Talk:Axis & Allies

Anniversary Edition?

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...

From boardgamegeek.com:

"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 221.216.148.19 (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 :( 67.169.206.46 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because that content is copyrighted. -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2012 (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.

--M.U.D.

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.

--Mike Selinker

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.

Also, the original Nova Games edition should be mentioned somewhere, but I'm not sure where to slip that in.Rindis 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

appropriateness?

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. 82.92.119.11 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Correct title

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)

Agreed. The page should be at "Axis & Allies", not "Axis and Allies". —Lowellian (reply) 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested speedy deletion of "Axis & Allies" page to perform the move. Craw-daddy 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add this link

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 peter-willem.schellen@axisandallies.nl ceo@axisandallies.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.175.170 (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 70.238.166.230 (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 72.69.186.204 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this game advertised too. I've added it. — Val42 (talk) 21:40, 11 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 65.31.238.136 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No external links to discussion forums, please

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

www.axisandallies.org is the authority regarding this game. It's short-sighted removing it with sweeping generalisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.165.243 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

axisandallies.org is an online community. They do not own or publish the game. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:29, 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 65.31.227.251 (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 71.63.249.6 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Research comparison

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?

[1]http://www.axisandalliesworldclub.net AAWC - Axis & Allies World Club (competitive ladder play for the 1998 Hasbro version)

97.83.97.94 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

What would it take to have the link added? Would officially licensing the Axis & Allies brand do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djensen47 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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 98.210.128.94 (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:

https://twitter.com/BanjoCatfish/status/549728337997103104

The person @BanjoCatfish thought Wikipedia lied to him.

It turns out this person missed the footnote.

Djensen47 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Would it make sense to remove the "release date" since this game was never "released"?

Djensen47 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Antiaircraft Artillery?

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. --Kharnellius (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Axis & Allies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417062722/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Which editions should the unit table reflect?

I noticed that the unit table's entry for tanks under the 1942 version says it costs 5 IPCs. This is true of Spring 1942, but not 1942 2nd Edition, where it costs 6. Seeing as how both 1942 and Global 1940 have multiple editions, it is worth asking generally: which edition of each version should the table reflect? If it's meant to document the most recent editions, I'll make the change relating to the tank cost. However, I'm unaware if discrepancies exist in other entries (1942-2e is the only version I own). Matthew V. Milone (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That change to game development.

Okay I just saw this change that was made to Game Development. And first of all there seems to be no source of this. So, if these people did make Axis And Allies a source would be nice because this is hard to believe.

Additionally, the story just doesn't connect to the known early beginnings of Axis And Allies.

If Axis And Allies (Risk II) was invented in Michigan in 1979 and declined by Parker Brothers,

Then how was it copied by Larry Harris in Connecticut who had never worked with Parker Brothers, or any board game company as far as I can tell until 1981 so there would be no way of him knowing about Risk II.

And the board game company he joined in 1981 was Nova Game Design for the sole purpose to publish his game called Axis And Allies that year. (So apparently he somehow heard about the game states away and without ever working for Parker Brothers)

And there's no way to suggest that Nova Game Design copied Risk II as they were literally a self made company of five people in Connecticut in a basement. (Apparently the only people who would publish Larry's game)

Nova Game Design then sold Axis And Allies to Milton Bradley in 1984

Even more, if the rules to Risk II were almost exactly the same to Milton Bradley's Axis And Allies except for one rule about factories. Then what about the rules before Milton Bradley. The original rules had Atomic Bombs, Unique National Abilities, and Pro Neutrals that gave money to major powers just to name a few. It would be unlikely that final rule set that Milton Bradley ended on just happened to be a one on one copy of Risk II.

If Risk II does exist, I believe that it is just pure coincidence. There is no evidence, no person, no location, that connects these games other than the rules and even then it is know that the Axis And Allies rules changed greatly before Milton Bradley even released the game.

Larry Harris, the guy who suggested the game to Milton Bradley, had no connection to Parker Brothers and it is highly unlikely he heard about this game 700 miles away.

2600:8800:5E00:6DE:5D92:2E20:932E:BFAA (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reference to That Change to Game Development

I can't answer to how the game ended up where it did, although I remember my father talking to the lawyer. We actually lived in RI, NH before MI, so I don't know where the lawyer was from. I do know we didn't have a lot of money, so I have no idea who he had as a lawyer. I'm just now going through the papers and finding the materials. If it was coincidence, it was really interesting in that the rules were so close, the dice scoring and the pieces. We even used the red and white chips back then. Granted could have been just a fact that those red and white colored pieces were all that was available at the time all over the US. But I do know, when we moved to NY and my new friends came over and learned about our game, they were shocked when Axis and Allies came out. Also, I didn't say Risk II is out there. I remember there was a trademark that was submitted. I remember the rejection from Parker Brothers. We continued to play on the Risk board and even made a board on an old pool table. We moved to NY and played there until the game was introduced and then we switched... funny thing was we didn't even read the rules. We just started playing, so for awhile we played our way... until we had some friends over who had actually read the rules and asked why we were putting more pieces in South Africa and China then allowed. That was one rule we didn't have... limits to what you could put down on a new industrial complex... (we called them HQs).

In the end, as my father always said, "it's ok, we had a blast playing"... and to end up going to West Point and then playing there with great Americans. It's all good in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armygrunt1979 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Honesty, I do think it was just an odd coincidence,

The Axis And Allies rules in 1981 actually when through a lot of changes before Milton Bradley released the game in 1984. There were Atomic Bombs, Marines, SS Units, Pro Neutral Nations that gave money to nations, Transport movement points, and more that were all at one point in Axis And Allies that just happened to be removed by the final release.

Heck, the dice scoring wasn't even in the original prototype version. The dice scoring was invented by Larry's friends as they thought that his combat was too long and could use an entire rework.

Even if Risk II isn't out there, you should still teach me the rules sometime. Well, at least you have the cool story of basically a board game being made twice and I hope you have a fun time playing either Axis And Allies or Risk II.

2600:8800:5E00:6DE:7858:571B:7C65:4B5F (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If it was an odd coincidence the resemblance and the New England ties are just so interesting in the scheme of things. Especially the similarity in the points for the different pieces. As for Risk II, when A&A came out we just started buying those boards and pieces. My father did talk to a lawyer, but was advised that the game world makes it very expensive and very lengthy to litigate. So he decided best just to enjoy the game... made great father-son time, and I am currently playing with one of my sons on a larger printed map. I hope to post photos at some point when I can get through the files and the photos. There were Polaroids taken of the board and pieces that were presented to Parker Brothers in 1979. No idea what happened to the copies back then... remember no computers really. Two things my father and I have played in the past to change the game was allowing unlimited placement of pieces at any Industrial locations. We also will place 2 boards with South Poles facing each other and place a set number of pieces in Eastern US. Basically a mad scramble across the boards, that's alot of fun when playing with 4 people, no allies but you can make alliances. It's like a game of throwns, when will your alliance falter. I will say one difference is our game was 2 player... we only had gray/green pieces, and the risk countries caused a different layout. When A&A came along, it was great to have 3 more colors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armygrunt1979 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully I just found a way that might bring more clarity to this,

I have in front of me a copy of the original 1981 Axis And Allies rules (Oldest know version of the game that was released)

At the back it lists credit to everyone who worked on it,

Designer Lawrence Harris

Developer Joseph Angiolillo

Graphics supervisor James Rosinus

Play Testers Mike Vitale, Joseph Mike, Dave Sweet, Dan Strom, Bob Martin, Joseph Angiolito (again), Larry Harris (again), Al Leonardi, James Rosinus (again), Pieter Roos, Pat Flory, Dave Menard, Ron Palmer, Chuck Mullaney, Steven Naxon, James Tamargo, and Pat Whalen

It would probably take a long time, but we could look into these people to see if any of them have a relation to Parker Brothers

By this point, all the rules that would be in Milton Bradley's had already been developed and are in the rules, (really, the only thing Milton Bradley did was remove rules)

Also of note, https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=Risk%20II&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=o4OnPyEuzxOn2Y9H_MbUi5IKKv-d&SEQ=20200324103345&SID=1

Here is the copyright for Risk II by Earle W. Hayford

Though the registration and creation date both are after Axis And Allies existed

If you can please find the rulebook that would greatly help I think.

