Adjusting IPC income on 1941 map



  • Hello everyone.

    I really like the 1941 map, as well as the overall intention of introducing players to A&A through this game.

    That said, I wanted to increase the IPC amounts on the map. For new players, having no significant income can be the most punishing thing about this version. One bad purchase or one bad battle can cripple a player. While I’m ok with this as someone (kinda) familiar with A&A, it’s discouraging for newcomers. I read about ways to increase IPCs–such as flat bonus income, NOs, and +1 IPC per territory controlled–but I thought the clearest way for new players is to change the IPC amounts of each territory.

    Attached (if I can get it to work) is my idea for new income values. I wanted to effectively double (give or take) the income in the game. The starting IPCs will basically look like this:

    Soviets - 16
    Germany - 24
    U.K. - 24
    Japan - 17
    U.S. - 33

    Any feedback on the attachment is greatly appreciated. Specifically:

    1) Formatting: Do you think the markers are usable and clear? (They are supposed to 0.5" x 0.5"; I don’t have a printer so I can’t view these on paper yet.)
    2) The income amounts themselves.
    3) The territories chosen for change (especially India and Australia).
    4) Do you think increased income warrants an IC on Southern Europe? I find it strange you can’t expand your Med Sea fleet in 1941…

    Thanks a ton for any help!

    Edit: the formatting seems wrong with google docs. Word should be ok.
    A&A 1941 House Rule IPC income.doc



  • I agree to a point.  More IPCs are easier on non-experienced players but it will also greatly increase the playing time for the game (which 1941 tries to stray away from so that it is not as complex as 1942).

    I would enjoy a hybird of both games to kind of get a middle of the road complexity between the two.

    But I digress. My changing of the IPCs would go as follows:

    Soviet Union: 10-11 Would love to see the Urals split into two LZs worth 1 each
    Germany:16 Would love to see North Africa split up as well
    Britian: 16  For sure adding 1 each India and Austrailia
    Japan: 13
    USA: 19

    I’ve thought that the overall IPCs need to be increased but since i usually play with newbies, this change would be one more thing for them to learn…



  • Thanks for the feedback, Chiclet.

    You favor a more modest increase to keep game length low. That’s a good idea. I’ll create a second set using perhaps only a 40 or 50% increase. The problem will be choosing which territories to increase (+100% is less discriminating). It may take time, but I like your reasons for it. Longer games might scare off newcomers…

    As for splitting territories, I’m ok with the map as is. Also I can’t think of an appealing home method of splitting a territory other than drawing directly on the map.



  • Yeah agreed on the territory splitting. You really cannot draw directly on the board.  I meant that if they were to ever release a 1941 version 2.0 or something like that, here are the changes that i’d like to see:

    (1942 aspects)
    Inclusion of artillery
    Inclusion of cruiser ships and the ability for offshore bombardment but i have a slightly different rule for that (whole other topic of discussion)
    More LZs and SZs (not too many more, the ones i mentioned in the previous post and maybe just an addtional seazone for Iwo Jima or Okinawa

    Other:
    More overall IPCs income
    National advantages-http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1840            This could certianly make things a little more interesting…

    This would be my desired version of Axis and Allies. 😄



  • One more thing:

    Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

    I’d bump it down to 9.



  • I was going to write a ruleset for 1941 national objectives, but instead of IPCs, powers just got free unit that speaks to their traditional strength. Each axis power would have 3 and each allied power would have 2.

    Germany
    Control Southern Europe and North Africa - 1 free infantry during place units phase, 2 free infantry for both.
    “Representing the contributions of the Minor axis powers”
    Control Norway/Finland and SZ 3,5 & 6 are free of allied warships - 1 free sub during place units phase.
    “Representing the precious metals arriving from Sweden”
    Control Caucaus - 1 free tank during purchase units phase
    “Representing the captured oil reserves of the Soviet Union”

    Japan
    Control Manchuria and Coastal China - 1 free infantry during place units phase
    “Representing plundered resources from the Asian mainland”
    Control Philippines and Wake - 1 free sub during place units phase
    “Representing naval defense barrier in the Pacific”
    Control Borneo and East Indies, and no allied warships adjacent to any Japanese Territory - 1 free fighter during place units phase
    “Representing oil and rubber from Dutch East Indies”

    Soviet Union
    Control Urals and Siberia - 1 free infantry during place units phase, 2 free infantry if both are controlled
    “Representing manpower reserves from far eastern territory”
    Control Archangel and SZ 3 & 4 are free of axis warships - 1 free tank during place units phase
    “Representing Lend-Lease shipments from allies”

