Why is 1942 scenario so unpopular???

1941 is the preferred version. Everybody wants to finally play a version before the Germans invade the Soviet Union, which many consider a mistake against any historical prospects of axis victory. The 1942 scenario could be more popular if you post another of these “unstoppable strategy threads” that bring it into view and increase popularity. People like “eye catchas” So in 1942 declare some ridiculous “unstoppable” claim and one billion people will respond for no reason. Then just say you made it up after playing 2 games and losing by using it. Funniest joke you could play on the world but at least more people would be looking at the 1942 scenario. 1942 is too much like the past incarnations of AA setups, while 1941 is way more dynamic for the Axis.

The 1942 version has been re-released over the period of a couple of decades. The 1941 scenario is not only a newer version, but gives players more freedom

When I first got AA50 my friends and I played solely on the 1942 version because we figured it have the closest feel to our old Axis and Allies games.  It’s pretty good, but having played 1941 a little recently I think it gives players much more flexibility and the opening moves feel less scripted.  Maybe that is why '42 isn’t too popular so far.

I hope more people start playing it though, because I want to find out if people agree with me that the Axis needs a bid (or some other help) to give them a chance of winning against a competent Allied player.

my group will be playing our 3rd game of 42 next time (hopefully this weeked!!). i think everyone has been playing 41 because it’s different than the revised set up, or like us we played 3 games of 41 first and now are going through 42.

maybe we’ll play pacific next or ‘gasp’ the other big ww2 strategy game… (name of game omitted for fear of rebuttal on A&A forum)

In all games, people allways prefer earlier date. Hearts of Iron 2 is a great example: 90 % of times, people chooses 1936 starting (called by many “Great Campaign”), the only times you choose another date is 1944 against AI (because is a challenge playing any Axis power) or 1941 as USA (because otherwise you have a walk in park after 5 years of boring no war). Even the 1945 allies vs commies scenario is not much popular. Europa Universalis is similar: hardcore gamers choose 1420 instead, say 1792, even when a expansion pack is labeled as “Napoleon’s Ambition”  :-D

I think it is more because people played both versions and many of us realized that the 1942 version is almost as broken as the Second Edition version of the game. (Where Germany needs a 21 IPC bid in order to survive and Japan can be completely obliterated from the game if the dice fall slightly in the favor of the Allies in Round 1 (Talking Manchuria, Kwangtung, EPO and FIC in that order.))

I don’t really know what would have to be done to fix 1942.  I’m thinking the Axis would need something to help them out, perhaps an extra bonus of 5 IPC a round for the first three rounds would do it, maybe more, maybe less.

orly?  I mean, I can see people thinking it favors the allies a bit… but I don’t think it’s so much of a rout that the axis need a 21 bid I mean… lulz.

If you want to talk about “holy crap I might die in turn 2” when the rolling goes a bit bad, let’s talk about the ever-so-nauseating R1.  Germany’s monetary and unit advantage on the Russians is markedly better.  Russia is +4 IPC from 41 to 42, and 3 of it is in the Urals.  They’ve been granted more punch but a dearth of infantry to push fronts properly.  Conversely, Ger is +68/+16.

How are you taking Man in J1 if I don’t let you?

The biggest hosing for the Axis is the lack of jpn trn.  A 21 bid should be enough to make whatever faction you please cry uncle.  I couldn’t fathom 21 point bids… could you imagine 3 subs sz 8?  That’s 2 for sz 2 (ftr/bmb), 2 for sz 10, and 2 for sz 1.  The Russians would be dead long before help arrived… also 21 point bids open up all kinds of sea lions we don’t even need to get into :)  Put the 3 trn in sz 8 to keep them from Russian aircraft.  4 arm divided up between bel and bst would be humorous… 4 inf art arm lib… IC/2inf man… 2 trn sz 62 sub sz 46… IC bul/2 inf somewhere in Asia… 7 inf euk just for lulz… matter of fact Jen this sounds fun… I got TripleA working now =D

@Cmdr:

I think it is more because people played both versions and many of us realized that the 1942 version is almost as broken as the Second Edition version of the game. (Where Germany needs a 21 IPC bid in order to survive and Japan can be completely obliterated from the game if the dice fall slightly in the favor of the Allies in Round 1 (Talking Manchuria, Kwangtung, EPO and FIC in that order.))

