• @Krieghund:

    Welcome, Jonathan3213!

    Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

    USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
    USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11

    my group has started switching west-russia and ukraine; so the german tanks can be destroyed. perhaps that’s an interesting idea?


  • @Krieghund:

    After consideration of the feedback so far, Larry has decided on some more modifications.  See this thread for details.

    I haven’t bought this game yet.  It’s the only WWII A&A board game I don’t own, so I should probably pick it up soon.

    Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

    Thanks!

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Add in artillery to the purchasing options, using the standard ability and cost at 4 ipcs. It’s the best thing I can think of to improve this game’s balance.

    More thoughts on the Larry boards http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=9504&start=56

  • Official Q&A

    @zooooma:

    Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

    They will be in the FAQ, when there is one.


  • Sold!

    @ Elk, artillery was a great addition to A&A back in 1999, but back in the 1980s the old Gamemaster version was nonetheless the best game going.

    I love A&A global 1940 with all the cool new units etc.  But A&A 1941 is meant to be a faster, simpler version for those sessions when I am short on time or when I’m playing with people who are not ready (and in some cases never will be) for more sophisticated versions.

    I’m not looking for house rules to add depth to the game.  I just want it to be (roughly) balanced without a bid.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think 1941 is slower and less streamlined than it should be due to the lack of artillery, especially if you were pressed for time and just wanted a fast game. Classic takes forever, and this game plays like a stripped down classic, and we all know why… the Inf stack push mechanic!!!

    I am not a fan of global. It moves in the opposite direction of what I prefer in an A&A game. I do not suggest artillery, because I think the 1941 board should be more complex. My rationale is the complete opposite. Artillery simplifies the game, and makes it easier to play at a fast pace.

    Right now people just sit around building infantry walls in 1941, trying to eek out a slight advantage over multiple rounds of inf builds, and the game ends up taking several more rounds than it really needs to. I maintain that is harder to understand 1941, and takes longer to explain this game to a new players, when you eliminate the best piece added to the game in the last 3 decades.  It makes me bang my head against the wall, since the game could be much faster and more entertaining, with that unit in the roster. I mean seriously? Who signed off on ditching that one! I wish I could have argued the merits of artillery at the time when the decisions were being made, but at least I can make the argument now. :)

    Sorry, not to rant, its just frustrating and stirs my passions. Especially when you come to realize how difficult it is to spend your ipcs, when the remainder can’t be used to buy any units other than infantry, and you just pointlessly save the same extra 1-2 ipcs every round, since there is nothing it can be spent on that is worthwhile. The next cheapest unit available that doesn’t neatly divide into 3, is the destroyer which costs 8. Russia has no use for destroyers.

    This map would have probably been my favorite, but every time I play it with people who are familiar with A&A, we just look at each other when the fifth round hits, and all shake our heads, and exclaim in unison “Why on earth did they make this board without artillery?” Its such a step backwards.

    Right now the Allies are bidding the equivalent of 20+ ipcs to bring it into balance. I’m not sure you’d even need that, if there was a unit that could be purchased for 4 ipcs that changed the basic gameplay in the way artillery does. There are a total of nine units available for purchase in the roster, artillery would have made it a clean ten. How much longer do you think it really takes to explain the rules around artillery? Maybe 2 minutes. How about explaining to new players the inf push mechanic without artillery, or how to keep Russia from getting smoked, or why even as a player with more money to burn, they should still just be buying infantry?.. well it takes a lot longer than 2 minutes, I can tell you that much, and the whole game drags as a result. People get bored and just lose interest. Go out and buy the board. Grab a quick pick up game, using the official changes suggested (extra dd, extra inf etc), and see if you don’t end up agreeing with me, even with those balance changes included :)

  • '17 '16

    Hi Black Elk,
    I read your posts here and on Harris game Design, I could tell you that I find your numerous arguments very compelling.
    I introduce my nephew to A&A by playing 1941.
    My units boxes for all 5 countries is the same for 1942. It never cross my mind to forbid the use of Artillery units.
    I explained it right away. It didn’t cross my mind that Artillery unit are not part of the game.
    So we play the game with the OOB set-up and allows to every one to buy Art units.
    The game was fast (around 2 hours) and funny.

    If I try to explain what happened, the only thing that come in my mind was they try to reenact Classic with less special thing like IC, SBR, AA gun, etc.

    So starting with the Classic and cutting thing out, it was a chronological impossibility to add the Artillery unit.
    Hence, there was the glamorous Battleship and the Bomber, so they cut some of the extra capacity but kept the sculpt.
    (I can easily agree with you to replace them with 1 hit cruiser (more cheaper cruiser+ bombards would have been funnier  and no StB, just Fighters in the game.)
    I like your principle of introducing a whole unit with all capacity to keep consistency with more complex A&A game.

    Besides, one of the most frustrating thing back then when I played Classic was the 1 or 2 IPCs recurrently left over.
    Artillery unit at 4 IPCs allows to maximize all the money you have in each buying.

    With OOB 1941, this same frustrating thing happen again, and again and again for Russia.
    I realized this when I try a true OOB 1941 with more experienced friends.

    I was frustrated to the point, I almost beg my friends to give me permission to buy artillery units.

    So I agree with you, if they were looking for a simplified game, they miss something by putting aside Artillery.
    And kept indirectly an annoying left over IPC problem…
    Not so funny for beginner.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Exactly Baron

    Let me explain in detail the major issue I see with game balance, and why 1941 actually has a bigger problem with the inf push than Classic did.

    In 1941, the production is restricted and the overall cash is much lower than Classic, less than half. This makes max placement of ground units out of your existing factories all the more essential. In 1941 tanks cost 6 ipcs, the same as two infantry. In Classic tanks cost 5 ipcs (even though their defense value favored the inf push, at least here the cost of the tank allowed you to spend a remainder of 2 ipcs.)

    Why is being able to spend the remainder important? Because it allows you to make basic game progress and feel like you are accomplishing something… by taking more territory, which allows you to place more units, or higher value units on the board. Now on the 1941 board almost all contested territories are worth just a single ipc. So what happens is you get stuck, even if you take more land, it doesn’t translate into progress. This can happen over multiple rounds. Take the most basic example, say Russia collects 7 ipcs. With this they can buy either 2 infantry or a single tank, but in both cases they are forced to save 1 ipc because there is nothing they can buy that isn’t divisible by 3 at the lowest (the cost of an infantry unit.) So say they save it, and next round they have 8 ipcs. Again, they are unable to place anything with the remainder, so they are forced to save again. But what if, as frequently happens they are now unable to attack anywhere which will get them that third territory and third ipc for 9? And they just languish at 8 ipcs saving the remainder endlessly, because they can’t attack anywhere without risking Moscow. Its the fact that you can’t effectively spend a remainder of 1 ipc, or 2 ipcs, that forces the game to last more rounds than it would if artillery were included.

    Russia is not the only player that slips into this problem. It can happen to Japan, and UK as well, where they are unable to buy additional units even if they are taking territory, because the remainder does not divide into 3.

    That’s part of the game length issue, the other is that tanks now cost 6. So in a game like this, where the stacks are comparatively small, the advantage of infantry over tanks is heightened. 2 infantry are better on attack against a single defending infantry unit than a lone tank would be. People who have played a few games, always pick up on the fodder aspect of infantry, and the ability of infantry to absorb hits and protect the heavy hitters, and how they can be pushed with fighters to trade and dead zone territories. Learning how to use infantry is important, I grant, but in 1941 the situation is more extreme even than Classic. The artillery unit smooths all this over. It allows you to spend the remainder of an extra +1 ipc, and makes infantry effective on attack. Even a single artillery unit, can make a large stack of infantry more effective. It allows them to move out, and be aggressive, which is what new players like to do anyway. Nobody but an A&A masochist, thinks its fun to just wait around stacking and pushing infantry all night. In classic at least there was more money, and tanks were cheaper, and fighters were more in reach due to the large purse, and more cash to spend. Here in 1941, there is no room for that. There is very little room for an error of any sort, whether in purchasing or attacking, or risking invaluable units for territory that doesn’t even translate into more purchasing power - unless you can take 3 at a go!

    This leads to slow defensive play, where you buy infantry, and try to push them at the lowest possible risk. Artillery is an easy unit to understand for beginners and it has a built in way of teaching players to be bold and seize the initiative. Because on defense artillery is only as good another infantry unit, but on attack it can make any infantry unit twice as effective. Its probably the most entertaining unit in Axis and Allies. Even if it wasn’t in the original classic game, it was in the revised game. And it should be in 1941 too :) Note that this is pretty easy to do, provided you have purchased any of the other games that have come out in the last few years, since they all include artillery pieces. It would also be pretty easy to just make it official in the next reprint. I would suggest as a bid/modification for the set up, that instead of adding 3 infantry to Russia as suggested elsewhere, that you simply add 3 artillery to Russia (let everyone else buy them.) Including this artillery in Russia’s starting force puts the game on a much more even balance, especially if you do the extra US destroyer. But really, it helps everyone. Any nation can fall victim to the trap of being unable to spend the remaining ipcs, so they all players benefit by artillery getting added into the game.

    Finally, I would just like to go on record and say I don’t like the idea that we should just always force the new person, or the less experienced person, to play Axis. What if the new player doesn’t want to be Axis? What if they would rather try their hand at supreme allied commander? Its stupid to force the game into a one dimensional direction. It needs to be balanced for both sides to be fun. First game, then switch sides on the rematch. That is how everyone usually plays. Don’t you agree?

  • '17 '16

    Its the fact that you can’t effectively spend a remainder of 1 ipc, or 2 ipcs, that forces the game to last more rounds than it would if artillery were included.

    Russia is not the only player that slips into this problem. It can happen to Japan, and UK as well, where they are unable to buy additional units even if they are taking territory, because the remainder does not divide into 3.

    I forgot to mention this other boring aspect, which is more critical in 1941: you can win a territory and only loose 1 Inf but gain nothing because you will be stuck with the extra “1 IPC” (you can hope at best that it cut the ennemy IPCs below  a 3 divider.)

    But you can sometimes battle for a territory which Worth 0 IPC.
    And that is still an annoyance for everyone and maybe more for beginner: “why this territory give me no reward at all?”
    This point cannot be resolve because of the actual consistency price for lower units with other A&A game.
    It could have been resolved with double price units and value of territories and a small “1” instead of 0 for territory.

    Nonetheless, you point clearly how the defensive  INF push dynamics is so overwhelming in 1941 and how a 5 IPCs Tank was at least convenient in Classic to be purchase after two rounds of savings “1” IPC.

  • TripleA '12

    Black_Elk, you make a ver sound argument and I am behid you 100%. I will be introducing Artillery to the purchase new units phase of my 1941 games from now on. Whose stupid idea was it to remove this cheap and highly useful unit from the game?!

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 4
  • 7
  • 10
  • 10
  • 19
  • 4
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

137

Online

17.3k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts