In this final video, I discuss the issue of balance in Anniversary 1941 setup as well as other topics. 1:36 - Where I was wrong 2:59 - My resume 4:04 - Balance and Bids 18:15 - Q & A 27:01 - Shout-outs
This is pretty much my favorite game. I learned a lot from this series. I'll continue to experiment with house rules because its fun. My favorites so far include AA on cruisers and only allowing infantry to cross from China to Russia and vice versa. My next mad scientist move: the introduction of mechanized infantry and self propelled artillery.
Great video! Confirmed a lot of what I felt about balance of all the A&A games but I like hearing validation from players much more experienced than myself. A&A Anniversary has always been my favourite version of the original global game and I always thought of it as the most balanced - without the inclusion of the NAs and Tech of course. Thank you for the video. Very enjoyable.
Hi Cap, so glad I finally caught up with this. Thanks so much for all your hard work and generosity sharing everything you have learned. You clearly have a passion for this stuff- I loved how you rated the game version turns based on your endorphins aka happiness generated. It’s only a matter of time before some until some uberdedicated player puts out a spreadsheet on moves vs how awesome it feels to make them hehehe. I really agreed with most of the stuff you threw out in this video. A couple comments from my experience…. It was interesting to see you put India as something the axis would likely control in 4-5 turns. For me India has been something the allies must retain at almost any cost. I’ve had poor success trying to replace it with Egypt or anything else. I really agree that Germany wins by going balls deep after Russia and that anything the brits (or yanks) can do to divert Deutschmarks from the Russian front is typically a solid strategy. That’s more reason why I feel India must be the top UK priority, Russia is too busy and the US has been to far away to protect the Middle East esp if japan gets a factory in (or near) India. If I remember correctly I conceded the last game we played when you did indeed take India from me. Thanks again and hope to play you more in the future. Thx for the shout out too! Capt Napalm is really the master but between my early game and his late game strategies we were really able to help each other improve. I couldn’t agree more about getting beat by high level players as a great tool to learn. Similar to your trio you mentioned I too like to take some risks. That was one advantage Napalm confided that I had when we started playing against each other-taking some calculated risks keeps your opponents honest and on their heels. The trick for me was the realization- ok if I’m gonna make some attacks at 66% odds I need to be ok with losing 1/3 of them. Even if I make some 80% attack odds I need to accept that I should lose 1 in 5 times. A lot of great players are always doing the IPC cost/trade offs when they do attacks and foreseeable counter attacks. I have always felt ok with losing IPC values in battle if they get me going with the strategy/direction/territory I need for my current “master plan”. I suppose balancing both these philosophies is a big part of mastering the game. Then again it seems that just as often the winner is the player that made the least mistakes- harder than it sounds with so many pieces, moves, buys, etc all happening at the same time. Best, Colonel Sanders aka mad dog matthew
^ Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Colonel Sanders, one of the players I gave a shout-out to in the video. I nodded my head through this whole comment. I think this is a very intelligent post and worth any player's time to read. Thanks for posting my friend and I also hope to play you more in the future. =)
Brilliant video, I will definitely check out the rest! I am a huge fan of 1941 Anniversary and the thing that bothered me the most was it's unhistorical balance (it is, as you said, rather balanced, but I don't want Egypt and India to fall that quickly and also give the US a chance to actually fight the Japanese in the Pacific). I will probably create an alternative setup with minor changes that allows China and the UK to hold the their territories if the US decides to help. It will probably give the Allies a slight edge (as opposed to the Axis), but as long as people enjoy this, it should be all good :)
Thankyou for the time and effort you have put into these video series. I now feel as though I know more about both Classic and Anniversary than the versions I'm playing. Have you played much or any of 1941 (The Small one)? I feel as though that version of Axis and Allies may be one of the most solvable of the cannon line up, due to its simplicity.
I have not played this version. In a perfect world, I would love to grind through all of them. That one is not on my radar as its more of the introductory version of modern Axis and Allies. Glad the videos had that affect on you! Thanks for the comment!
I do like National Objectives because they add much historical flavor to the game. And they balance the game changes that I just described in another post. There is only one nation where they need to be changed and that is the Soviet Union. Here is how I changed them: • »Родина-Мать зовёт!« (The Motherland Calls): Receive an additional 5 IPC if the Soviet Union holds Russia and the Caucasus OR the Karelian SSR. • »Великая Отечественная Война« (Great Patriotic War): Receive an additional 5 IPC if no original Soviet territory is occupied by the Axis. • »Мировая Революция« (World Revolution): Receive an additional 5 IPC if the Soviet Union holds three of the following territories: Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and the Balkans. My House Rules deny the placement of Western Allied troops on Soviet territory, so this original NO is gone anyway. And why should the Soviet Union receive 10 IPC when the UK or US hold Norway and Finland while the Soviets occupy just Bulgaria/Romania?
Nothing really to add this time. You pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to balance, NOs, 41 Vs. 42, etc. AA50 will always be a personal favorite of mine. It's not as well balanced as Revised, but the number of things it added to the game (both positive and negative) like Italy, China, NOs, updated SBR/Submarine rules, the Cruiser, updated prices for various naval/air units, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting went a huge way towards the eventual creation of G40. However, unlike G40, this game can actually be completed in something resembling a reasonable amount of time, so I can actually get my non-wargamer friends to actually sit down and play this one with me. It just proves that you don't have to be the biggest and most complicated game around to be "good". On a related note, which game (if any) do you plan on tackling next? These series you do are pretty much the most engaging A&A content out there.
Many thanks for your comments my friend. And thank you for the compliment. I really wanted to stack games of both the original Pacific and Europe as the rule sets for those are so unique compared to the others in the canon and I feel they get an unfair “bad rap”. However, the fellas over at TripleA don’t have updating those modules as a priority. As it stands now, they’re not aligned with the out of box rules and so I consider them ‘not playable’ on that platform. 1914 was next up but is not supported by TripleA as of this writing. Since I consider TripleA vital for its analytical tools, I will leave it to polling and let the audience/community vote. I’ll post an announcement in a few weeks. And thanks for always being there D-man. I always look forward to agreeing and disagreeing with you. :)
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Yeah those are all good picks. 1914 is really out there in terms of its deviations from the "typical" rules so it'd be interesting to take a deep dive of.
Very interesting considerations indeed. I love and play the 1941 scenario of the Anniversary edition, but I took a totally different approach for balancing this game. I think I have explained it already at one of the other videos of this series. The most important changes I introduced are these: • A non-aggression treaty between Japan and USSR is in place. If Japans income exceeds 37 IPC income (without NO bonus) it can attack the USSR => no pincer movement early on in the war. • China gets three additional infantry in every territory that is attacked for the first time by an Axis power => China isn't an easy walkover anymore. Historically, Japan lost more soldiers in China than against the US during the Pacific campaign. • Western Allies may support USSR with IPCs via Lend Lease, but not a single unit may be transferred or stationed and vice versa => They were unlikely Allies - united only by a common cause. • Place one industrial complex in each territory containing a victory city. No ICs can be purchased. USSR gets a bonus IC once Leningrad or Stalingrad have fallen. Production is limited according to the IPC value of the territory (i.e. IPC value = four times the IPC value of the territory may be spent at the IC OR IPC value = number of units that may be placed ) => no ridiculous IC placements on remote money islands and victory cities get way more importance and thus attention. Probably the single most erroneous design decision of all A&A history was the initial placement of industrial complexes in A&A Anniversary Edition. The game starts with nine Industrial Complexes and only one for the UK, that has a starting income of 43 IPCs. Just compare that to the A&A 1942 SE, which provides 10 ICs at the beginning of the game. Two of them for the UK (England and India), that has a starting income of 31 IPC. And finally think of Axis & Allies 1941, the beginners edition. It features nine ICs that are printed on the map. No less then three of them (England, India, Australia) are UK controlled. But UKs income is a mere 12 IPCs. Although the maps and IPC values available are totally different, both 1941 Beginners Edition and A&A Anniversary Edition start with the same number of ICs. I think you will come to the same conclusion as I do. IMHO this needs to be dealt with - otherwise UK has no chance to defend its Empire in the East. Finally: Economic balance is nothing without logistics. The US and the UK have to ferry every unit to the battle fields unless they are air units or the Axis powers do them the favor and knock at the doors of London or Washington. The Axis may be inferior in income, but their power projection is way better and the supply lines from production to front line much shorter. Just think of how many turns the UK would need to ferry troops from England to India or Australia. I see ICs not only as industrial but also as logistical hubs. That's why every Victory City should get one. If you only change one rule - this is it. If you fix its inherent errors, Anniversary Edition is perhaps the best game of the whole Axis & Allies franchise.
Wow, these are some good points. I am going to try them out! Making China stronger and preventing Japan from beating the crap out of the Soviets will have a big effect on the balance.
Tracking each round of IPCs on the Anniversary and uts always the same thing. 41, Japan goes first. 42, Germany goes first. Factor in the bonus money from territorial gains, the Axis are consistently benefitting from a financial advantage. The difference being anywhere from 20-50 IPCs in favor of the Axis. Italy goes from 10 to 24 with ease. Japan goes from 17 to 40ish after turn 1. Russia will fluctuate up or down within 5-10 ipcs depending on dice rolls. America almost always sits about where she starts with little fluctuation. For many rounds. UK has to fight for every square inch on the map. I love A&A Anniversary. My favorite board game. And I like playing both sides, on both scenarios. But financially speaking, I feel the Axis has the clear advantage.
@@killwalker a great argument why I feel strongly you should leave the optional rule “National Objectives” as it is written out every game of Anniversary. I demonstrate the same basic argument in part 3 of this series.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 i think I seen that yea. My buddy swears to no end that the Allies have a really low chance of winning either scenario. (I think he just needs to be a little more perceptive of the overall board 😁)
I was wondering, I saw your G40 Customizations vid, and said "I need those flight stands." Any I want to but some, but I have one question. How many do you recommend for G40? How many small flights stand, and tall flight stands? Thank you very much!
Great question. I took a good long while to come up with a number that wouldn’t run short during gameplay but also wouldn’t be excessive. I’ll let you know when I get home today and edit this last sentence after I count them :)
@@kidzg6856 50 small and 10 large. Haven't had any issues with shortages on that yet. Sounds like a lot but the starting number of aircraft is pretty high.
How do you compare 1941 with and without NO. And how is the 1942 Setup with and without NO considered? What do you think is the most balanced (=best?) setup?
I feel very strongly that NO should be left out of both setups - the influx of IPC to the Axis side is stunning and not mitigated by the allied '42 setup in any meaningful way. I have a video for each optional rule in this game but to keep it brief and so you don't have to go looking, I will say that I feel the best shot at balance is max out the victory cities (which is to play until one side concedes), leave out tech, leave out the NO, close the Dardanelles, and allow escorts and interceptors. In this case of course, I still feel the allies need a bid of two infantries as mentioned in the video - and even then I would have the more experienced player take the Allies.
Captain - when I play a solo game on TripleA, it appears there is not an option for turning off naval movement through the Dardanelles Strait? Am I correct? Thx!
In the fewest amount of words: the Japanese. Japan should be far enough along with (hopefully) an industry in India and others elsewhere providing men and tanks. The IJN should be in the Indian Ocean as well as at least part of the airforce. The most fun part of the game for me is when the two forces clash in/around Persia/Trans-Jordan/Egypt around turn 5/6.
Hi captain, me and my Brother have a questione about the rules : when you make an amphibious assault and you (attacker) have air units, if there is a sea battle before, are they (air units ) automatically involved in the sea battle or the attacker can choose to use them in the land assault instead? In the rulebook Is not very clear since It seems tò contraddict itself (Page 17) . We thought that this can be really game changing expecially for the italian situation, on regards of the american fleet and its air force. Thank you in advance and many hugs from Italy
@@cosimosbaffi2226 air units fight in either the sea zone or the territory being attacked, not both. For example if there were five fighters in range of the sea zone and the land zone being attacked, the attacker could decide to place three in the sea zone and two in the land zone to help support the amphibious attack. In any case, the naval battle must be fought first. Only after the sea zone is cleared can the amphibious assault be resolved.
Thank you for this excellent series. Where can I play anniversary edition online? I can't find the map/module on Triple A that corresponds to this edition.
Its on TripleA. Its called "World War II v3 1941" and "World War II v3 1942". The best place to find opponents to play is axisandallies(dot)org. Let me know if you have any trouble finding an opponent.
Europe 1940, 2nd Edition for me. I feel E40 is more balanced and has more variations and is more entertaining. Or maybe I've just played far too many games of Anniversary, haha.
I am not sure about the economic balance. Is each point worth the same? Some are easy to conquer and hold than others. Also, some need to buy transports to move troops, which means their economy efficiency might be reduced.
Did anybody explored the possibility of adding a kind of "D-day" rule where for example : once in the game a multi-national force may attack all at the same time if they all come from the same territory or sea zone. Or, create a sort of lend lease rule for the USSR where for example : USSR can take control of one allied unit that are on an russian territory with a IC every turn or 2?
I stay away from house rules as much as possible. My recommendation at the end is for balance in the least invasive manner and at, what I perceive, to be its root cause (I.e. China, Egypt).
@@sgtshultzie5717 I was secretly hoping you would say that you had trained at Irwin for pre-deployment between 09-12. Then we could say, "holy sh*t we were on the same base at the same time!"
It's funny how one argument I hear against the use of NO's is that it stifles variance in strategies, yet in my experience not having them basically results in the board ending up how you describe. Also not having techs decreases variance (Though I for one don't research techs anyways!). In so many of my games with NO's, it doesn't result in the big green monster in the Middle East. It tends to result in a massive amphibious assault somewhere in Europe which is absolutely indefensible by the Axis. Without the silly Dardanelles rule (USA needs to push HARD to take out the Italian navy asap), the Axis have too many territories they have to defend. The NO's tend to do less to help Germany than I think people give credit, since the extra need to defend tends to mean their extra income must go toward defense (and more often than not, even more.). Holding Italy and France from the Green monster is a tall order in itself, but they can also drop a major stack in say, Bulgaria, and suddenly you have Russia collecting an extra 10, and Germany 5 less (From NO's). The Allies NO's are harder to obtain, but Germany has to work hard to retain theirs and prevent the Allies from gaining theirs. If the Allies gain an NO advantage the game can start to snowball in their favor, especially since it's so easy to cut off Italy from theirs. I also think you downplay the initiative of the allies in later turns. The Axis are essentially relegated to certain reinforcement lanes, but the Allies have more flexibility with amphibious landings. Again, I think this is also a reason I prefer NO's, because under traditional doctrine you basically end up doing the same thing with the allies (Through Karelia and the Middle East.) because you are less incentivized to amphibious assault in Europe. Forget that! Those infantry stacks on Poland can sure be juicy targets too! You are at a huge disadvantage defensively in this game (Due to being able to bring forces from multiple territories, not having to land planes there after winning, having the option to retreat after a bad dice round, and being able to bombard.), and being able to threaten assaults on so many territories in Europe is meaningful. Japan may be Godzilla, but they at least take much longer than USA/UK to project meaningful threats. Axis clearly has the advantage in this game, but it's mostly to do with Axis starting forces IMO (Those 9 Japanese planes!!!), and their ability to use them to catch up to the Allies' economy too quickly. Therefore I do agree that a bid in Egypt is fair in absolute competitive play. But I still feel it's unfortunate that people think it's more competitive to remove NO's, remove Dardanelles, have interceptors (doesn't this help Axis?), and have no tech. I don't think these optional rule adjustments actually help the Allies, as it reduces means to win by outplaying your opponent, since it adds another layer of complexity which you can manipulate to your advantage if you are more skilled.
You have left many comments on many videos that essentially say some variation of the same argument. I have responded to most of them. I have offered to play you in order that we might both illustrate our points where it matters. Further, I’ve offered to chat via Skype, discord, and given you my email. It's clear we completely disagree about NO and I'm okay with that.
I'd forgotten about the anti aircraft dice specific. it's been a long time. Is there not a path for 2 USA transports shuttling from Brazil factory to the Ivory coast Africa and 2 north Atlantic USA transports shuttling from the USA to England, maybe a couple Xtra transports being required. that 6 to 8 USA ground units ashore most every turn. I'm thinking also 2 USA transports operating with a pacific naval presence, not always an easy option but, anything that forces Japan to buy boats is $$ not spent on ground units. $ unable to itself. take land.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I don't think I seen em all yet. I was just looking at my copy, looking at starting set up, Russia starting with no air force is a bit rough.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov when you are watching any one of my videos, click the small round picture of the officer holding the pistol next to my name just beneath the video (you can also click the same depiction to the left of this comment). This will take you too my channel's videos. Click the "videos" button and you will see them all from newest to oldest. This is the easiest way to watch the Anniversary series in the correct order. This video is the 12th and final in that series.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov thank you sir. The whole experience was more exhausting than these simple videos make it appear. It is a labor of love though...
I own this game. It's great. A wonderful experience for someone who appreciates WWII history and war games. However, my biggest problem with this game may be an unpopular opinion, but it is just that, my opinion. This game takes a long time to play, and is a big game. My personal friend group isn't one that has or wants to spend 5-6 hours on one single game. Maybe 5-6 hours on multiple games? That's happened before. But this is just too overwhelming and daunting a game for our group (I'm a little jealous of those of you who have people to play this with) So, my second problem is Italy. It's very flavorful for history sake, Wich does add to the WWII experience, however adding a *player* as small as Italy just doesn't add gameplay, but adds time and an extra turn to get through during a round. I prefer the smaller editions such as Classic, Revised, 1941 or such. I haven't tried 1942 2nd Ed but I'd like to
The 1984 rulebook has the Commander in Chief rules, they were deleted 3 years later because it tended to favor the 3 allies over the 2 axis players, it would certainly seem worth trying to reintroduce the Commander in Chief rules for the Anniversary edition of 3 allies on 3 axis, but maybe as a technology development instead of at the game start. I recall the axis having a couple great opportunities with the Commander in Chief rules but not as easy to coordinate as the allies, also, historically, Russia was not a part of the Commander in Chief, not a part o D day.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks, I read these comments and think hey, what about the games where the allies all take their turns at same time, then the axis team play their turns, the third Reich by Avalon hill works this way, the team with the most income goes first, sometimes a flip flop/double turn results and that's fun, and without a double turn nobody is worried about any "can opener" type of attacks.
Anniversary is probably the 2nd worst (Behind G40 OOB) in terms of being heavily Axis favored Imo- Never liked bids, just position current Allied units into territories that are considered weak away from territories that are useless there (Do you really need that Brit unit to start out in Canada for example?)!
That's interesting. I chose to review this one precisely because I overwhelmingly heard that it was balanced out of box (or at least "the most" balanced oob). At the time of me writing this, I will say it was a miserable experience playing with some of those optional rules, namely national objectives. But with them calibrated and then stumbling all over the shop trying to find (or find someone with) a good allied strategy, it seemed to balance out a bit. With all that said, I agree that it favors the Axis - just not as much as your comment makes out. (Do you really think its more Axis favored than original Europe? Seems a tough sell to me.)
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Should have indicated Global maps, Not theater versions where only half the world is being played- otherwise the Original Pacific version is overwhelmingly Axis favored of them All!!!
Between experienced players, totally agree. If there is a disparity in experience, I think a feeling of balance can be achieved if the more experienced team/player takes the allies.
I don't think your Japanese projections for round 4-5 are feasible. So, it's really just a demonstration of an allies player who has zero vision of operational depth. I do agree with the six bid, only because you state the meta of Axis strategies in Yunan and Egypt. I can see how that would be annoying. I don't do either with the axis on turn one. Keep in mind though, I use the national objectives and play Japan aggressively against the United States.
