The Details

@Rebel:

Sounds cool! For $30 it’s a deal, and all the new pieces look great!

(Though the Tigers and IS-3’s look overpriced, the Avro is great, and the Hood seems to be to good for a BB…)
Can’t wait! :D

YOU SAW PICS?! :-o

WOuld be cool to see some pics…  Really curious as to that shortened gaming time, and will the new sculpts mentioned have different abilities… will some units get the axe…  NEW SCUPLTS.  Excited.

Hmm… I’m curious about the ‘shortened game length’. What could this mean, exactly? I expect we could be looking at fewer spaces on the map, less units than usual/expected for the set up, no technology or national objectives, and possibly a turn limit? What else?

Also, being an ‘introductory level’ game to get new players involved, I think it’s quite obvious there will be a fewer rules than what we are used to. However, I very much doubt that these ‘new sculpts’ will have their own special abilities; more like they will just be for show/decoration.

I also expect some units will be intentionally left out - possibly Mech. Infantry and Tac. Bombers. Perhaps even Cruisers!

Thoughts?

It’s one of these things.

1.  Maybe they’ve ditched the capital capture concept.

So long as you’ve accomplished certain goals (More readily capturable victory cities) or destroyed a certain amount of units, or met whatever economic requirements, you win.

2.  That, or it’s the D-Day/Bulge, 10 turns concept.  Where the victor is determined, by the map, at the time the clock strikes 10.

3.  OR, they go way back, to the 2000 Pacific Concept, where the axis has a rising/sliding point scale, that if they reach equates victory.

The announcement says: “AA1942 2nd Edition mechanics”

My understanding is that it will use the AA42 updated ruleset (with the Errata/FAQ corrections), which is simpler than the AA40 one. And when it says games will last 1h30 to 2 hours, that’s about the average for my Spring 1942 games.

This might be a clue:
“Controlling one of the Axis or Allied powers, you will command both your country�s military forces and its war-time economy. Show that you are a brilliant military strategist by planning your attacks, marshaling your forces into embattled territories, and resolving the conflicts. Victory goes to the side that conquers its opponents on the field of battle and liberates or occupies the greatest cities of the world. Change the course of history in a few short hours!”

http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/Sales/Solicitations/2012_03_29_AA1941_Solicitation_en_US.pdf

Win by a certain number of VCs?

last 1h30 to 2 hours

You know… that can’t involve much strategy… Why don’t we all just get together and play dice.  Mashing them on the board - and calling it victory if we get lucky.

It’s one of these things.

1.  Maybe they’ve ditched the capital capture concept.

Yes, of course. I didn’t think of that. They must have done away with the capture capitals rule.

@Gargantua:

last 1h30 to 2 hours

You know… that can’t involve much strategy… Why don’t we all just get together and play dice.  Mashing them on the board - and calling it victory if we get lucky.

By the same logic, chess Grand Masters also don’t use much strategy since their games last as long.

Some people like games to take longer, some like games to go faster. I’m for the latter option and that’s why I prefer to play Spring 1942 than Global or Anniversary and my games on either GTO or TripleA on average last that long, although the best games usually take longer.

@Lozmoid:

Hmm… I’m curious about the ‘shortened game length’. What could this mean, exactly?

The U.S. automatically developing the A-bomb tech at the end of turn 1?  (Yes, I’m kidding.  I hope.)

By the same logic, chess Grand Masters also don’t use much strategy since their games last as long.

Some people like games to take longer, some like games to go faster. I’m for the latter option and that’s why I prefer to play Spring 1942 than Global or Anniversary and my games on either GTO or TripleA on average last that long, although the best games usually take longer.

By the same logic?  Excuse me for pointing out, that moving 1 piece at a time, is alot different than moving dozens, that having 160 pieces in the box alone (not including chips) and 5 players - in a game of growing economy, is alot different than having 2 players and 32 pieces - in a game of piece elimination.

If this were a two player game of axis and allies, with 32 pieces, no dice, no purchases, and no non combat movement phase, no tech - and no chips, than yes - I believe strategy could be involved.

ALSO, comparing average players to GRAND MASTERS is ludicrous, Just becuase you and I, and 3 others, can sit down, and blitz out a SOLID game of global with an hourglass in less than 4 hours because we are masters of the game as opposed to average players that can take much longer.

