• I actually like 1941 as it is: faster and simpler. In a funny sort of way that makes it more strategic with less attrition and a need to make bold moves maximising the use of the war material you have.

    Strangely I don’t regard the ability of a game to withstand the destructive attentions of taamvan’s 2 year old as a key purchasing criteria!  :-D

  • '17 '16

    @taamvan:

    1941 board took the gargantuan strength of a 2 year old to rip in half (its literally the only thing he’s ever destroyed under my watch).

    The 1941 board is of the exact same build and quality as the 1942SE board is.

    Also, none of the Axis and Allies games are recommended for unsupervised 2 year olds… so that one is on you.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    He was fascinated by the WW1 teams, boxes and pieces at that age.

    I gave him the board to look at, turned back to my computer for 30 seconds, and voila;  1941 Pacific and 1941 Europe, for only $20.  I got 2 games for 1.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Haha at least easier to move two sections around I guess. World domination rip  :-D

    I don’t know, I think it would be fun to play a game with a moderate bid as Allies, but with the agreement that Axis have to take Washington to win, and Allies have to take both Axis capitals. Total Domination. Just for like a 30 round slog-athon, so the deep end game has a chance to really materialize hehe. The best games are the ones where Allies trade Moscow for an Axis capital, when the territory possessions start resetting and income sacks have occurred. Sure it doesn’t happen very often (Allies gotta catch a lucky break somewhere for that to ever pan out), but many will just bail when the first capital falls. I think a certain degree of masochism is probably a pre-requisite to take Allies on this board.
    :-D

    Easier to do on the machine probably, for a match like that.


  • The axis can almost always take Moscow (the exception being really lucky rolls for the allied player and really unlucky rolls for the axis player early on). If the allies can hold Moscow past round 5 and not lose a bunch of UK/USA fighters defending it, then they have a good chance to win it even after losing Moscow.

    I think with this game the allies have to play the pacific in a big way.  Losing Moscow is not a loser for the allies, you just need to have USA IC’s on the big three Japanes islands when that happens.  Obviously there are other things the allies need to do too but this seems to be the key to defeating the axis.  Games go long……

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    IMHO a Russia Bomber addition make it a pretty balanced game.  In other words, 12 Bid( or 16 for more variety) is enough.  It’s totally fine for Allies to lose all those Sea Force at R1.  This is 1942, the peak of Axis :-D.

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    And I purchased a 1941 copy to my cousin and play once.  I actually find it a fun game to play even it has less option.  With this said, 42 2E is a more solid purchase IMHO as it provides more strategy and variety, plus the sculpt are nicer as well

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    We’ve played more like 30-40 times now, and I’ve kinda changed my tune, this version is fun, there are simply a lot of moving parts.  A bid is still appropriate, for multiple reasons but there are very specific things the allies can do to increase their chances of winning it just takes a while to figure them all out.


  • Would adding the house rule that transports can be lost as fodder (and 1 defense) help balance? It is a pretty null point for Germany (depending on the build) and Russia, but would really help out the allied Atlantic fleet from a German air raid. This would also cripple the effectiveness of G1 sub strikes, and the UK1 hit on Japan’s transport. Overall I feel like it would be a boost to the Allies.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Yeah, you don’t want that.    Transports are too cheap and also are better as specialists rather than gamey cannon fodder units to dump after they dump their troops.  The updated rule as of 2012 is much more fun and forces you to treat TTs as fine china.

  • '17 '16

    Transports were cannon fodder in the Classic A&A… and it was bad… you’d have fleets with a carrier, a battleship and 30xtransports as a fodder shield… it was bad, it looked bad, it played bad… the rule change away from that was deliberate and for the better…

  • '17 '16

    When I played 1942.2 with TPs A0 D1 M2, 1 hit, C8, things were simpler.
    In opening Atlantic naval, I add 1 U-boat because TP could be taken as casualty before bigger target. In opening G1, TP were sunk before Destroyers and UK’s Battleship.
    On UK1, Cruiser in Baltic was taken last.
    After, DDs were still bought because of their firepower and Anti-Sub and used as fodder before TPs.

    Things are more nuanced than with Classic but when only Cruisers and Carriers and BBs remain, TPs were fodders before these costlier warships.
    Rules are simpler with owner choose his own casualties all the way, it helps with beginners (Subs, planes and TPs interactions OOBs can become messy).
    But, you get some unhistorical situations in Pacific mostly, between US and IJN when TPs are protecting warships and not the reverse when it is the decisive naval combat.

    And yes, Allies wins because in KGF, Luftwaffe and Subs have to kill both warships and TPs 1 by 1, air attrition is a real factor. I would say it tips things Axis 30% vs 70% Allies, if you consider OOB Axis 70% vs Allies 30%.

