Why is 1942 scenario so unpopular???

[Funcioneta]

Maybe 1939 would be best suited for one to one. A 1939 multiplayer would be boring for soviets, italians and USA (Japan would have some fun IF China received proper rules and setup)

It could be even a 1936 scenario, but it would need in-map boxes for Spanish Civil War, italian assault on Ethiopy and of course a true China  :wink:

[Upside-down_Turtle]

@Funcioneta:

Maybe 1939 would be best suited for one to one. A 1939 multiplayer would be boring for soviets, italians and USA (Japan would have some fun IF China received proper rules and setup)

It could be even a 1936 scenario, but it would need in-map boxes for Spanish Civil War, italian assault on Ethiopy and of course a true China  :wink:

I think a 1936 Spain would be better if done in an A&A Europe fashion, or D-Day, or something more “zoomed in.”

[Lucifer]

I would very much like a 1939 version, or even a 1937 version of A&A, witch includes politics, switching alliances, back stabbing etc.

[kevlar56]

I apologize that my first post as a newbie (on the forums, anyway)is perhaps unwarranted, but a game with politics and giving that '39 feel already exists.  I think A&A is better suited as it is, presenting a situation and let the players ‘take command’.  Certainly an enhanced version of A&A, including politics and the geopolitical situation as it existed in '39, would be a welcome addition.  The thing is, it would need a larger map and an increase in complexity that Avalon Hill would not be willing to approach.  A great idea, though.
Best regards,
K

[Lucifer]

I also think designers should not change the core concept and philosophy behind the A&A games. These are wargames, and should stay wargames. But as BoB, D-Day, Guadalcanal are tactical games with different combat rules than global A&A games, we could also have games based on the global A&A maps like AA50 with politics and possibility for switching sides.
Such a game should not interfere with the usual games like AAR and AA50. But it could be interesting to play a game with possibilty for politics, this would mean even greater prospects for the “what if” questions and scenarios of the real WW2.

[captainjack]

I thought IL was working on a '39 or '40 version of the game??  (this is going back a few months, but I think I remember that…)

[Telamon]

@Perry:

The number of posts in the 1942 forum completely overwhelms the 1941 forum…Why is that so?
Is it that we would all like to learn the 1941 game , before putting our mind into a new setup?

But why was it 1941 that got instant popularity, instead of 1942?  :?

Just curious. Why are YOU less interested in the 1942 scenario?

Lol, because human psychology can be quite predicatable with these things…  :-D  It’s the same urge that makes us start books at chapter 1.  Im guessing most people (myself included) played 1941 first because it seemed like the right place to start.  Then, it was so much fun they kept playing it.  No need to change till you’ve worked out what you’re doing with the first one.

I’ve just started playing 1942 now I feel I understand the flow of 41 pretty well.  I think I’ll end up liking 1942 better.  It seems to offer more options with Japan and Germany being roughly equal in power.  In 1941 Japan is unstoppable - the challenge for the allies is to cripple the western axis Germany before Japan makes its power felt on Russia.

[Imperious Leader]

I thought IL was working on a '39 or '40 version of the game??

support fizzled on that ( 1940) and also on the other project 1943 scenario

[Upside-down_Turtle]

1943, heck, the war was pretty much over by then.

[captainjack]

@Upside-down_Turtle:

1943, heck, the war was pretty much over by then.

Well, if anyone can make it work - it would be IL!
(what’s that brown spot on my nose…?)

[Upside-down_Turtle]

It’s not that hard to “brown-nose” IL.

[Imperious Leader]

The idea was too make a game that can be played in under 2 hours. Both sides start with techs and techs get turned on on historical based occurrences. Germany obviously gets most of the tech along with USA.

Also, German gets Waffen SS units and some other special rules for a “battle of the Bulge” type of surprise once per game.

The Victory is for the axis to last past turn X or the allies must win by turn y… any other result is considered stalemate.

I made the set up map, (search the files) but its not finished. The rules however are kept in my back pocket as a mental note for something to do latter.

[dabapic]

The 1942 game is just as much fun to play as the 1941 game is. I can never understand, after reading all these forums how anybody could say that this game is broken or that one is no good ,it seems as if there are many people who just can’t be satisfied and always have to complain about something. Larry Harris has created these great games for us to play and I for one appreciate and play everyone of them and enjoy them everytime. There is nothing perfect in this world and you are always going to find something wrong with something if you look hard enough, so I just wish that you complainers would just try to see what’s great about these games and not always look for something you don’t like about them.

[umrmeche]

i really don’t see how the axis are more disadvantaged by the 42 setup than the 41. Just looking at the units and IPC incomes the allies might be weaker starting out in 41 but they get an IPC income of 40+43+30=113 to the Axis 17+10+31=58. That is a huge disparity of first round income 113-58=55 IPCs and what is more, the axis can’t erase that deficit even if all their wildest dreams come true in the first two rounds. so the allies can play conservatively and use their excess income to build up their armies and navies before feeling any pressure to respond to axis incursions.

[Panzer Leader]

I actually found that the Axis have the advantage in 41 and they can win 75% of the time if they do the right things. The Allies win if they prolong the war so as to slowly eat away at the Axis advance and take back abit at a time. The Axis need only capture the victory cities needed and they have it. It is harder for the Allies as they lose to much right off the start and their money drops rapidly. The Axis should be making all their NO’s by turn 3 and raking in the bucks. Also they can eliminate most of the Allies NO’s in short order.
The 42 set-up is the exact opposite, the Allies win 75% of the time and they have an easier time capturing the victory cities. The Axis have to make serious strides right away or they are on the slow path to ruin. 8-)

[gamerman01]

@Panzer:

I actually found that the Axis have the advantage in 41 and they can win 75% of the time if they do the right things. The Allies win if they prolong the war so as to slowly eat away at the Axis advance and take back abit at a time. The Axis need only capture the victory cities needed and they have it. It is harder for the Allies as they lose to much right off the start and their money drops rapidly. The Axis should be making all their NO’s by turn 3 and raking in the bucks. Also they can eliminate most of the Allies NO’s in short order.
The 42 set-up is the exact opposite, the Allies win 75% of the time and they have an easier time capturing the victory cities. The Axis have to make serious strides right away or they are on the slow path to ruin. 8-)

I pretty much agree with your conclusions.  That’s why I am starting to prefer the 1942 scenario (I like Allied wins).

[Panzer Leader]

@gamerman01:

I pretty much agree with your conclusions.  That’s why I am starting to prefer the 1942 scenario (I like Allied wins).

Thank you for the note of agreement.
I actually kinda of prefer the 42 scenario as well as I like the truer historical feel to it.
When palying the Allies I like the feeling of being in control and having that winning feeling going on throughout the whole game.
BUT - I also like playing the Axis as the underdog and feeling like you really have to overcome the odds to kick Allied butt and pullout a victory. 8-)

[Panzer Leader]

@gamerman01:

@Panzer:

I actually found that the Axis have the advantage in 41 and they can win 75% of the time if they do the right things. The Allies win if they prolong the war so as to slowly eat away at the Axis advance and take back abit at a time. The Axis need only capture the victory cities needed and they have it. It is harder for the Allies as they lose to much right off the start and their money drops rapidly. The Axis should be making all their NO’s by turn 3 and raking in the bucks. Also they can eliminate most of the Allies NO’s in short order.
The 42 set-up is the exact opposite, the Allies win 75% of the time and they have an easier time capturing the victory cities. The Axis have to make serious strides right away or they are on the slow path to ruin. 8-)

I pretty much agree with your conclusions.  That’s why I am starting to prefer the 1942 scenario (I like Allied wins).

Old overdue +1 karma for you. :-D

[idk_iam_swiss]

Just give China more infantry…then 1941 wont be nearly as fun.

[Historybuff]

I like both 42’ and 41’.  Whenever I play I alternate to help make it so that 2 games are never the same.