Alternate 1941 Set-Up

Axis & Allies and Zombies setup for Axis & Allies 1941

This house rule adapts the initial setup of the zombie version to 1941. Plus: You can now buy artillery, worth 4IPCs. And, the two new industrial complexes can place units following the normal 1941 rules.

Soviet Union - 7 IPCs

Russia: 5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial complex Archangel: 3 infantry Karelia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery Caucasus: 3 infantry, 1 tank, 1 Industrial complex Urals: 2 infantry Siberia: 2 infantry, 1 artillery SZ 4: 1 submarine

Germany - 12 IPCs

Germany: 4 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Western Europe: 3 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter Southern Europe: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex Eastern Europe: 5 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 artillery Norway/Finland: 2 infantry Ukraine: 3 infantry, 1 tank West Russia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank North Africa: 2 tanks SZ 5: 1 battlesihp SZ 6: 1 submarine SZ 9: 1 submarine SZ 15: 1 submarine SZ 16: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine, 1 transport

UK - 12 IPCs

United Kingdom: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Anglo-Egypt Sudan: 2 infantry, 1 tank French West Africa: 1 infantry Union of South Africa: 1 infantry, 1 artillery (we recomend to add 1 Industrial complex) India: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 Industrial complex Australia: 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 Industrial complex Borneo: 1 infantry Eastern Canada: 1 tank Western Canada: 1 infantry Gibraltar: 1 fighter SZ 8: 1 battleship, 1 destroyer SZ 10: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 14: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 29: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 33: 1 destroyer, submarine, 1 transport

Japan - 9 IPCs

Japan: 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Manchuria: 2 infantry, 1 artillery Coastal China: 2 infantry Southeast Asia: 1 infantry, 1 artillery Caroline Islands: 1 infantry SZ 31: 1 destroyer, 1 submarine SZ 45: 1 battleship, 1 aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, 1 destroyer, 2 transports SZ 46: 1 aircraft carrier, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer, 1 transport

USA - 17 IPCs

Eastern US: 2 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 Industrial complex Western US: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex Brazil: 1 infantry Alaska: 1 infantry Hawaiian Islands: 1 infantry Philippine Islands: 1 infantry Northwestern China: 1 infantry Szechwan: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 Industrial complex SZ 11: 1 destroyer, 1 transport SZ 37: 1 submarine SZ 40: 1 battleship SZ 42: 1 aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, 1 destroyer, 1 transport

ATT: Santa Bárbara Historical Play Group

@sniffemonster The First edition of the Classic version had the Commander in Chief Rules, any Allied nation could combine together with another Nation to Attack together- that Rule was done away with in the 2nd edition Classic version!!!

@Witt

Thank you for your comment. I guess we think the same way.

Lowering the tanks‘ attack value for two Axis powers and one of the Allies has already changed a lot, because especially Japan has to rely heavily on tanks when marching though Asia. Attacking with „2“ instead of „3“ takes 33% of their power away. The UK usually is less aggressive and needs less tanks. The US can provide that element while establishing in North Africa, Norway or France.

But the idea is still in my mind to enhance UK’s firepower for the later stages.

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

I had to rewrite it.  Oh well, I made it more brief.

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.

Is there a link to boardgamegeek where these files are now located?!?!
Thanks!

@Vance:

Thanks YG.  If you don’t mind I think I will post “espionage” as a separate house rule that could work with your tech system, or with just about any tech system for that matter.  You never know someone might use it or get an idea from it.  I love the idea of STEALING the other guy’s tech LOL

Hey man, feel free to use any of my ideas for separate rules, I just ripped off some good ones from Axisplaya and I didn’t feel bad about it one bit 😏 As for espionage, I thought stealing a tech from an enemy might be to powerful for the 10 spot, so I modified it to say develop any tech that an enemy power possesses.