The Strategic equation YOU need to consider, is how much time can be alloted for each piece, thus creating the strategic quotient wherby things can be compared.

Assuming both games are 2 hours long, 120MIN

Roughly speaking :

Chess- with diminishing exponents,  120 / 32 = 3.75 minutes of strategic thinking time per PIECE

A&A with GROWING exponents because new pieces are added, assume 160 pieces at setup  120 / 160  =  0.75 min per piece.

Consensus - LESS TIME + MORE PIECES = LESS STRATEGY and MORE DICE DETERMINATION

And we’re not even going to ask how long “experienced” players will take to blast through 41….

@empireman:

@Rebel:

Sounds cool! For $30 it’s a deal, and all the new pieces look great!

(Though the Tigers and IS-3’s look overpriced, the Avro is great, and the Hood seems to be to good for a BB…)
Can’t wait! :D

YOU SAW PICS?! :-o

I think Rebel is talking about Imperious Leaders “new unit” stats he’s posted (not something that is official) based on the “overpriced” comment about specific units.

Man I hope the box art is differerent then this AA50 light version.  I have wavered on cutting out and framing the box lids because they are so cool….we shall see.

If I had to guess, I bet the new scuplts are a driect resposne to FMG and HBG.  AH is losing control over its product and is moving to reclaim its central position….

I’ll buy AA41 because I am a life long A&A junky. I doubt I will ever play it. AAGlobal has raised the bar too far to go back…

If I had to guess, I bet the new scupls are a driect resposne to FMG and HBG.  AH is losing control over its product and is moving to reclaim its central position….

Oh most definatly. I bet Larry put his influence in at WOTC to make sure they spent money on new sculpts and keep people buying them. But people are still going to buy FMG/ HBG no matter what.

Probably the original idea was to make some “expansion pack” with extra pieces and bits, but they went in a new direction and made another game to also account for the many people who wanted a shorter game so they tried to make both happy.

Too bad they didn’t deal with the issue of Italy and how short they came in producing those unique pieces.

I would love to see a track on all the horse trading that must go on between the accountants and the designers for these things and find out all the great stuff that’s probably been jettisoned for being too expensive…

If I had to guess, I bet there’s been a lot of stuff (like Italian sculpts) that were designed, but kyboshed by management, but Hasbro ended up losing money on anyway because it cost more to buy the molds/designs and not use them than it would have to use them and raise the price of AA40 by $5…

That being said, we should probably be thankful for what we do get…

@Gargantua:

The Strategic equation YOU need to consider, is how much time can be alloted for each piece, thus creating the strategic quotient wherby things can be compared.

Assuming both games are 2 hours long, 120MIN

Roughly speaking :

Chess- with diminishing exponents,� 120 / 32 = 3.75 minutes of strategic thinking time per PIECE

A&A with GROWING exponents because new pieces are added, assume 160 pieces at setup� �120 / 160� =� 0.75 min per piece.

Using your own equation:

Global has what, 900 pieces? Let’s assume half is deployed at the beginning, also with GROWING exponents, divided by 4 hours, that’s 240/450 = 0.5333 min per piece.

Consensus - LESS TIME + MORE PIECES = LESS STRATEGY and MORE DICE DETERMINATION

Following your logic, then 1941 will have more strategy and less dice determination than Global, since it has more time and less pieces than it. Which I (and most others) would disagree, so comparing number of pieces vs. time to play seems a poor criteria to judge if a game allows for more strategy or not.

@Imperious:

Too bad they didn’t deal with the issue of Italy and how short they came in producing those unique pieces.

No kidding.  AA50 actually has different tanks for Italy than Germany, but the G40 production with no unique pieces for Italy (other than infantry?) was disappointing.

@Karl7:

That being said, we should probably be thankful for what we do get…Â

:-)  No doubt.  At least they’re still making new ones and didn’t quit with Revised (2004).

This looks like a 1942 reprint (with 1941 setup), which makes no sense. 1942 is still in stock in retail stores at 30$

(a hoax i think)

but if not….Lets all pray the map is atleast slightly bigger than spring 1942