I don’t really know what would have to be done to fix 1942.  I’m thinking the Axis would need something to help them out, perhaps an extra bonus of 5 IPC a round for the first three rounds would do it, maybe more, maybe less.

Yes I take a 21 bid with Germans in 42, NOs, no tech, LL or dice, you decide.

Think of it this way, if Larry Harris included a 1939 and/or 1940 scenario, would anyone even play 1942 anymore?

I think 1941 has an appeal not just because it’s new, but because it allows you to experience what leads into 1942.  Also, it gives just a little more freedom in terms of “what if”.  1939 would certainly have the most “what if” factor.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Think of it this way, if Larry Harris included a 1939 and/or 1940 scenario, would anyone even play 1942 anymore?

I think 1941 has an appeal not just because it’s new, but because it allows you to experience what leads into 1942.  Also, it gives just a little more freedom in terms of “what if”.  1939 would certainly have the most “what if” factor.

I would… just because I imagine 1939 scenario would have a lot of political rules, which may or may not be what I want to do.

@Rakeman:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Think of it this way, if Larry Harris included a 1939 and/or 1940 scenario, would anyone even play 1942 anymore?

I think 1941 has an appeal not just because it’s new, but because it allows you to experience what leads into 1942.  Also, it gives just a little more freedom in terms of “what if”.  1939 would certainly have the most “what if” factor.

I would… just because I imagine 1939 scenario would have a lot of political rules, which may or may not be what I want to do.

Yeah, politics just spoil an A&A game.  That’s what Diplomacy is for.

Maybe 1939 would be best suited for one to one. A 1939 multiplayer would be boring for soviets, italians and USA (Japan would have some fun IF China received proper rules and setup)

It could be even a 1936 scenario, but it would need in-map boxes for Spanish Civil War, italian assault on Ethiopy and of course a true China  :wink:

@Funcioneta:

Maybe 1939 would be best suited for one to one. A 1939 multiplayer would be boring for soviets, italians and USA (Japan would have some fun IF China received proper rules and setup)

It could be even a 1936 scenario, but it would need in-map boxes for Spanish Civil War, italian assault on Ethiopy and of course a true China  :wink:

I think a 1936 Spain would be better if done in an A&A Europe fashion, or D-Day, or something more “zoomed in.”

I would very much like a 1939 version, or even a 1937 version of A&A, witch includes politics, switching alliances, back stabbing etc.

I apologize that my first post as a newbie (on the forums, anyway)is perhaps unwarranted, but a game with politics and giving that '39 feel already exists.  I think A&A is better suited as it is, presenting a situation and let the players ‘take command’.  Certainly an enhanced version of A&A, including politics and the geopolitical situation as it existed in '39, would be a welcome addition.  The thing is, it would need a larger map and an increase in complexity that Avalon Hill would not be willing to approach.  A great idea, though.
Best regards,
K

I also think designers should not change the core concept and philosophy behind the A&A games. These are wargames, and should stay wargames. But as BoB, D-Day, Guadalcanal are tactical games with different combat rules than global A&A games, we could also have games based on the global A&A maps like AA50 with politics and possibility for switching sides.
Such a game should not interfere with the usual games like AAR and AA50. But it could be interesting to play a game with possibilty for politics, this would mean even greater prospects for the “what if” questions and scenarios of the real WW2.

I thought IL was working on a '39 or '40 version of the game??  (this is going back a few months, but I think I remember that…)

@Perry:

The number of posts in the 1942 forum completely overwhelms the 1941 forum…Why is that so?
Is it that we would all like to learn the 1941 game , before putting our mind into a new setup?

But why was it 1941 that got instant popularity, instead of 1942?  :?

Just curious. Why are YOU less interested in the 1942 scenario?

Lol, because human psychology can be quite predicatable with these things…  :-D  It’s the same urge that makes us start books at chapter 1.  Im guessing most people (myself included) played 1941 first because it seemed like the right place to start.  Then, it was so much fun they kept playing it.  No need to change till you’ve worked out what you’re doing with the first one.

I’ve just started playing 1942 now I feel I understand the flow of 41 pretty well.  I think I’ll end up liking 1942 better.  It seems to offer more options with Japan and Germany being roughly equal in power.  In 1941 Japan is unstoppable - the challenge for the allies is to cripple the western axis Germany before Japan makes its power felt on Russia.

I thought IL was working on a '39 or '40 version of the game??

support fizzled on that ( 1940) and also on the other project 1943 scenario