I was thinking about picking up the Axis & Allies board game for me and my older son (he plays Risk on his handheld systems) and noticed that it’s now “Axis & Allies 1942” versus the older version I played back in the 90’s. Are they appreciably different? Anyone who has played both and can say which they prefer? The nostalgic part of me says “What? 1942? screw that and go to eBay!” but I don’t have any rational reason for thinking that and, for all I know, the new version is notably improved.
Given that the 1942 is accessible via standard retail for a set price, unless there’s a big difference I’d guess I should go that route.
IMHO, the addition of destroyers alone makes it a better game. The version I liked best was the World at War, started in 1939 and included France as a playable nation. Many of the current rules, I think, came from that version.
Annoyingly, there have been a bunch of updates to A&A in recent years, (A&A 2004 edition, A&A anniversary edition [2008], and A&A 1942 edition [2009]) each one slightly tweaking the rules and components. That’s not counting the spinoffs. It’s all very confusing, and probably a huge bitch to organize a tournament at a gaming event.
Anyway, there are some definite improvements to the new edition, IMO. The new units (destroyers and artillery) add some important strategic options. Also, the border between Germany and USSR is adjusted for better balance.
The biggest drawback of A&A1942 is that the map is a little too small, and crowding gets to be a real problem.
It sounds as though I should be happy with the 1942 version (that’s the one still on shelves and available for around $25). I read in the Amazon reviews that it (annoyingly) doesn’t come with paper money and suffers from a lack of plastic/cardboard chits although I’m sure I can always hit up the local dollar store for some play money and plastic chits if it bothers me that much.
There is some difference, Jophiel, but I think you & your son will like the 1942 version. I think the newer versions of the game are better because of the additional pieces like destroyers and artillery pieces. Personally, I recommend the third edition of Xeno Games’ unauthorized expansion of A&A. The USA can develop nukes in this one!
I also recommend the new version, and I was a huge fan of the original. I get together with a bunch of friends of mine from time to time and we pull and all night A&A party.
How would AA: Pacific be good and AA: Europe be poor? I’m just asking, having never played either but I assume they’d use similar rules. Is Europe just unbalanced in territories or something?
Oh, I got 1942 through Amazon and picked up a fairly cheap used copy of the original off of eBay (as opposed to the sealed boxes going for over $100). Neither has arrived yet.
The Europe one isn’t a free battle. It’s balanced around Germany trying to conquer Russia while England and America try to stop them. It gets very repetitive.
Right “A&A: Europe” could have just been renamed “A&A: drive to Moscow.” If Germany gets Moscow, they win. And the only viable way to get Moscow is to drive at it as quickly and as hard as possible. In theory the Germans could conquer the UK or the US. But it only takes a couple of play-throughs to demonstrate how crappy those ideas are. So once you have that down, the game plays out almost identically every time.
A&A: Pacific although it adds many of the same mechanics (sea lanes, destroyers, artillery), also adds some unique features (naval bases, air bases, marines). And it adds an additional victory condition for both sides. And that is what really makes the game re-playable. Japan has options. It is equally viable to drive on Australia, India, or to capture a certain amount of territory and hold on for a defensive victory. Likewise the Allies can choose their lanes of counter attack. Concepts like a mid-pacifc drive vs a counter attack in the Solomons or even a north-pacific invasion of Japan without any island hoping are all viable choices for the US player with a real different feel in how the game progresses. And the choice of one strategy doesn’t preclude the others. It is possible to adjust to other players and change strategies if the initial plan goes haywire.
Actually for these reasons Pacific is my favorite A&A. That said I would like it better if they had about half as many units to start with. Japan’s initial turn can seem interminable, especially for new players.
Bartman is right on all accounts, but I’d like to add the rules system for A&A doesn’t allow for any reasonable facsimile of large front continental warfare.
A&A Europe never even closely resembles possible outcomes of the real war.
To be fair though, that first turn is huge. Japan really can’t afford to replace naval loses, what it starts with is all it’ll ever have minus a destroyer or transport or two. Less starting units would heavily weigh this in favor of the Allies.