have read.

I can’t see the name of the territory to the north of France. But now Germany must stockpile to defend Normandy and Belgium now. Not sure I like that. It will be very hard to defend DDay when your forces are divided on the coast like that. I would have rather seen the entire coastline of Western Europe be 1 territory then another territory between that and Germany.

@Flying:

I can’t see the name of the territory to the north of France.

North-Western Europe (representing BEL, NED, Northwest Germany & DAN)

When discussing IPC and balance, you should take into account the IPC-bonuses you apparently get with some combination of territories. They didn’t use this rule in the GENCON game, but it means that the aggressive player gets extra IPCs each turn, i.e. the Axis at the start of the game. This will probably give the game a good historical feel and also a swing effect, one major victory will give way to more, i.e. signifying morale of your nation that was very important in the war. I assume these bonuses represents more morale than resources which are well represented by territory values!

Confirmed bonuses:

No enemy ships in Med- Italy 5 IPCs

Probable:
Control all islands in Pacific exc. Hawaii, NZ and AUS and still keeping all at-start areas- Japan X IPCs?
Control of major part of Africa/middle east? - Italy X IPCs
Control of major part of European Russia ? - Germany X IPCs

Probable IPCs values in -41 scenario:
Germany 30  (+5 bonus? + 4 IPC worth of Russia taken turn 1)
Soviet Union 30 (- 4 IPC worth lost on turn 1)
Japan 17 (+5 bonus, plus 13 IPCs taken turn 1)
UK 42 (minus Hong-kong, Burma, NEI, Borneo 11 IPCs lost on turn 1)
Italy 10 (+5/10 bonus?)
US/China 45 (minus Phillippines 2 IPCs lost on turn 1)

You will quickly reach AAR values, the only difference being Germany has slightly less, Soviet Union slightly more, Italy added at least at 15 and then around 3 free China inf/turn. What does it add up to? My five cents is that it’s similar to AAR in balance, but much more enjoyable and complex and rewarding playing!

i am really looking forward to this game…

From what it looks not tooo much territories were added , but i admit I never played revised - I used to “combine” pacific and Europe for one big game map…

10 points for Italy seems not much, but considering that it has a decent fleet and the "only thing it has to do early in the game is taking Egypt (with German help) and then spread to Arica and Asia (if all goes well) should allow Italy to do its part.

UK could be in trouble if it looses to much on one front (Africa Asia Europe)

If Italy and Japan can link up Early in the game Russia is probably doomed and Italy can focus on fleet builds to harrass the Aliies in the Atlantic

That are of course a few ifs… - HAve I already said that I really look forward to get this game…

@Lynxes:

I assume these bonuses represents more morale than resources which are well represented by territory values!

They could also represent control of vital shipping/transport lanes.

/Herr Arnulfe

So, Larry, that old sneaky guy, first said “no convoy zones” making all of us a bit annoyed and then got it back as well as Lend-lease in another way with the Archangelsk bonus, smart…  :wink:

@Lynxes:

So, Larry, that old sneaky guy, first said “no convoy zones” making all of us a bit annoyed and then got it back as well as Lend-lease in another way with the Archangelsk bonus, smart…  :wink:

Yes, it seems like the bonus conditions achieve several goals more elegantly than before. I really like the incentive to not stack up Allied troops in Russia.

The only thing I worry about is the effective requirement for players to know their opponents’ bonus conditions, in addition to their own. This might steepen the learning curve for new players. But I’m sure after two games, us A&A veterans will have every condition burned indellibly into our memories.

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

@variant:

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.

This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.

I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.

@variant:

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

I think it’s too early to tell. Presumably players will have to make decisions between which bonus to secure (e.g. does Italy use his planes to secure the Med, or to support the land war in Africa?). There should also be a conflict between securing your own bonus objectives, and denying your opponent his (e.g. does Germany reinforce Finland to block Russia’s bonus, or focus on capturing the Baltic States for his own bonus?).

I see the potential for lots of variety, in theory.

It’s to bad that some territories aren’t needed for bonuses on both sides.

For example lets say E Europe (I know that’s revised) is needed by both Russia and Germany to get their bonus. That would add more salt to the wounds on the eastern front.

LT

@LT04:

It’s to bad that some territories aren’t needed for bonuses on both sides.

I’m pretty sure that is the case. If USSR has them, no bonus for Germany. If Germany has them, no bonus for USSR.

@squirecam:

I’m pretty sure that is the case. If USSR has them, no bonus for Germany. If Germany has them, no bonus for USSR.

Correct, there is definitely some overlap between objective territories. Plus the fact that you’ll want to deny your opponent his objectives, even if you don’t need them for a bonus yourself.

@squirecam:

@variant:

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.

This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.

I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.

I just hope there aren’t any broken strats like KGF in this one.  KGF was completely broken IMO  :| just like JTDTM.

@squirecam:

@variant:

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.

This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.

I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.

So you want a history book and not a strategy game?

The bonus idea is the probable solution to those players who try to extend the game into long sessions. The balance in the game should work well for both sides, but the side that holds the bonus the longest will tip the scales and crescendo the effect of defeat on the other side.
The SBR rules will also remove that stupid “Bunker” mentality of Germany once they have no hope of victory waiting on Japan to roll her tanks into Moscow. Those days are over and now a nation in military demise does not raise up and quickly goes away. I think the axis now have independent goals and less coordination is required. They no longer would want to help each other because it does not help their own bottom line. AA50 will be a multiplayer game unlike the rest.

It sounds very promising so far,I can’t wait to get my copies.Wish I had more people to play it with though,seems like this will be the best mp version yet.

@Imperious:

The bonus idea is the probable solution to those players who try to extend the game into long sessions. The balance in the game should work well for both sides, but the side that holds the bonus the longest will tip the scales and crescendo the effect of defeat on the other side.
The SBR rules will also remove that stupid “Bunker” mentality of Germany once they have no hope of victory waiting on Japan to roll her tanks into Moscow. Those days are over and now a nation in military demise does not raise up and quickly goes away. I think the axis now have independent goals and less coordination is required. They no longer would want to help each other because it does not help their own bottom line. AA50 will be a multiplayer game unlike the rest.

It seem like in some ways it will amplify the Allies needing to be allied and reinforce the loner Axis states.  (maybe with the exception of Italy/Germany).

Why does OCT 23 have to be so far away?

@variant:

@squirecam:

@variant:

The bonus conditions are just going to railroad the game. Every game will end up being played exactly the same way.

Classic was simply JTDTM.
Revised has more strategies, but alot of people still KGF.

This new edition changes that. Yes, you are now “forced” to attack in the Pacific.

I find that prospect much better than a game that allows USA to completely ignore Japan.

So you want a history book and not a strategy game?

All of us (I suppose) want to play a game that is not anti-historical. We like game with strong history theme and atmosphere. Revised is a great game, I will continue to play it when I want to tank-dash with Japanese armoured division across the Siberia up to Moscow etc. etc.
I will play AA-50 when I would like to se fleet clashes into the pacific or perform more historical-like manouevre.

All the A&A games are not only strategy game. They are more! Risk is a Strategy game, with all the due respect to Risk.

Axis and Allies games have Strategy (Where and Why to attack or defend), Tactics (with wich forces to attack, withdraw when needed, leaving picket forces) and Logistics (having reinforcements at hands every turn, moving fleet and aircrafts to be positioned to better support the operations) and also diplomacy when played with more than two person (A thing that in my playgroup we always do).

I want a historic wargame!  :-D