• Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    Larry’s problem, Krieg, is that the people here buy the games when they come out(and quite a few are coming out lately), so they move on and the older ones are not played as much.
    1941 is also a bit basic for the battle hardened addicts here.
    If there are errors, or seemly so, of course the talk is of the newer games.

    1941 is a good and very reasonably priced game. It will be played and we will, me included, play it again. People are not playing or talking about it, because 1914 has rightly  taken over as the game of people’s choice.

    All I can suggest is that you bring out fewer games or at least in less of a hurry, so our time is not wasted chatting needlessly about obvious errors that could have been avoided with better use of time.
    I am sure everyone is like me and does not want to complain, only enjoy the games as they were designed. Sometimes the problem is just the wording.
    For the most part, we want simple English and all parts pertaining to a rule in the same place.


  • I find that withe the additional destroyer and 2 inf it makes the game more fair.  I am not a fan of unbalanced games but as soon as I played the first game. I played axis against a friend who played allies and I steam rolled him. I took Russia in three turns, had India from J1. Had Africa . Asia was mine, taking Islands.

    Within 5 turns the axis had double the income of the allies, with more resources. Needless to say the axis won easily with no challenge against the allies.

    With the new set up I can’t send my sub to kiLl a defenseless transport :(, and if Russia wants to stack an attack on its first turn it can pile an attack of 8 inf 1 tank 1 fighter and estimated losses of 0-2 inf to hold that territory.

    It is more even however the axis still have the upperhand. But I don’t steamroll no more


  • I’m going to play my first round of 41 tomorow (finally) with some friends who are totally new to A&A. I’ll try the 3 inf in Russia, the DD und Inf for the US…
    I’ll not try the pact, from my point of view this restrictes the possibilities and I bought the game to have an easy A&A version, I don’t want to explain more rules then necessary. For an equal reason, the hope for a short A&A version, I’m also thinking about trying less Axis-units instead of more Allies-inf, like it is proposed by different players on the HGD-Board… has anyone experience with either setup-change? Does it change the game-length, and if yes, in what way?


  • If they are new to the game you can always play the allies and play the unbalanced set up. Or even just add 1-2 infantry in Moscow.


  • didn’t work out that bad, but next time I’ll probably try with each a fighter less for JAP and GER (or something comparable), maybe instead of some of the extra units for the Allies…


  • Me from china
    This game is so f*cking unbalanced

    my friend and I played the original rule and it was a 5-1 axis leads

    even we tried the adjustment with moscow 2 inf and US DD lasst night, the allies still lost
    the problem is the russia is way too weak to defend the GER
    and England and US were always too late and to far to help
    even through Eng sent 2 fighters to help,
    Moscow still fall on round 2 or 3  😐

  • Official Q&A

    Welcome, Jonathan3213!

    Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

    USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
    USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11


  • Sorry
    Actually I was from Taiwan not China
    it was a great game and I love it with all my heart.

    So what about the starting US IPC
    It was supposed to be 17 not 15? :?

    Second, How about the Soviet and Japan non-aggression pact?
    What we make a rule that if soviet or japan can gain 3 inf. when they are attacked by other first?  😄

    and one more thing , battleship has 2 lives.
    If it was damaged from a battle, can it repair automatically and instantly?

  • Official Q&A

    @JONATHAN3213:

    it was a great game and I love it with all my heart.

    Glad to hear it!

    @JONATHAN3213:

    So what about the starting US IPC
    It was supposed to be 17 not 15? :?

    It should be 17.

    @JONATHAN3213:

    Second, How about the Soviet and Japan non-aggression pact?
    What we make a rule that if soviet or japan can gain 3 inf. when they are attacked by other first?   😄

    The non-aggression pact is considered to be an optional rule right now.

    @JONATHAN3213:

    and one more thing , battleship has 2 lives.
    If it was damaged from a battle, can it repair automatically and instantly?

