Was this game play tested AT ALL?

Well, it seems the play-testers were not totally united in what their conclusions were. That’s where the optional rules come in, the Dardanelles rule tilt the balance a bit in Allied favour and the interceptor rule makes bombers a little more balanced as a unit (you could argue that the escort rule favour Axis, but in this game Russia gets SBR:ed a lot!).

With NOs and no optionals, it seems the balance is 60/40 or something like that for the Axis if they play a normal opening, meaning attacking Egypt and Yunnan turn 1. We should play games with the optional rules before we say the game is unbalanced, they are, after all, LARRY HARRIS’ idea of the best rules, not Wizards of the coast who might have overruled them on the basis of not adding complexity. IF, and only IF, the game is unbalanced under those conditions, we can talk about bids, and here I am one of those who have argued for bids for Allies being made in China infantry, placed before the game starts.

PS. You might want to study Allied strategies, which are getting better and better, Get Battlemap and read on the “play by forum” games. But don’t read my semi-final game, where my Allied strategy has been a big failure so far!!  :-(  DS.

I think that you may be exaggerating just a tad, although I do agree with some of your points

A) China is too weak: True, look up Func’s posts for making China more of an obstacle
B)Striats: I agree that the Barents strait should be closed, the Baltic should be closed unless you control Denmark, and if you own both Morocco-Algeria and Gibraltar the Strait of Gibraltar should be closed off (if the territories are split it remains open to all)

Well to be clear I don’t feel this is the case, BUT i do prefer something more in terms of evolving the rules toward less abstraction. The Techs are kinda bogus as some of the choices of what was considered “technology” leave something to be desired ( e.g. advanced artillery is not really a TECHNOLOGY that was of importance in WW2). I am not saying it should be more historical, but less gamely about it or arbitrary.

I think the playtesting was great, and done by the best  but the final decisions were not in playtesters hands. I am quite sure with people like Kreighund, the games setup exposed any flaws and the obvious situations like in China must have been decided by the higher ups, which a minimal number of rules can fix.

for China let the Soviets play them which is BEFORE Japan and by coincidence also semi historical because the Chinese communists were supplied by Stalin. That should have been an optional rule. I bugged Larry to include all of his ‘cutting room floor’ ideas and make them as optional rules because it would have been of great benefit to others, but all we got was just 2 new ideas.

When it comes to 41, I don’t know what the creators were thinking re. Asia.  It’s just ridiculously unbalanced…you would think it would be possible to make Axis stronger in Europe as a counterweight to give India and China SOME chance of holding for a few turns…but this game is oriented towards Europe all the way.

42 is alot better in this regard though.

You people don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, this game is the BEST AA game ever made! there are no flaws in this game only flawed players. I’m sick of reading you crybaby’s complaining because the game didn’t play out like you thought it should. Larry Harris designed this game to be a Game! that’s FUN to play, that takes WWII and turns it into "what if " this happened or what if that happened , it’s not going to be historially accurate because we all know the Axis lost, so the game was made to where either side could win by a bunch of different ways.
    So stop your whinning or go play a different game

@Imperious:

For China let the Soviets play them which is BEFORE Japan and by coincidence also semi historical because the Chinese communists were supplied by Stalin. That should have been an optional rule.

I like this.

or start the game with China then go to Germany, etc finishing with USA then starting over with China again

@dabapic:

You people don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, this game is the BEST AA game ever made! there are no flaws in this game only flawed players. I’m sick of reading you crybaby’s complaining because the game didn’t play out like you thought it should. Larry Harris designed this game to be a Game! that’s FUN to play, that takes WWII and turns it into "what if " this happened or what if that happened , it’s not going to be historially accurate because we all know the Axis lost, so the game was made to where either side could win by a bunch of different ways.
    So stop your whinning or go play a different game

i agree!
but still, would of been more fun if asia was bit stronger, to get that ‘world at war’ feeling :-D

@dabapic:

You people don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, this game is the BEST AA game ever made! there are no flaws in this game only flawed players. I’m sick of reading you crybaby’s complaining because the game didn’t play out like you thought it should. Larry Harris designed this game to be a Game! that’s FUN to play, that takes WWII and turns it into "what if " this happened or what if that happened , it’s not going to be historially accurate because we all know the Axis lost, so the game was made to where either side could win by a bunch of different ways.
    So stop your whinning or go play a different game

I think AA:50 41 is an awesome game.  But I’m not seeing much in the way of anti-Japan strategies, which makes me question whether it will ultimately eclipse Revised and the new updated version of Revised, where KJF strategies are both possible and a lot of fun to play.  AA:50 is more historically accurate and the rules are much improved….but what everyone considered the classic game defect of Revised–that game dynamics dicated a race for Berlin and Moscow in every game–seems even more prominent in 41.  I hope I am wrong and it’s a simple matter of figuring out the strategies…  But either way I think basically everyone agrees China and India should be stronger and a few game mods in this direction make 41 a much better game.

@Zhukov44:

@dabapic:

You people don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, this game is the BEST AA game ever made! there are no flaws in this game only flawed players. I’m sick of reading you crybaby’s complaining because the game didn’t play out like you thought it should. Larry Harris designed this game to be a Game! that’s FUN to play, that takes WWII and turns it into "what if " this happened or what if that happened , it’s not going to be historially accurate because we all know the Axis lost, so the game was made to where either side could win by a bunch of different ways.
    So stop your whinning or go play a different game

I think AA:50 41 is an awesome game.  But I’m not seeing much in the way of anti-Japan strategies, which makes me question whether it will ultimately eclipse Revised and the new updated version of Revised, where KJF strategies are both possible and a lot of fun to play.  AA:50 is more historically accurate and the rules are much improved….but what everyone considered the classic game defect of Revised–that game dynamics dicated a race for Berlin and Moscow in every game–seems even more prominent in 41.  I hope I am wrong and it’s a simple matter of figuring out the strategies…  But either way I think basically everyone agrees China and India should be stronger and a few game mods in this direction make 41 a much better game.

I agree, I love the game I think it’s amazing but India falls turn 2 in every game I play against the axis and it’s 50/50 whether Egypt falls.  I think if India and Egypt go early it’s hard for the Brits to keep up money wise, Unless they are trading France early on and the u.s have nabbed a Japanese territory.  But having said that the axis cant do it all.  If they go for egypt then they didnt go hard in against russia.  Sometimes the tables turn on me and I don’t even realise it happening until its too late.  It’s easy to overextend your lines with the Germans and also the Japanese as they push into Russia.

Personally… I would love the game to be historically viable… IE a true war in the pacific and Germany/Italy vs UK/USA.  I think shifting all NO’s for America into the pacific and beefing her up a bit to enable her to fight a war on 2 fronts would help to achieve this.  Just leave the France NO for the brits.  Improve China to deter the Japanese from attacking Russia, and finally beef up Italy so the European axis does not rely on Japan.

Well, for the thread question, my answer is:

• They playtested Africa and Europe, and very well I think. I would not change nothing there
• They didn’t playtested enough Asia and Pacific. Specially all things involving China are a crappy mess, but there are also some other things that simply are not well tested. My bet is that they playtested a KGF/ignore Japan and JTDTM strats pretty well but they didn’t bother with KJF or Polar Express, they assumed a KGF and JTDTM strat would be default. There’s no other explanation for the chinese joke: they assumed China must fall all games when is the opposite (they need hold, at least some rounds), both historically and balance wise. I assume the almost zero playtesting is due to time issues (maybe the Threevised edition aka 1942 is the reason)

However, I must agree with you with your last post. You receive a +1 karma indeed for it, because you catch the true spirit of the game

Finally, I must add a couple of things about this quote:

@gamerman01:

I think the opening setup of 41 is very historically accurate.  I guess, as someone pointed out, the A&A premise is to set you up at a point in history, and then “you” are in command.  So history means nothing once the game starts - embarassingly, it’s taken me awhile to realize this.  After all, Japan has 9 fighters to start, and 3 carriers.  In my games Japan can go full bore after USA and has a good chance of taking them down, just as Germany traditionally does Russia.  So again, A&A wasn’t meant to be historically accurate - I have to keep telling myself this.  A&A simulates, if each power had these military capabilities at this point in history and all politics were removed, what might have been?

1941 setup is not historically accurate. It allows a total killing of China J1, and there was no chance of that happening that date. No sign of chinese hordes of (mostly) crappy inf China should have. They start with lesser forces than japanese continental army!  :? Mao said a time that Japan was trying filling 4 jars of water with water for only 1 jar (or such), you can see his point. Even without counting the crappy rules China has, the pure numbers of chinese theater dictate China will never make anything valuable unless Japan graciously decides not kill them J1. No sign of endless strafing battle Japan and Japan had, and even Atlantic battle is better represented because german subs can make some valuable

The game can be fun if japanese player is a total novice, but after 3 or 4 games, when all guys know how handle Japan, there is not fun again because axis will toast allies at least 90% of times. I can live with a 40% of victories as Revised had for axis, but this is too much advantage to be fun, you need more uncertain to have fun

Anyway, not all is lost. The main rules are supergood (saving China), and also the board and the territories: with a couple of changes in the setup and the chinese rules it can be pretty fun and balanced. I suggest you try some way of giving China more (it means some) power, any way you feel good is OK. Or you can try 1942 scenario, way less unbalanced

You know, there are a few house rules I’d like to play test myself.  Not all of them are mine, but here’s my list:

1)  SZ 16 is closed.  Only Russia may move into and out of this sea zone.
2)  SZ 5 is closed.  Only the nation that owns both NW Europe and Norway may move into and out of this sea zone. (no, America cannot own one and England the other.  One nation must own BOTH.)
3)  SZ 12/13 is treated like a canal.  You, or your ally(s) must own both Algeria and Gibraltar at the start of your round before passing through the Gibraltar straight.
4)  The Chinese Fighter is stationed in Sikang (the defacto Capitol of China.)
5)  Battleships have AA Guns (same rules as AA Guns, so 5 battleships in a sea zone still only get 1 AA shot per.  This rule is more of a method to negate the massive power of heavy bombers in naval warfare.  Now you can have Radar Battleships.)

I have a whole set of revised rules as well, still working on beatification of the document and then I’ll gladly post them for critique and would love some play testing.  But those 5 seem just needed to make the game a bit more balanced.

SZ 12/13 should save the Italian fleet and allow Germany some leeway on their luftwaffe use in round 1.
SZ 5 gives Germany a realistic break from amphibious assault on Berlin until the Allies truly have the upper hand.
SZ 16 stops the unrealistic Italian suicide mission to knock down Russian defenders allowing Germany an easier assault before Russia can recover.
The move of the Chinese fighter at least gives China a chance to do something other than die.  Now they have a chance to fight back, which, I believe, was the original idea of giving them a fighter!
And of course, the battleships (as I mentioned) having AA ability helps restore the balance against Jet Fighters and Heavy Bombers a little.  Not massively, since in WWII the preferred method of sinking the enemy was through the use of aircraft, but at least enough that it’s no longer a bone headed idea to buy a BB.

Hey, guys, no need for house rules… Just play with both optional rules and then bid for Chinese inf, that takes care of most game problems. If I would do any one house rule other than that, it would be heavy bombers attack on a ‘5’ instead of two dice. With interceptors the two dice SBR damage is more manageable, but two dice in attack is just weird. But still, you don’t get heavy bombers often so it’s not a major fault in the game. I agree very much with Funcioneta about China and I sure hope we will get support for the bids in China inf idea!

Historically, of course, the UK and US navies should be much stronger, but I don’t mind the game situation since it gives more of a balanced game and that’s much more fun than the Axis navies just being sitting ducks as in the actual war where they never had a chance. Germany could’ve won a victory in Russia if Stalin would’ve conceded a separate peace, and that’s what the game simulates, no matter the historical skewedness.

@General:

Personally… I would love the game to be historically viable… IE a true war in the pacific and Germany/Italy vs UK/USA.  I think shifting all NO’s for America into the pacific and beefing her up a bit to enable her to fight a war on 2 fronts would help to achieve this.  Just leave the France NO for the brits.  Improve China to deter the Japanese from attacking Russia, and finally beef up Italy so the European axis does not rely on Japan.

Reading the forums leaves me to believe that no one else cares about this but me and you. Everyone wants to bid and put it in Africa. If anything should change it is the pacific. This game is good but it could be great. If the game came OOB the way you just described there would be no one saying that there are flaws like they are now.

No, you are not correct as always. I will continue to claim there are flaws until I see some convoy zones on the map, some escort fighters during SBR, and I am allowed to attack and conquer neutral Sweden.

@Cmdr:

You know, there are a few house rules I’d like to play test myself.  Not all of them are mine, but here’s my list:

1)  SZ 16 is closed.  Only Russia may move into and out of this sea zone.
2)  SZ 5 is closed.  Only the nation that owns both NW Europe and Norway may move into and out of this sea zone. (no, America cannot own one and England the other.  One nation must own BOTH.)
3)  SZ 12/13 is treated like a canal.  You, or your ally(s) must own both Algeria and Gibraltar at the start of your round before passing through the Gibraltar straight.
4)  The Chinese Fighter is stationed in Sikang (the defacto Capitol of China.)
5)  Battleships have AA Guns (same rules as AA Guns, so 5 battleships in a sea zone still only get 1 AA shot per.  This rule is more of a method to negate the massive power of heavy bombers in naval warfare.  Now you can have Radar Battleships.)

Point 1 - we play this and I agree
Point 2&3 - Not that keen on either of these two 
point 4 - agree 100%, we also give china 2 extra infantry in the two areas behind the front line. We also add 1 infantry to egypt.
Point 5 - We are trialing this with cruisers having AA guns. Give cruisers an ability that contributes to the fleet more and makes cruisers a bit more useful. Battleships already have the take 2 hits thing, and destroyers counter subs. Cruisers form the fleet screening and AA support role. Makes for good combined arms strategies for fleets.

Just my 2 cents.

@Imperious:

Well to be clear I don’t feel this is the case, BUT i do prefer something more in terms of evolving the rules toward less abstraction. The Techs are kinda bogus as some of the choices of what was considered “technology” leave something to be desired ( e.g. advanced artillery is not really a TECHNOLOGY that was of importance in WW2). I am not saying it should be more historical, but less gamely about it or arbitrary.

I think the playtesting was great, and done by the best  but the final decisions were not in playtesters hands. I am quite sure with people like Kreighund, the games setup exposed any flaws and the obvious situations like in China must have been decided by the higher ups, which a minimal number of rules can fix.

for China let the Soviets play them which is BEFORE Japan and by coincidence also semi historical because the Chinese communists were supplied by Stalin. That should have been an optional rule. I bugged Larry to include all of his ‘cutting room floor’ ideas and make them as optional rules because it would have been of great benefit to others, but all we got was just 2 new ideas.

If you are playing 1942, it is still after the Japan…. so what would you do in 1942? have china go before japan in 1942 also?

China plays before japan in both 1941 and 42. Thats all you need. The only other thing is round up for infantry, so 3 spaces gets you 2 infantry, 5 gets you 3