Best posts made by Cernel

@djensen Low Luck doesn’t have to be based on autohits. For example, you can sum the total power of what you would be rolling together, divide it by 5, then rolling as many dice hitting at 5, then rolling for the remainder. That would decrease randomness a lot if, say, you would otherwise be rolling most dice at 3 or less.

For example if rolling 5@1, 2@2, 4@3, 2@4, one could:

Low Luck:
Get 4 autohits and roll 1 dice at 5.

Custom Luck at 5/6:
Roll 5 dice at 5 and 1 dice at 4.

@imperious-leader said in More Announcements from Renegade:

They should team up with Beamdog and make online E40 and P40 as well as Global

Why not just only Global, completely ignoring E40 and P40? I think it’s fairly obvious the only reason they exist is commercially to split the Global game (and its price) in twain.

@bigwatcher said in AA50 on Steroids!:

Thanks to Oztea’s suggestions. I had been trying out to improve the current AA50 map and setups that can play on BBR for the past months. Just printed out a copy and test-played with my buddy… so far so good, still some minor balancing to do.
I wanted something in-between Anniversary and Global40…less rules and time consuming but bigger map. Since its a game im playing with my young son, i tried my best to add in some historical battles, figures and events into the map…inspired by Lt.Dan’s BBR Global40 map.
Next I will be doing up a 1940 setup.

Definitely better than the original, in my opinion.

Since you seem fairly serious on putting some historicity into the map (and realizing that is starting from Axis&Allies…) I’ll make a review on this, and, don’t worry, I’m not going to nit-pick on good enough names (like calling the Netherlands as Holland, which is acceptable, or calling Northern France as just France, which I find acceptable too):

