• 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12 '11 '10

    prefer?


  • I’m not sure that I’ve played enough of either year and enough of both sides to know for sure; but I think I like the 41 setup better.  It seems (to me) to be the more balanced game.  I also like the fact that it’s a different starting point in the war compared to the other versions of A&A.
    Thanks.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I think I like 42’ better because the Allies have more options in Asia and the Pacific as opposed to being a Japanese speedbump in 41’. And you aren’t forced to attack egypt in 42’ while you are in 41’.


  • i like the 1941 setup as it seems to give more options to the players


  • 1942 seems give allies a chance of fighting. Even if axis could have still a small advantage, I think it’s more balanced than 1941


  • I like '41 mostly because its new and not the same old A&A game that as always been played


  • In our f2f play group we usually play the 1941.

    I agree with bbrett3 about the motivation it is “more new”.

    1942 scenario, seldom interesting, is too much similar to preceding A&A games.


  • 1941

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’ve only played one game of 42 and it’s not even done yet.  Though, Italy is kicking EVERYONE’s butt, and that means Japan, USA, Russia and Germany too, not just England’s!


  • We played for the first time '42 by the luck of the die to decide. I was a bit of que by us doing '42 as it’s brand new, but by the time it got moving, it was pretty good.

    '41 is the classic and most players will know the '41 set up and moves, dispite the odd new things with china and Italy, but by actualy playing '42, I got used to it and at the momant, prefer it.

    I found ( playing Germany ) '42 gives more friction between Soviot and Germany, and pressure on Japan to hold Hong Kong and Shanghi ( in China ) with China.

    India is more open to Japan, and so can Sydney, while US is strugerling to get moving in the Pacific to attack Japan ( same as '41 really ) where it’s more of a Western Europe game in the Atlantic.

    Italy is strong and if you do play it right, become really strong in the heat of moany rounds in backing up Germany with land units.

    42 gives that difs between AAR and AA50 '41

    sala33


  • 41 by default - its the better setup…


  • well, 1941 is news and such, but i prefer 1942 to:
    china isn’t killed first turn
    KJF is possible


  • have only tried 1941 so far 🙂

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    41


  • I’ve only played full games of 41, and judging by the current topics and posts numbers in the 2 child forums, 41 is the far and away leader at this point.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’ve still only played 1 game of '42.
    Not to keen to explore it any further either. I’d like to explore more of the '41 scenario still

  • Moderator Official Q&A 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12 TripleA

    Only '41 so far 🙂


  • After 20 years with A&A, I am really enjoying 1941. It’s like a new game, yet the same.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    @hakan:

    After 20 years with A&A, I am really enjoying 1941. It’s like a new game, yet the same.

    That’s what I thought.  From reading all these posts, the main reason many people play '41 so much is because they’re tired of starting in 1942 from the previous versions.

    Well, I played '41 several times to check it out, too, and I think it’s a joke.

    There is no possible way Japan would be out-producing the USA, Germany, or any other major world power of the day, year after year.  Even if the USA did not win at Midway as dramatically as they did, this “scenario” totally defies reality.  As Frontovik pointed out - wiping out all of China’s army in the first turn should not be a possibility.

    Also, the first couple times I played '41, it felt like we were just going through the motions to get to the '42 scenario (taking the Pacific islands, pushing the Russians back to Moscow and Stalingrad, UK building a navy, USSR buying some offense).  What’s fun about that?  It was fun for a couple of times because it was a novelty, and that’s it.

    I think the 1942 scenario is much more fun, because the powers are much more even, and Japan can be thrashed, or it can grow into Godzilla, depending on luck and Allied strategy.  Also, Russia actually starts with a little offensive power.  There’s a reason Larry designed the first game to start in the Spring of 1942, and stuck with it.  The '41 scenario with AA50 is an alternate scenario, and the 1942 is the standard scenario, IMO.

    Now the 1940 game will be a whole different deal entirely.  It has the political rules and the map to actually support an earlier start date, whereas the '41 scenario is just an alternate setup on a game and map that has always been designed for 1942 start.  Supporting point - playing the '41 scenario you could develop heavy bombers, rockets, long range air, jets……  That’s crazy.  There should be an OOB rule that you can’t develop tech until round 2 or 3 or something.

    Just because it’s new and different doesn’t mean it’s better.

  • '20 '18 '17 '15

    I like the 41 scenario because it gives the Axis players more choices, and choices are always delicious in strategy games.  In the 42 scenario, Germany has taken everything they can take, yet several turns of buying and placement have been taken out of your hands.  I’d rather decide how I push into Russia.  A spread offense?  Concentrate my tanks in one spot?  Build up a navy for added transports to the Russian front?  Concentrate on Africa at the expense of the Russian front?  how much of the British navy should I try and sink?  All of those choices have been made for me, and some not in ways I would have chosen.

    This is even more true for Japan.  In 42, they start out with only ONE transport, and all of their borders clearly defined.  Yet they haven’t pushed into China at all, Russia is still hanging around, and India is better defended.  The 41 Scenario gives the Japanese player the option of being wacky, like taking Hawaii, Philippines and Alaska on turn 1.  Or going for all British targets, or sacrificing islands to go “all in” vs. China.

    And why shouldn’t Japan out produce America if they have all of the industrial capacity and resources of Japan, China, India, the DEI, and Australia?


  • @Whackamatt:

    And why shouldn’t Japan out produce America if they have all of the industrial capacity and resources of Japan, China, India, the DEI, and Australia?

    Japan should not be able of taking China, India and Australia so easily as do in most games, specially in 41 scenario  😉

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    @Funcioneta:

    @Whackamatt:

    And why shouldn’t Japan out produce America if they have all of the industrial capacity and resources of Japan, China, India, the DEI, and Australia?

    Japan should not be able of taking China, India and Australia so easily as do in most games, specially in 41 scenario  😉

    Yes, and now that Func’s weighed in, I might add, where would the Japs get all those men and material?  There was no freaking way.  The '41 scenario is simply a fantasy scenario, because there is no possible way Japan was that powerful.  There’s a reason they weren’t sure it was a good idea to surprise attack Pearl Harbor on a peaceful Sunday morning…


  • Allot depends on the optional rules involved.

    Those who dislike 1941 for the imbalance should try a game without NOs.
    National Objectives really sway the game in the Axis advantage too much:  Give the axis too much money while taking away those dollars from the Allies…


    1942 is nice if Russia and UK can contain Germany, but that can be a very hard thing to do without some US help.
    USA can certainly go toe to toe with Japan in 1942.

Suggested Topics

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

37
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts