1941 or 1942

Only seeing the setups, 1941 seems favor axis too much, being unclear 1942. Chances are 1942 is more balanced, so probably will be the most used until the bid sistem is developed for 1941 (giving units to allies). After that, probably many will prefer 1941 because usually the people prefers starting the war earliest possible.

Basically everyone likes 41 more because it’s new and a lot different to AAR, except Funcioneta over here who is the president of the we support China club.  :-D

I lean toward 1942 at the moment because the 1941 game, if balanced, seems to extend the length of time required for play.  If the game is “broken” in favor of the Axis as some have suggested, then the 1941 game could end early I suppose (but this would not be a good thing).  I am not convinced that a quick victory is inevitable, however, as the Allies can prevent a quick Axis victory (even under the 13 city scenario) if they hold on to the North American victory cities, London, and any ONE of the other victory cities.  I think it comes down to Moscow.  Can the Allies hold on there until the U.S. and England are able to secure France?  If so, I think the game is up in the air and balanced.  If not, then I think then the 1941 scenario should be tweaked with a bid system.  So, in either case, either without a bid because it isn’t needed or with a bid because it is needed, I think 1941 will take longer to complete than 1942.

I love the fact that Axis and Allies can be played in a relatively short amount of time (for a game of logistics and long term grand strategy), so I would favor the 1942 scenario.  Of course, I also usually have no more than five hours for a game when I play, so this practical factor is also in play.  The next scheduled session for our group, however, will be one in which we could play for ten hours or so, making 1941 more appealing….

@Driel310:

Basically everyone likes 41 more because it’s new and a lot different to AAR, except Funcioneta over here who is the president of the we support China club.  :-D

:lol:  good one  :-D Karma +1 and changing Func’s profile  8-)

@Funcioneta:

@Driel310:

Basically everyone likes 41 more because it’s new and a lot different to AAR, except Funcioneta over here who is the president of the we support China club.  :-D

:lol:  good one  :-D Karma +1 and changing Func’s profile  8-)

Haha, thx.  :-D

A bit off-topic but where is the button to give someone positive or negative karma?

I think you need 100 posts. Then you will get a option to smite and another to applause

Ok, working on that.

By the way, nice avatar.  :-D

well, i played both, and i’ll read now of the Holy Bible of ‘game results 1942’, by matheus and big:

‘Italy,’ sayd he. ‘Italy has some more troops, but those nasty allies keep invading Marrocco, so i can’t have any bonus.’
‘Japan,’ he then quoted from a player, ’ Is spread out and has issues of non-forgiving nature with China’
‘Germany, He has most, so he has to share with Italy, meanwhile have to do his task, of killing some communists with 100% blitzkrieg’
‘the Allies, do SBR’

So sayd he, Big, bout the differences of 1941-1942

Amen

(lololol XD, and i know, have bad humor)

guess it just depends what sort of game you want. 42’ is more akin to what we’ve been playing in previous versions, and does make for a shorter game

personally i like the feel of 41’ as it’s new and different, and new strategies have to be thought up. and i love the long games

My issue with 1941 is that Germany doesn’t have enough units on the board.  The invasion of the Soviet Union entailed 3 million men.  In France, Germany has no anti-aircraft gun, no aircraft, etc.  Britain can land units in France on turn 1 or 2.  Northwest Europe is impossible to defend.

That being said, I’ve won 5 games out of 5 with the Axis.

my only 41 scenario FTF game lasted 7 1/2 hours.  way too long to get new players involved!!

'41 takes waaaaay too long. I like '42 better.

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