And I purchased a 1941 copy to my cousin and play once. I actually find it a fun game to play even it has less option. With this said, 42 2E is a more solid purchase IMHO as it provides more strategy and variety, plus the sculpt are nicer as well
We’ve played more like 30-40 times now, and I’ve kinda changed my tune, this version is fun, there are simply a lot of moving parts. A bid is still appropriate, for multiple reasons but there are very specific things the allies can do to increase their chances of winning it just takes a while to figure them all out.
Would adding the house rule that transports can be lost as fodder (and 1 defense) help balance? It is a pretty null point for Germany (depending on the build) and Russia, but would really help out the allied Atlantic fleet from a German air raid. This would also cripple the effectiveness of G1 sub strikes, and the UK1 hit on Japan’s transport. Overall I feel like it would be a boost to the Allies.
Yeah, you don’t want that. Transports are too cheap and also are better as specialists rather than gamey cannon fodder units to dump after they dump their troops. The updated rule as of 2012 is much more fun and forces you to treat TTs as fine china.
Transports were cannon fodder in the Classic A&A… and it was bad… you’d have fleets with a carrier, a battleship and 30xtransports as a fodder shield… it was bad, it looked bad, it played bad… the rule change away from that was deliberate and for the better…
When I played 1942.2 with TPs A0 D1 M2, 1 hit, C8, things were simpler.
In opening Atlantic naval, I add 1 U-boat because TP could be taken as casualty before bigger target. In opening G1, TP were sunk before Destroyers and UK’s Battleship.
On UK1, Cruiser in Baltic was taken last.
After, DDs were still bought because of their firepower and Anti-Sub and used as fodder before TPs.
Things are more nuanced than with Classic but when only Cruisers and Carriers and BBs remain, TPs were fodders before these costlier warships.
Rules are simpler with owner choose his own casualties all the way, it helps with beginners (Subs, planes and TPs interactions OOBs can become messy).
But, you get some unhistorical situations in Pacific mostly, between US and IJN when TPs are protecting warships and not the reverse when it is the decisive naval combat.
And yes, Allies wins because in KGF, Luftwaffe and Subs have to kill both warships and TPs 1 by 1, air attrition is a real factor. I would say it tips things Axis 30% vs 70% Allies, if you consider OOB Axis 70% vs Allies 30%.
After, I played with 1 stack of TPs rolls 1 dice @1 but each TP worth 1 hit. It makes 3 and more TPs feel less dangerous for aircrafts but not helpless at all. No auto-kill is better IMO. And fit better to balance 1942.2
Der Kuenstler is playing on his hybrid AA50 map and setup like this with TPs A0 D1 C8, 1 hit for a long time and him and his team saw no issue because now Destroyers exist and Subs are much cheaper. In Classic, there was only 8 IPCs TPs and Subs, so there was a big stack around warships Carriers (18$) and BBs (24$) and Subs were broken against planes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1108069#msg1108069
HTH
Interesting discussion on this topic over the last few days (involving Larry) over at the Harris Game Forum:
https://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=18945
I just looked through Larry’s thread. I’m interested to see how this goes. if any one is interested to set up a 42 2E game with Larry suggestion please ping me :-D
Sounds like the “fix” to make Germany not favored is to completely ruin any chance the Axis ever has of winning… I think Larry gave way too much to the Allies.
we’ve played 42.3 twice. It doesn’t really address the core problems in the middle of the map and how easy the $$ is for the axis to get the money, regardless of what the allies do.
It does make the atlantic play possible, with all the US and UK forces converging by T4, Germany is under some serious pressure. Still, there isn’t much they can do to actually stop German attacks on Russia, as usual they tear at the edges ($6 lol) but they cant stop the money from going to Axis.
I usually have 3 strat bombers and 7-9 fighters at that point, so sinking one of the detached fleets isn’t too difficult and it has the same problems as any KGF–all $$ has to go to warships, not transports, and everything has to stick together, which means its not flexible on the offense.
seems pretty clear that LH already has his own ideas, which were pretty firm before the public comment period began.
without further changes it just feels wobbly, USA still has to commit to one direction or the other. as smorey considers, a bid will still be necessary, but exactly what bid may be up in the air
FWIW, I saw Larry’s suggestion. It should be called 1942.2.1 or 1942.2b IMO or anything else.
Calling it 1942.3 convey the idea of a major reset up. Not the case.
Just my two cents before this number stick and brings unrealistic hope about another edition.
seems pretty clear that LH already has his own ideas, which were pretty firm before the public comment period began.
without further changes it just feels wobbly, USA still has to commit to one direction or the other. as smorey considers, a bid will still be necessary, but exactly what bid may be up in the air
What make you think this?
Do you think Larry would use Triple A to figure how far a change can go?
well im calling it 42.3 because I’ll be playing it in tournaments and it is going to be an official patch once Smorey takes it on, which I predict will be in time for Gencon. Whether they reprint this game isn’t my concern since I can integrate any patch with ease unless they bring in the konigstiger…
Because he opened the discussion after much thoughtful comment from GSmorey about how many problems this edition has, and though LH laid out the possibility of some user input, he formulated his proposed, partial patch within 24 hours of beginning this discussion.
I don’t think he cares much for Tripple A or necessarily knows what that is. The community supposedly would have some input, but Argothair and I both submitted comments which he didn’t approve as moderator so they didn’t even go online…he has his own idea about what is broken and what can be fixed. Black Elk Maphead Argo and I all threw in our 2 cents but the proposed patch is live…
well im calling it 42.3 because I’ll be playing it in tournaments and it is going to be an official patch once Smorey takes it on, which I predict will be in time for Gencon. Whether they reprint this game isn’t my concern since I can integrate any patch with ease unless they bring in the konigstiger…
Because he opened the discussion after much thoughtful comment from GSmorey about how many problems this edition has, and though LH laid out the possibility of some user input, he formulated his proposed, partial patch within 24 hours of beginning this discussion.
I don’t think he cares much for Tripple A or necessarily knows what that is. The community supposedly would have some input, but Argothair and I both submitted comments which he didn’t approve as moderator so they didn’t even go online…he has his own idea about what is broken and what can be fixed. Black Elk Maphead Argo and I all threw in our 2 cents but the proposed patch is live…
Do you meant your post and Argo’s do not appear on the thread?
I still think it is misleading, but anyway there won’t be any third edition within a few years.
Other suggestion: 1942.2 LHTR, 1942.2 LHTSU (SU for set-up) or even 1942.2 Revisited, maybe.
I know it is shorter to write 1942.3…
:-)
Yeah, we both wrote in, but he either didn’t bother to check his queue, or he saw it and didn’t care. Larry can of course run his blog however he likes, but asking for feedback and then completely ignoring it is not a good way to get people to try your new rules! I do not think I will be playing much 1942.3. I would much rather play 1942.2 A0! I’m glad I am not a tournament player, so that I won’t be forced to out up with Larry Harris’s silly and uninspiring fixed bid!
Yeah, we both wrote in, but he either didn’t bother to check his queue, or he saw it and didn’t care. Larry can of course run his blog however he likes, but asking for feedback and then completely ignoring it is not a good way to get people to try your new rules! I do not think I will be playing much 1942.3. I would much rather play 1942.2 A0! I’m glad I am not a tournament player, so that I won’t be forced to out up with Larry Harris’s silly and uninspiring fixed bid!
This is why I saw Black Elk comment but not yours?
Larry got a filter on this thread?
I can say that Triple A is quite interesting tools to make at least initial combat balance around given odds you want. Placing all units in the calc and read % and avg number of surviving units. Also, being able to save a given combat moves, you can try different combinations so you can see if some aberrations happens.
At first, I wonder why Larry did not simply add units to UK fleet in ATO.
Why removing German Subs which gives one of the few occasions to generate a more epic initial Battle of Atlantic, assuming after, Germany will only purchase ground units and planes?
This is roughly my idea.
+2 infantery in India
+2 infantery in Egypt
Remove Japan´s destroyer (or transport) in SZ 61
Move US cruiser from SZ 19 to SZ 11.
Thoughts?
Hi Simon.
I would rather see the Japanese Battleship off East Indies swapped for a
Cruiser, but would be happy with adding just one Inf in Egypt. (Yes, to
Two extra in India though.) Japan is the problem, more than Germany, I believe.
The German Bomber can go to the Ukraine too, but the Germans can keep both Subs in SZ9, this way.
Were you suggesting leaving both German Subs and the Bomber where they begin OOB?
I play this game somewhat regularly with a friend. We have been using a steadily increasing starting bid for the allies. In the last game, it was 18. I played as Allies and bought 3 subs for the UK, one placed in the Mediterranean off the coast of Egypt, one off India and one off south Australia. The sub off Egypt deterred a German R1 attack of Egypt or Trans-Jordan, and the German player responded to it by placing a carrier and destroyer in the Mediterranean to join the battleship and transport. I then used the two other subs together with the UK Indian and Australian fleets to sink the Japanese fleet in SZ37. The UK won that battle with a carrier and one fighter surviving.
I won the game, going full Pacific with the US. The US was able to take the money islands and build factories on them. The UK held India and Africa for the whole game. Russia was able to hang on. I believe Russia was able to hang on because Germany spent a lot on navy and yet never took Africa or accomplished anything else with it. The UK eventually sunk it with fighters. The Axis surrendered when UK built an Atlantic fleet that was unchallenged by either the kriegsmarine or luftwaffe. Meanwhile, the US had the edge on Japan.
That will continue to be my Allied strategy. However, I think the Axis may still have won had Germany built only land and air units. Also, Japan erred by failing to take out the surviving UK AC and fighter after the round 1 attack against sz 37. That UK fleet did wonders to maintain Africa and project force in Asia.
My house rule is just:
The Russian bomber can participate in either theater. But doesn’t swing any battles really decisively. Every country gets a bomber.
The allies are just harder to play. In every version. You need to combine the use of your forces well, especially in the Pacific. Most players throw away the British fleet in the Pacific. If you plan your moves well, Japan is shockingly easy to bring down.
In a straight bid, I’ll take the Allies with 3 - 1 inf in Egy. I’ve heard this “Allies can’t win” whine with every version since Revised. But I just don’t buy it.
I’d love to see some of these games where the allies get 12 ipcs and still lose consistently. My guess is that the American’s are not being decisive enough (committing to one theater) and the Russian’s aren’t aggressive.
I guess I could put my money where my mouth is and play some triple A. “If there were world enough and time…”
