Yeah, well, there’s nothing rose in terms of accuracy. I’m waiting on people’s responses on the accuracy of War Room and Global War before thinking about purchasing them.
AA 1941 or AA Original?
-
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.
-
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. -
@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?
-
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.
-
And you still say that is closer to MB? In what?
It’s back to capture the capital from classic.
-
@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.
-
Just variant in Artillery. That’s what I plan on doing :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
I never took you for an ageist!
Color me disappointed.
Suggested Topics
