1941\. and 1942 IPC differences . are they correct?

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

I’m thinking of doing this as well. For the sake of a bit of consistency in the rules between games.
And, I like the new rules, but I can’t justify purchasing this game when I already have AA50. They seem like the same level of game.
Btween the new 41, and G40
Plus AA50 gives you the option for tech and N.O.'s, as well as China and Italy.

So adopting some of the new rules into AA50 seems like the best of both worlds.

same. mine are the same except 1942 has more detail.

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know if it is possible with the right moves and builds for the 1941 scenario to become the 1942 scenario in exactly two full turns?

Assume the players are all cooperating to achieve this, and assume any battle results go the way you like.

If you can manage it down to to actually getting the starting income of all the countries at the correct amount, mad props, but I’ll be sufficiently impressed if the board setup is identical.

Use of NOs are optional, whichever you think will be more likely to get you to the desired setup, but obviously nations can’t buy tech during the first two turns.

If i want a game that will last for maximum 5 hours,….i better play wich scenario…and with NO’s? or/and Tech?

Thank you for the review, I just got this game but I haven’t had a chance to play it yet, so it is nice getting to have an idea what it is like.
As for your comment about the subs, My opinion is that subs are better when you have 2-3 because 2-3 subs is not enough to just build a lot of (if any) destroyers, but enough to damage a Navy considerably.

Put a control marker under the cruisers.  that way if you do screw em up, you still know what you meant to have had and what you paid for.

We used to do this a lot in classic when we had “special” units like Panzers (Att 4, Def 2) or Marines (Att 3 (amphibious only), Att 0 (ground assault), Def 0), etc.