1941 Strategy?

Welcome! and sorry its taken a while for someone to respond. I haven’t played 1941 in a bit, but I was pretty into it for a time there.

In terms of broader strategy, I’m of the school that says your best bet is to throw everything at Japan early on this board, and then direct your full attention to Africa and Europe. Whether Germany takes Moscow or not comes down almost entirely to the Russian opening combat. There’s just not a lot you can do to control what happens there. Its the same in the Atlantic with UK. But at least against Japan you can seize the initiative early on. I think the Ukraine strafe is just too unpredictable so I favor going all in on W. Russia with both tanks and trap caucasus. Or just 1 tank. Or 15 infantry alone if you trust in your 1s. I also favor the Manchuria attack on R1, since this is your best chance to mess with Japan in the first round. USA is painfully slow to do much of anything.

Another option if you don’t want to do the Manchuria opening, is to send 1 Russian tank and the Moscow fighter to Egypt, to give the Germans pause when considering a G1 attack there. This gives UK their best possible odds on Egypt defense, and opens up Africa to an early conquest by Allies. The Russian tank can then jet to India in the second round to support the British again.

Fighter camping on the Capitals and key territories is common. Japanese fighters based in Berlin can hit Moscow in one move if G opens up a landing spot. UK/US fighters in Moscow can hit Berlin in one move if someone opens up a landing spot in Europe. The whole endgame dynamic seems to revolve around this basic move.

For purchasing, I don’t see much use for the majority of the units in the roster. The main reason I have trouble staying engaged with 1941 is the inability of most nations to spend a remainder of 1 or 2 ipcs! Pointlessly saving that same 1 or 2 ipcs over and over again, because there is no good ground unit at a cost of 4 ipc or even 5 ipcs. I find that the game drags for this reason, and takes longer to play out than the relatively small scale of the map might suggest. It grinds like Classic, with the infantry push predominating. The fighter is the best unit to break a remainder of 1, when you make the jump from 9 ipcs (3 infantry) to 10 ipcs (A single fighter).

Buying fighters just seems the best bet in most situations when you have the loot. They have the most range and strongest relative attack/defense value of any unit when you consider the extreme limitations on production in 1941, and they work well for capital camping purposes. Basically if I have 10 ipcs I’ll buy a fighter. If I have less, I’ll buy whatever the max infantry for that value is. I frequently find myself with a continuous remainder of 2 ipcs for long periods, which is annoying, since it stifles the feeling of progress. As USA the best use of a carrier is often just as a launching pad to get 1 more point of movement from your newly placed fighter, by spawning it directly on a carrier deck instead of on land. If you don’t have a Carrier deck in this position you can still spam fighters into N. Africa, and from there they can get basically everywhere you need to go.
:-D

Fighters from French West Africa can reach India or Caucasus in 1 move, which can be helpful when transiting fighters from UK or USA if you don’t control N. Africa. Fighters from N. Africa itself can reach Moscow in one move. I find this is much faster for the Americans, to just shoot fighters across Africa/MiddleEast, than it is to fly them out of E. Canada or off a Carrier in sz 11.

Also, just like with 1942.2, I think this board would benefit from a Russian starting bomber at Moscow. This Bomber would give them a much better chance to make a decent strafe against Ukraine, or pull off the Manchuria move without risking a fighter. They would also have a high risk air attack against the German fleet in the Med. So I would make that same suggestion here, if you want to try the game with a bid, I think the Russian bomber provides more interest than other potential bids, without busting the set up too hard.

The relevant fighter camping move is like this, say you are Axis… As Japan the best location for your fighters during the endgame is Berlin. All Axis need is control of one territory adjacent to Moscow, and the Japanese can attack into Moscow all the way from Berlin (3 moves) and then land in that adjacent space (the fourth move.)

Allies can do this same move in Reverse. Provided Allies control a territory adjacent to Berlin, they can fly fighters all the way from Moscow to attack Berlin (3 moves) and then land in Western Europe say, or Eastern Europe or Southern Europe (the fourth move.) This fighter camping move is possible because on the 1941 board Berlin and Moscow are only 3 moves from each other.

That’s what I meant by “opening up a spot,” they just need to have control of a territory adjacent to the Capital they want to target, so their fighters will have somewhere to land after the 3 move attack.

To be clear infantry is still by far the most powerful defensive unit for the cost. The only reason the fighter outclasses infantry is due to the production limitations on this map. When you’re dealing with territories that can only produce 1 or 2 or 3 units total, sometimes you really need to squeeze every possible attack or defense point out of that factory. The movement advantage of the fighter is also very important on this smaller map. It allows you to get 3 attack points or 4 defense points very far afield and rapidly transition them around when you need to. Air is very potent vs naval. To see this in operation try just buying 1 fighter a round with the same nation every round (Germany or Japan say) and you will find that before long your enemy will be under major pressure trying to protect their transport fleets from an all air strike. All it takes is a few rounds of steady air builds to truly magnify the advantage of this unit over naval.

Your initial assessment is definitely correct. It is the job of the Western Allies to prop up Russia, and not the other way round. But weirdly, during the first round, it is the Russians who need to give UK enough breathing room, to then turn around and support Russia with their fighters. At most you will have two rounds, (though really it’s more like just the first round) to pull this off, before you are required to basically park it as the Russians. I said before that I like to bring both tanks to W. Russia, but this is not strictly necessary, and in fact it is sometimes better to use one or both of the tanks for an opening attack somewhere else, or for defensive positioning in the first round. 15 infantry is usually enough to kill W. Russia, though it really sucks if you dud in the first round, or take many hits, as this will completely upend the Allied starting position. Manchuria can be done without a tank, though that is somewhat high risk. If fully gunning for Japan, some like to bring 1 tank into Manchuria and have the other support the fighter in Northwestern China after it lands. Or as suggested before, you can send the fighter to attack West Russia and then land in Egypt to secure it for UK. This can be done without the Caucasus tank and just the fighter, or you can send the tank alone without the fighter, but again the risk is somewhat higher.

The danger of not bringing both tanks to W. Russia, is that is then possible for Germany to strafe you immediately! This is a bold gambit by Germany, but one that you will not be able to recover from if it succedes. Basically G hits W. Russia with everything, all planes all tanks etc. At first it seems like this would be great for UK, but unfortantely it is still possible for Germany to sink the UK Gibraltar carrier at odds, just by sending a lone sub against it. It is also possible to sink the British battleship at odds, just by sending the German battleship and 2 subs against it. This gives up Egypt, but if Germany knocks the Russian’s back in W. Russia, that won’t matter, because they’ll be in Moscow before the W. Allies can do anything to stop them.

Lets say for example, as the Soviets, that you attack W. Russia with 15 infantry and take no casualties, ending the turn with 15 units in W. Russia. That’s 15 hit points, and 30 defense points.

Against this Germany can bring 7 infantry, 4 tanks, 3 fighters and the bomber. That’s 15 hit points, and 32 attack points!

Both sides have the same number of hitpoints, and both have an average of 5 hits in the opening salvo. If you’re curious what I mean when I say attack or defense points, basically you add up the total attack or defense value of each unit, the number it “hit’s at” and then divide that by 6, to see what your average number of hits will be for that unit distribution. Technically Russia and Germany are still pretty even, but Germany is bringing in heavy hitters and still has the odds, if they go all in! So even if both forces have similar overall odds, Germany is going have the stronger potential opening salvo, or first round of the combat phase. This means they could just strafe you, and still come out ahead in total unit value traded during the attack. And just knowing the total hitpoints and attack/defense average isn’t the whole story, unless you are willing to alter the rules about how hits are alotted like in Low Luck, the composition of forces still matters in a dice game. I find that Low Luck diminishes the enjoyment for me by removing the narrative aspect of individual battles when you remove the randomization. Others prefer LL because they hate getting diced. But if you like dice, as I do, then even given the same total hitpoints and same attack/defense values, the force which has more “heavy hitting” units is always in the stronger position. And we know this intuitively. It just feels better to have a bunch of dudes that hit at a 3, which is why German tanks and fighters make me nervous. Because it comes down to how confident the Germans feel in their attack chances, whether they decide to run the attack in the first place. And if they do attack, how much faith can you really place in a deuce as the Russians!
:-D

That is the scary thing about this map, and why it’s pretty risky to attack W. Russia with no tanks. Chances are you aren’t going to get into W. Russia with no casualties as the Russians. You might wind up with just 14 infantry there, or 13, or worse, and then you’re really in trouble. And like I said, Germany doesn’t even need to win this battle, they just need to deplete your infantry down to a level where you cannot stack them effectively on defense. A solid strafe and those Germans are knocking down the gates of Moscow, and you don’t have the time or the money to replace all your units that just died! This is why many people think that 1941 is rather unbalanced in favor of Axis. But setting that aside for the moment, lets look again at what the W. Allies can do to help, in the event that Germany doesn’t make that all out attack on their first turn.

If, as the Russians, you can secure a safe transit across Africa for Western fighters, or if you can help break Japan early and drive them from the mainland of Asia, this will really benefit your position at the Center in subsequent rounds. The ability of the Americans to push fighters out of E. US, across North Africa, to India or Moscow in 2 moves is major. If you try to do this along a northern trajectory over the Atlantic to UK, it takes twice as long to get them in the same position off Moscow. Fighters at the center of the gamemap is the only way to really come out ahead as Allies, and Africa is the shortest route. As mentioned above USA can launch newly purchased fighters from E. US to N. Africa or W. Africa. For UK you can launch them all the way to Egypt!

Consider that UK and USA both start the game with 3 fighters each, and they can all be in range of Moscow at the close of the third round, to defend the Russian capital during the fourth round. That is 6 additional hitpoints and 24 additional defense points on the Russian capital. This is very challenging for Germany to crack, even with all their starting power, given that they only have 4 production per round. Provided you can stall Japan for just a few rounds, all UK and USA have to do is build one fighter each and send them to Moscow. If Russia can place just 2 infantry a round that’s 4 total hitpoints on Moscow defense every round after the third, which matches what Germany can bring against it.

Japan can do something very similar by sending their starting fighters to Berlin, though they are at a slight disadvantage here, because their starting income is so low. Allies can begin their logistics train immediately to set up the Moscow fighter camp, whereas Japan has to achieve their 10 ipcs first. This is why it’s so helpful to hit Japan early. Not because you want to kill Tokyo necessarily, but to distract them from doing the same sort of fighter transit to Berlin, that Allies will be doing to Moscow ;)

Finally, a Bid is a process whereby you introduce extra starting units to the game. The way it usually works is that players will bid for the side that they feel is at a disadvantage on that map. On this particular map, most players will bid for Allies. So before the game begins player one says, “I think Axis have the advantage on this map, so I will only play Allies if you give me 6 ipcs worth of extra units.” Then player 2 says, “I don’t think Axis are quite that strong, so I will play Allies for 5 ipcs.” And it goes back and forth like this, descending in ipcs, until one guy decides to give up. The player who wins the bid, takes those extra ipcs and uses them to place extra units on the map before the game begins. They buy the units as if it was the purchase phase spending their bid ipcs just like normal cash. They are allowed to distribute the money however they see fit for their side, or they can save the money for the first purchase. The general rule is 1 unit per territory or sea zone, and bid units can only be placed in a location where you already have units. So for example, you cannot put a bid unit in an empty space, or a space that one of your teammates controls. That’s how its normally handled, but my alternative, rather than going back and forth, is to just say that Russia gets a bid of 1 Bomber at Moscow standard. This is equivalent to 12 ipcs, and in my view is sufficient to balance the game by sides, so that it is even, Allies vs Axis.

ps. oh also, to the point about fighters and infantry, just for clarity…
Earlier I compared the purchase of 3 infantry for 9 ipcs, to 1 fighter at 10 ipcs.
Notice that they both have the exact same total attack value: 3.

If you buy 3 infantry, or a single fighter for one additional ipc, then the difference is not in the attack value, but in the hitpoints (3 vs 1), the defense points (6 vs 4), and the movement points (1 vs 3 +landing). So you can see that what you give up in total hitpoints and defense, you really do gain in total movement. It would take those 3 infantry, literally 3 times as long to reach the same target! Unless infantry is transported across the water, a fighter has much better range, so this is the trade off we consider. It has everything to do with the strategic location and limitations of production across the gamemap, whether you’re better off buying 3 infantry or 1 fighter in many situations. Even if the latter option gives you less total hitpoints and defense, and costs 1 ipc more, and can’t capture territory, its movement advantage alone is incredibly potent in a turn based game like this.

No problem man, happy to hear you got to break free for a few and enjoy some A&A!

As for Manchuria, I wouldn’t say its absolutely necessary to hit on R1, just something I find myself doing fairly often. If you do pull back to reinforce Moscow with the Siberian units, then just expect Japan to be able to send more aid to the Germans. It might make more sense to invest in a third or fourth US transport before attempting a move on Europe, so you can set up a more intimidating single threat against Berlin.  In terms of broader American strategy under such conditions, I think you’re better off waiting to move out until you can actually ferry a sufficient number of ground across the Atlantic to hold W. Europe or Norway, while simultaneously threatening Berlin on amphibious. The way to do this is to keep your ground grouped together in one large force, and then put it in on position against the German capital, as opposed to trying to do it piecemeal with 1 transport/ 2 ground at a time. Trying to creep and expand little by little just doesn’t pay off. You don’t want to creep, you want to stack and get the line on Berlin! Threatening the German capital directly with UK/USA amphibious, is the only way to get the Germans to pull units off Moscow.

