AA 1941 or AA Original?

[Imperious Leader]

But i am talking about comparing with Milton Bradley 2nd edition, not AA42… :-D

The sea zones are the same and the land areas are mostly similar.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

@Imperious:

But i am talking about comparing with Milton Bradley 2nd edition, not AA42… :-D

The sea zones are the same…

Imperious your statement is, quite frankly, factually inaccurate at best. Some of the land territories are similar, however there are many many changes to the sea zones. Just compare the images below.

[Imperious Leader]

Look at the similarities in the Pacific, Japan can employ almost the same exact naval movements because the distances are the same. Japan to Hawaii, then to Australia, then to India…just like the typical movement from MB edition. Distance to Moscow from both sides is also the same.

IN Europe Medd is basically the same, the only major difference is USA to UK is two turns, rather than one.

If you compare the sea zones and ask which map is most close to AA41, you would concur that MB edition is closest.

for Sea zones in Europe it’s more like Revised, while in Pacific it’s more like MB edition.

The distances to move across the map are very similar again allowing some of the same strategies as before in MB edition.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

I wasn’t commenting on tactics, strategy, or total movement. I was simply pointing out that they aren’t “the same”.

Like you I agree that the game will have a very Classic feel and will likely employ many of the same strategies. However to claim the sea zones are “the same” is grossly inaccurate.

[Yavid]

The biggest thing i see different from a strategy point of view is EUSA is one turn from attacking anywhere from FWA to Norway except Western Europe. There’s no way anyone could convince me this wasn’t done on purpose. Classic was dominated by two strategies inf. push and shuck (i think that was the name i’m not 100% sure.) The 2 turns to get to Western Europe is to combat shuck. Reduced income and reduced production IMO is to combat inf. push.

Russia also has 4 front line territories compared to 2 in classic. Germany has 4 now compared to 3 before. So the face of the eastern front is alot different.

[Hobbes]

@Imperious:

If you compare the sea zones and ask which map is most close to AA41, you would concur that MB edition is closest.

for Sea zones in Europe it’s more like Revised, while in Pacific it’s more like MB edition.

I completely disagree, comparing the number of SZ, the disposition of key SZs and the general disposition of the map.

Number of SZs (Atlantic) (excluding Baltic and Med):

• Classic - 15 SZs
• Revised/Spring42 - 19 SZs
• 1941 - 17 SZs (SZs 18/22 and SZs24/25 from Revised/Spring1942 joined together)

SZ bordering the UK:

• Classic - 1 (US can land on UK and W. Europe in 1 round)
• Revised/Spring1942 - 5 (US can land on UK in 1 round and on W. Europe in 2 rounds )
• 1941 - 4 (US can land on UK and W. Europe in 2 rounds)

Number of SZ (Pacific)

• Classic - 25 SZs
• Revised/Classic - 28 SZs
• 1941- 18 SZs

Asian territories that can be reached from the Solomon Islands SZ

• Classic - Japan and Manchuria
• Revised/Spring1942 - Japan and Buryatia
• 1941 - Japan, Manchuria, Coastal China, Southeast Asia and Szechwan (almost everything that matters on Asia)

Finally, on the 1941 map it takes less time to reinforce Russia with US armor through W.EUS/SOLOMON/SZECHWAN (3 rounds) than through the UK (4 rounds). On Classic took you 2 rounds for US troops to reach Moscow through Norway and 4 through Asia. On Revised/Spring 1942 3 through Europe and 4 through Asia. This is the first map on the series (not counting Global or AA50) where it takes less time for the US to reach Moscow through Asia than Europe.

And for the territories my judgement is also the same. On Europe it’s Spring1942 without Balkans and Belorussia while Asia just had a radical departure from everything.

So, to me the idea that this map is Classic rehashed has no standing. It is the result of an evolution that started with Classic but the gameplay is completely different from Classic or even Spring 1942.  :)

[Canuck12]

Obviously it will be very different and is a product of evolution. But take into account the units (no cruisers or artillery) and I think it starts to look more like classic.

[Hobbes]

@Canuck12:

Obviously it will be very different and is a product of evolution. But take into account the units (no cruisers or artillery) and I think it starts to look more like classic.

So far no one has pointed 1 relevant aspect unique to Classic that is shared with 1941.
The number of types of units is the same as Classic (plus destroyers, minus AA), but the stats are completely different. A Battleship on Classic cost 24, here 16, you get even reduced prices for the rest of the naval/air costs. Armor costs 6, so the price had been already upgraded for Global.

[Imperious Leader]

So far no one has pointed 1 relevant aspect unique to Classic that is shared with 1941.

Both classic and 1941 have no artillery.

Other than that 1941 is closer to Original AA, then any other version.

[Hobbes]

@Imperious:

So far no one has pointed 1 relevant aspect unique to Classic that is shared with 1941.

Both classic and 1941 have no artillery.

Other than that 1941 is closer to Original AA, then any other version.

Point taken on artillery. Still, I think it’s a mistake calling it closer to Classic… way too many differences between both.

[Imperious Leader]

But the game IS closer to Milton Bradley than AA42. It is not a true statement that its closer to AA42.

[Most Holy]

The sea zones, the unit costs, the unit abilities, and the transport rules are all closer to 42 than 42. The simplicity and SOME distances resemble more Classic. The over all feel, and this is judging only from Dave’s reviews, seems more like Classic with the Push To Moscow from both sides of Eurasia.

I don’t even remember the Original Post and am too lazy to go back and look but from the title of the thread I surmise it was which would you chose between the two and I would choose Classic but maybe mostly from nostalgia. This might change with actual game play however.

[Most Holy]

@Canuck12:

Now that we have seen the map, units and setup it is clear that this version will be a very dumbed-down version of 1942. That said it still might be fun, and will present new and different challenges. (3 British ICs?)

Also, it appears to me, with the lack of artillery, cruisers and the much simplified European theatre, that this game is in many ways a throwback to the original MB edition (ie after nova games). That we all played and loved to death.

My simple question is: Do you think this version will be more or less complex and fun than the original 1980s edition?

Aha I’m not so lazy after all.

More complex? No. With no stray bombs and no money and an almost halved economy it is much simpler especially with the option to play until one Capitol is taken.
More fun? Maybe for the same reasons as above. But also maybe not for the same reason.

[Hobbes]

@Imperious:

But the game IS closer to Milton Bradley than AA42. It is not a true statement that its closer to AA42.

The only (so far) characteristic that it shares only with MB is artillery, all of the rest is taken/adapted from AA42 (Pacific and Atlantic SZ, land territories), Global (armor cost, UK 3 spaces from US) or new (distance from US to Moscow, no strat bombing, etc).

And you still say that is closer to MB? In what?

[Yavid]

I think it’s the lack of artillery that is reminding so many people of classic. It was the last global axis and allies game without artillery. Those tried and true classic strategies are back in this game. also the lack of victory cities. It’s back to capture the capital from classic.

[Imperious Leader]

And you still say that is closer to MB? In what?

It’s back to capture the capital from classic.

[Hobbes]

@Imperious:

And you still say that is closer to MB? In what?

It’s back to capture the capital from classic.

IL, most experienced players never worry about VCs on Spring1942 - unlike Revised, on Spring 1942 it’s all about capitals there since minimum to win is 9 VCs and that requires capturing Berlin or Moscow to win.

[stevechristian]

Just variant in Artillery.  That’s what I plan on doing :)

[Canuck12]

@stevechristian:

Just variant in Artillery.  That’s what I plan on doing :)

Why not just play 1942 and get ALL the complexity benefits?

That said, for the first time ever I must admit, I’m still with IL on this one.

1942 has some nifty traits to it and the Jap tank push across Siberia/China is discouraged as much as possible in such a small game. In this one (1941) it seems like Japan first priority is to hit India and head West, which it appears tey can do simultaneously. Smells like Classic to me. Same thing on the eastern front. You can really duck and dodge on the eastern front in 42, but here it seems like another straight tank push.

And so what if Battleships are 16 who is going to build one when your income is 15-20?

[Gargantua]

That said, for the first time ever I must admit, I’m still with IL on this one.

And it better be the last time too, or you won’t be getting your job back.

lol… I kid. :P

I totally agree with both of you… and I said it before and I said it again.

Axis and Allies 1941 is for kids.  Men are still playing Global.