    United Kingdom
    No axis warships are adjacent to any original UK territory still controlled by the UK - 1 free infantry during place units phase
    “Representing supplies shipped from around the Empire”
    Control Egypt, India and Australia - 1 free destroyer during place units phase
    “Representing naval superiority thanks to strategic bases around the world”

    United States
    Control all original territory with a printed IPC value (excluding Szechwan) - 1 free transport
    “Representing war time production”
    The Allies control at least one original German and one original Japanese territory - 1 free fighter during place units phase
    “Representing allied forward bases for American air power”



  • New Income Values:

    USSR: 17
    Germany: 20
    UK: 16
    Japan: 12
    USA: 24
    Italy: 9

    Add Artillery and Cruisers

    Modify Unit IPC values: Infantry - 2, Artillery - 3, Tanks - 4, Fighters - 7, Bombers - 9, Submarines - 5, Destroyers - 5,  Cruisers - 8, Aircraft Carriers - 11, Battleships - 12

    Bring back Victory cities, add more to allow more appeal and strategy without forcing new players to do a specific strategy

    Italy is added in because I have spoke to newbies before, and many find it odd that Italy is not in, and the Allies have 3 members to the Axis’ 2

    Add Board imprinted AA-Guns

    Add more territories, but only certain places, more europe and pacific, some african and asian, but thats it

    There, simple isnt it?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    #houserules



  • I have an edited map of 1941

    Check the attachment

    v6baseTiles.png


  • Customizer

    You know guys, I tend to agree with you on most of your ideas for this game. After playing 1942, Anniversary and Global 40, 1941 is so simplistic and I too think it could use some additions.
    As a matter of fact, after the first editions of the 1940 games came out and we had our full lineup of units (at least for OOB), I went back and made new setup charts for the older games to include mechs and tacs in Anniversary and 1942 and mechs, tacs and cruisers in Revised, Europe and Pacific. It wasn’t terribly difficult because in most cases I simply added the new units into the existing setups but in a few areas I switched a tac for a fighter or perhaps a cruiser for a destroyer.
    I didn’t redo the setups for the new type of AA guns because those didn’t come out until 2nd edition and I just haven’t gotten around to it. I also never did a new setup for Classic, although I have wanted to try that out with the new units.
    I at first didn’t think of doing this for 1941 because I just thought that was meant to be a simple game, but now I am thinking about coming up with a new setup for that game too.
    Still, I occasionally like to play 1941 because it is so simple. When I want a game that is smaller than Global but still has more units, more money and more complexity, I go for 1942.

    I don’t know that WOTC would ever put out a second edition of 1941. I think they kind of made just what they were wanting in the first place. They wanted a very simple A&A game that newcomers could get into and not have to invest a large amount of time. While I’m not crazy about the low income amounts either, that does make purchasing much simpler. Remember that this was designed as an entry-level game, not for those of us that have been playing for years. Once a newcomer plays 1941 a few times, maybe they get a taste for it and want something with more complexity. Then they move up to 1942. Then, eventually they may want to graduate to Global.
    It’s a shame that Anniversary is such a limited availability game because that would be an excellent extra step between 1942 and Global.
    Anyway, if WOTC did make a 1941 2nd edition and added more units, income and rules like suggested in above posts, it would stop being a “beginner’s” game. Also, since it would be a 2nd edition, that would mean the 1st edition would go out of print and would get increasingly hard to obtain.
    I just don’t think that WOTC should change anything about the game themselves. Any changes should be made my ourselves to make the game into whatever we please. The game itself should stay simple.



  • Forcing players to deal with low IPCs does not help introduce the series. I played with many people who were new, and they found that the IPCs restricted things too much. The board has too many territories with no value of any kind (splitting the panama, french west africa, okinawa, iwo jima). The way the territories connect does not scream entry game. Far too many sea zones. The map itself is too large, as are the pieces, they should get shrunk down, and become magnetic to make the game portable, with the board played on a plastic casing to play the pieces in for later. The setup should be imprinted on the map to save time having to look back at something. The instruction book is too long, simplify the text and use images more so to explain, with just a brief text explanation instead of 3-4 paragraphs worth. No one who is being introduced is willing to read through 30 pages of mostly text to get an idea of how to play.

    No one wants to play as Russia from what I gathered, they are too weak, it seems with every release they get weaker and weaker, with this release, they don’t even have to be part of the victory conditions.



  • @Chiclet:

    One more thing:

    Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

    I’d bump it down to 9.

    Dont think so. Imho they are already to cheap at 12. I don’t know why they reduced the price, as it was 14 before. Reducing this even more would make other naval units like battleships totally unnecessary.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 5
  • 3
  • 100
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
  • 26
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

54
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts