Thanks for the help and thank you!
Different 1941 from Anniversary
-
One thing I found strange is that this starts off with Germans at the gates of Moscow, yet Japan has yet to make any advances in the Pacific, while in Anniversary Barbarossa was how the game kicked off.
Would it not had made more sense for it to use the pre-Barbarossa design instead? You know, to make Russia more playable, and have Germany get a more entertaining game.
Obviously the turn order would be an issue, perhaps have Britain go first (starting with very little offensive naval units, or just no destroyers in the Atlantic intially), then Germany, then Russia, then Japan, and finally America.
IPCs are another thing: UK-12, G-11, SU-10, J-9, US-17
Artillery should of been included too, they were a staple since Revised, so I don’t understand why they were not included.
And that 6 IPC value for Tanks makes purchases for them undesirable, should of made it 5 again.
-
Since you have not had a reply Ryuzaki I thought I would try one. Although I have not played Anniversary, I have lost 1941, 1942.2 and Global 1940 successfully! (I have also won a few!)
There are differences between those versions, such as the ease of J slicing through China in some, that I might bemoan, but I try to hang on to the fact that these differences create new challenges and that is great.
Picking up on a few of your points:
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
One thing I found strange is that this starts off with Germans at the gates of Moscow, yet Japan has yet to make any advances in the Pacific, while in Anniversary Barbarossa was how the game kicked off.
Would it not had made more sense for it to use the pre-Barbarossa design instead? You know, to make Russia more playable, and have Germany get a more entertaining game.
I think one of the guiding principles of 1941 was to make it a shorter, simpler , introductory game. I am all for that. Perhaps that explains the post-Barbarossa start? But it would be an argument for an even later start point, so instead I think it is all about being different.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
Artillery should of been included too, they were a staple since Revised, so I don’t understand why they were not included.
Again I would suggest it is about the game being shorter. With limited ipcs to spend the lack of artillery forces a starker attack vs defence choice when purchasing land units. Territories are more likely to be defended rather than traded. This contributes to 1941 being less attritional and more focused on strategic thrust. Actually a difference I rather enjoy.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
And that 6 IPC value for Tanks makes purchases for them undesirable, should of made it 5 again.
Without artillery the value of tanks in attack is increased, so I would have no trouble defending that difference. However, in 1942.2 and Global 1940 tanks are 6 ipcs, even with artillery available.
But if you want to change the cost of tanks, re-introduce artillery, amend the turn order, change the ipc set-up, etc, then you can. A&A is infinitely flexible. But I do think there are advantages to some of these changes that you might want to try to experience first.
-
@Private:
Since you have not had a reply Ryuzaki I thought I would try one. Although I have not played Anniversary, I have lost 1941, 1942.2 and Global 1940 successfully! (I have also won a few!)
There are differences between those versions, such as the ease of J slicing through China in some, that I might bemoan, but I try to hang on to the fact that these differences create new challenges and that is great.
Picking up on a few of your points:
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
One thing I found strange is that this starts off with Germans at the gates of Moscow, yet Japan has yet to make any advances in the Pacific, while in Anniversary Barbarossa was how the game kicked off.
Would it not had made more sense for it to use the pre-Barbarossa design instead? You know, to make Russia more playable, and have Germany get a more entertaining game.
I think one of the guiding principles of 1941 was to make it a shorter, simpler , introductory game. I am all for that. Perhaps that explains the post-Barbarossa start? But it would be an argument for an even later start point, so instead I think it is all about being different.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
Artillery should of been included too, they were a staple since Revised, so I don’t understand why they were not included.
Again I would suggest it is about the game being shorter. With limited ipcs to spend the lack of artillery forces a starker attack vs defence choice when purchasing land units. Territories are more likely to be defended rather than traded. This contributes to 1941 being less attritional and more focused on strategic thrust. Actually a difference I rather enjoy.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
And that 6 IPC value for Tanks makes purchases for them undesirable, should of made it 5 again.
Without artillery the value of tanks in attack is increased, so I would have no trouble defending that difference. However, in 1942.2 and Global 1940 tanks are 6 ipcs, even with artillery available.
But if you want to change the cost of tanks, re-introduce artillery, amend the turn order, change the ipc set-up, etc, then you can. A&A is infinitely flexible. But I do think there are advantages to some of these changes that you might want to try to experience first.
I’m glad someone would finally reply to one of my posts on the forum.
If it was meant to be shorter, then have less units in the starting setup, and even less territory, you got some unnecessary territories like the French African territories or the split of Panama and Central, and no Soviet Far East.
Fair enough I suppose
Except Tanks will no longer be purchased, unless you’re America.
I have designed a map with changes I desired, it’s attached to the post.
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb
1941.png_thumb -
Cannot look at the map on this device Ryuzaki.
The number of units and territories are much reduced compared to 42.2. But you can always go further ….
I’ve played 41 quite a few times and tanks do feature for most of the powers, because of the absence of artillery, but particularly Germany against Russia.
Sorry if you have had a lack of replies to your posts. Don’t remember seeing you here before, but I see you’ve more than 40 posts to your name and I only started on the forum earlier this year. I do hope you fare better from here on in …
Cheers
PP -
@Private:
Cannot look at the map on this device Ryuzaki.
The number of units and territories are much reduced compared to 42.2. But you can always go further ….
I’ve played 41 quite a few times and tanks do feature for most of the powers, because of the absence of artillery, but particularly Germany against Russia.
Sorry if you have had a lack of replies to your posts. Don’t remember seeing you here before, but I see you’ve more than 40 posts to your name and I only started on the forum earlier this year. I do hope you fare better from here on in …
Cheers
PPTry this instead
Sorry about that.
A bit off topic here, but I also added some houserules of my own for 1914.
-
Blimey - that’s quite a change!
-
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
@Private:
Since you have not had a reply Ryuzaki I thought I would try one. Although I have not played Anniversary, I have lost 1941, 1942.2 and Global 1940 successfully! (I have also won a few!)
There are differences between those versions, such as the ease of J slicing through China in some, that I might bemoan, but I try to hang on to the fact that these differences create new challenges and that is great.
Picking up on a few of your points:
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
One thing I found strange is that this starts off with Germans at the gates of Moscow, yet Japan has yet to make any advances in the Pacific, while in Anniversary Barbarossa was how the game kicked off.
Would it not had made more sense for it to use the pre-Barbarossa design instead? You know, to make Russia more playable, and have Germany get a more entertaining game.
I think one of the guiding principles of 1941 was to make it a shorter, simpler , introductory game. I am all for that. Perhaps that explains the post-Barbarossa start? But it would be an argument for an even later start point, so instead I think it is all about being different.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
Artillery should of been included too, they were a staple since Revised, so I don’t understand why they were not included.
Again I would suggest it is about the game being shorter. With limited ipcs to spend the lack of artillery forces a starker attack vs defence choice when purchasing land units. Territories are more likely to be defended rather than traded. This contributes to 1941 being less attritional and more focused on strategic thrust. Actually a difference I rather enjoy.
@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:
And that 6 IPC value for Tanks makes purchases for them undesirable, should of made it 5 again.
Without artillery the value of tanks in attack is increased, so I would have no trouble defending that difference. However, in 1942.2 and Global 1940 tanks are 6 ipcs, even with artillery available.
But if you want to change the cost of tanks, re-introduce artillery, amend the turn order, change the ipc set-up, etc, then you can. A&A is infinitely flexible. But I do think there are advantages to some of these changes that you might want to try to experience first.
I’m glad someone would finally reply to one of my posts on the forum.
Enjoyed your discussion
-
Greetings!
Some. Notes:
Tanks cost 6 now because they attack at three and defend at three.
In earlier versions when tansk cost 5, it was because they defended at 2.This game is a bit ahistorical (Japanese were not that deep in Asia) but had conquered many Pacific Islands.
Remember this: this game was made to fast and simple so that’s why some things aren’t how they usually are.
As for artilllery it is really easy to add and gives Russia some nice help. I have several house rule setups that include units like artillery. Of course the game is probably more like its supposed to be–fast simple-- without then.BTW I would love to hear your 1914 rules. I have a game of that going right now.
de Gaulle
-
And to add that since the above exchange I have played the Anniversary map and set-up, albeit with the 1942.2 rules (such as tanks costing 6 ipcs).
Really enjoyed it and hope to do it again soon. Various additional challenges, such as meaningful Chinese forces.
-
We had a few pieces to our 41 game, AA guns, extra units( I hate seeing countries without any units) but we limit this to infantry or the worth of 10 IPC.
My sons love the game, but have not grasped the full game to advance to a different version.
-
Updated this map.
Removed Artillery. Submarines may not submerge.
British begin with 17 IPCs, Germans 15 IPCs, Soviets 14 IPCs, Japanese 10 IPCs, and Americans 19 IPCs
A total of 52 Territories and 39 Sea Zone. Much less than the OOB 1941 map.
Victory Conditions: Capture and hold 1 enemy capital for a whole round to win, this includes Moscow (Soviets will be tough enough, but still beatable).
-
Starting over like that is goingto take a lot of work.
-
@Charles:
Starting over like that is goingto take a lot of work.
I made one last modification to the map while you were posting.
I am curious, why would it take a lot of work?
Also, what are your thoughts to the map?
-
You will need a totally revised setup particularly due to IPC changes and Russia.
Being honest the map looks oddly shaped but I do think it will play well with a good setup. I am also curious how will you get this map? Print it out ? -
@Charles:
You will need a totally revised setup particularly due to IPC changes and Russia.
Being honest the map looks oddly shaped but I do think it will play well with a good setup. I am also curious how will you get this map? Print it out ?Oh that, yeah, setup will definitely be needed to be changed to reflect the 1941 situation prior to Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.
The map is an edit of the 1941 map that came with the Triple A program, so it does look quite odd, some changes, like Gibraltar and the Himalayas, were done for playability and simplifying the map, no need for so many African territories when only a few are really worth any money.
-
I agree that East Africa was really never used but make sure you make allocations for the US/UK being able to get to Egypt India and Russia from the Atlantic one space faster.
-
@Charles:
I agree that East Africa was really never used but make sure you make allocations for the US/UK being able to get to Egypt India and Russia from the Atlantic one space faster.
No allied transports, save for one in the English channel (which will be destroyed), is a good start.
I’ll post a setup chart later today. Japan is really the one that needs the most help here.
-
No allied transports? Looks like you are really going all out on differences.
-
@Charles:
No allied transports? Looks like you are really going all out on differences.
Yeah, to reflect the lack of western allied ability to stage any invasion of Nazi occupied Europe and Africa around this time. Besides, the British move first. (Which reminds me, that means no transports period in the setup)
I just noticed I labeled Eastern United States as Western, lol, also labeled Anglo Egyptian Sudan as simply Anglo Egypt Sudan.
-
Final Map:
SETUP:
UNITED KINGDOM-17
United Kingdom: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber
Eastern Canada: 1 Tank
Gibraltar: 1 Fighter
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
South Africa: 1 Infantry
Middle East: 1 Infantry
India: 2 Infantry
Australia: 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 7: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 10: 1 Aircraft Carrier
Sea Zone 13: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 21: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 24: 1 Submarine, 1 TransportGERMANY-15
Germany: 3 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber
Western Europe: 1 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter
Norway: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Eastern Europe: 4 Infantry, 1 Tank
Southern Europe: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
North Africa: 1 Tank
Sea Zone 6: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 8: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 12: 1 Battleship, 1 TransportSOVIET UNION-14
Russia: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Karelia: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Archangel: 1 Infantry
Belarus: 3 Infantry
Ukraine: 3 Infantry
Caucasus: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Urals: 1 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry
Amur: 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 3: 1 SubmarineJAPAN-10
Japan: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber
Manchuria: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Coastal China: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Indo China: 2 Infantry
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 29: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 30: 1 Submarine, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 33: 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 34: 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 TransportUNITED STATES-19
Eastern United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter-
Philippines: 1 Infantry
Northern China: 1 Infantry
Southern China: 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 4: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 32: 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 37: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter
Suggested Topics