W. Europe and E. Europe are important for UK more than USA, not for the economy, but because it allows them to get more units potentially in line on Berlin (whatever is already in place, plus the troops coming over from UK on Amphibious.) W. Europe alone is worth nearly a third of the whole German economy, so if you can stack and hold it, that really screws with their production. But that’s not the reason you take it. The reason you take it is to set up the line on Berlin, especially for the double hit against the German capital.

I think that’s the main thing I try to explain to new people with USA. You don’t have to transport and trade forces with the Germans necessarily. You don’t have to take territory for income. All you really have to do is get the line on Berlin! Keep the units alive, and with an amphibious threat on Berlin, rather than trading them for territory. This holds the Germans in place defending their capital, and does you more good than launching premature invasions. In this respect the game works a lot like WW2. You don’t want to waste time trading territory on this map. The income is too low anyway, and its not like other A&A maps, where trading infantry for territory is so important. Resist the urge to take land unless you can actually hold it.

This is actually quite different from a map like Classic or Revised or 1942.2. Lets just think about France for example. In most games France is worth 6 ipcs, twice the replacement cost of single infantry. Here in 1941 it is only worth 3! Usually to take France in the other games you’d send 2 infantry to take a 6 ipcs territory. 1 infantry as fodder (expected to die) and 1 infantry to actually take the territory, so you come out even in the trade. But in 1941 if you use 2 infantry to trade in France, you are only recovering half the cost invested. In my view, its just not worth it to trade territory continuously in 1941. You need to hold the space!

It seems counter intuitive, but you really want to stage US infantry first (in England or Norway), then go back to get more. You do this before you move against Germany, rather than sailing directly across to invade, and then having no units ready to back up the play. Basically you want to set up a double drop, where ever you go. Its much better to build up first then invade, rather than invade first and then try to run back to grab support units. The latter move will put you out of position for a round, during the time when you really need your forces to be at the ready.

The danger for the Allied Atlantic fleet is increased if you don’t put extra pressure Japan early, and this danger comes in the form of Japanese fighters towards Europe. Germany can also be pretty obnoxious with their uboats in the first round, so its’ harder to count on an early move out with USA, since you have to build up to make a crossing.

I think there is a strong temptation with USA to buy more ships at the outset than you really need. A fighter can attack on land as well as at sea, whereas a battleship or destroyer has just one purpose, as a transport escort. When I said earlier that I didn’t have much use for most units in the roster beyond infantry and fighters, that was a bit of an oversimplification. At some point you will definitely have to buy a carrier a transport and at least 1 destroyer with USA (depending on whether Germany is purchasing fighters or bombers, as well as ground), but the question is one of timing. Make the naval investment too early, and there isn’t a whole lot of places for it to go as USA. Russia will be on the ropes and near collapse, and Germany can see it coming a mile away and plan ahead. If you start with fighters first, then you can rush across to the middle of the game map, prop up Russia and (once the center is secure) you can fly back to land on a newly purchased carrier at UK, or on an American carrier which sails over from E. USA.

Ultimately, this board favors KGF, just like every A&A board. The ipc/production distribution, the location of the capitals, and the turn order itself, all favor KGF for stronger endgame positioning. The deep endgame, after Moscow falls, is easier to manage with a Europe focus than a Pacific focus. The inability to buy new production (e.g more factories) is off the table in 1941 also makes Berlin more attractive than Tokyo. In other games you can usually buy factories to make a Pacific strategy pay off on production parity which is then used against Mainland Eurasia, but here that can’t be done. Here if you go Pacific, you have to dead drop Tokyo.

The overall economy in 1941 is even more concentrated than on other boards. Comparing region by region, you can see all sorts of things changing from a game like 1942.2

Here is just one interesting comparison…

1942.2 UK is worth 8 ipcs, and Africa is worth 12 ipcs.
1941 UK is worth 3 ipcs, and Africa is worth 2 ipcs.

What it means? Unlike other boards in 1941 Africa is far less valuable to both sides. The main value I see in Africa is as a Fighter transit for Allies. For Axis its useful from a canal control perspective, but economically its not even worth the cost of single infantry unit! Compare this with other games where Africa brought in like a 1/3rd of the UK’s entire purse!
:-D

Have fun gaming dude, and let us know how it goes!
Catch you next round

This map is heavily  favored in the Axis hands.

Haven’t played in a long time but giving Russia an additional 3 infantry really bolsters up there starting force. Actually makes Russia have a chance.