The low income rates make luck a much bigger factor in this version

[General Veers]

If I could only make one change to the game I’d add artillery. It’s easy enough to implement and is still simple enough for new players to grasp combined arms. Plus it gives German and Russian player some options when they have 7 IPC or more.

[baron Münchhausen]

I agree. It is quite frustrating to always keep a 1 IPC remainder.
And for learning curve, this unit should have been part of 1941.
This unit is so essential for other games.

[Midnight_Reaper]

I did up some rules for adding Artillery to 1941, would you fine gentlemen be interested in them?

-Midnight_Reaper

[zooooma]

I haven’t played 1941 yet, but I think the lack of purchasing should make it a bit like a tactical minis game on a global map. 
I can see how this would add a lot of luck, but I can’t think of any other way to shorten the game without upsetting the balance.

@Baron:

And for learning curve, this unit should have been part of 1941.
This unit is so essential for other games.

Artillery pieces was one of the better innovations over the history of this game.  That said, the Gamemaster Series edition predated artillery but was still (at the time) considered the best game in it’s class.  So I don’t think artillery are essential in a beginners edition.

[baron Münchhausen]

Destroyer unit were not part of Classic either.
And add a lot of complexity into the mix.
Maybe the no Artillery policy was more about not increasing cost of this first line product.

[Dauvio Vann]

This game has to do with luck then any other A&A game because of the low income.

The price of the game is great for beginners.

I play this game every week with beginners to get them hooked with A&A.

I love the relationship between the destroyer, and sub in the game.

[Charles de Gaulle]

When I am not using this game to introduce new players, we always use low luck dice mod and/or the units from 1940.  Not just artillery, but everything, cruisers, AA, etc.

This game is meant to be quick.  Usually when we are short on game time we play this one with low luck because low luck eleiminates a lot of time-consumming dice rolling.

The whole style of this version is not for hardcore strategists.  There is only so much to do and too many cases of “optimal” moves that everybody more or less should make.  Sometimes just playing this one casually as a social game can be a lot of fun when crazy luck results in weird games.  An example:

I remember one game in which Russia totally killed Germany, while Japan had managed to get all the way to the US.  Berlin and Washington fell.  The UK was left in a dismal situation with Australia and India captured and a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic itching for a London victory.  I never though the Axis could win with London and Washington and NOT Moscow, but if it were not for smart UK play, this might have happened.  Alternatively, Japan liberated Berlin, but it could not hold.  Meanwhile, in China and the Middle East Russia and Japan were fighting it out hard.  With its mainland factories, Russia eventually pushed the Japenese back and got India and Africa for the UK.  Japan surrendered holding the Pacific islands and North America.

Games like that were fun, only spurred on by poor play (by new players) and crazy luck that made their poor play actually come through for victory.

If you really want to play 1941 as a strategist, you need to make big changes or use a luck-reducing way of play.

[Nowhere Man]

We prefer to avoid 1941 unless we’re using it as a teaching tool to someone new. We usually play 1942.2 or Anniversary if we want to play something less demanding than Global.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I think this is a case of, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”

The increased “swinginess” of the luck of the dice can be an equalizing factor for new players against experienced players. Of course, the luck of the dice can swing in favor of the more experienced players just as easily as it can swing against them, but the fact that random chance is a stronger influence in this particular edition of A&A is more likely to appeal to the novice and casual gamers who don’t intend on taking the game nearly as seriously as the seasoned veteran player.

[Black]

Luck always plays a part in war. You can’t model everything in a game (weather for example). Luck accounts for this.

Luck evens out over time, but sometimes it has devastating consequences. There was a lot of luck involved in the (historic) Battle of Midway, that resulted in an overwhelming American victory. The IJN might well have lost the engagement anyway, due to their forces deficiencies of the time, but perhaps not in the same lopsided fashion they did. As it was, it was a crippling blow that impacted their capability for the remainder of the war.

A&A 1941 models this quite well. Luck is a factor, sometimes a devastating one, but that’s war. I’ve always got chess for when I’m tired of luck.
:wink:

[A Former User]

I’m right there with you there Black. I LOVE chess.