Yes M_R, the dynamics of the will change with different groups. In my two 1941 groups G has to go for Africa from the off, or its Med TT will have gone.
Am I wrong, AA 1941 not a 2 hour game for some people?
-
Background: Been playing classic MB Axis & Allies since the late 90’s. When we play regular classic AA these days, it is finish-able in around six hours after several rounds. i.e. we typically stop when Russia falls and Axis get economic victory, or Allies get Germany and becomes 3 on 1.
I solely purchase Axis & Allies: 1941, because it is supposed to be finish-able in under 2 hours. But now with countries have so little units and IPC, every buy and move needs to be carefully considered. Moreover, even after Russia falls, the game really just enters/starts into ‘stage 2’ for us. What I mean is, the current rule and map makes for long transport, amphibious attack, destroy, rebuild cycles over and over…
For example, currently it is not easy for USA/UK to takeover Japan/Germany or vise verse (as that is the only way to win now). So we conserve and build up but then both sides just wipe each other out and you start over. With so little IPC, and ship costing so much, plus transport requiring protection, it just drags.
Our AA 1941 game length, having two balanced knowledgeable experience players is no shorter than regular AA. We still enjoy AA 1941, but am I missing something? As I don’t see how AA 1941 is finish-able in two hours with our usual play style and having fair dice roll using the enclosed rules.
-
I can only think of one time that I’ve ever finished a game of any A&A version in the time it says on the box. And that was when my opponent surrendered after Japan took India in round 3.
-
You’re not alone, brother. Â Especially when everyone playing is of sound A&A mindsets (not newbies). Â It really comes down to a hopeful focused assault on one country by all allies and/or luck of the dice rolls. Â That’s the only way I’ve seen a short game play out.
-
All board game covers lie about the playing time, because a game is awesome in proportion to (how many cool features it has) divided by (playing time). I find that doubling the playing time printed on the box usually gives me a good estimate for how long it takes to play the game with experienced players. If everybody’s new or if some people aren’t even familiar with the relevant genre (euros, wargame, auction, etc.) then figure triple the printed time.
I’ve never tried A&A '41 because it looks too simple to me to justify the setup time, but my games of Revised, Anniversary, and 1942.2 typically take between 6 and 20 hours to finish, depending on how the dice go and how aggressive the players are. I had one game that went on for several days because we kept arriving at new equilibria – at one point, Japan built an industrial complex in Novosibirsk while America built an industrial complex in Norway. It was a little silly, but it was also fun dancing around each other for multiple rounds – almost like one of those screwball comedies where you can’t wait to see how they’ll keep running with the same theme and push it to yet another level of insanity. I’ve had other games where the Axis were down a few territories (e.g. north africa, west russia, indochina) and had no significant counterplay after turn 5, and so we called it early – nobody took any capitals or was close to winning on victory cities, but it was still obvious which way the wind was blowing. In general my favorite A&A games have been games where I trusted my opponent(s) enough to play until we called the game by mutual agreement. The hardest part of finding that trust has usually been finding opponents who are willing to come back to a game on a later date if necessary!
-
Never had a game of 41 take more than 3 hours - i.e. an actual or very likely winner if playing to a time deadline. However, some players in the group are less skilled than others and my attempts to even up the teams can be defeated by egos.
-
@Private:
my attempts to even up the teams can be defeated by egos.
The egos of the superior players or the egos of the inferior players? :wink:
-
@CWO:
@Private:
my attempts to even up the teams can be defeated by egos.
The egos of the superior players or the egos of the inferior players?  :wink:
Ha ha! We all have egos. Or perhaps it’s that non-one wants to team up with me? :-D
-
In connection with the original topic of this thread, this actually suggests an interesting technique for speeding up any A&A game: put all the bad players on one team and all the good ones on the other.
:-D -
Yes! But I wouldn’t know which team to put myself on! :|
-
I entirely agree with the original post. Nothing to add to it! The comment which indeed says it all to me is that when the Axis take Moscow, it’s not like it’s almost over, it just starts again!
BTW, has anyone ever played a A&A 41 game in which MOSCOW does not fall sooner or later. I’ve once held it for 5 or six rounds, mostly by sending Allied fighters there (both British and American), but in the end it always fell…
India can certainly be held by the British for a long time, even though to newbies it may seem that it can’t.
Suggested Topics