    After, I played with 1 stack of TPs rolls 1 dice @1 but each TP worth 1 hit. It makes 3 and more TPs feel less dangerous for aircrafts but not helpless at all. No auto-kill is better IMO. And fit better to balance 1942.2

    Der Kuenstler is playing on his hybrid AA50 map and setup like this with TPs A0 D1 C8, 1 hit for a long time and him and his team saw no issue because now Destroyers exist and Subs are much cheaper. In Classic, there was only 8 IPCs TPs and Subs, so there was a big stack around warships Carriers (18$) and BBs (24$) and Subs were broken against planes.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108069#msg1108069

    HTH

  • '19 '18 '17

    Interesting discussion on this topic over the last few days (involving Larry) over at the Harris Game Forum:

    https://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=18945

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15

    I just looked through Larry’s thread.  I’m interested to see how this goes.  if any one is interested to set up a 42 2E game with Larry suggestion please ping me :-D

  • '17 '16

    Sounds like the “fix” to make Germany not favored is to completely ruin any chance the Axis ever has of winning… I think Larry gave way too much to the Allies.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    we’ve played 42.3 twice.  It doesn’t really address the core problems in the middle of the map and how easy the $$ is for the axis to get the money, regardless of what the allies do.

    It does make the atlantic play possible, with all the US and UK forces converging by T4, Germany is under some serious pressure.  Still, there isn’t much they can do to actually stop German attacks on Russia, as usual they tear at the edges ($6 lol) but they cant stop the money from going to Axis.

    I usually have 3 strat bombers and 7-9 fighters at that point, so sinking one of the detached fleets isn’t too difficult and it has the same problems as any KGF–all $$ has to go to warships, not transports, and everything has to stick together, which means its not flexible on the offense.

    seems pretty clear that LH already has his own ideas, which were pretty firm before the public comment period began.

    without further changes it just feels wobbly, USA still has to commit to one direction or the other.  as smorey considers, a bid will still be necessary, but exactly what bid may be up in the air

  • '17 '16

    FWIW, I saw Larry’s suggestion. It should be called 1942.2.1 or 1942.2b IMO or anything else.
    Calling it 1942.3 convey the idea of a major reset up. Not the case.
    Just my two cents before this number stick and brings unrealistic hope about another edition.

  • '17 '16

    @taamvan:

    seems pretty clear that LH already has his own ideas, which were pretty firm before the public comment period began.
    without further changes it just feels wobbly, USA still has to commit to one direction or the other.  as smorey considers, a bid will still be necessary, but exactly what bid may be up in the air

    What make you think this?

    Do you think Larry would use Triple A to figure how far a change can go?

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    well im calling it 42.3 because I’ll be playing it in tournaments and it is going to be an official patch once Smorey takes it on, which I predict will be in time for Gencon.  Whether they reprint this game isn’t my concern since I can integrate any patch with ease unless they bring in the konigstiger…

    Because he opened the discussion after much thoughtful comment from GSmorey about how many problems this edition has, and though LH laid out the possibility of some user input, he formulated his proposed, partial patch within 24 hours of beginning this discussion.

    I don’t think he cares much for Tripple A or necessarily knows what that is.  The community supposedly would have some input, but Argothair and I both submitted comments which he didn’t approve as moderator so they didn’t even go online…he has his own idea about what is broken and what can be fixed.  Black Elk Maphead Argo and I all threw in our 2 cents but the proposed patch is live…

  • '17 '16

    @taamvan:

    well im calling it 42.3 because I’ll be playing it in tournaments and it is going to be an official patch once Smorey takes it on, which I predict will be in time for Gencon.   Whether they reprint this game isn’t my concern since I can integrate any patch with ease unless they bring in the konigstiger…

    Because he opened the discussion after much thoughtful comment from GSmorey about how many problems this edition has, and though LH laid out the possibility of some user input, he formulated his proposed, partial patch within 24 hours of beginning this discussion.

    I don’t think he cares much for Tripple A or necessarily knows what that is.   The community supposedly would have some input, but Argothair and I both submitted comments which he didn’t approve as moderator so they didn’t even go online…he has his own idea about what is broken and what can be fixed.   Black Elk Maphead Argo and I all threw in our 2 cents but the proposed patch is live…

    Do you meant your post and Argo’s do not appear on the thread?

    I still think it is misleading, but anyway there won’t be any third edition within a few years.
    Other suggestion: 1942.2 LHTR, 1942.2 LHTSU (SU for set-up) or even 1942.2 Revisited, maybe.

    I know it is shorter to write 1942.3…
    :-)

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 15
  • 5
  • 5
  • 31
  • 8
  • 1
  • 53
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts