Posts made by QuakerGeneral

I don’t think one can certainly play with the existing units in the box, but you might run out in some games (not very many however).  The best way to get more units is to order them from historicalboardgaming.com.  You can order individual units for reasonable prices (a dime, quarter, etc.).  George Husted has a great summary list for ordering on boardgamegeek.com.  Here is link:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/831772/which-sculpts-on-historicalboardgaming-com-will-ma

In addition, I would order a few infantry for each nation if you don’t own earlier editions.

Good luck!

Nice observation about Australia!  You can also shuck them from the carrier all the way to Moscow with a stop in the Soviet Far East (or Siberia).  Mighty handy for holding off the German panzers!  I like the fact that this simplified game still has lots of interesting decisions.

THE PROS AND CONS OF AXIS & ALLIES 1941

Introduction

When I initially heard that they were releasing yet another version of Axis & Allies, I was not impressed.  I am a long time player of the game.  In the 1980s, I played too many games to count with my friends.  The game remained vibrant and fresh to me in part because my friends and I have always played a double blind system that mitigated to an extent the optimal strategies of straight play in the original edition.  After an extended break from the game, I returned to regular play a half dozen years or so ago with the Revised edition.  I have since purchased and played extensively both the Anniversary edition and the Global 1940 game.  However, I was not too impressed with the Spring 1942 release, even while I admitted that a low priced version was a good thing for getting more people into a game that I still loved.  So, when I heard that they were releasing another inexpensive introductory version, I did not initially care that much. In fact, I was more interested in the new, expanded second edition 1942 game.  However, once David Jensen’s previews on the 1941 edition were posted in June this year, I was immediately won over.

Larry Harris’s designer notes nailed the reason why I became a convert.  Larry wrote that the 1941 edition “has been stripped down to brass tacks and rendered lean and mean.”  This is very true as the game is not just a slightly tweaked version of the earlier games with an altered map and new sculpts for units (though it has both of those).  Instead, the game is a complete reimagining.  The key change is that the Industrial Production values of the territories have been lowered significantly.  This means that the players have much less income to spend and thus spend less time in analysis paralysis over their purchases.  This critical rule change also allows gameplay to proceed much more smoothly and quickly because there are fewer units on the board. In the massive 1940 Global game, which I still own and admire, playing time can easily approach 12 hours.  In this new 1941 edition, playing time is much, much shorter.  How short?  Well, I have now played two games with my friends and several games “solo” testing the rules and various strategies.  The two games with my friends took a combined 2.5 hours, including the set ups.  I don’t think that will by typical in the long haul, once strategies have been a bit more honed, but I think 1.5 to 2 hours per game is very reasonable as a time estimate.  I love the shorter playing time because this means that my friends and I can play two (or more) games in one session.  Indeed, after we played Axis & Allies 1941 most recently, we followed that up with two games of King of Tokyo and, as a change of pace, the light civilization game Peleponnes.  The last time we got together, we played just a single version of the Global 1940 game in a longer time period and without coming close to the actual victory conditions when one side conceded (in exhaustion as much as anything else).

Pros and Cons of Axis & Allies 1941

Pros

1. Value:  The game retails for $29.99, and this is a bargain in my opinion.  Yes, I have upgraded my copy of the game with units and pieces from older editions, but the quality of the sculpts and the number of plastic pieces included in the box for less than $30 is wonderful. For someone like me who wishes to purchase two copies of the game to play double blind, this is a very nice feature.  (To be fair, the price tag for the Spring 1942 game was also a great value.)

2. Set Up Time:  I can set the game up in 5-7 minutes now, and I think most folks could easily set the game up in 10 minutes if they have previously stored the units properly.  This is great not only because it allows you to start playing quickly but also because it allows you to set the game up at any time you want and take a look at the map, plot strategies, and prepare for the next game.  This is one of the unsung features of Axis & Allies, that one can gain enjoyment from the game even when one is not playing it.  This is true of other wargames, of course, but many of them are not set up in 5-10 minutes!

3. Playing Time:  90-120 minutes is a legitimate time estimate, half the playing time of the previous fastest playing version of Axis & Allies.

