Talk:Axis & Allies
|WikiProject Board and table games||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Anniversary Edition?
- 2 There should be a picture of the revised version
- 3 You know what would be cool?
- 4 Balanced towards the Allies?
- 5 appropriateness?
- 6 I am knowed such games
- 7 Correct title
- 8 Please add this link
- 9 Battle of Guadalcanal
- 10 No external links to discussion forums, please
- 11 Axis & Allies: 50th Anniverserary Edition
- 12 Unit Comparison: The Three Editions
- 13 Nova Unit Statistics
- 14 Research comparison
- 15 Edit request from , 16 November 2011
- 16 TripleA Links vs. Axis & Allies .org
- 17 Gametable Online is official, TripleA is not
- 18 Global is causing confusion
- 19 Antiaircraft Artillery?
A third revision of the game comes out in a couple weeks, featuring a new board, Cruisers, Italy as the third axis player, and China as a fourth Allied country (but controlled by US) under the name "Axis & Allies: Anniversary Edition". I am surprised not to find anything mentioning this on the A&A page, though details are fairly scant at the moment...
"To celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Avalon Hill, Axis & Allies is launching its most expansive game ever. The Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition will feature the debut of Italy as the third Axis nation, the introduction of the cruiser unit to the naval lineup, and the largest Axis & Allies board to-date measuring 24x46 inches. With over 600 pieces, players will be able to recreate and decide the outcome of WWII like never before. The Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition is designed and developed by Larry Harris, the original designer of Axis & Allies, and will release on October 23, 2008."
The game will be released on 10/23/08 and will retail for $100, with a 2x4-foot board and all sorts of goodies, but as it will be a true third version of A&A it seems worth at least a mention here. From Kirottu82 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There should be a picture of the revised version
The revised version has been existing for 4 years. I think the focus should be more shifted to description of the revised version itself, rather than just compare the revised and the original. At least some pictures of the revised version should be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what would be cool?
...if someone (like say Avalon Hill) had soft copies of the reference charts. I have the Milton Bradley version from like the early nineties and I lost the rule book and the reference charts. I found the rule book a couple of years ago (then on Hasbro's site) but I have yet to find reference charts to set up the pieces. Im really disappointed to not have found it on wikipedia :( 22.214.171.124 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Balanced towards the Allies?
I think not! I prefer to play the Axis powers...I like the hyper-aggressive strategy they need to adopt in order to win. I've been playing A&A for over ten years now, and I certainly don't view the Axis as being at a real disadvantage if an experienced player is at the helm.
- You may be right, particularly in competition play with bids, but someone claiming to be the lead developer agrees with the comment right below here... The Land 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say the lead developer has a vested interest in devaluing the classic edition. After all, he wants us to all go out and buy the new one. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is acting in bad faith, but it takes more than the lead developer's say-so to make a point...
I'm going to go as far as to say the Revised Edition is still an unfair fight for the axis. Germany gets torn apart unless it huddles around Western Europe which can only result in, if all the Allies work together, complete destruction when the full forces of Russia, Britain, and America turn to them. The Allies would be foolish to fight Germany and Japan seperate and if they put all there men into saving russia the axis are bound to lose. Axis and Allies: Revised Edition is alot easier for the Allies.
M.U.D. 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm Mike Selinker, the Revised edition's lead developer. A couple of points on the comments below: The "unbalanced and repetitive" comment is accurate, and was the major reason for the revision. A game can simultaneously be great and broken. That paragraph makes a lot of sense to me.
Hasbro owned Milton Bradley for 15 years before acquiring Avalon Hill. A&A only transfered to Avalon Hill when Revised began development. Pacific and Europe were published under the AH label, but A&A didn't follow them over to that brand until the WIzards staff began revising the original game.
The Nova Games edition was quite different than the MB "big box." Nova became a partner with Larry Harris when he sold the rights to MB, and the Nova edition was taken out of print.
Hope that helps.
Someone obviously feels strongly that we should not include the following paragraph:
"While the original edition was recognised as a classic, many experienced players felt the game quickly became unbalanced and repetitive."
This is a serious view of the original Axis and Allies and is voiced by a large section of the gaming community.
I am sure someone has a good reason for consistently editing it out - what is the reason?
- I agree with the sentiment; not trying to push a POV. IIRC, I deleted that paragraph because it was without context and had some mistakes. The current version is better-developed and in an appropriate place. --Twinxor 16:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... is something like 'A Gamer's Guide to Axis and Allies' really appropriate for an encyclopedia article? To a certain extent I don't mind it, but I think the tone is a bit off.
"When Hasbro acquired the Milton Bradley Company, they kept Axis and Allies in print as part of their Avalon Hill lineup..." Actually, I believe that A&A was in print with Hasbro owning MB for quite a while before Hasbro bought AH (which only happened in the late '90s). But I'm not sure of the timing of MB/Hasbro/Gamemaster, so I'd like someone else to take a crack at rewriting that.
Whoever wrote this article lacks experience at serious international league level. For a start, it takes a bid of around 21 IPC to even out the game. With Russian Restriction option bids are about 5-6IPC. Whilst being a gamers guide, it makes no real hint of the different opening strategies, and common nicknames given to various strategies. The tactic insights hinted at are flawed too. A lot more research is required before lending these sorts of insights to the game. I've played it for almost 20 years, and I am still learning more depths and complexities within this game. Any suggestion that the game is 'repetitive' is in my opinion as similar as saying chess is repetitive. (thetommy)
- Yes, I suspect none of the previous editos are international Axis and Allies players. However, I think that paragraph is a fair summary of vanilla A&A, which is an Allied walkover. However, a section in the article on improvements and competitive play rules would be very welcome... The Land 10:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The Strategy section seems to me to be in violation of the policy of no original research and verifiability, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions. Is wikipedia a suitable place for a game strategy guide? --Misterwindupbird 03:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since there were no comments, I removed the section. After rereading the no original research and verifiability policies, I'm even more convinced it doesn't belong. --Misterwindupbird 1 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
- I didn't see the change until now. It would have been better to find a reference for preferred strategy (are there no websites with any of this advice?) rather than to delete wholesale. The no-original-research policy is really aimed at people trying to make WP a source of new facts; general commentary on game strategy may be original content, but is not original research. If I were to fiddle with it (I've never played A&A, so not familiar), it would be to delete the prescriptive bits ("you must do X"), find a source for the conventional parts of the strategy, and maybe prune some verbiage. Stan 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
- This sort of thing really is Wikibooks material, where you can go hog wild crazy writing the best strategy guide known to man (cooperatively, of course...) Even if, technically, a strategy guide that would be limited to what "general consensus" agrees with could be included in Wikipedia, it would be a big target for people to add stuff of their own to. Besides—if we need a reference for this, the reader is arguably better off with just a link to that reference, as Wikipedia could only include the "sanitized", non-original-research-y version, which is probably less useful (and difficult to maintain).
- Also, putting the strategy smack-dab in the middle of the article decreases its value to the non-technically inclined readers, who don't want to get bogged down in paragraph after paragraph of strategy before getting to the game's further development. We should probably do this in a separate article for sake of organization, keeping perhaps only the "summary" section in the main article (rewritten to make it less of an informal lecture). On the whole, though, I still say put this in Wikibooks, and link to it from this article. The encyclopedia doesn't seem like a good place for it. 126.96.36.199 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
I am knowed such games
Between historical things,i poses the first edition of Axis & Allies, and new editions of Axis & Allies Europe and Pacific.
Inclusive how personally analized historical sources,and stay interest in Russian-Japanese incidents,i developed my personal version Axis & Allies "Siberian front" how one "What If?" excercise about one ideed conflict between Imperial and Soviet forces in Siberian Mainland.
This page should really be moved to Axis & Allies as that's the real name of the game. I know there's currently a redirect from that title that brings you here to this page (called Axis and Allies). It should be the other way around. If there's no objections, I will fix this. Craw-daddy 11:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objections, but wouldn't the title for this article need to be changed to "Axis & Allies" or something similar? WinterSpw 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion of "Axis & Allies" page to perform the move. Craw-daddy 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear friends Could you add a link to www.axisandallies.nl from your website? This will help put NAAF - Netherlands Axis & Allies Federation higher up on Google. I have also added your website to our links, which will hopefully help you and might attract Netherlands players to your Wiki. Many thanks in advance! Peter-Willem Schellen CEO - Chief Executive Officer NAAF - Netherlands Axis & Allies Federation email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- How large is this Federation? And remember to always sign with four tildes: ~~~~ WinterSpw 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to see a desciption & comparison of the board game and the PC game. I have never played A&A before, but I am downloading the PC "Iron Blitz" Version and wanted to know how it compared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It seems there are quite a few PC versions of Axis & Allies. Axis & Allies (2004 video game) is an RTS version of the game. WinterSpw 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Guadalcanal
Hi, they recently came out with a new version about the battle of Gudacanal. Could someone please add this in? I would but im terrible at writing stuff in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
can somebody add the new anniversery edition confirmed to come out in October. its going to be the biggest axis and allies game to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- www.axisandallies.org is the authority regarding this game. It's short-sighted removing it with sweeping generalisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Axis & Allies: 50th Anniverserary Edition
"To celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Avalon Hill, Axis & Allies is launching its most expansive game ever. The Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition will feature the debut of Italy as the third Axis nation, the introduction of the cruiser unit to the naval lineup, and the largest Axis & Allies board to-date measuring 24x46 inches. With over 600 pieces, players will be able to recreate and decide the outcome of WWII like never before. The Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition is designed and developed by Larry Harris, the original designer of Axis & Allies, and will release on November 18th, 2008." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unit Comparison: The Three Editions
I like this table, but I'm not too sure how much longer it can remain readable, if it even is now. The table already doesn't account for the Europe and Pacific versions of the game, and there's also the recently announced 1940 games for Europe & Pacific, which will be linkable to form one, massive global game. Does anyone think it would be useful to rework the format of the table, get rid of it altogether, make it into its own article (something such as List of units in the Axis & Allies series), or just leave it alone for now? Is it even noteworthy to have its own article? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nova Unit Statistics
I have tried and tried but somehow seem incapable of making the table accept the addition of a fourth set of unit statistics without screwing up somewhere.
I humbly request that someone do so in my place. But PREVIEW FIRST because I would have sworn my edits were perfect until I saw the table go screwy in Preview mode.
Add new section to each unit under the heading "Nova"
(Note: Of course, you should simply expand the existing fields where appropriate)
Infantry: 3; 1; 2; 1 (same as MB)
Artillery: n/a (MB)
Armor: 5; 3; 2; 3 (MB)
Fighter: 12; 3; 4; 4 (MB)
Bomber: 15; 4; 1; 6 (MB)
Submarine: 8; 0; 2; 2; Has a defensive "attack" before normal combat, NOT in normal combat; casualties do not fire.
Transport: 8; 0; 1; 2; Can carry up to two land units.
Destroyer: n/a (MB)
Cruiser: n/a (MB)
Battleship: 24; 4; 4; 2; (Note: no mention in rules, I believe, of battleship shots in amphibious invasions)
Aircraft Carrier: 18; 1; 1; 2; Can carry up to two aircraft. Bombers on aircraft carriers have zero defense.
Anti-aircraft gun: 5; 0; 3; 1; Gets one defensive shot against enemy aircraft, regardless of number, before combat.
Industrial complex: 15; 0; 0; 0; Unlimited production capacity.
I may try again to add these myself; but if I haven't yet, please try yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Is someone able to make a table of the research outcome descriptions and compare over the versions (similar to Unit comparison table)?
Edit request from , 16 November 2011
Can this request be added to the external links section please?
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Why? It doesn't look like an official site for anything. It looks more like a community site, which are links to be avoided according to WP:ELNO. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
TripleA Links vs. Axis & Allies .org
The "official" site for Axis & Allies is a terrible place to get news for the game. Supposed "fan sites" and blogs are doing a much better job of keeping up. Given how long Axis & Allies.org has been around (12 years), why is it still considered not appropriate for linking?
Next, TripleA is in no way officially associated with Axis & Allies so why is it listed here? Why isn't Gametableonline listed instead? That is the "official" online way to play the game.
Gametable Online is official, TripleA is not
IIRC, in order to avoid copyright issues TripleA does the best they can to distance themselves from being called "Axis & Allies." It is furthermore not an official version of Axis & Allies and the link to TripleA would likely be more appropriate elsewhere in wikipedia.
It deserves a mention in Open_source_games and should definitely be listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_games
Gametable Online, however, does have an officially licensed version of both A&A Revised and the newest, A&A 1942. There are links from Avalon Hill/WotC to this site and it is worthy of mention on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC) This was me actually. --Djensen47 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Global is causing confusion
It turns out the references to Global are confusing people. They think they can purchase a copy of Axis & Allies Global 1940, which as we know is not possible.
For example, the following twitter conversation:
The person @BanjoCatfish thought Wikipedia lied to him.
It turns out this person missed the footnote.
Would it make sense to remove the "release date" since this game was never "released"?
There are 4 mentions of Antiaricraft Artillery in the "Versions" table, yet they are not listed in the "Units" table. I did a bunch of research and it appears this is the same as the Antiaircraft gun from previous editions, but the rules have changed a little.
"An Antiaircraft artillery (AAA) unit can fire only at an air unit when that unit attacks the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to three times, but only once per attacking air unit"
See page 25 here: 
The "Units" table needs to be updated to reflect this change in the "1940" and "1942" Editions. I will attempt to fix it.