How are ALLIES supposed to win 1941 "vanilla"? Minor adjustments for balance?

Hi Grumphrey

I am glad to hear that you have a group together to play 1941. :-)

I will leave the answer to your questions to others then! :-P

The A&A addicts on this forum prefer the more complex versions of the game, but my fingers are crossed for you.

Cheers
PP

But PrivatePanic, I thought you and I were the only two on the entire forum who ever defend 1941? (though my personal preference is 1942).

I’d offer gameplay advice, but unfortunately, as you know, I have a lack of physical opponents… so maybe i’ll do something a bit different.

I will offer this tidbit of advice… the OP mentioned the “economic advantage” of certain nations playing vanilla 1941 without any changes. As many have mentioned, it’s hard to imagine much economic advantages in a game so dearth of actual IP points available on the map.

So my one piece of advice, if you’re willing to add a house rule to spice up the game a tad, and see if that effects the game balance to something you’re happier with, is this:

Make income more of an issue… by default the Axis has the military advantage and the Allies have the economic advantage. You say the Allies can’t seem to win with vanilla rules… this may be because the economic advantage in 1941 is so small in a game so stingy on IP points, that an extra infantry a turn per ally may not be worth the military disadvantage at the start of the game.

I’d recommend one of two ways to improve the economy of 1941 that either recommendation is quick and/or easy to use.

1) Double the income of every printed territory IP value… If a territory is worth two, it’s now worth four… so on and so on. If America normally starts with 17 IP, it now starts with 34 IP… this goes for EVERY nation, as the rule effects all IP values on the map.

or…

2) Add “War Bonds” to each nation… during the income collection phase of each nation, roll either a 1D6, or a 2D6 (depending on how much income you want to add, but keep it the same for all nations) to represent home war drives for more income to each nation… this is a slightly more random method, but also allows you to leave the board income as printed.

Using either above method is a quick and easy house rule to implement, which I recommend for any 1941 game… this will (hopefully) even the game win/loss ration per side as the economic advantage of the Allies will be more of a thing, and it allows ALL PLAYERS (on both sides) to enjoy having more money to spend.

The only (potential) downside to the above method is that it can lead to slightly longer game sessions of 1941… (if you call that a downside at all).

That’s my recommendation to give the Allies a bit more of a chance to win, but it adds fun to all sides.

The only other method to change the game if you want to keep it close to vanilla rules is to simply throw more starting forces at the Allies (bids as folks like to call them)… an extra ship or bomber here or there… but for 1941, I find that a bit boring… I like to play with more income when it comes to 1941, and I think with this version of the game, that would give a slight tip in balance towards the Allies.

Hey Wolf :-)

@Wolfshanze:

But PrivatePanic, I thought you and I were the only two on the entire forum who ever defend 1941?

Thus far anyway! I thought if I did not fill the void someone else would do so. There is always hope! :-o

Always happy to come back to this thread if and when Grumphrey would find it helpful. However, I would probably only be repeating what I have said elsewhere.

One of my two 1941 groups has been fiddling with the turn order, which does alter the dynamics of the game and keep things interesting. But I am a bit of a purist myself and like to master the original game before I play around with it and then find bids the most “loyal” basis for adjusting balance.

The premis of ALL A&A games is that balance is obtainied by the Axis starting with a military advantage, and the Allies start with an economic advantage. Unlike other versions of A&A, however, there really isn’t much of an economy to speak of in 1941, which in-turn kinda makes having an economic advantage in a game with no economy not much of a plus… so the Axis just starts with a military advantage, and the Allies have no real economy to make up  the difference.

This is why my suggestion of boosting the economy in 1941, is actually a more direct way of equalizing the balance of 1941 and IMHO, a more “true to the nature of A&A” way of balancing than simple bids.  The very basis of the game is that the Allies have a better economy, not a bigger military… bids gives more military to the Allies, I say give them an economy!

I say give the brave Brits a massive economy but keep those pesky colonials down! :-P

@Private:

I say give the brave Brits a massive economy but keep those pesky colonials down! :-P

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississipp’
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin’
There wasn’t as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began a-runnin’
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

(It only gets more embarrassing for the Brits if you want me to continue…  :-D )

We Brits dont kid ourselves that the burning of Washington means we won the War of 1814. Yet you guys love to pretend that New Orleans denotes your victory. The war of 1814 was pretty much a draw. The peace was actually signed before New Orleans.

So much of the USA’s supposed history is mere folklore based on wilful self deception!

We like to be more honest in our historical judgements. The British Empire was absolutely a force for good and we really did stand alone in 1941! :-D

@Private:

We Brits dont kid ourselves that the burning of Washington means we won the War of 1814.

Is that like how the Burning of Moscow in 1812 means Napoleon won in Russia?

@Private:

The peace was actually signed before New Orleans.

It wouldn’t be the only time a British leader signed a peace of paper and wrongly declared “Peace in our time!”

@Private:

Yet you guys love to pretend that New Orleans denotes your victory. The war of 1814 was pretty much a draw.

The British attacked with over 10,000 men… they lost 2,036… the Americans lost 71… I guess in British eyes, they call that a draw…

@Private:

So much of the USA’s supposed history is mere folklore based on wilful self deception!

This Battle of New Orleans was some Battle. This is the kind you fantasize about, where you’d ask “Who’d win in a fight?.. A Ragtag army of Militiamen, Choctaw Indians, Freed Slaves, US Army Regulars, Sailors, Marines and PIRATES led by Andrew Jackson vs a numerically superior army of highly disciplined British Redcoats and Scottish Highlanders”. American History is… Just… Too… Awesome!

We actually teach our history with Legos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWkOeK5AmI8

If you don’t like musical legos, here’s actualy LIVE FOOTAGE caught on someone’s iPhone at the actual battle of New Orleans (maybe if you guys stopped attacking with bagpipes, you’d win more wars):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqkZr9C5C64

I’ll attach a picture of what the average US High School Student Knows about Historical figures at the end of this post…

@Private:

The British Empire was absolutely a force for good and we really did stand alone in 1941! :-D

Yea, WWII wasn’t the first time we had to save the poor British from the Germans… it’s okay, we got you covered! :-D

Thanks for rescuing us Wolf! It came with a darn expensive price tag though. Perhaps next time you can let us win without your help?! :wink:

No problem Grumph! I assumed you had read some of my replies elsewhere. But if not, read on ……

If R survives late into the game then the axis powers are not combining their efforts against her as they should. Perhaps the US & J are dragging each others focus into Pacific builds?

J cannot win the war in the Pacific. A sustainable assault on the US mainland is not possible unless the US player makes fundamental mistakes.

But J can make a valuable contribution to the elimination of R. J ground units can reach the Caucasus in 2 moves.

If J pursued that strategy then US Pacific builds are a distraction from putting a joint allied fleet off Scotland and landing a constant stream of ground units to trade France and Norway and suck G’s eastern front dry of reinforcements. Until that is achieved my US Pacific builds would be the minimum sufficient to give J some pause. If necessary I would even abandon the Pacific rather than delay this help to R.

A good player is perfectly able to win as allies against weaker opposition. Against an equal player I will take allies for an 8 pic bid.

@Grumphrey:

Thank both you gents for the replies! When we have time we’ll attempt the double ic more! And sorry Panic I believe you took my quip a little too seriously  :-D I was just saying that from what I’ve seen you seem to be the king of responces ’ Round here!
And bless Wolf for the great ideas and putting a Britty in their place! :lol:

You’re more than welcome… if you ever find yourself along the Florida Gulf Coast, I’ll host a game of 1941 (or 1942SE) for ya!

As for keeping Brits in their place, that’s my job on this forum… I really was kinda hoping he’d comment on the “attacking with bagpipes” comment… oh well… back to my job of monitoring the Brits on this forum.  :wink:

Of course 1815 was the year we beat Napoleon at Waterloo, bringing to a victorious conclusion the bloodiest war in history, Wolf. One we won without any economically crippling “help” from you guys! But you keep focusing on this little skirmish if it makes you happy! :roll:

@Private:

Of course 1815 was the year we beat Napoleon at Waterloo, bringing to a victorious conclusion the bloodiest war in history, Wolf.

Keep losing 2,000+ casualties to 71, you won’t be winning any more wars… :roll:

@Private:

we won without any economically crippling “help” from you guys!

Oh, I think I know what you’re getting at now… maybe I missed that earlier… but i’ll put it back in American terms again…

So, your neighbors house is on fire, and he can’t put out the fire by himself… he needs the hose from your house… now you’re not going to sit there and haggle over the price of the hose while his house burns down, so you LEND him the hose to put out the fire, and you can always discuss the LEASE later and see how much he owes you.

Ungrateful Brits still complaining about the price of the hose when we helped save their house that was on fire… sheesh!  :roll:

Here… I can’t do Roosevelt this good, but click on this link and skip ahead to 1:00:40 seconds in… you’ll get the best damn explanation you can get!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB5c11jRVbc

It is a question of exactly whose house was on fire I think. But that is far too thoughtful for our banter ……

The US was generous to the UK while at the same time destroying the UK’s status as an economic power. Perspectives differ depending on which side of that statement you choose to focus. The balanced view is to see both sides. Balanced but not as much fun!

@Private:

The US was generous to the UK while at the same time destroying the UK’s status as an economic power.

Kind of a win-win if you ask me!

I hope you watched the segment on that Youtube clip… very well said FDR!

I did watch it, thanks Wolf. Also the lego war movie you posted earlier, which lead to me watching some of the others - they are very well done. Am considering selling all my A&A and using the money to start a lego war collection ….