    It is automatically repaired at the end of the battle (assuming it survives, of course).


  • How about shore bombardment? I assume there was no such rules in this version.

    ps.
    I can gonna try the rules you told me with friends tomorrow, Krieghund.

  • Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    You are right JONATHAN 3213: no shore bombardment in 1941.

  • Official Q&A

    There is no shore bombardment in this game.  Some rules of this type were removed to make it more of a “beginner” game.


  • I love the game although simplified. The low IPC and lower numbers of troops made this game more dependent on luck and more exciting
    Often the Ger and USSR fight on East front and into a meat grinder.
    the battle will decide who is the winner
    The england often is the main support of USSR instead of US.

    Moreover, I found something interesting.
    China played a huge role in stopping Jap and they only had 3 inf. LOL!

  • Customizer

    @Krieghund:

    Welcome, Jonathan3213!

    Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

    USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
    USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11

    Used the game as an intro to Axis&Allies. Worked out this great. This game really is fun! It feels like revisiting the MB version but much better in so many ways.

    If you’ve got Global editions, the map with some work could slowly introduce players to more advanced aspects of the game. I’m working on an AAG39/40 “Light” . May post it if it works out.

  • Customizer

    A first round of turns minus combat movement while unorthodox,  may also help balance the game out especially for beginners.


  • I cant see how anyone could say the Axis have the advantage.  Allies have a extra player per turn and that is the best advantage in the game period.  I would agree the Axis are setup for speed playing and their good in the early game but i  win more often with the Allies than any other. I do not see how giving the Allies more of anything will help the game balance.  I would challenge anyone to beat me with my Allied industrial bomb and fighters to Russia tactic.  Clearly The Allied players are not supporting Russia well enough or are allowing Germany and Japan too many IPc’s.


  • I hope OP is joking. I play this game and I give more to the allies.


  • @Krieghund:

    Welcome, Jonathan3213!

    Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

    USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
    USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11

    my group has started switching west-russia and ukraine; so the german tanks can be destroyed. perhaps that’s an interesting idea?


  • @Krieghund:

    After consideration of the feedback so far, Larry has decided on some more modifications.  See this thread for details.

    I haven’t bought this game yet.  It’s the only WWII A&A board game I don’t own, so I should probably pick it up soon.

    Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

    Thanks!

  • '19 '15 '14

    Add in artillery to the purchasing options, using the standard ability and cost at 4 ipcs. It’s the best thing I can think of to improve this game’s balance.

    More thoughts on the Larry boards http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=9504&start=56

  • Official Q&A

    @zooooma:

    Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

    They will be in the FAQ, when there is one.


  • Sold!

    @ Elk, artillery was a great addition to A&A back in 1999, but back in the 1980s the old Gamemaster version was nonetheless the best game going.

    I love A&A global 1940 with all the cool new units etc.  But A&A 1941 is meant to be a faster, simpler version for those sessions when I am short on time or when I’m playing with people who are not ready (and in some cases never will be) for more sophisticated versions.

    I’m not looking for house rules to add depth to the game.  I just want it to be (roughly) balanced without a bid.

  • '19 '15 '14

    I think 1941 is slower and less streamlined than it should be due to the lack of artillery, especially if you were pressed for time and just wanted a fast game. Classic takes forever, and this game plays like a stripped down classic, and we all know why… the Inf stack push mechanic!!!

    I am not a fan of global. It moves in the opposite direction of what I prefer in an A&A game. I do not suggest artillery, because I think the 1941 board should be more complex. My rationale is the complete opposite. Artillery simplifies the game, and makes it easier to play at a fast pace.

    Right now people just sit around building infantry walls in 1941, trying to eek out a slight advantage over multiple rounds of inf builds, and the game ends up taking several more rounds than it really needs to. I maintain that is harder to understand 1941, and takes longer to explain this game to a new players, when you eliminate the best piece added to the game in the last 3 decades.  It makes me bang my head against the wall, since the game could be much faster and more entertaining, with that unit in the roster. I mean seriously? Who signed off on ditching that one! I wish I could have argued the merits of artillery at the time when the decisions were being made, but at least I can make the argument now. 🙂

    Sorry, not to rant, its just frustrating and stirs my passions. Especially when you come to realize how difficult it is to spend your ipcs, when the remainder can’t be used to buy any units other than infantry, and you just pointlessly save the same extra 1-2 ipcs every round, since there is nothing it can be spent on that is worthwhile. The next cheapest unit available that doesn’t neatly divide into 3, is the destroyer which costs 8. Russia has no use for destroyers.

    This map would have probably been my favorite, but every time I play it with people who are familiar with A&A, we just look at each other when the fifth round hits, and all shake our heads, and exclaim in unison “Why on earth did they make this board without artillery?” Its such a step backwards.

    Right now the Allies are bidding the equivalent of 20+ ipcs to bring it into balance. I’m not sure you’d even need that, if there was a unit that could be purchased for 4 ipcs that changed the basic gameplay in the way artillery does. There are a total of nine units available for purchase in the roster, artillery would have made it a clean ten. How much longer do you think it really takes to explain the rules around artillery? Maybe 2 minutes. How about explaining to new players the inf push mechanic without artillery, or how to keep Russia from getting smoked, or why even as a player with more money to burn, they should still just be buying infantry?.. well it takes a lot longer than 2 minutes, I can tell you that much, and the whole game drags as a result. People get bored and just lose interest. Go out and buy the board. Grab a quick pick up game, using the official changes suggested (extra dd, extra inf etc), and see if you don’t end up agreeing with me, even with those balance changes included 🙂

  • '17 '16

    Hi Black Elk,
    I read your posts here and on Harris game Design, I could tell you that I find your numerous arguments very compelling.
    I introduce my nephew to A&A by playing 1941.
    My units boxes for all 5 countries is the same for 1942. It never cross my mind to forbid the use of Artillery units.
    I explained it right away. It didn’t cross my mind that Artillery unit are not part of the game.
    So we play the game with the OOB set-up and allows to every one to buy Art units.
    The game was fast (around 2 hours) and funny.

    If I try to explain what happened, the only thing that come in my mind was they try to reenact Classic with less special thing like IC, SBR, AA gun, etc.

    So starting with the Classic and cutting thing out, it was a chronological impossibility to add the Artillery unit.
    Hence, there was the glamorous Battleship and the Bomber, so they cut some of the extra capacity but kept the sculpt.
    (I can easily agree with you to replace them with 1 hit cruiser (more cheaper cruiser+ bombards would have been funnier  and no StB, just Fighters in the game.)
    I like your principle of introducing a whole unit with all capacity to keep consistency with more complex A&A game.

    Besides, one of the most frustrating thing back then when I played Classic was the 1 or 2 IPCs recurrently left over.
    Artillery unit at 4 IPCs allows to maximize all the money you have in each buying.

    With OOB 1941, this same frustrating thing happen again, and again and again for Russia.
    I realized this when I try a true OOB 1941 with more experienced friends.

    I was frustrated to the point, I almost beg my friends to give me permission to buy artillery units.

    So I agree with you, if they were looking for a simplified game, they miss something by putting aside Artillery.
    And kept indirectly an annoying left over IPC problem…
    Not so funny for beginner.

  • '19 '15 '14

    Exactly Baron

    Let me explain in detail the major issue I see with game balance, and why 1941 actually has a bigger problem with the inf push than Classic did.

    In 1941, the production is restricted and the overall cash is much lower than Classic, less than half. This makes max placement of ground units out of your existing factories all the more essential. In 1941 tanks cost 6 ipcs, the same as two infantry. In Classic tanks cost 5 ipcs (even though their defense value favored the inf push, at least here the cost of the tank allowed you to spend a remainder of 2 ipcs.)

    Why is being able to spend the remainder important? Because it allows you to make basic game progress and feel like you are accomplishing something… by taking more territory, which allows you to place more units, or higher value units on the board. Now on the 1941 board almost all contested territories are worth just a single ipc. So what happens is you get stuck, even if you take more land, it doesn’t translate into progress. This can happen over multiple rounds. Take the most basic example, say Russia collects 7 ipcs. With this they can buy either 2 infantry or a single tank, but in both cases they are forced to save 1 ipc because there is nothing they can buy that isn’t divisible by 3 at the lowest (the cost of an infantry unit.) So say they save it, and next round they have 8 ipcs. Again, they are unable to place anything with the remainder, so they are forced to save again. But what if, as frequently happens they are now unable to attack anywhere which will get them that third territory and third ipc for 9? And they just languish at 8 ipcs saving the remainder endlessly, because they can’t attack anywhere without risking Moscow. Its the fact that you can’t effectively spend a remainder of 1 ipc, or 2 ipcs, that forces the game to last more rounds than it would if artillery were included.

    Russia is not the only player that slips into this problem. It can happen to Japan, and UK as well, where they are unable to buy additional units even if they are taking territory, because the remainder does not divide into 3.

    That’s part of the game length issue, the other is that tanks now cost 6. So in a game like this, where the stacks are comparatively small, the advantage of infantry over tanks is heightened. 2 infantry are better on attack against a single defending infantry unit than a lone tank would be. People who have played a few games, always pick up on the fodder aspect of infantry, and the ability of infantry to absorb hits and protect the heavy hitters, and how they can be pushed with fighters to trade and dead zone territories. Learning how to use infantry is important, I grant, but in 1941 the situation is more extreme even than Classic. The artillery unit smooths all this over. It allows you to spend the remainder of an extra +1 ipc, and makes infantry effective on attack. Even a single artillery unit, can make a large stack of infantry more effective. It allows them to move out, and be aggressive, which is what new players like to do anyway. Nobody but an A&A masochist, thinks its fun to just wait around stacking and pushing infantry all night. In classic at least there was more money, and tanks were cheaper, and fighters were more in reach due to the large purse, and more cash to spend. Here in 1941, there is no room for that. There is very little room for an error of any sort, whether in purchasing or attacking, or risking invaluable units for territory that doesn’t even translate into more purchasing power - unless you can take 3 at a go!

    This leads to slow defensive play, where you buy infantry, and try to push them at the lowest possible risk. Artillery is an easy unit to understand for beginners and it has a built in way of teaching players to be bold and seize the initiative. Because on defense artillery is only as good another infantry unit, but on attack it can make any infantry unit twice as effective. Its probably the most entertaining unit in Axis and Allies. Even if it wasn’t in the original classic game, it was in the revised game. And it should be in 1941 too 🙂 Note that this is pretty easy to do, provided you have purchased any of the other games that have come out in the last few years, since they all include artillery pieces. It would also be pretty easy to just make it official in the next reprint. I would suggest as a bid/modification for the set up, that instead of adding 3 infantry to Russia as suggested elsewhere, that you simply add 3 artillery to Russia (let everyone else buy them.) Including this artillery in Russia’s starting force puts the game on a much more even balance, especially if you do the extra US destroyer. But really, it helps everyone. Any nation can fall victim to the trap of being unable to spend the remaining ipcs, so they all players benefit by artillery getting added into the game.

    Finally, I would just like to go on record and say I don’t like the idea that we should just always force the new person, or the less experienced person, to play Axis. What if the new player doesn’t want to be Axis? What if they would rather try their hand at supreme allied commander? Its stupid to force the game into a one dimensional direction. It needs to be balanced for both sides to be fun. First game, then switch sides on the rematch. That is how everyone usually plays. Don’t you agree?

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

62
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts