We don’t actually own 1941.  Would you recommend it, on its own merits?

I’ve been playing for a long time; ditto my buddy Josh. He’s a little better than me (I win about 4 in 10).

We play a lot. Our wives want to join us. They both play board-games, but neither has ever played A&A. Sounds like fun. Even if it didn’t, it will happen (we can’t very well tell the mothers of our children “Boys only in the tree-house”).

We want it to be fun for them.

Any suggestions in terms of house rules or team set-up that would would keep Josh and me from running the game and would sort of ease them into it?

I see your point.  I’m interested in your thought on looting.  What if taking a territory was worth 1 IPC as a propaganda coup, retaking a starting position territory was 1 IPC more, a victory city was 1 more, and you could choose to liquidate a captured IC for 3 IPC.
  Say UK builds an IC in India, then Japan takes the territory (having themselves placed two IC’s in Asia).  Japan has no use for the Indian IC, but they want the AA.  They collect 5 IPC (1 for conquering a territory, 1 more because of Calcutta, 3 for looting the IC.

I’ve played Axis & Allies (in many incarnations) for 25 or so years.  The one thing that has bothered me all that time is “Order of Play”. It has always been: Purchase, Combat Move, Combat, Noncombat Move, Place Units, Collect Income.  I’ve always thought it would make more sense: Collect, Purchase, Combat Move, Combat, Noncombat Move, Place Units.
  It bothers me when (for example) USSR captures Norway, then Germany recaptures it, then UK captures it back Norway has actually been conquered three times and has miraculously produced more than Great Britain, Japan, or Russia. If Japan and USA get in on the act it will have yielded 12 IPC’s  and be tied for the most productive territory on Earth. Perhaps all that shelling has jarred loose some mineral deposits.
  I know my play order will shrink the overall game economy some.  I’m OK with that.  It would shake things up a bit and force my friends and me to take another look at some of our old gambits.
  My concern is that it would favor the Allies too much and might wreck the balance.

Any thoughts?

I advocate evacuating the all Soviet Asian infantry.

There are three routes across Asia: Siberia, China, and India.  Each is three territories long (by shortest path); and each is worth 6 IPCs (if fully controlled).  Japan can take any route it likes. The difference is: the Siberia route is back-loaded in terms of IPC value; the China route in consistent in terms of value; and the India route is front-loaded.  By withdrawing the Soviet infantry you make Siberia the path of least resistance.  If you destroy the lone Japanese transport (I like using the carrier) you delay Japans ability to bring its island garrisons to mainland Asia.  If you destroy the FIC infantry (not a sure thing) you preserve India for at least one turn.  The Soviet-Asian infantry can be massed in Novosibirsk and used to counter Japanese advances through China, or Siberia (with tank and/or fighter support), or brought all the way to the European front.

The most important asset for any power in Spring ’42 is flexibility.  Japan (with her large air force and navy, as well as local production facilities) has incredible flexibility.  As USSR I’d opt to preserve as much of my flexibility as possible. That means keeping my men alive.

I’ve been looking for a way to make the India IC work for quite a while.  I often play UK in a five player game; nibbling at the north coast of Europe while slowly going bankrupt is not a lot of fun.  The trouble is that without my (UK’s) help the USSR typically gets rolled-up (particularly if he’s deverting units to back my IC).

The last time we played I tried something new: On UK1 I bought the IC and a Bomber. I used my original bomber for strategic-bombing (Southern Europe) and landed it in Caucasus; attacked French Indo-China (took it with 1 inf-landed the fighter in Sink); and sank the transport with my carrier.  On UK2 I bought 3 tanks and another bomber; bomber Southern Europe again; and bombed the IC my opponent had placed in Kwan. That became my standard buy (I substituted Inf sometimes to save cash).

This worked really well.  I seemed to have 3 or 4 bombers in the game at a time (AA can’t miss forever).  The guy playing Germany didn’t even bother repairing factories until, I think, G5 when I’d just put 10 damage on Germany (proper) with a 4-bomber-raid which had actually cost me 2 attackers.  The US built an IC in Sink and landed in Soviet Far-East.

It bares mentioning that we’ve modified the optional rule which allows fighters to defend against Strategic bombing at 2 and “escorting” fighters to roll for 1’s (we let the bombers to Roll for 1’s as well). I killed one German fighter that way. Not a game changer.

I agree that holding India with British forces alone is a pretty-well lost cause.  You’ll have a puncher’s chance if you decide to help with the Russians (you can get a tank and two fighters to India), The Russians will miss them of course.  It’s important to do away with the Japanese transport off Kwangtung (stranding some of those infanties on their islands, delaying a Japanese move on Africa).  I’ve become a fan of: Llanding one Russian fighter on the carrier; attacking New Guinea (with the sub along as a cheering section);sinking the transport with the British fighter; supporting my landing on Borneo with the cuiser; and landing on the carrier off Borneo. Why?
Who ever is playing as Japan has a lot to think about. If you’ve gotten lucky and taken both of the islands you’ve got two transports with infanries and you threaten every Japanese territory except Manchuria, plus you nicked 5 IPC’s.  He’d like to: Take China and India; sink the fleets at Borneo, Hawaii, and New Guinea; and retake Borneo. If he tries to do all of that he’ll be stretched really thin (good chance of losing expensive hardware, and/or failing at a few).

UK-USSR-Japan may be unstoppable…
US: Evaquated Hawaii; sank Kwantung transport; overran Canada; and bought two each carriers and subs (all to east coast).
USSR: Captured West Russia and Sinkiang; failed to take Belorussia; fortified Caucasus.
Germany: retook WR; took Karelia (in force); retook Algeria (saving Brazil).
Japan: Conquered China and Hawaii; consolidated Pac fleet off Hawaii; moved East Indies fleet to Carolines; sent two fighters and bomber to Caucasus IC in FIC.

All signs point to epic US/UK naval battle(s) in the Atlantic. Japan onws the Pacific; Britain owns the Med; Russian and Japanese forces pooring in to prop up Moscow.  NOT what I saw coming.

Started a game with Mr.Biggg’s pairing and turn order.
It’s shocking how powerful the UK is when they go first: Sank US carrier in Hawaii, German battleship in Med, and German destroyer in Baltic; captured Algeria; reenforced Egypt (total: 4I, T, B); finished UK1 with: battleship, cruiser, and  two transports off Algeria; fully-loaded carrier with cruiser and transport off Egypt; newly purchased carrier (loaded), and two destroyers in the Channel; and a loaded transport in the southern Indian Ocean.
I thought the Brits would land themselves a participation trophy….  :-o

1. USSR fighter lands on UK carrier on R1.  UK wants to move the carrier to Borneo on UK1. Is the carrier “stranded”, does the fighter remain in the carrier’s original SZ, is the fighter lost, or can the fighter be carried along.  :?
2. US fighter lands on UK carrier on US1. The carrier moves on UK2.  Can the fighter fly off on US2 with its full range, is the carrier’s move deducted from it’s range, is it left in the carrier’s original SZ, is it lost, or is it stranded in the carriers new SZ? :?