• RIO DE ORO would be better called SPANISH SAHARA.
• FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA makes me think you are referring to FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. The territory is the eastern (and less important) part of FRENCH WEST AFRICA, so it can be called simply NIGER (as the territory you have drawn appears to be almost only Niger plus the British colonies) or, more correctly, EASTERN FRENCH WEST AFRICA. However, it would be better making it British and calling it NIGERIA (or NIGERIA GOLD COAST) because Nigeria was arguably the most important African colony at the time. Alternatively, I guess you can change the name from FRENCH CENTRAL AFRICA to CENTRAL FRENCH AFRICA, but I don’t like this idea.
• ANGOLA is completely outside of Angola. That is mostly SOUTH WEST AFRICA (which was British, game-wise). I understand and agree ANGOLA is wanted on the map, but I just suggest cutting a piece of BELGIAN CONGO for representing it.
• KENYA is completely or near-to-completely outside Kenya: better calling it SOUTHERN ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN or UGANDA.
• ANGLO-EGYPT SUDAN should be called ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN.
• I understand that the map generally follows the convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory, but it is really weird to see a name like UNITED KINGDOM next to SCOTLAND (even calling it GREAT BRITAIN would be too much): I would consider renaming UNITED KINGDOM to ENGLAND.
• BALKANS would be much better called as YOUGOSLAVIA. Also, make sure to use the pre-WW2 borders with Italy (Istria was Italian!).
• Since it borders BELORUSSIA across the marshes, EASTERN UKRAINE is more like NORTHERN UKRAINE, or rather just UKRAINE if it comprises the city of Kiev and you follow the (RUSSIA-territory-like) convention of naming the main part of a territory as just the whole territory. If EASTERN UKRAINE is UKRAINE, then UKRAINE has to be renamed to something like SOUTHERN UKRAINE.
• I understand that the point is not having a territory with the same name as its victory city, but seeing VOLGOGRAD is horrible. I suggest calling it STALINGRAD even if it is the same name as the victory city. If that is unacceptable, maybe call the territory STALINGRAD PROVINCE or STALINGRAD OBLAST or ROSTOV or maybe VOLGA.
• SAMARA must be renamed to KUYBYSHEV. By the way, that was the new capital of the Soviet Union from late 1941 until 1943.
• A territory north of Moscow that spans as wide as to border Belorussia in the west and Tunguska in the east is a major challenge for naming (and for making sense as a zone to start with). Consider splitting it west-east into two territories, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG, respectively.
• The Siberian territories as a whole don’t really make sense and some names are just wrong as names (for the period, at least). I’m just going mostly to ignore all the names there and try to find good enough new ones based on their borders, also with respect to lake Baikal as drawn: rename NOVOSIBIRSK to OMSK, rename TUNGUSKA to NOVOSIBIRKS, rename EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG to KRASNOYARSK (albeit it can retain the name as a second-best alternative), rename YAKUT S.S.R. to IRKUTSK, rename STANOVOY KHREBET (or however it is spelled in the map) to BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R., rename BURYATIA to WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R., rename SIBERIA to YAKUT A.S.S.R. (and have the Yakutsk city in it if anywhere), rename SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN SOVIET FAR EAST or NORTHERN KHABAROVSK or maybe KAMCHATKA. As for AMUR, I don’t think there are really much better names for a territory that goes from Chita to Primorye, but it may be better renamed to KHABAROVSK if renaming SOVIET FAR EAST to NORTHERN KHABAROVSK.
• KANSU would be much better called SINKIANG.
• NINGSIA would be better called KANSU if renaming KANSU to SINKIANG.
• HOPEH is completely misplaced by a long shot (so much that I wonder if that is a misspelling of HUPEH): it can instead be called SZECHWAN (where the provisional capital of China, Chungking, was located). If you meant and want it to be HUPEH (which I advice against too), then I strongly suggest renaming SIKANG to SZECHWAN, instead.
• JEHOL would be better called HOPEH.
• TAIWAN (Formosa) would be better called FORMOSA (Taiwan), mostly for consistency with KOREA (Chosen).
• EAST INDIES would be better called DUTCH EAST INDIES or JAVA SUMATRA (and, no, this is not like renaming Madagascar to French Madagascar: East Indies is a much larger area than the Dutch part of it, largely overlapping the Malay Archipelago and comprising at least the Philippines).
• CENTRAL UNITED STATES is largely outside the conglomerations of States known as “West North Central” (whose westernmost States were North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska), “East North Central” (whose westernmost State was Wisconsin), “West South Central” (whose westernmost State was Texas) and “East South Central” (whose westernmost State was Mississippi): I highly recommend renaming CENTRAL UNITED STATES to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES. Moreover, once CENTRAL UNITED STATES is renamed to MOUNTAIN UNITED STATES, WESTERN UNITED STATES should be renamed to PACIFIC UNITED STATES. Moreover, if actually wanting to have CENTRAL UNITED STATES, I suggest splitting ESTERN UNITED STATES in two, vertically about on the border between Alabama and Georgia, calling the western part of it as CENTRAL UNITED STATES and the eastern part as ATLANTIC UNITED STATES. As a final note, to have the two westernmost areas of the United States (which, as drawn, are clearly Pacific and Mountain) having a total production of 16 out of 28 is crazy, especially for the time: they were nowhere near that important (but similar observations could be made for other parts of the map, like China). Also, Alaska was almost worthless, and the Aleutians were the definition of worthless.

Of course, I realize that some of the above name-changes will require moving city names around on the map, but I think that’s fairly obvious in every case.

Moreover, if the French roundel means “Vichy-France aligned”, that is wrong for FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA. If the game starts at the start of Barbarossa, Iraq should be British or British-aligned.

Also, I want to point out that, in the setup tables, you are using the country flag for every power but using the army war flag for Japan only, whereas I see that the capital of Japan is arguably correctly flagged on the board (although that looks more like the air force roundel than the national flag), but inconsistently with the flag on the tables, while all other flags are consistent between what you have for the capitals and what you have for the setup tables.

@Panther Actually, that game he is referring to has only a resemblance to any Axis & Allies boardgames, and it is actually both strategic and tactic (though you can avoid the tactic part by autoresolving battles). Well, I call it tactic, but anyways it is “real time” battles resolution.

Just saying he wants to play something quite different from anything you can get with what you mentioned.

I’m assuming you never played that Axis & Allies videogame, here.

@the_good_captain said in National Objectives vs balance:

Question for serious players of Anniversary:

Do you play with NOs? If you do what is the bid like?

I have found it pretty heavily in favor of the axis so generally leave this optional rule to the side but am still curious.

In the 1941 scenario of the mentioned game, the NOs have four main effects, in order of importance:

1. They unbalance the game in favour of Axis to the point where no good player would seriously competitively play it without a bid (of course, as long as you are not using Low Luck, the randomness will assure a decent chance for Allies to win). This is particularly upsetting as the game without NOs is actually highly balanced (a rare case in the franchise if I may say so).
2. They reduce the importance of bombing raiding, especially of the bombing raiding of Germany (as Germany should have more income whilst the bombing cap is still 20). I believe you don’t need to use the interceptor rule as long as you are using NOs (though bombing raiding is of course still very strong with no interception).
3. They speed up the game a lot, easily cutting out a few hours of gameplay to get your win against a stubborn opponent (especially the +10 Soviet NO). Meaning that, when the game starts going in favour of one side, the NOs help the unbalance to grow faster.
4. They make the game significantly more luck-driven (as bad dice making you unable to take a territory may cause you to lose NOs income too).

As long as you are not using some Low Luck house-rules, I would say a bid of about 9 for either scenario (either 3 infantry or 1 artillery and 1 armour) to the Allies (likely all to Russia) may make for a balanced game while using the NOs but not using Tech.

If you are using some Low Luck rules, I would say bidding with NOs becomes virtually mandatory, and, in the 1941 scenario, the bid should be higher (maybe as high as 15).

@playing-kid said in Is Larry Harris' website down again?:

There were photographs of the original 1942 prototype Larry Harris made of Axis & Allies in the 1970’s on there. Does anyone have those preserved

Exklusive Bilder aus dem “private War Room” und von der Ursprungsversion von Axis and Allies

@bigwatcher You’re welcomed.

However, I was pondering again my suggestion of splitting the VOLOGDA territory in two, calling them VOLOGDA and KHANTY-MANSI NATIONAL OKRUG. Unfortunately, that would not fit with how and where the Ural mountains are drawn, since the current VOLOGDA territory appears to be all west of the Urals as drawn (so it cannot comprise KHANTY-MANSIA) (By the way, the Ural mountains are rather small mountains, so they are not realistically impassable.).

So now I’m oriented to see the VOLOGDA territory as being an area spanning about from the Vologda province to the Kirov province and possibly also the Perm province: it can be still split in two vertically, calling them VOLOGDA and KIROV, or it can be left as a single territory.

Here are the new rename changes for Siberia, which do not imply redrawing any borders nor splitting any territories:
NENETSIA->KOMI A.S.S.R.
URALS->EASTERN KOMI A.S.S.R.
VOLOGDA->VOLOGDA
SAMARA->KUYBYSHEV
NOVOSIBIRSK->BASHKIR A.S.S.R.
TUNGUSKA->OMSK
EVENKI NATIONAL OKRUG->NOVOSIBIRSK
YAKUT S.S.R.->KRASNOYARSK
STANOVOY KHREBET->BURYAT-MONGOLIAN A.S.S.R.
BURYATIA->WESTERN YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SIBERIA->YAKUT A.S.S.R.
SOVIET FAR EAST->NORTHERN KHABAROVSK
AMUR->KHABAROVSK

As for territory changes:

• I would merge NENETSIA and URALS into a single territory called KOMI A.S.S.R. (because those areas as drawn are currently very narrow east-west in reality).
• I would split VOLOGDA vertically into two territories, called VOLOGDA and KIROV.

The above is, at the end, merely a compromise to temperate the huge distortions inherent in the drawing. I believe that they make more sense than my previous suggestions if you look at the Urals as drawn, but make matters some whorse with respect to western China (Sinkiang) as drawn. If you look at China and Mongolia, the current NOVOSIBIRSK territory (which I suggest to rename to BASHKIR A.S.S.R.) would be actually eastern Kazakhstan, SAMARA would be western Kazakhstan and KAZAKH S.S.R. would be southern Kazakhstan plus Kyrgyzstan, plus Uzbekistan (or at least its Kara-Kalpakian part), plus Tajikistan.

@tmtm1 It does not have a rule-book. I’m not a player, but I know everyone just plays it as the TripleA program makes it work beside what is detailed in the game’s notes.

So, if you want to play it as “people” do, practically, you have to know the TripleA behaviour and make yourself a “mental rulebook” out of it, then collate what is detailed in the World At War notes as if they are “erratas” of this “rulebook” given by the program’s behaviour.

Obviously, persons also except for the program’s problems (mainly whatever obvious bug), but this may become a highly disputable matter.

@redrum is currently the owner of the map (unless he is not any longer), so, if you need an “official” ruling whenever you and your opponent are in disagreement, I guess you may make a question in the official map’s thread at the TripleA forum and hope for an answer (just like you would ask any map-maker how his or her game is supposed to work).

A fifth point may be that they considerably increase the complexity of the game.

It is quite unfair (and likely quite unfun for them) to play with NOs if any number of the players are still in the process of learning the rules. NOs, like tech, are more for players who are starting getting bored of the basic game yet not bored enough to move on.

As to add my personal opinion, I theorically dislike NOs in Anniversary, even not considering the unbalance that they cause, because I think every territory giving its own income is good enough and cleaner and I do not believe the game needs more money (which turns into more units to stack on the board and manage), but practically recognize that they are a good thing to make the game reach a conclusion faster (if you like to finish games within 12 hours) and to offset the dominance of bombing raiding (if you don’t want to use the interceptor optional rule, which I believe virtually kills bombing raiding as a strategy, rather than rebalancing it).

@DoManMacgee said in Rules clarification for rolling separately:

I thought Column Rolling literally only existed in Classic 2nd Edition (maybe 3rd too, I don’t remember completely).

It has been clarified progressive “column” rolling was the process for Classic 1st and 2nd editions, but not for Classic 3rd edition, and for no Axis & Allies games thereafter.

@bigwatcher All right. If you would either change the location where the Ural mountains are drawn or avoid drawing them at all, I can take a look at the Sovietic Union once again and give a new set of suggested names for the various territories. I’m not sure of the names I’ve given as I believe that is very hard to collocate names with the map as it is because of the relative positions of the Ural mountains and the north-western corner of China (which is adjacent to both Mongolia and the Sovietic Union and I assume is the Altai prefecture of Sinkiang). Also the Russian railway from Moscow to Vladivostok not passing through the SAMARA territory is a limiting factor to proper naming, as the city which is nowadays known as Samara was a possible albeit not obligatory hub of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway#/media/File:Transsib_international.svg

Am I correct believing that in every strategic Axis&Allies game since Classic 1st edition it is either stated or implied that you can never intentionally purchase more units than you can possibly place and you cannot end the Place/Mobilize Units phase, if you have anything left to place that you can still place?

I know both matters became relevant only starting with Anniversary, as if you, instead, lose what you don’t place, you have virtually no reasons to do either on purpose, but just wondering.

I’m mostly wondering if in Revised you could intentionally and deliberately pull the strategy of purchasing more units than you can place to, then, decide what to place and what to lose? And how about deciding to lose something that you can place (I realize this would make no sense)?

@taamvan We were just talking about TripleA and nobody said dead (I just said almost so, meaning rarely played).

@malmessi74 Not what you asked for, but I believe there are already two virtual and online implementations of War Room:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1972854446
https://tabletopia.com/games/war-room-a-larry-harris-game

I understand they are officially supported by the copyright holders of the game:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nightingale-games/war-room-a-larry-harris-game-2nd-edition

CONTINUED DIGITAL VERSION SUPPORT

• continued Tabletop Simulator support
• continued Tabletopia support
• NEW! 3 player War in the Pacific scenario on Tabletopia (October 2021)

On this line, the old guy could be named:
Axis & Allies 2nd Edition (Classic)
or, to cover all:
Axis & Allies 1st/2nd/3rd Editions (Classic)
Since you don’t see “Classic” anywhere in the box or the manual or anything for real, it fits better between parenthesis (people that don’t know stuff might think it’s not the one, since the one they have is not called “Classic” anywhere, of course).

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

And how about deciding to lose something that you can place (I realize this would make no sense)?

Actually, it might make sense, even in Classic and Revised, in the case of having purchased a factory and, then, as a consequence of very harsh dice, you might prefer losing rather than placing it (assuming you are not in 3rd Edition Iron Blitz with Scorched Earth on, that is).

@the-captain said in Rule Question Fighter and Aircraft Carrier:

@pillhuhn

Hi Pillhuhn,

No matter which Axis & Allies version you play, Fighter units and Aircraft Carrier units always move seperate from each other.

Not true (beside of course allied fighters, for which it is never true): in Revised non-LHTR, currently carried fighters which are owned by the same power by which the carriers which are carring them are owned can remain cargo of the carriers while the carriers move. However, in this case, the fighters (being cargo) are being moved on the board yet not actually moving themselves. So I would agree with saying that “if they both move, they always move separately”.

Of course, this is substantially off-topic because this is the “Classic” sub-forum.

I’m sure @Krieghund will correct me if I said something wrong.

Almost nobody, beside maybe Communists, expected the Soviet Union to be so productive, especially considering Zarist Russia arguably generally underperformed on expectations, in the previous war.

To this day, after almost a century of research, how much the Soviet Union was productive, for example by estimating the ratio of the per-capita GDP of the Soviet Union to the United States of America, is highly contentious a matter. Imagine in 1941: nobody outside the Soviet Union (and hardly anyone inside) had any reliable idea on what was actually going on there, in term of economic and military potential.

If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or a tactical bomber moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then, or a combat required to clear an intervening sea zone failed to do so. Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone fora fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed. -Rulebook Pacific 1940 2nd Ed., page 28

I think that this part is badly worded.

My understanding of the rules is that, if I say that an aircraft carrier will move to a zone to allow a fighter to land, then I can still move the carrier to an other zone where the fighter can also land, but I think that this is not clarified that well by what I quoted.

In particular, the part

you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

should have been better written as

you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location or to any other location which also allows to land the air unit in the Noncombat Move phase unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere

Am I right?

Similarly, regarding the part

Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone fora fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.

I wonder if I’m still allowed to mobilize the carrier in an other sea zone if the air unit can land there too? My understanding is that I can, but the rules which I have quoted appear to state that I cannot…

In my opinion, the rules here should have been written as

Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized in a sea zone to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter or tactical bomber, it must be mobilized in that sea zone or in any other sea zone which also provides a safe landing zone for the same (without denying the possibility also to mobilize other similarly needed carriers due to placement limits and only as long as you are not making yourself unable to mobilize anything) unless the air unit has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.

Am I right here in my rewording of the rules, or are you actually bound to place that carrier exactly where you said you would (as the rules state “it must be mobilized in that sea zone”) if the air unit cannot land on anything but that carrier even in the case in which you actually have two or more zones where you can place that carrier and still land that air unit on it?

@kaleu said in My Axis & Allies collection:

I had scanned my copy of the ‘Rules Clarifications’ in the meantime. It’s available here.

Re-reading this old piece of paper, I have to say that advicing the (reportedly, many) Axis players to play aggressively as a response to the generally accepted observation that the game is hugely umbalanced against the Axis feels like grossly underestimating their player-base.

Beside this, this is a very nicely written and very helpful piece of paper and something which would be good to have in this site (namely in https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/, under “Axis & Allies 2nd Edition (1986)” (Wasn’t it 1984?)).