It’s a general concept of every A&A game (at least those on a Global scope, also 1940 Europe and 1940 Pacific).
Balance Issues?
-
Also, a tip for your allies: Make sure you are shucking through Canada. Ie: You build transport and guys turn 1, move them all to Canada turn 2 and then land in Europe on 3. Continue to move new troops up into Canada each time. If you do this you should be able to build up extra transport capacity because after turn 3 you’re landing every round. So you only need to build men and no extra transports.
Man, THIS. Why didn’t i think of that. USA factory being 3 sea spaces away from europe was really pissing me off, all i had to do was build my troops 1 turn earlier.
I realize my game reports are anedoctal evidence of unbalance towards axis, since luck was really a big factor. In the second game, at the R1 attack, i couldn’t get a single hit in the first round, for example. So i dont want any change implemented because my lack of luck :-P I’ll rewrite everything and post on HGD forum later.
-
Yeah shucking through Canada is super effective and helpful. And if you’re having US take on Japan first, you can shuck fighters to Australia.
I also find an RAF buy for Britian and putting them in India is super effective. On UK1 just transport the Australian inf over to India and place the fighter there, and keep placing units there, it can quickly be a strong base that I’ve been able to beat the Japanses in Asia with. Also, in my opinion, Germany has to do the Egyptian attack, other wise the UK player can just take those extra units and counter attack where they need to.
-
Started a game this morning and the new US Destroyer has straight away made a difference as the German Sub failed to sink the escort and the Transport survived to drop both Atlantic units in Africa.
The undefended Transport is sunk on G1 normally. -
I’m pretty sure it favors the allies
-
I wouldn’t say favores. As you can see in my report the Allies were still doomed by a terrible dice roll even if Russia and UK were doing good. I’ve played 9 games with this new set up and allies have won 4 times.
-
Hi Cromwell. welcome back. Krieg told us Larry has asked us to place a US DD off the East Coast and 2 Inf in Russia and see what we thought. They know it is far too inbalanced.
I am sure it will be made official, but nothing yet.
As I said in my post, the DD made an immediate difference. (I did still win, but my wife is very unlucky.) -
After consideration of the feedback so far, Larry has decided on some more modifications. See this thread for details.
-
Thanks. That is good news. I probably will not be able to trial it for a few weeks, but you know others will.
-
Great addition! Thank you for working with the community so well in making changes!
-
Wow, I’m loving these new changes, Krieg! Thank you and Larry for this. Can’t wait to try 'em out, especially the Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact! :-)
-
Not seen that Loz. Has Larry suggested the Japanese cannot now attack the Russians?
Will that help the Allies? I remember the Eastern provinces are worthless IPC wise, so does not help Japan monetarily going that way.
Hope you are enjoying your 1940.
Are am hoping to try Oztea’s 1941 set up soon. -
Well it makes sense the axis win the boardgame. Historically they won WWII.
-
We just finished 3 games with all the new changes. Even with the changes the Axis won all three. The first game we even forgot all the Japanese ships in SZ 45 (carrier, fighter, tranny and destroyer) yet the Axis still won with little problem.
Russia simply cannot stop, or even reasonably delay the Germans. Every game the UK fleet is crushed, Egypt always falls and the Americans are always too late to make any difference. Only one game was reasonably close with the British losing a near run attack on the German transport fleet just prior to the invasion of London. Once that failed, Germany took London and the Americans failed in their bid to recapture.
The additional troops for the allies make it about one or more turns longer for the Axis to tilt the balance beyond the point of no return, but we don’t see enough to make a difference.
We consider our group to be experienced A&A players going back to the original game, but we are perplexed as to any sound allied strategy that yields a fair fight.
Our take is the extra Russian infantry still does not allow the Russians any viable counter attack against the Germans. With only a single tank, you can ill afford to send it into an attack only to see it killed and the lone fighter provides the only offense more than a 1 to hit from the infantry. We discussed the possibility of Russia having another fighter to give them more offensive options.
One strange anomaly is the Russo-Japanese Non-aggression pact when the Americans hit the Japanese fleet off Japan then landed bombers in Siberia. The Japanese had forces in Manchuria to strike at them, yet since Russia had not fallen were not allowed to go after the Americans in Russian territory. Somehow this did not seem right, so we allowed Japan to attack non-Russian forces in their territory.
Right know our group thinks the Russians need either a fighter or tank (even if less infantry) to give them some offensive counter attack capability. Otherwise the Russians can only sit back and wait to get destroyed.
Kim
-
Question about this new rule:
Soviet-Japanese Non-aggression Pact: Neither the Soviet Union nor Japan may attack territories controlled by the other until either Germany or Russia has been captured by an enemy power.
Germany takes Caucasus. Japan lands a fighter in the Caucasus.
from what Im reading Soviet Union can attack the Caucasus and attack the Japanese fighter there.
Does this cause war if Soviet Union attacks the combined force or does the Pact prevent further escalation even though the Japanese unit was attacked. -
Yes, the Soviet Union may attack, as the territory is not controlled by Japan. This will have no impact on the Pact.
-
Have there been any updates to the proposed changes or any “final” decisions?
-
Neither so far. We haven’t received enough feedback yet. That may be a good thing, though, as people are generally faster to condemn than to praise.
-
Larry’s problem, Krieg, is that the people here buy the games when they come out(and quite a few are coming out lately), so they move on and the older ones are not played as much.
1941 is also a bit basic for the battle hardened addicts here.
If there are errors, or seemly so, of course the talk is of the newer games.1941 is a good and very reasonably priced game. It will be played and we will, me included, play it again. People are not playing or talking about it, because 1914 has rightly taken over as the game of people’s choice.
All I can suggest is that you bring out fewer games or at least in less of a hurry, so our time is not wasted chatting needlessly about obvious errors that could have been avoided with better use of time.
I am sure everyone is like me and does not want to complain, only enjoy the games as they were designed. Sometimes the problem is just the wording.
For the most part, we want simple English and all parts pertaining to a rule in the same place. -
I find that withe the additional destroyer and 2 inf it makes the game more fair. I am not a fan of unbalanced games but as soon as I played the first game. I played axis against a friend who played allies and I steam rolled him. I took Russia in three turns, had India from J1. Had Africa . Asia was mine, taking Islands.
Within 5 turns the axis had double the income of the allies, with more resources. Needless to say the axis won easily with no challenge against the allies.
With the new set up I can’t send my sub to kiLl a defenseless transport :(, and if Russia wants to stack an attack on its first turn it can pile an attack of 8 inf 1 tank 1 fighter and estimated losses of 0-2 inf to hold that territory.
It is more even however the axis still have the upperhand. But I don’t steamroll no more
-
I’m going to play my first round of 41 tomorow (finally) with some friends who are totally new to A&A. I’ll try the 3 inf in Russia, the DD und Inf for the US…
I’ll not try the pact, from my point of view this restrictes the possibilities and I bought the game to have an easy A&A version, I don’t want to explain more rules then necessary. For an equal reason, the hope for a short A&A version, I’m also thinking about trying less Axis-units instead of more Allies-inf, like it is proposed by different players on the HGD-Board… has anyone experience with either setup-change? Does it change the game-length, and if yes, in what way?
Suggested Topics