4. Game Balance:  I believe that the game is well balanced.  There may be a slight edge to the Axis, but in our games each side won one game, and my solo efforts have demonstrated that even if the game tilts one way, the outcome is far from determined at the start of play due to the roll of luck in the game (more below on this).

5. Game Audience:  This is one of few wargames in my collection that I can see playing with multiple ages and groups.  It was a hit with my group of Axis & Allies veterans because the game’s balance of time investment to strategic and tactical planning was very positive.  I believe, however, that the game is simple enough that one can use it to bring new players into the hobby.  Certainly, Larry Harris believes this because he wrote in his notes that “this might end up being the most-played version of the game ever published.”  That might be too much to ask given the fact that the original 1980s version had much less competition from video games and other board games and sold well over a million copies as a result.  Still, Larry knows a thing or two about breakout mass market games, so I don’t discount this possibility entirely.  Certainly, it will be easier to hook new players with this game than with any other version of Axis & Allies ever published.

6. The Past and My Plastic Pieces:  I have long accepted that Axis & Allies is not meant to be a perfect simulation of World War II, understanding that historical accuracy had to be sacrificed in order to give the Axis players a fair chance and to make the game more fun.  It is after all, not a simulation of war, but a fun game of pushing plastic pieces around the board while laughing with and cursing at friends.  One issue, however, that has long bothered me is that the production values in Axis & Allies games were way out of proportion to what was historically possible.  For example, Germany had about 235 divisions in 1941 but only about 350 divisions at its peak in 1943-1944 (and many of those were not complete divisions).  Yet, German players in earlier editions of Axis & Allies could easily double, triple, or quadruple their infantry divisions in a few turns.  Having played the 1941 edition, I am convinced that the German player’s increased unit production will be much more in line with historical possibility.  (The same is true for other powers at well.  Japan, for example, will not doubling the size of its initial navy as it sometimes did in earlier editions).  While I accept that I almost no one else shared this concern with the earlier editions, I am happy that this new edition minimizes this particular historical concern of mine.

Cons

1. The Role of Luck:  Axis & Allies has long been called a dice fest because of the amount of dice one rolls in the game.  This reputation is deserved as the game does involve lots and lots of dice, but, in actuality, the game was always unfairly derided for its outcome being too much determined by luck .  When one rolls a lot of dice, the randomness of the dice results are greatly minimized.  Axis & Allies, I would argue, is less determined by dice luck than games like Memoir '44 that have escaped such general criticism.  That said, this version of Axis & Allies, with its fewer total units and thus fewer total dice rolls, is much more open to the role of luck than earlier editions.  This is not necessarily a negative because this guarantees replayability in the game and could potentially minimize the distance between an experienced player and a newcomer, but I think that it deserves to be listed as a con of the game.

2. Upgrading the Components:  While this is not necessary, I know that I would find the small number of units included in the game a frustration over time, so I added in units from other games so that my set is no longer prone to running out of infantry or fighters.  Fortunately, even for players who don’t own earlier games to scavenge, they can purchase for reasonable prices additional units from the fine folks at www.historicalboardgaming.com.  I have also added the plastic chips from earlier editions and the paper money as well (but that is more for nostalgic reasons than anything else).  Finally, I have purchased some nice plastic containers to hold the different units.  You should be able to find containers at the local dollar store.  I got ones that fit just perfect at Target this past week.

3. Number of Players:  The game box says 2-5 players, just like all basic versions of Axis & Allies.  However, this version’s reduction in income production is particularly punishing to the fifth player who would surely be given the Soviets.  While there are still many decisions to make for most powers, the paucity of income for the Soviets is so extreme as to reduce their options to the point where I don’t recommend playing this game with five players.  Instead, I recommend the game be played with no more than four players and with one of the Allied players playing both the Soviets and the United Kingdom.

BOTTOM LINE

Axis & Allies 1941 has been an unexpected surprise this summer, invigorating me with new enthusiasm for the franchise at a time when my love affair seemed to be fading, foundering upon the shoals of ten hour Global 1940 game sessions.  I recommend the game for new players interested in exploring what has proven to be one of the most popular wargames of the past quarter century.  I also recommend it to veteran players looking to rekindle that spirit that led them to Axis & Allies in the first place, the spirit that said, “Wow, this Friday night my friends and I can replay the entire history of World War II – twice!”

I completed a third solo playtest of the game, and the game was again very close. This time the game went for quite a while, at least 10 turns, and ended with Axis victory as they finally secured Moscow.  This was no doubt due to mistakes by Allies who moved too many of their fighters from Moscow to reinforce a significant landing in Western Europe.  The Germans gambled that the depleted Russians would fall against an all out attack, and they were correct, just barely taking territory. If they had failed, the Axis would have been in great trouble since they chose not to counter-attack the Allied landing.  The Axis had been close to winning earlier in the game and seemed to possess the initiative and strength throughout.  If the Allies are to win the game in a short period of time in 1941, the Axis must make mistakes and/or have bad luck.  Otherwise, I think it will take a long, long time for the Allies to capture either of the Axis capitals.  This does not mean I think the game is unbalanced. Quite the opposite, this seems as balanced as any game of Axis & Allies I have played, though I think it tilts more Axis than earlier editions.

The Russian attack may indeed be too aggressive.  The Germans actually don’t need all of their airpower to take out the British navy, which seems ahistorical to me.  In any event, this means that they are pretty free to counter-attack the Russian stack.  So, Cow is probably right that this is sub-optimal strategy.

Do you play with the victory condition of one capitol or two?

I was playing with the one victory city condition.

y u attack wid russia?

My thinking was that a very strong attack on West Russia would force Germany into all out attack on the Russian stack, forcing them to leave UK navy somewhat intact, or deter them from such an attack, leaving the USSR with an extra IPC and a buffer territory for a little bit.  I still think this is viable strategy, but if the German player gets very lucky with their rolls (in my second game, their three defending infantry got three hits), this makes it possible for German player to counter attack without throwing in all of their Lutfwaffe, which is not good at all for Allies.

Session Report #2:  Axis & Allies 1941

Overview

I had time for another solo playtest and this one went much quicker than first one, ending on Turn Four with Axis victory.  There were a few variations in my play this time.  In general, I experimented with both sides being a bit more aggressive.  This led to more swings of luck in the game, and they tended to favor the Axis this time.  The battle for Moscow that sealed Axis victory was a 50/50 affair according to the dice calculator, but the dice helped Germany to a comfortable victory.  UK retook Moscow, but with just a single tank, and Japan followed by re-taking Moscow for the Axis.  Just as bad for the Allies, a lone German sub had sunk a US destroyer and the three transports it was guarding.  Disaster!  I continue to feel that the game is fairly well balanced, but the dice can alter this balance pretty easily.  This is fine with me in theory, but we will see in practice how I handle the bad dice in this game!

Session Report:  Axis & Allies 1941

Overview

I got my copy from Amazon last week, and I played a solo session to test the balance of the game, having seen a lot of suggestions that that game was biased toward the Axis.  My analysis after this multi-day solo playtest is that the Axis are in better position in 1941 than in perhaps any other version of the game, but I don’t think that the game is broken or severely out of balance in favor of the Axis.  In fact, the Allies won in my playtest (according to my assessment since the official victory conditions were still not met after eight turns).  The way I see things is that the Axis have the initiative in the early stages of the game and can expand rapidly to achieve economic parity with Allies.  However, if the Allies play defensively and smartly, they can hang on to their capitals (including Moscow) and begin to push back the Axis tide as they are now spread out and unable to defend their entire lines.  The Axis are not done, however, at this point, because they are still powerful enough to win if the Allies make any mistakes or just get unlucky.  Of course, bad luck can play a role with the paucity of total units in this version of the game.  Japan had some terrible luck in the game when their attack on the US Pacific fleet ended in disaster when they had a significant numerical advantage.  Given the US’s decision to focus on Europe, this was big moment in the war.  Although time will truly tell, my guess is that there will be great replayability in the game.

Turn-by-Turn Summary

This is my recollection of the turn by turn action, could be off a bit esp. with last couple of turns, but I think this is basically correct summary.

Turn One:  USSR counter-attacks into West Russia with larger force; Germany decimates British navy, swings around and takes Caucasus, UK begins rebuilding; Japan takes Philippines, Borneo, China; USA prepares for Germany first strategy, retreats transport from West Coast.

Turn Two:  USSR recaptures Caucasus; Germany takes Egypt and West Russia; UK reconstitutes navy with Aircraft Carrier build, flies fighters to Moscow; Japan takes East Indies and Australia, Siberia; USA continues building for invasion of Europe, lands two fighters on British AC.

Turn Three:  USSR falls back to Moscow for total defense of capital; Germany takes Caucasus, moves more units to West Russia; UK girds for defense of India, readies for Turn Four Invasion of Europe; Japan takes India, more of Asia; USA lands in North Africa with 5 infantry, 3 tanks; sends bomber and one fighter to defend Moscow.

Turn Four:  USSR builds up for defense of Moscow; Germany opts not to invade Moscow, retakes Caucasus while leaving enough troops in place to threaten Moscow; UK takes Western Europe;  Japan takes Middle East and South Africa; USA takes Southern Europe and Egypt.

Turn Five:  USSR continues to build up defenses; Germany retakes Western Europe and Southern Europe; UK rebuilds for new invasion; Japan moves units into Caucasus to support Germany, takes Hawaii; USA retakes South Africa, retakes Middle East, defends West Coast, prepares for second invasion fleet.

Turn Six:  USSR continues to defend; Germany prepares for second invasion of Moscow; UK lands forces in North Africa; Japan continues to put units into Caucasus, had disastrous sea battle with US navy in Pacific; USA lands second invasion force in North Africa.

Turn Seven:  USSR attack Caucaus all out, inflicts damage, retreats back to Moscow; Germany moves closer to Moscow for final attempt; UK invades Norway; Japan retakes Middle East, builds up India; USA to Egypt for attack on Middle East, begins preparation for third invasion fleet.

Turn Eight:  USSR defends; Germany makes all out attack on Moscow with 40% chance of taking capital (according to D.S. Kelly’s calculator) but fails, Axis now doomed; UK takes Eastern Europe; Japan moves units to defend India, counter attack Middle East; USA takes Middle East.  Axis concede.  Allies win.

Final Economic Situation
Allies:  31 (down 5 from start)
Axis 27 (up 5 form start but down 2 from high water mark of 29)

USSR (7):  Karelia, Archangel, Russia, Caucasus.
Germany (10):  down for Norway and Eastern Europe.
UK (9):  up for Norway, Eastern Europe; down for Australia, Borneo, East Europe, India.
Japan (17):  up for India, Australia, Borneo, East Europe, China, Phillipines, Hawaii.
USA (15):  down for Phillipines, Hawaii.

Thanks KNP for the game session report!  I am looking forward to playing for certain.  I agree that the 15/17 IPC thing is a problem. It must be either a typo (should be 17 starting income USA, etc.) or they left out a note explaining that USA starts with two less than their base income.

I don’t think the 15 IPCs for USA at start is mistake.  My understanding is that USA is supposed to start with 15 IPCs for balance purposes, but collect 17 IPCs (or whatever current total is) at the end of their first turn. This reflects to a small degree that the USA is just starting to get its war economy in motion.  In Conquest of Nerath, an A&A style game set in DND universe, Wizards of Coast uses this mechanism (start with different amount than what your “base income.”)

Why I am Excited About Axis & Allies 1941

First, as this is a very personal set of reactions, I would like to provide a little about me.  I own many copies of Axis & Allies games from the Milton Bradley 1986 edition to the 1940 Global game.  I have played many, many enjoyable hours of Axis & Allies over the years, though I now play a much wider variety of board games with games as different as Dominion, Agricola, and Battlestar Galactica being among my favorites.  Axis & Allies, however, retains a special place in my personal gaming history.

I find myself more excited for the 1941 version than any edition since Anniversary.  Why you might reasonably ask?  The board is so small compared to Anniversary or 1940.  There are many fewer pieces and fewer nations.  Isn’t it another money grab by the Hasbro corporate suits to drain money from the coffers of those who have given the company so much money already? Yes, yes, and maybe, but despite all of that, I am still excited and I am glad to be able to post my thoughts about it somewhere.

1. The Shorter Playing Time:  My fondest memories of Axis & Allies are Friday nights during high school when my friends and I would routinely play not one but two games in one evening, switching up sides and nations.  This made up a lot for the fact that in some games your plans went awry quickly or the dice betrayed you.  It also encouraged folks to concede when things looked bleak instead of dragging things about hoping for a dice miracle.  When you are only playing one game in an evening, what is the incentive to give in?  If the new playing times are correct, and the game is 1-3 hours, my friends and I can again play two games in one evening even if we no longer have the 8-10 hour endurance power of our youth!

2. The Clever Rule Changes:  I have long been an advocate for finding ways to shorten the existing Axis & Allies games to a single evening’s play.  I have tried very hard with the Global boards, and I have been moderately successful by coming up with a new starting setup for a 1942 Global.  The fact, however, is that the 1940 game was designed to be a monster game, ideally set up and left up to be played over multiple sessions.  What those of us who want a shorter game really needed was a more thorough reworking and simplification of the basic game.  The Spring 1942 release didn’t work for me because the playing time was still too long for the trade offs in complexity, units, and nations.  What I think is great about the 1941 game is that the designer and the developers have really rethought the game while keeping to the game’s original core – a strategic and logistical (if simple) simulation of all theaters of World War II that includes cool plastic pieces, is not too complex to be taught to my friends, and can be played in a relatively short playing time.   The most interesting and I think exciting rules changes are the new (lower) income production levels of the game.  I predict that this will speed up the game tremendously, reducing analysis paralysis that comes to some players as they weigh how to spend their IPCS (it even impacts veterans in Global when you have so much to spend).  I still think the decisions made about how to spend the IPCs will be critical to success, but luck will inevitably play a larger role in any version of Axis & Allies with fewer units.  With a short playing time, however, I think the role of luck is tolerable (and perhaps essential to replayability).

3. The Historical Angle:  I have long accepted that Axis & Allies is not meant to be a perfect simulation of World War II, understanding that historical accuracy had to be sacrificed in order to give the Axis players a fair chance and to make the game more fun.  I am still fine with that, but one issue that has long bothered me is that the production values were way out of proportion to what was historically possible.  For example, Germany had about 235 divisions in 1941 but only about 350 divisions at its peak in 1943-1944 (and many of those were not complete divisions).  Yet, German players in Axis & Allies could easily double, triple, or quadruple their infantry divisions in a few turns.  I think this will be harder (though not impossible) with the new IPC production levels.  While I accept that this was not that big a deal and just one of the unrealistic aspects of the game, I am excited that this new edition will minimize this particular historical concern of mine.

So, do you share my excitement with the 1941 release?  If so, why are you excited about the 1941 edition?  Do you think Larry Harris is right that this might become the most played edition of Axis & Allies?

@oztea:

The Russo-Japanese Non-Agression pact is a National Objective for both Japan and the Soviet Union. While bound to the pact each power collects 3 IPCs.

• Japan is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Soviet Territory

• The Soviet Union is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Japanese Territory
  b) Attacks/Occupies Chinese Territory

Powers still collect their 3 IPCs even if the other power has broken the pact.
You may never collect the National Objective after you have broken the pact.

Thanks very much for this.  I like it better than mine.  The kind of discussion that has taken place has been very helpful and constructive.  This may make Russians even stronger, but I am not sure it is decisive.  Another house rule that I like is the one that gives German submarines three IPCs of convoy damage which doesn’t exactly balance this but couldn’t hurt in conjunction.

Deadbunny, you may be exactly right and such comments are one of the reasons I wanted to post the idea for discussion.

While I mull it over, let me say that while it is true that Japan could easily get three IPCs worth of territory from USSR, they would have to spend serious resources to take those three territories if Russia defends them with some of those 18 infantry.  If they utilized some of those same resources to do more damage against China and/or elsewhere, the NO would still give them 3 IPC bonus so the net result would possibly be better for the Japanese (though perhaps not for the Axis as a whole).  Meanwhile, some of the boost Japan gets in this scenario would be countered by the boost USSR is getting for not attacking.  I agree that Russia doesn’t have as much incentive to attack as Japan, but the 18 infantry can be a tempting offensive force, esp. if the Japanese player moves forces southward into China.  The NO would give them an additional disincentive to attack early in the game (something I like) and a counter-balancing reward to make up for the advantage given the Japanese player if they decide not to attack USSR.

The point of the NO is not to discourage a Japanese attack on the USSR, which I want to remain a viable option, but rather to make a path that does not involve attacking the USSR equally interesting and viable.  My particular house rule might not fit this bill if it still seems like the “best” option is an attack on the USSR with or without the NO, which is what I take deadbunny’s critique to say.  Do others agree?  If so, what might make a Japanese avoidance of war with USSR equally viable to an attack on the USSR?

Latest version of the National Objectives:

(1)  New USSR National Objective:  If the USSR and Japan are not at war, the USSR receives a bonus of 4 IPCs on the first turn of play, 3 IPCs on the second turn, 2 IPCs on the third turn, and 1 IPC on the fourth turn.

(2)  New Japanese National Objective:  If the USSR and Japan are not at war, Japan receives a 3 IPC bonus.

My hope is that these national objectives would not prevent a Japanese player from developing and implementing a strategy involving attacking the USSR, but that it would not be something done casually without a carefully thought out plan.  In other words, I would like to preserve the option of intensive Siberian warfare while reducing the frequency of such fighting, especially when the Japanese player decides to focus on China, the Pacific, etc.  A built in assumption of this plan is that the large number of Siberian infantry from the Global rules are in place.  They make the decision to attack Russia harder.  If Russia begins to abandon Siberia in turn one, I think the math would favor a Japanese attack, as only seems right.

@MarkVIIIMarc:

To make you feel better:
1. The Soviets did attack Japan when it became a sure victory.  If Japan ends up with fewer than six infantry up there or with fewer than that many to counter attack with then Japan does deserve to be attacked.
2. Battles did occur.  A small one in 1938 and a larger one at Khalkhin Gol in 1939.  Probably with more than 100k men involved.  Zhukov won, possibly decisively pushing the Japanese into the “Nanshin-ron” South Strike doctrine we all know about instead of any plan to seize Siberia up to or past Lake Baikal.

This does make me feel better!  I did not know there were such large forces involved in 1939.

My thinking is that a Soviet/Japanese war should be possible, even a viable strategy at some level, but that no attacks whatsoever (after 1940) should also be something that happens from time to time depending upon the strategies of the players.  I am also fine with late game attacks by either side on the other, as I think such conflicts were inevitable. I am still trying to figure out how to make this work in the game.  I don’t want a complex house rule, something very simple.  The National Objective House that I mentioned above might work, but one consequence of it would be making USSR stronger in the East (Extra NO IPCs plus no lost IPCs from Siberia), something the Axis probably do not want to do.  It might encourage Japan to attack even more than with the OOB rules!  Maybe add “If not at war with Japan during first four turns” to USSR’s Archangel NO and give Japan a new National Objective bonus (5 IPCs?) if they are not at war with USSR.

One of the issues that I have had with Axis & Allies since the original game in the 1980s was the way the tendency of Japan to attack the Soviet Union as a means of gaining Axis victory.  My frustration with this strategy was purely historical, it did not happen in fact but it always happened in the game (esp. in the early days).  This has been steadily worked on in subsequent versions of the game with more territories being placed between Japan and Moscow.  However, there remains some advantage from an non-historical Japanese attack on Soviet Russia.  If the Soviets get the 18 Siberian infantry awarded them in the Global rules, there emerges a strong advantage for an non-historical early Soviet attack on Japan.  I am not sure there is a good solution to this problem, but I have been toying around with the following:  The Soviets and the Japanese gain a National Objective bonus if they are not at war.  This bonus begins at 5 IPCs and decreases by one for every turn of the game.  What do folks think about this house rule?

Gharen is exactly right about our double blind system.  We have two full boards (so two sets of Europe and two sets of Pacific).  We set up the boxes in between to prevent folks from seeing the other boards.  We also use a referee to monitor noncombat movement, sea movement, etc.  We sometimes do without a referee and work on the honor system, but this is less than ideal because of sea movement under this system having to be announced.  There is a “recon” phase after purchases before combat movement that allows for a player to gain critical intelligence but there is always a degree of uncertainty after the first moves are made.  Double blind just opens up all kinds of possibilities in strategy and makes the game much more fun.  Even when you are losing in this system, you don’t know for sure you are losing or you might see a way to pull off the comeback that would never work in a regular game.  All of thatw makes the experience a better one I think.

@marechallannes:

You have to change the order of play.

Why?

Design Goals/Philosophy

Main Goal:  Be able to play a fulfilling version of the new Global game in 5 or 6 hours in which all countries are in play from the first turn.

Sub-goal #1:  Hew as closely as possible to earlier 1942 setups.  Axis & Allies Anniversary was my first point of reference in this regard.

Sub-goal #2:  Balanced play is more important than historical realism but blatant historical inaccuracies were to be avoided.

Sub-goal #3:  Reduce the total number of units on the Global boards because one of the time-killing aspects of the game was that many countries had so many units (Japan, I am looking at you) to move that even semi-veterans were trapped in analysis paralysis.  Fewer units means quicker turns.

Design Decisions

1.  Leave all Industrial complexes, naval bases, air bases, anti-aircraft guns as in the 1940 setup.
2.  Start with the 1942 Anniversary edition units placing them as closely as possible on the new map.
3.  Fill in the remaining empty territories that clearly should have units.  Add equal number of IPCs to each side (not country necessarily).
4.  Add in some of the new units (mechanized infantry and tactical bombers) as seems best using 1940 rules as a partial guide.
5.  Reconfigure the turn order to allow for 1942 play and to allow for maximum speed of play (in our game last night Japan and Italy basically went simultaneously because they were in different theaters and right after one another).
6.  Balance the IPC production at the start so that the Allies have an advantage comparable to previous 1942 starts.  I found that this was only possible if I gave the countries their National Objective bonuses at the start of the game.
7.  Create a minor victory condition to go along with the OOB victory conditions.  For us, it is 12 VCs after 5 hours.
8.  Reconfigure the IPCs for UK Europe and UK Pacific to give the UK Pacific player a bit more at the start, even though they are still in sad, sad shape in a 1942 setup.

Ok, that is what I remember off the top of my head.

I look forward to comments, changes, suggestions, and criticisms.  If you find the set up helpful, even if just as a starting point for your own thinking and set up, I am happy.  Thanks to those in my own group, especially Justin and Todd, for their help in the drafting process so far.

Bill Carrigan

My gaming group generally has about five or six hours to play Axis & Allies once a month.  We were very excited about the Global game, and we knew the game was going to take a while to play, so we dedicated an entire Saturday after it came out.  We left that first session impressed by many things about the game and love the boards and map.  However, there was a general consensus that that the game took too long to play (for what it is and for who we are).  Also, there was general frustration with the political rules and the fact that some countries could not do much for the first few hours.  I should note that we tend to play with relatively large groups of people and enjoy the social aspects of playing on a team with someone.  I realize that the political rules would be less bothersome in a game with only 2-4 players (as opposed to our 6+).  Given that the Saturday “all day” session was an exception, we immediately began thinking about how we could play the game in our normal time slot.  We settled on altering the starting point from 1940 to 1942 and began adjusting the setup.  I drafted this new set up for the combat forces, and we playtested them for the first time last night.  Although it is still very early, the changes seemed to work for our group.  We finished the game in four hours having played four full turns.  We could have played another two turns before reaching our time limit.  Folks seemed to enjoy playing, and the game seemed up for grabs and even leaning Axis until some Axis mistakes allowed the Allies to claim victory.  We had quite a few players who wanted to get in on the game, more than an ideal number.  Some folks were even sharing one country (two people ran Japan for example).  The final big item to mention is that our group always plays Axis & Allies double blind, which I believe allows the game to go a bit faster because one does not have to wait for another country’s non-combat movement, etc. to begin purchases and planning your combat moves.  All of this has just been a preamble to invite you to read, borrow, critique, etc. our 1942 setup.  It is available as a Microsoft Word file download at www.meetup.com/glassboroboardgamers.  Check under “More” and “Files.”  I would appreciate any feedback that you might have.  I will post a separate reply with some of my design philosophy, if you can call it that, so you can have an idea of my sub-goals with the set up.