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.