Just as a public service, I had the 1941 Supreme map (1329x700mm, or 52x28") printed at my local Fed-Ex Office print shop on outdoor banner vinyl. It cost me about $70 (US dollars) to have this done. I know not everyone will get the same prices or print the same size, but that’s just to give a ball park figure in 2016 dollars of what a typical big box print shop will charge for such a project. Kudos to Dedo for making this available to the A&A community! Two pics below include one shot ready to play, and another showing the size difference between the printed map and the original board map. Here’s my results:
Fixed America’s starting Income.
Added the adjusted set up changes. Included unchanged countries so you do not have to pass around the rule book.
USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11
If you want an origianal copy just pm me.
Since day 2, it’s actually been here: http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/
Wizards doesn’t compress their PDFs so they are massive and slow. I’ve compressed them so they download and work faster in Reader.
Didn’t want to open a new thread, so I’ll put it here
The setup in the “rules and downloads” section -8https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/axis-allies-1941-setup-chart/) for this version is wrong (according to this picture of the backside of the rules on BGG https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1336978/axis-allies-1941?size=original)
Western Europe has 2 Inf
England has no tank but a bomber
Szechwan has 2 Inf
and the revised setup is not mentioned, maybe makes sense to do so
@scottbrooks said in Combat Questions:
So I fully understand, could you clarify / confirm?
Western US is a separate square from sea zone 42. In this case it is 2 moves to get from the land to Midway, in zone 43
You cross three borders (WUS to 42, 42 to 43, 43 to Midway) so it is three movement points.
If that is true, how does it work when attacking a zone like square 45 with Japan surrounded by sea? Using Midway as a staging point, is it 3 moves to get to the Japanese mainland (43->44, 44->45, 45->Japan)?
No. You would cross four borders: Midway to 43, 43 to 44, 44 to 45, 45 to Japan). Note that you would not be able to land your fighter then. So a fighter move would be impossible.
In case your fighter started from a carrier in SZ 43, it would be three movement points to attack Japan. You could land on a carrier in SZ 45, then, provided this can be established as valid landing point.
If this is true, can planes overfly an occupied sea zone (e.g., 45) to stage an attack on Japan?
Yes, but only in case you can - during combat move phase - demonstrate how to land them during noncombat move phase.
@RYNO87 said in Fighter and aircraft carrier questions:
If a fighter in EASTERN US wants to land on a carrier in SZ13, is that 2 moves or 3 bc you count the landing?
You don’t count the landing.
Rulebook 1941, page 23: “In other words, each time an air unit crosses a boundary between spaces, whether territories or sea zones, it uses 1 movement point.”
So your scenario takes two movement points.
Also, can you place a new fighter on a carrier adjacent to a industrial complex or does it have to start at the IC.
Rulebook 1941, page 20: “Place fighters either in territories containing eligible industrial complexes, or on your aircraft carriers in sea zones (even hostile ones) adjacent to such territories. You can even place new fighters on an aircraft carrier currently being mobilized. However, you cannot place a new fighter on a carrier owned by a friendly power.”
I have moved your topic to the 1941 forum.
I keep wracking my brain in terms of how to balance the need for both air and sea power when you’re the allies. Especially in regards to needing to do amphibious assaults but keep in mind unguarded transports.
If playing the allies, are there for sure Do’s and Don’ts?
@Panther said in A bunch of noob questions...:
@fenderbender4 Welcome to the forum.
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
I understand that the developer (Larry Harris) added/updated the beginning numbers for some people. I have seen the numerical changes, but what should the official count now be? I ask because my setup guide has 6 infantry in Russia, does that mean it’s updated or should I add 3 more to that 6 count? (same thing with US destroyer, etc.). This is elementary but I have not seen anyone explain a clear TOTAL for what the power start with merely the additions.
In case your setup page indicates 6 infantry in Russia, you are going with the latest and current setup.
All the adjustments mentioned in 2014’s official FAQ should be included in that new print, then.
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
Can Fighters/Bombers attack defenseless transports? If so do transports role for anything? This also leads into, can aircraft just attack sea units (unless it’s a sub)?
Yes they can. Defenseless transports don’t roll dice but are destroyed (see “Defenseless Transports” on page 17 of the rulebook).
Air units can attack sea units. They can attack even submarines in case the air units are supported by an attacking destroyer.
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
How does loading/unloading of troops in transports work, especially when the transport, technically doesn’t have to move anywhere (i.e. you are playing Japan and seemingly can unload/load troops at will in certain areas)? What movements counts are there? In a combat round, can a tank still more “two places”? Like if Manchuria is enemy territory but has no forces, can the tank still blitz?
Page 28 of the Rulebook covers this all:
“Loading and Offloading: A transport can load cargo from one or two territories in or adjacent to friendly sea zones that it
occupies before, during, and after it moves, then offload the cargo at the end of its movement. For example, it could pick
up 1 land unit, move 1 sea zone, pick up another land unit, move 1 more sea zone, and finally offload both land units. A
transport can also remain at sea with cargo still aboard. In that case, the cargo remaining aboard must have been loaded in a previous turn, loaded this turn in the Noncombat Move phase, or loaded this turn for an amphibious assault from which the transport retreated.
Loading onto or offloading from a transport counts as a land unit’s entire move; it cannot move before loading or after
offloading. Place the land units alongside the transport in the sea zone. If the transport moves in the Noncombat Move phase, any number of units aboard can offload into a single friendly territory.”
Please ask back if anything remains unclear.
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
What happens if say Japan and/or Germany occupies both sea zones off the coast of Eastern AND Western US. It’s the US’s turn and have enough IPC’s, can they mobilize those units in the sea zones? What happens if it’s Germany/Japan’s turn?
Rulebook, page 20: “Place sea units only in sea zones adjacent to territories containing eligible industrial complexes. New sea units can enter play even in a hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase is over”
On Germany’s/Italy’s turn the “Sea Units starting in Hostile Sea Zone rules” apply. (page 12)
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
To clarify a submarine’s “surprise strike” (if the battle is sans destroyer), means its attack allows no “casualty” strike (unless it’s a battleship which can absorb one hit).?
@fenderbender4 said in A bunch of noob questions...:
Also, are there other adjustments to the game that people recommend?
For possible (not official) other adjustments check out the House Rules category of our forum.
Excellent thank you for the clarifications!
@RYNO87 said in Particular Combat movements for Subs and Planes:
Let’s say a sea unit retreats in their combat move from 1 hostile SZ into another hostile SZ with less enemies, does combat have to commence?
Combat will result in any case in which units from opposing sides are in the same space during the Combat phase, regardless of how they got there.
@RYNO87 Sea units can never attack territories containing whatever defending units.
In other editions battleships and cruisers under special conditions can support amphibious assaults by shore bombardment, but not in this game.
As the issues I raised were sufficiently disinteresting to warrant no replies I have gone back over past forum postings and picked out those that might offer options to me, leaving aside customised versions, such as the addition of artillery. Having made the effort it might be helpful to some other new arrival, so am posting it. Of course some of the ideas below are opposed.
I had been through the forum before, but with more experience some of these postings now mean more to me.
I think the mistake that people are making is that they are attempting to go with a 100% kill Germany strategy. This kill Germany approach works in most Axis & Allies games but not in 1941. The allies need to control Japans economy as much as possible.
Attack Manchuria with 3 inf and the fighter.
I have to say I struggle with the Japan first options some table, because Germany is at the gates of 2 Allied capitals and so pivotal. This much posted idea does not go as far as Japan first, but is the distraction from defending Moscow warranted? Some responses have doubted it and other supported the idea.
… the allies cannot win with russia so heavily crushed. The gain in IPC’s for both the axis countries should ensure victory.
There are several ways to skin a cat, and people have to rethink things. One point I would raise is: a good German player would attack Egypt w/ 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter, and the bomber on G1.
Attacking Egypt with at least one fighter and troops from Southern Europe loaded onto a transport and shipped over to help the tank on the first turn is something I consider vital if the Axis want to win. There’s just to many British troops there to let them get away. As for Russian, don’t underestimate them, they can still put up a fight, but if they don’t get help from the other two Allies then they will fall.
As for Japan, Depending on how Germany does is how you should plan. If Germany does well on her first turn, then throw on the pressure on mainland Asia and set up to hit India on turn 2 (you technically can do it J1 but it’s risky, especially if the British player puts an extra fighter in India, which is what I always do) and then go on to attack Russia from behind.
If Germany doesn’t do stellar on their first turn, then I settle for dominating the Pacific. You should be able to crush Australia on J2 even if the American player flies fighters over there and you got good dice rolls the first turn. Once that’s secure it’s suprisingly easy to keep your navy on par with the Americans and you can really put on the pressure, though you might have to sacrafice making advances in Asia, keeping the US distracted in the Pacific is worth it as it lets Germany get back up on her feet.
As Russia, I almost always attack Western Russia on turn one with all the infantry from Karelia, Arkangle, and Moscow. You should be able to crush through the Germans with no problem, and if the British player puts a fighter there on their turn, then it’s a very strong position. Attack Ukraine with both tanks, the fighter, and the Caucus infantry. Try to kill off the German infantry if nothing else BUT RETREAT, repeat, DO NOT TAKE UKRAINE on your first turn, its not worth it and it puts your tanks in to much of a risk. Bring the Siberian infantry on their long trek to Moscow.
You can go all in on Japan, and if so, basically just abandon Russia and throw all units into attacking Japan.
As for the United Kingdom, your navy was probably killed the first turn, however with an air buy and placing it in England on your first turn you can stop any German surface fleets for a long time. In fact, if you decide to make the UK the player who’s going to beef up Russia, then you should just do lots of air buys and fly the fighters into Russia to help them out. If you get the chance to invade Norway, do it.
Personally I usually task the UK with fighting the Japanese while the US helps out Russia. Buy a plane on turn one to place in India, Send the Indian Fleet to South Africa to pick up the Inf there, Send the Australian Inf to India via the transport and the sub to Hawaii. Basically from there just keep pumping one tank a turn into India, and if Australia doesn’t fall, then one unit there a turn (usually inf, but subs are viable too). If you defend efficently then after a turn or two you should be able to go on the counter attack as long as America keeps their Pacific fleet in the Pacific to back up Australia.
Attacking Egypt closes the Suez Canal, protecting Southern Europe from a UK landing from India, so that is very interesting. Can the distraction of forces away from Moscow be justified?
…. yes, the Inf rush of W. Russia and the rest going ukraine is the best move in my opinion (Though i don’t leave a unit in karelia, archangle). You get overwhelming odds in W. Russia and you’ll be in a great position after you take it (Germany, unless they ignore the British navy won’t have enough forces to safely take you on). However, don’t invade Ukraine, go in, do one die roll, then retreat. So far, being aggresive has given me the best results. In one game I even had the mighty motherland come roaring back her R1 attacks were so great. On R4 she blitzed all of her territory back, took W. Russia, Ukraine, and next thing you know a giant horde of ruskies is invading E. Europe and frtiz called it quits. Oh, and Moscow falling on G3 was the norm in the vanilla set up rules.
As tempting as it is the Manchuria attack is to risky with to low of a chance of pay off.
I already do the Western Russia attack, but the concept of attacking the Ukraine but not pressing home, had not occurred to me. The tanks in the Ukraine are vulnerable. As per other postings not here quoted I just need the infantry to withstand the counter roll.
Remember the strat of shucking US bombers to Australia? Now you can do it with fighters too! All you need to do is leave a carrier off the coast of Western US. Australia is in range! Helps a bunch to pressure the IJN in the South Pacific and “money islands”.
That’s my crib sheet for my next game then!
Thanks to past contributors. And also to anyone that adds to this list - if this thread is now more interesting!
@Iisded If G has its forces placed to keep the R stack in WR, as it should, then trading Karelia, Ukraine and Caucasus. At some point G will capture Karelia in sufficient strength to hold it, but that is not the death-knell for R. Then R must block Archangel every turn to stop any tanks in Karelia reaching Moscow.
If G (or J) manage to hold Caucasus and start to build there, then the writing is probably on the wall for Moscow.
So my R stack will stay in WR unless any of the following happens:
G get odds on me there.
The recapture of Caucasus requires me to denude WR’s defence to a dangerous extent.
R fails to block Archangel, necessitating a withdrawal to Moscow.
Against a poor G player R will gradually gain a sufficient advantage to start to use its mobile units (supported by sufficient infantry) to kill off any smaller invading forces without those mobile units then being at risk.
But these moves are what I do against my opponents. I taught all of them to play so their moves are constrained by my guidance. I do not want to pretend that this covers every eventuality that other opponents might present.
@RYNO87 said in Defender Sub sneak attack:
Have a question about sneak attack order with a destroyer. Lets say the attacker has 1 sub and a cruiser and defender has a sub and destroyer. I understand that the attacker sub can’t sneak attack (due to the defender destroyer) but would the defender sub get to sneak attack before the attacker gets his combat turn?
Exactly. The defending destroyer cancels the attacking submarine’s surprise strike ability. So the defending submarine gets its surprise strike before.
@RYNO87 Yes it does. They fire at the same time (rulebook pages 15/16):
“Attacking and defending units in each space are considered to fire at the same time, but for ease of play you roll dice in
sequence: attacker first, then defender.”
“Surprise Strike: Each attacking submarine conducting a Surprise Strike rolls one die, scoring a hit on a roll of “2” or less.
After the attacker has rolled for all attacking submarines, the defender chooses one sea unit for each hit scored and moves it behind the casualty strip. (Submarines cannot hit air units.) Then each defending submarine conducting a Surprise Strike rolls one die, scoring a hit on a roll of “1.” After the defender has rolled for all defending submarines, the attacker chooses one sea unit for each hit scored and removes it from play.” …
@shake118118 said in Battleships attacking subs?:
Can battleships attack/defend against subs? My understanding is that subs and destroyers can. If not, can you just bring one sub against a fleet of battleships and continue to roll till you knock out all battleships? Seems wrong. Thanks.
Welcome to the forum @shake118118 . I think Panther may already answered you with his “Yes”, but to expand on that any naval unit can attack/defend against subs. If a sub submerges, which it can do if there is no enemy destroyer present, then that sub is not involved in the battle, so no attack/defend against that sub is relevant. If the sub does not submerge and so is part of a battle then it can be hit by any naval unit.
The exception is planes, which cannot hit a sub unless they are accompanied by a destroyer.
I hope that is clear.
Oh, one more thing. The huge Japanese battleship was called Yamato. Yamamoto was the name of Japan’s most famous admiral. Maybe the arrival of Admiral Yamamoto would indeed correspond to having an extra battleship, but I’m not sure that’s what you intended.
Howdy all! Andrew here AKA AndrewAAGamer. Been thinking about posting a lengthy introduction here and finally got around to it. Here is some history of my gaming experience. Currently living in the Seattle area of the good ole US of A! Looking to help other Players become better Players and have some fun gaming too.
I have always loved wargames and when I was little, I would watch my three older brothers play Blitzkrieg; an early Avalon Hill game representing for the most part World War II. I would sit and watch them play for hours and they never let me play because I was too little. There is an 11-year gap between me and my next oldest brother. But I was hooked and like many little boys loved playing wargames. As a teenager I played Midway, Gettysburg and Bismarck and while I loved these games the rule complexities and time it took to play the games made it difficult to play and find opponents. Of course, there was Risk but it was so basic and the main goal was to hide as long as you could.
So, when Milton Bradley came out with Axis and Allies in 1984 it was a done deal for me and I have never looked back. The ease of playing these games in comparison to the Avalon Hill type games is dramatic and having real miniatures instead of cardboard squares – Wowsa! I have played and own all of the Axis and Allies variants and of course many, many more including the Milton Bradley Gamemaster series excluding Broadsides and Boarding Parties which I have never played. Oh, my Fortress America copy is the one with Saddam Hussein on it! I have so many games as my wife says – “You have too many games that take up too much room”. I disagree; you can never have enough games.
As for my gaming experience…
Face to Face: I belonged to the Portland Axis and Allies Meet Up group for over 10 years. The organizer happened to keep track of the games played and in Team games I was 152-3 if I remember correctly. It may have been 152-5 but nevertheless it was well over 95% of the games I played in I won. Now I say Team games because we also played games like Shogun and Conquest of the Empire and those, what I call gang up games, I did not do as well because frankly my opponents would literally say at the beginning of the game “Hey let’s all gang up on Andrew and knock him out because if we do not then we will lose.” Now while they were right, and I understood their reasoning, it did not make if fun for me knowing I had no chance to win and the best I could do was take out whoever attacked me first so I shied away from those games for the most part. But in Team games like Axis and Allies where the sides are set I was virtually undefeated.
From 2013 until now I have played in the Seattle Meet Up group and while we do not keep official statistics, I estimate I have played in around 100 or so games and have won about 90% of them with the following exception.
There is one team of players that joined our Seattle group and they are excellent at Global 1940. In our first game of Global 1940 they cleaned my partner’s and my clock as the Axis. Now we only had about 10-12 Global 1940 games under our belt and unknown to us they had hundreds! They used a German opening we had never seen before and kicked our sorry butts all the way home. Then in our rematch game we were the Axis and we used this newly discovered J1 opening thinking to return the favor and kick their butts only to find out not only did they know how to perform the J1 attack better than we did they also knew how to defend against it and, throw in a Neutral Crush attack we had never encountered before, they again gave us a beating. Well, I am not used to losing two games in a row, so the challenges were on! We beat them in the third game and that is when we found out they played online at TripleA. They told us they had played for over 10 years and hundreds of games and this was the very first time they had lost as a team; ever. That challenge series continues but due to time constraints we play via PBEM now instead though we always love to get a face to face game going.
Face to Face plus PBEM: Well my partner and I caught on fast and as a team my partner and I went 12 and 5 against them before one of them got tired of losing and only wants to play face to face anymore. I do not blame him because I am significantly better online than I am face to face. Online I have time to study every move where you cannot do that face to face. Thus, mistakes happen more often face to face. I like to study the game board, to me that is fun. I do not like Real Time games and play Turn Based games instead. For example, I played and love XCom. After playing it on normal to understand the game I then played it on the highest level. Legend I think it is called. Once I beat it at that Legend level it said less than 1% of the people who had ever played the game won it at that level. Then I kept playing it till I beat it via Ironman. Not many people have accomplished that I am sure. Probably because they are not patient enough or crazy enough to try it. I love games like the Panzer General Series Turn Based games; played them all and beat them all with Major victories giving the computer the highest bonus in money and experience. I love the challenge of beating them when it is most difficult. Anyway, I digress. So, his partner dropped but one of them still plays us and we are 6-1 against him so far. Of course, we do have an advantage now because it is two against one.
Having said all that we are all aware that there are plenty of people who do well in their face to face gaming groups only to find out when they get online they are not as good as they think they are. That is why I mentioned the TripleA team that was undefeated till getting beat by us. However, I do have some online experience too.
Online: For 3-4 years I played at Days of Infamy before unfortunately it closed. For those who are unaware of Days of Infamy it was an Axis and Allies Pacific gaming area. They used a Chess like rating system to determine rankings. The original Pacific, not Pacific 1940. Pacific by the way is a GREAT game if you have never tried it. There is a complicated sub stalling rule you really need to understand but the beauty of the game is that it usually comes down to Turn 7 or 8 and either side can win. None of this the game is only half done but is already over but needs to be played out stuff. It is like D-Day that it usually comes down to the very last turn. How exciting! Now we played to 24 instead of 22 as we found 22 to be just too easy for the Japanese to win. Also, we gave the Allies $15 to put five additional infantries in India to remove the India Crush strategy from the game which we all found distasteful. So, my first 10 games I went 2-8; not an auspicious start but there is a real learning curve to the game. By the time I was done I was the highest-ranking Player. I also achieved a rating score higher than any previous rating ever. In addition, there was a yearly Admiral’s Tournament and in the history of the website I am the only one to be the highest ranked Player AND win the Admiral’s trophy at the same time. Good times.
Later I played at the Superpowers website. Yes, the original website to help test and advance the game before it came out to buy. I think the online site is still up. Again, by the time I was done I was the number #1 ranked Player in spite of the fact that the way some of the online games worked they were gang up games and those were very difficult to win and frankly not very fun. As I mentioned before I prefer team games so that was the main reason I stopped playing there.
From there I went on to Axis and Allies Members Club (AAMC). They played Classic, Revised and AA50 as Global was not out yet. In fact, just before I left Global 1940 was just introduced and there was discussion as to whether to add it to ABattlemap or not. Now I was only there for two years as after a while I found the experience distasteful. As it was a manual gaming system, not TripleA, there were a lot of errors made by the Players and there were exact rules how to remedy any errors. My experience though was that too many people would not follow the rules or ask to not follow the rules and if you, me in this case, asked them to follow the rules I was the bad guy and a “rules lawyer”. Funny how the people breaking the rules were okay with that and the ones of us that wanted to follow the rules were the bad guys. That is probably the number one reason I want fun games where both sides are happy as I do not want arguments over game play. So, for the two years I played there I only played in tournaments. I mention this to understand the competition level that I was not playing chumps to drive up my winning ratio. Every game I played counted in a tournament. For the two years I played there I ended up winning 75.4% of my games. That was the highest winning ratio in the club during that 2-year period. I also made it to the finals in 50% of every Tournament I entered. And I won that Finals game exactly 50% of the time too. Oh, and how I remember that one Revised game I made an unforced error that cost me the game. I could have had a winning Finals record percentage! Nevertheless, the end result was I won 25% of every Tournament I entered. I had more Tournament wins than any other Player in those two years and they gave out points, how many depending on if it was a Major or Minor Tournament, for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. My total points earned over the two years was greater than any other Player.
So when asked this is why I tell people I am one of the Best Players in the World. Everywhere I have played I have eventually been the #1 Player for the time I was there. Not only in my in-person gaming groups but online too against Players all over the world. Until there is a worldwide ranking system for Axis and Allies, wouldn’t that be great, I guess it will have to do. Usually though the people I tell yawn, say that’s great, and move on. We Axis and Allies Players get no glory.
I now am at the point I want to play to have fun and help others learn to be better Players. I have always enjoyed coaching other Players and providing tips and I guess deep down I have some teacher blood in me. Trying to figure out how best to give back to the community. That is one reason I wrote the Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies.
Since I had the U.S. naval colors out, I pushed through with the Lexington rebuild.
Here’s the previous look.
Reused everything but the rear structure, boosting the fwd. island about 1.5mm. Rear section fabricated with styrene stock.
Think I might have gone a little to big? Still 100% better. That’s what I get for trying to use the rear of a classic tank turret the first time.
Stay safe all.
@Imperious-Leader said in Axis & Brollies : Action Cards and Event Cards:
you should set it up with card decks made at “Artscow” or something like it in terms of name. They are sold as long as you set up account and you will earn a bit of change
www.makeplayingcards.com was recently (2019) used successfully by siredblood to produce his “Blood Bath” A&A version card deck - at a resulting fair price for consumers
drivethrucards.com was recently (2018) used successfully by Young Grasshopper to produce his co-deck “Omaha” and “Utah” cards for A&A G’40 - at an absolute steal of a deal for consumers
If you have not already done so, please consider selling your deck(s) at either or both sites - I would love to see you get paid for your work.