Balance Issues?

If they are new to the game you can always play the allies and play the unbalanced set up. Or even just add 1-2 infantry in Moscow.

didn’t work out that bad, but next time I’ll probably try with each a fighter less for JAP and GER (or something comparable), maybe instead of some of the extra units for the Allies…

Me from china
This game is so f*cking unbalanced

my friend and I played the original rule and it was a 5-1 axis leads

even we tried the adjustment with moscow 2 inf and US DD lasst night, the allies still lost
the problem is the russia is way too weak to defend the GER
and England and US were always too late and to far to help
even through Eng sent 2 fighters to help,
Moscow still fall on round 2 or 3  :|

Sorry
Actually I was from Taiwan not China
it was a great game and I love it with all my heart.

So what about the starting US IPC
It was supposed to be 17 not 15? :?

Second, How about the Soviet and Japan non-aggression pact?
What we make a rule that if soviet or japan can gain 3 inf. when they are attacked by other first?  :-D

and one more thing , battleship has 2 lives.
If it was damaged from a battle, can it repair automatically and instantly?

Ｈow about shore bombardment? I assume there was no such rules in this version.

ps.
I can gonna try the rules you told me with friends tomorrow, Krieghund.

You are right JONATHAN 3213: no shore bombardment in 1941.

I love the game although simplified. The low IPC and lower numbers of troops made this game more dependent on luck and more exciting
Often the Ger and USSR fight on East front and into a meat grinder.
the battle will decide who is the winner
The england often is the main support of USSR instead of US.

Moreover, I found something interesting.
China played a huge role in stopping Jap and they only had 3 inf. LOL!

@Krieghund:

Welcome, Jonathan3213!

Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11

Used the game as an intro to Axis&Allies. Worked out this great. This game really is fun! It feels like revisiting the MB version but much better in so many ways.

If you’ve got Global editions, the map with some work could slowly introduce players to more advanced aspects of the game. I’m working on an AAG39/40 “Light” . May post it if it works out.

A first round of turns minus combat movement while unorthodox,  may also help balance the game out especially for beginners.

I cant see how anyone could say the Axis have the advantage.  Allies have a extra player per turn and that is the best advantage in the game period.  I would agree the Axis are setup for speed playing and their good in the early game but i  win more often with the Allies than any other. I do not see how giving the Allies more of anything will help the game balance.  I would challenge anyone to beat me with my Allied industrial bomb and fighters to Russia tactic.  Clearly The Allied players are not supporting Russia well enough or are allowing Germany and Japan too many IPc’s.

I hope OP is joking. I play this game and I give more to the allies.

@Krieghund:

Welcome, Jonathan3213!

Your results aren’t surprising, as you’re a bit behind the times.  The current adjustments are:

USSR: Add 3 infantry to Russia
USA: Add 1 infantry to Northwestern China and 1 destroyer to sea zone 11

my group has started switching west-russia and ukraine; so the german tanks can be destroyed. perhaps that’s an interesting idea?

@Krieghund:

After consideration of the feedback so far, Larry has decided on some more modifications.  See this thread for details.

I haven’t bought this game yet.  It’s the only WWII A&A board game I don’t own, so I should probably pick it up soon.

Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

Thanks!

Add in artillery to the purchasing options, using the standard ability and cost at 4 ipcs. It’s the best thing I can think of to improve this game’s balance.

More thoughts on the Larry boards http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=9504&start=56

Sold!

@ Elk, artillery was a great addition to A&A back in 1999, but back in the 1980s the old Gamemaster version was nonetheless the best game going.

I love A&A global 1940 with all the cool new units etc.  But A&A 1941 is meant to be a faster, simpler version for those sessions when I am short on time or when I’m playing with people who are not ready (and in some cases never will be) for more sophisticated versions.

I’m not looking for house rules to add depth to the game.  I just want it to be (roughly) balanced without a bid.

I think 1941 is slower and less streamlined than it should be due to the lack of artillery, especially if you were pressed for time and just wanted a fast game. Classic takes forever, and this game plays like a stripped down classic, and we all know why… the Inf stack push mechanic!!!

I am not a fan of global. It moves in the opposite direction of what I prefer in an A&A game. I do not suggest artillery, because I think the 1941 board should be more complex. My rationale is the complete opposite. Artillery simplifies the game, and makes it easier to play at a fast pace.

Right now people just sit around building infantry walls in 1941, trying to eek out a slight advantage over multiple rounds of inf builds, and the game ends up taking several more rounds than it really needs to. I maintain that is harder to understand 1941, and takes longer to explain this game to a new players, when you eliminate the best piece added to the game in the last 3 decades.  It makes me bang my head against the wall, since the game could be much faster and more entertaining, with that unit in the roster. I mean seriously? Who signed off on ditching that one! I wish I could have argued the merits of artillery at the time when the decisions were being made, but at least I can make the argument now. :)

Sorry, not to rant, its just frustrating and stirs my passions. Especially when you come to realize how difficult it is to spend your ipcs, when the remainder can’t be used to buy any units other than infantry, and you just pointlessly save the same extra 1-2 ipcs every round, since there is nothing it can be spent on that is worthwhile. The next cheapest unit available that doesn’t neatly divide into 3, is the destroyer which costs 8. Russia has no use for destroyers.

This map would have probably been my favorite, but every time I play it with people who are familiar with A&A, we just look at each other when the fifth round hits, and all shake our heads, and exclaim in unison “Why on earth did they make this board without artillery?” Its such a step backwards.

Right now the Allies are bidding the equivalent of 20+ ipcs to bring it into balance. I’m not sure you’d even need that, if there was a unit that could be purchased for 4 ipcs that changed the basic gameplay in the way artillery does. There are a total of nine units available for purchase in the roster, artillery would have made it a clean ten. How much longer do you think it really takes to explain the rules around artillery? Maybe 2 minutes. How about explaining to new players the inf push mechanic without artillery, or how to keep Russia from getting smoked, or why even as a player with more money to burn, they should still just be buying infantry?.. well it takes a lot longer than 2 minutes, I can tell you that much, and the whole game drags as a result. People get bored and just lose interest. Go out and buy the board. Grab a quick pick up game, using the official changes suggested (extra dd, extra inf etc), and see if you don’t end up agreeing with me, even with those balance changes included :)