Oh and I guess wikipedia wants people to type four "~" at the end of talk posts at it will immediately sign it like this --> 2600:8800:5E00:6DE:EC47:7FD3:A896:B6C0 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Opps, didn't know that link was timed,

Just go onto the Copyright Database and search Risk II, it's there

Also secondary name, Risk it : two-person realistic war confrontation

2600:8800:5E00:6DE:EC47:7FD3:A896:B6C0 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just did a bunch more research into seeing how likely a game with similar rules would be made and here's what I found,

The main coicidence between the games that seem odd would be the combat system which I shall refer to as 'Bucket Of Dice'.

Bucket Of Dice - Units have certain combat values and hit other units when that value or less is rolled

Now, at first glance it would seem that the only games that I know about that use this system would be Axis And Allies (and your Risk II). This would support them being connected.

But, on further research I discovered that there a multitude of different games that use similar rules.

Now not all of them are the same, for example there are somes in which all units have the same attack value but you roll more dice for certain units, but these rules due date back before either game.

I had difficultly finding exactly when this combat system was invented but the oldest game I could find was from 1975.

So sense the combat system is shown to have existed before hand, and since both Larry Harris and his friends placed a lot of wargames which these systems would most likely be used in. It would be very likely that the rules for combat were just inspired by the games that they had played.

Another similarity that seems to be odd is that the unit stats are very similar,

But personally, doesn't it make sense that the stats would be similar? You would have tanks at a higher stat then infantry when attacking because... they're better at attacking. You would have bombers at a low stat when defending because they're bad at defending. You wouldn't have anything at a 5 or 6 because everything still has a chance at missing. So when you limit yourself to 4 different possible values for measuring how good a unit is at attacking or defending then I wouldn't be surprised if two people came up with similar values.

The foundations for Risk II and Axis And Allies already existed in the world. For someone to make a game like risk but with this combat system is just very likely and probably just bound to happen. Two people making a similar game at a similar time is just the luck of how things happened.

Here is an article about games with Bucket Of Dice combat

http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/2017/02/buckets-of-dice.html

Here is a list of just some games with Bucket Of Dice combat

https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/39230/wargames-bucket-o-dice-combat-or-six-hit

2600:8800:5E00:6DE:7858:571B:7C65:4B5F (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Renegade Game Studios

The article needs updated with some recent news and article citations. Shortly before being bought out by Hasbro, back in 2017 Saban Brands signed a licence agreement with Renegade Game Studios to produce a board game for the Power Rangers franchise known as Heroes of the Grid on Kickstarter. Due to how successful that did through several Kickstarter and pre-order campaigns Hasbro extended the license with Renegade to include other franchises (GI JOE, Transformers and My Little Pony) as well as more game & hobby varieties (Puzzles, Deck-Building Card Games and Tabletop RPGS). Then due to the continued success those four IPs late last year Hasbro extended the license even further with Renegade Game Studios. This new license now includes new versions of Risk (themed after those previously mentioned franchise IPs) as well as reviving several of Hasbro's other board game titles, Axis & Allies included. Renegade Game Studios is now currently taking pre-orders on their website store for new editions and reprints of classic editions of Axis & Allies to be released later this year. 163.182.125.110 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Best-selling?

When we read in the article, "Axis & Allies was declared the best-selling physical wargame in August 1996, having eclipsed the 275,000 copies sold by PanzerBlitz, the second-highest seller in the genre," does this assume that games like Risk (game) and Battleship (game) (which surely sold far more boxes than A&A) are not in the genre of physical wargame? - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)