The low income rates make luck a much bigger factor in this version

[IronWill]

Played my first game of 1941 the other day 1-v-1 with my experienced play partner.  We’ve played lots of Revised and several games of Global 40.  In this first game of 1941, I played Allies vs his Axis.

I admit I think I made a mistake attacking wth Russia in turn 1, period.  However, to top it off, I got diced and lost 3 units in that combat when I should’ve lost 1.  Then on Japan’s first attack, they attacked Pearl Harbor and I got diced again.  They lost 0 units when they should’ve lost at least 1-2.

Now, I’m not one to cry about getting diced.  I understand probability (math major), and I don’t use it as a crutch to excuse poor strategy.  However, it highlighted what I think is a critical flaw in this game - getting diced in this version is much more debilitating than in other version due to the low income rates.  It’s twice as hard to recover units lost to bad dice.  And it’s so much harder to recover territory lost to the enemy when you’re down even 1-2 units against the enemy.

I found myself having to take unusual risks hoping that the dice would swing back in my favor and even the odds because I simply didn’t have the income and the time to let the game balance itself.

I’ve read other posts where players have complained about the low income rates being less fun because you have fewer units to play with, but my observation is that it seems to make the game less about strategy and more about who’s the luckiest with the dice.

Thoughts?

[baron Münchhausen]

IMO, this is more about playing time. So, what cut most time of play?
Dice make for decisive swing. It accelerate the outcome, I believe. And help decide who is winning.

Lacking Artillery seems also a way to prevent using the remaining 2 IPCs, so this third IPCs provide an additional swing if your lucky to get it.

[Wolfshanze]

@IronWill:

I’ve read other posts where players have complained about the low income rates being less fun because you have fewer units to play with, but my observation is that it seems to make the game less about strategy and more about who’s the luckiest with the dice.

Thoughts?

It’s kind-of an everything you mentioned… low income means less buying, less buying means less variety in a number of things, including changing strategies and ability to recover from losses (near impossible). All of those things combined come back to the “less fun” because you have less control over your fate when you can’t shake things up, take chances, change strategies or recover from an unlucky die-result.

The low-income of 1941 effects all of the above… having said that, it DOES cut down on game time… less money, less units, less rebounds = shorter gameplay… it also is a good way to just show someone the ropes of Axis and Allies if they’re new to the genre (something beyond Checkers or Monopoly… ah, who am I kidding, something beyond a PS4 or X-Box). IMHO, AA41 isn’t really for long-term play, its mostly for learning the game… I suppose some folks can/might use it for speed (meaning don’t have time for a longer game)… but AA41 is still a long game, even with low income, just not “as long” as 42 or 40.

My Thoughts are AA41 is certainly not perfect, it’s not the best of the series…its arguably the worst of the series, but that doesn’t mean its a bad game… it has a purpose… its the shortest game, and its good for introducing people to the game… getting back on point, a lot of that has to do with the low income of 41.  I’ve made several suggestions on how to raise the income in 1941, but of course that will usually mean a longer game, which can be self-defeating as to the main lure of 1941. In any case, my preferred format is 1942, but I think 1941 has its place as a learning tool and/or the quickest-playing version of this game due to low-income (as with any perk, there is usually a sacrifice, as you have mentioned).

[General Veers]

If I could only make one change to the game I’d add artillery. It’s easy enough to implement and is still simple enough for new players to grasp combined arms. Plus it gives German and Russian player some options when they have 7 IPC or more.

[baron Münchhausen]

I agree. It is quite frustrating to always keep a 1 IPC remainder.
And for learning curve, this unit should have been part of 1941.
This unit is so essential for other games.

[Midnight_Reaper]

I did up some rules for adding Artillery to 1941, would you fine gentlemen be interested in them?

-Midnight_Reaper

[zooooma]

I haven’t played 1941 yet, but I think the lack of purchasing should make it a bit like a tactical minis game on a global map. 
I can see how this would add a lot of luck, but I can’t think of any other way to shorten the game without upsetting the balance.

@Baron:

And for learning curve, this unit should have been part of 1941.
This unit is so essential for other games.

Artillery pieces was one of the better innovations over the history of this game.  That said, the Gamemaster Series edition predated artillery but was still (at the time) considered the best game in it’s class.  So I don’t think artillery are essential in a beginners edition.

[baron Münchhausen]

Destroyer unit were not part of Classic either.
And add a lot of complexity into the mix.
Maybe the no Artillery policy was more about not increasing cost of this first line product.

[Dauvio Vann]

This game has to do with luck then any other A&A game because of the low income.

The price of the game is great for beginners.

I play this game every week with beginners to get them hooked with A&A.

I love the relationship between the destroyer, and sub in the game.

[Charles de Gaulle]

When I am not using this game to introduce new players, we always use low luck dice mod and/or the units from 1940.  Not just artillery, but everything, cruisers, AA, etc.

This game is meant to be quick.  Usually when we are short on game time we play this one with low luck because low luck eleiminates a lot of time-consumming dice rolling.

The whole style of this version is not for hardcore strategists.  There is only so much to do and too many cases of “optimal” moves that everybody more or less should make.  Sometimes just playing this one casually as a social game can be a lot of fun when crazy luck results in weird games.  An example:

I remember one game in which Russia totally killed Germany, while Japan had managed to get all the way to the US.  Berlin and Washington fell.  The UK was left in a dismal situation with Australia and India captured and a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic itching for a London victory.  I never though the Axis could win with London and Washington and NOT Moscow, but if it were not for smart UK play, this might have happened.  Alternatively, Japan liberated Berlin, but it could not hold.  Meanwhile, in China and the Middle East Russia and Japan were fighting it out hard.  With its mainland factories, Russia eventually pushed the Japenese back and got India and Africa for the UK.  Japan surrendered holding the Pacific islands and North America.

Games like that were fun, only spurred on by poor play (by new players) and crazy luck that made their poor play actually come through for victory.

If you really want to play 1941 as a strategist, you need to make big changes or use a luck-reducing way of play.

[Nowhere Man]

We prefer to avoid 1941 unless we’re using it as a teaching tool to someone new. We usually play 1942.2 or Anniversary if we want to play something less demanding than Global.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I think this is a case of, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”

The increased “swinginess” of the luck of the dice can be an equalizing factor for new players against experienced players. Of course, the luck of the dice can swing in favor of the more experienced players just as easily as it can swing against them, but the fact that random chance is a stronger influence in this particular edition of A&A is more likely to appeal to the novice and casual gamers who don’t intend on taking the game nearly as seriously as the seasoned veteran player.

[Black]

Luck always plays a part in war. You can’t model everything in a game (weather for example). Luck accounts for this.

Luck evens out over time, but sometimes it has devastating consequences. There was a lot of luck involved in the (historic) Battle of Midway, that resulted in an overwhelming American victory. The IJN might well have lost the engagement anyway, due to their forces deficiencies of the time, but perhaps not in the same lopsided fashion they did. As it was, it was a crippling blow that impacted their capability for the remainder of the war.

A&A 1941 models this quite well. Luck is a factor, sometimes a devastating one, but that’s war. I’ve always got chess for when I’m tired of luck.
:wink:

[A Former User]

I’m right there with you there Black. I LOVE chess.