Axis & Allies (Revised) Deluxed

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:10 am

Post by Black_Elk » Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:34 am

elbowsanchez wrote:don't worry, this is an "on going disussion" about DELUXE

I personally think the AA50 is the combined AAE and AAP that includes Italy.

I still hope deluxe comes out, but now it is time for AA50

oh yes, and welcome. We have your additional VC city board posted here somewhere, so we know who you are :)

Oh, I was under the impression that this thread was about AA50, and that it was all water under the bridge at this point. Good to know

In that case, I'll try to collect my thoughts and post a more considered response.

Thanks for the welcome Elbow, and great job on the site by the way.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:55 am

This thread was about what the Anniversary Edition was going to be before it became an anniversary edition.

The original thought was for a "jazzed" up edition of revised with every plastic piece being country specific, LHTR replacing the OotB rules as what comes in the game, etc.

Then the opportunity came about to produce an anniversary edition and the rest is history. :D


Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:10 am

Post by Black_Elk » Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:16 am

OK guys, these are just some thoughts off the cuff, for what they're worth. I'll try to give more examples and clarify some of the ideas, as I go along. I'm a mad editing fool, so I'll expect more to come once I've had a chance to re-read all this stuff I just typed


I just want preface all this by saying how totally genius A&A is. I love this thing and think its as close to perfection as any board game I know of.
That said, this is what I'd want from a Deluxe version.

If Italy is included as a full faction then I would also like to see China as a full faction. Before AA50 I probably would have argued against the inclusion of Italy (even though I helped to make Pact of Steel), but now that the Italians are in I think it makes sense to include the Chinese as well. I always preferred the underdog status of the Axis powers anyway, and I think it was part of what made classic and revised so entertaining. The 3 vs 3 is alright, but even when we were making Pact of Steel, it was always a little gimmicky. I was much more interested for example, in tweaking the Pacific towards a Midway set up, or playing around with other ideas, than I was with Italy.

The third space in China was Cousin Joes suggestion, and I thought it worked out pretty well. But now that we have the Chinese separated off into their own thing, and have demonstrated a willingness to carve up Asia a bit more, I think we should just take it all the way.

I would love to see the definition of IPC relaxed somewhat, so that we can play with the numbers a little easier. Imagine if we could make Hawaii worth 3 ipcs with a factory, what that might do for a pacific showdown? Or all the pacific islands at 2 ipcs, something to really gun for? I don’t think anyone would have a problem with something like that. I feel like with just a little more flexibility on the ipc distribution we could accomplish great things without needing to revisit the rules.

What if we just added some extra clause that says something like “Industrial Production Capacity/Commitment”

And then leave it up to the imagination, how best to interpret the “commitment” part of the idea?

Take Pearl Harbor for example, even though the industrial output of the islands was insignificant compared to production on the mainland, you could still say that much of what was produced on the mainland ended up being “committed” to the defense of Hawaii. Thereby justifying the minor increase in value. You could do something similar in other areas of the board too. Like imagine if North Africa was a few more ipcs, then the Axis might have a reason to fight for it, instead of just handing it over to the Americans. I think the Pacific is the area that needs the most rebalancing though. I would love to see a set up that forces US action in this theater. I think Hawaii at 3 with a factory would do exactly that.

I also favor a starting factory in India, as an allied anchor in South Asia and penultimate target for the Japanese. All in all I think we should have 1 more factory for each of the original 5 major powers. And then 1 each for the new guys as well, so the locations would look something like this:

British: UK, India
Americans: Eastern US, Western US, Hawaii
Russians: Russia, Caucasus, Karelia
Germans: Germany, Eastern Europe (Poland or Romania)
Japanese: Japan, Manchuria (Chosen)
Italian: Italy
Chinese: Szechuan

I think an arrangement like that, with only some very minor tweaking of IPC values in certain key territories, and we could achieve that perfect two front game that everyone dreams about. The key territories are the pacific islands and China, and maybe to a lesser extent North Africa and the Med basin. If we could get a capital in China at 6 or 8 ipcs, and maybe one or two easily defensible territories at 2 or 3 ipcs, then they could easily fit onto the board as the seventh player. Then all we have to do is make some minor adjustments to the starting unit set up, to balance out situation in the Pacific/Asia, and we’d be good to go I think. It doesn’t even require a dramatic adjustment to the IPC totals (though I think it would be fun if those were raised slightly.) If you kept the current cost structure, but upped the total values for each player by about 5-10 ipcs, I think everyone would really enjoy it. It would make bigger purchases like battleships, seem more feasible, and just by increasing the total by that little bit, we could easily get away with increasing the value of some of those areas on the map that are so important to the Pacific game. Maybe something more like

UK 40-36
Russia 40-35
USA 50-45
China 12-15

Germany 40-48
Japan 25-34
Italy 15-18

On the assumption that the Axis will be able to gain some ground in the first round, this should balance out to be pretty even. I think even a modest increase like this would go a long way towards encouraging more esoteric builds, especially with any additional bonuses that might be factored in.

Actually forget the totals, that’s doesn’t stress what I’m driving at anyway.
Instead let me just put down what I think would be an ideal IPC distribution.

Image ... plejo5.gif

I would redraw China a bit to make the capital more spacious if we went that route. ;)

I think something like that would really encourage the kind of Pacific gameplay we’re looking for without necessitating any core rule adjustments. The basic game resources (still ipcs) are placed in such a way as to encourage heavy combat in the areas where we want to see it occurring. By playing with this idea of an Industrial Production ‘Commitment’ we could accomplish the main thing that fans have been asking for since Classic: a full showdown between the US and Japan. People look at a territory worth 2 ipcs and they think "OK, now here’s something that’s worth going after." With more income diverted to the territories that are in play, like Alaska or Western Canada, we also make attacks against north America more viable. And in the case of Africa, we give the Axis a reason to fight for control of N. Africa instead of bailing on it entirely to smash and grab sub-Saharan Africa.

The other thing that would be nice about tweaking the values up in favor of 2 ipcs, is that it makes more territories possible for strategic factory purchases, which I think are entertaining. Japan or the USA, might choose to establish ‘bases’ on the islands they conquer, instead of just skipping everything on the way to east Indies. I’m a fan of the factory unit, always have been, and even with the starting factories I have layed down, I can still imagine other locations where we might see them crop up. Basically each player would have more options for new factories, then they would under the current scale which favors territories at 1 ipc.

I would love to see a few more starting naval units for each player. The reduced cost of the naval units in AA50 is great. I like that trend and hope we can stick to it. One thing I would like to see though, is an extra sea zone to seperate Norway from Karelia (so its two moves to and from Archangel/UK). I think that would help to prevent the common UK strat of just camping out in the White Sea, and dropping 8 units a turn into Arch or Karelia. You'd still have the option, but the logistics would at least require a rotating transport scheme.

Also, we might want to playbalance the starting unit set up (first two rounds) under Low Luck rules to ensure proper balance for all the openings. Personally I don’t like LL gameplay and will always remain a dice man, but this style has proven quite popular with some players. LL also reveals some of the basic patterns in predictable ways which can help to isolate any game breaking moves. I’m guessing this is how its already done, with the averages and such, but just in case it isn’t I would recommend it as an option.

Man I'm out of juice right now. Let me think on it some more, and I'll be back tomorrow. And again, beautiful work on the core game. A&A rocks the house!


mike b
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: London Ontario Canada

Post by mike b » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:41 pm

We have AA50 now and it is the best AA game to date. Therefore if there is going to be an AA Deluxe it should only be some kind of addon for AA50 (rule changes, new units etc.). If a new AA world game is a must (which it really shouldnt be) it shouldnt come out for something like another 6-10 years. And even so we really do not need another world game. :roll:
No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country

Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: Axis & Allies (Revised) Deluxed

Post by SgtBlitz » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:37 am

I liken the ongoing Egyptian revolution to the player's suggestions being piled on for the next incarnation of A and A Deluxe... Player's submitting their feedback and helping the designers make the next game even better BEFORE its made? Inconceivable! (The government must be meeting the protesters demands. It must be the damnable Internets pushing things along.) Fantastic idea letting the gamers make their suggestions to help development, Larry!

I really like IL's list in the Game Board thread (not sure though if he's saying those ideas are bad or if he wants them in): ... 90&start=8

The idea of taking multiple turns to build big ticket naval units is a great idea to add (also a lot more realistic ("Oh, we just happened to have this carrier group mothballed for the last 5 years, and we just now realized we could put it into service at this port we just captured".) It would force players to plan their builds a little better in advance, they would have to defend their ports and coastal ICs more rather than plopping down a full fledged ready-to-fight fleet in a single turn. Enemy players could also react to naval construction and attack earlier before the units were complete. To protect construction of these major naval units, cheaper naval units would be needed as well, so we'd see even more use of cheap/medium units. This idea would also give the game a more epic feel, as when a CV group was finally launched your side would really notice the impact.

For example:

CVs now take 2 turns to build, and must be built from a major IC. On the first turn of construction, lay the unit upside down in the SZ its being constructed in, and the unit has a defense value of 0 (can still be defended by active naval units and scrambled air, and also be chosen as a casaulty by defender (last resort)). After the next full turn, at the beginning of the Combat Move phase, turn the carrier right side up for active use (ex. built on turn 3, upside down all turn 4, right side up at CM of turn 5).

This way the opponent has a two full turns to react to the naval unit construction, and can see the unit coming. We might need a turn counter piece to keep them separate from other constructed/damaged naval units in the same SZ, as it could get difficult to keep track of them.

If the player needed carrier units NOW, he could opt for light carriers, like in another suggestion posted by IL. Builds in one turn and fast responder, but won't really hold up well in combat, i.e., falls apart in one hit, and only holds one aircraft. But it could be a good supporting piece if needed immediately.

Also, for the trade-off in taking more time for construction, we could make regular 2-turn build CVs take 3 hits before sinking instead of the current two, and maybe make the defense values and/or movement values drop as the hits pile on. Critically wounded CVs (with 2 hits already) can only move 1 SZ a turn, and only defend at 1.

We could also make the BBs stronger, as in taking 3 turns to build and can take 4 hits before going down. However, after taking 2 hits, their attack/defense/move goes down to 3/3/1, and after taking 3 hits, down to 2/2/1. So there'd be some balance as the ship wouldn't fight as well toward the end of a fight. Cruisers would be the "light" version of the battleships like the light carrier units, and could be constructed in one turn too.

Repairing capital ships should cost the owner IPCs (especially with now 3 hit CVs and 4 hit BBs) and/or perhaps there should be limits as to how many ships can be repaired in available ports per turn; the current rule is silly in that stacks of capital ships are essentially free hits as long as the defending stack survives in a SZ containing an Ally-owned port. Many of the Italian capital ships were KOed for the rest of the war after the UK's Taranto raid. They were undergoing repairs that were never finished simply because the Italians couldn't afford to repair them.

The time component to building capital ships should definitely add more strategic elements to the game, and also a fair bit of reality, as some nations realistically didn't have the money, time, or manpower available to run a decent navy, while others could do so in comparative safety. The German player would really have a reason for churning out lots of cheap, one-turn constructed U-boats with all the Allied air/naval units in range of the Baltic SZs (too much of a risk to start building a CV), whereas the US could basically build anything they wanted off the E US (until the masses of U-boats started swarming too close). Perhaps we could even put in a special rule for U-boats being able to get free/sneak attacks on ships under constrution or ships being repaired in port, as they would be highly visible and vulnerable targets (this happened with some Italian mini-submarines used to attack the British battleships Valiant and Queen Elizabeth at port in Alexandria).

Now that I'm looking at these ideas, they probably could be exploited to hell and gone with masses of the cheaper naval/air units, so not all of them are that great. But I think in a Deluxe version some manner of making capital ships more important than they currently are would be a cool idea to try out.

Also, IL's list is simply awesome. We need to try some new ideas out for Deluxe, as it should end up being an alternate history type of game, rather than just a same-old-rehash of WWII with some dice thrown around for flavor. Drawing random cards at the start of a round could be just the beginning; it'd really be nice to have tech trees you could pour IPCs into, Civilization-style. We'd make the tech historic by making the A-bomb so IPC-expensive that only the US (or a victorious Germany) could afford it. Maybe we could even throw in spy cards to attempt to steal other player's tech once discovered.

Card ideas:

ULTRA Cracker (roll with +1 added for defending units rolls next turn)
Misinformation Plant (can move 5 of opponent's units into neighboring territory)
Industrial Sabotage (cause 1d of dmg to opponent's IC, if neutral, can be considered as act of war)
Spy Infiltration (roll to attempt to steal technology)
Surprise Counteroffensive (roll -1 for attackers in a single battle on your turn)

Meh, I'm rambling. These are probably all crap, and goodnight.

Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Axis & Allies (Revised) Deluxed

Post by WILD BILL » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:44 pm

I know this tread was dormant, but there is still some good stuff here that could be used in future AA games, or even adopted in the 1940 series as an option for those who want more. Thanks for reviving it SgtBlitz

I like the thought of major navy builds taking 2 turns (CV/BB), or introducing more support ships. Maybe even split up the cost over those 2 turns. Giving them 3 hits, but having each hit effect how they perform works for me too (4 hit BB may be too much IMO, and should stay same as carrier for just ease). I definitely think a port should have a limit on how many damage markers it can remove for ships, 3 seems to fit into the current scheme. A charge for damage could work as well, but might cause some tracking problems if dice were to determine damage. Maybe just something simple like 3 ipc/damage marker could work.

I have noticed many carrier builds on the Pacific side. Many times they are used for cannon fodder (or to soak hits), which just seems wrong to me. If there was a limit to how many 2 hit ships could be repaired at a NB, and a nominal charge for it it would be good for the current game (even w/o adding 3 hit ships, or 2 round builds).

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Axis & Allies (Revised) Deluxed

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:51 pm

It appears that my post back in 2007 had some insight on what was coming up:
A two sided map idea would bring alot of value to the game. I would then favor a 1939 scenario map one on one side and June 1941 (note: not spring 1942) map as the regular map. The idea of a pre-Barbarossa map would be to dramatically increase play options in the following manner:

1) the German player may delay the attack on the Soviets ( lets not use the word Russia because in those days they were called Soviets) for a turn and instead try an Africa campaign or something that Hitlers generals wanted.
The Soviets in any case would be able to even attack Germany after a turn or two if that didn't if the Germans waited too long (perhaps settled by die rolls)

2) the pre- Barbarossa setup would allow more flexibility for the German player to decide how to conduct his own campaign. One thing i didn't like was the game starting after a point when actually a German victory was not really historically possible.

3) The map that would be 1939 based set up would include France and Italy ( probably recolored British and German pieces-or something more substantial than that.

4) neutrals would also be introduced as all of the German minor axis allies

5) The game should have historical victory conditions and eliminate all of the items that allowed or even fostered the following ideas:

a) inability for defender to retreat
b) inability for land units to attack air units flying above
c) the idea that western allies can actually land in the soviet union territories
d) the idea that the Soviets have the same objectives as the western allies
The game should really be called "The Axis, The Allies and the Soviet Union
e) The idea that carrier planes can attack from a carrier and then land and protect land units as if somehow the naval air elements and dedicated air forces coordinated actions in this manner.
f) Tanks boosted by planes 1/1
g)Mech infantry boosted movement of infantry at 1/1
H) Transports cannot hit air planes
I) subs require search (as per larrys sub search rules)
j) Technology modeled as it is under AARHE
K) limits on infantry builds
L) multiple turn builds for carriers,cruisers,bombers, and battleships
when a ship is being built it can be attacked by planes
M) a deck of historical event cards that are drawn once per turn. These may contain some NA type of benefit or something nasty against the player who draws the card. This adds alot of fun to the game
N) leaders units (cardboard chits with specific combat modifiers)
o) Changes in invasions
P) all axis following by all allies taking turn together
Q) New naval movement: All ships can move 2 spaces in combat and 2 spaces in non-combat, whether they are involved in combat or not.
R) ports and protection from naval attacks
s) AA gun defense fixed into specific areas as per AARHE
t) Cheaper naval units 20 IPC BB, DD at 10 IP ( attack and defend at 2)
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Axis & Allies (Revised) Deluxed

Post by luispena » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:28 pm

Dearest Larry,
Your original creation of Axis & Allies has been admired for almost a full generation in this humble family. This will be the first time any form of communication will be attempted, please forgive our late participation. For the past ten years now we have been playing your game in a way no one (I believe) has ever played it before. Our version is so radically different yet is completely based on the original rules and completely inspired from them. One main difference are the pieces which are all N scale for land forces only, air pieces 1/600 scale and naval pieces 1/3000th scale. This has made the game look much more physically intriguing, first time visitors don't know if its a game or a diorama. Battles take just a little more time but are much less frequent yet much more epic with more realistic results or at least more believable results. This slight change has eliminated other problems such as the infantry push mechanics and other comments from critics of your awesome table top war game. Please respond to this message to cover more details even though nothing really has changed, everything still rolls the same, cost the same, moves the same and can be played on any version of any map.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests