Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Global 1942 Scenario by Larry Harris
-
I have a question.
Can japan buy a minor or a mayor industrial complex in java?
Sins it is a island ? -
I have a question.
Can japan buy a minor or a mayor industrial complex in java?
Sins it is a island ?Welcome to the forum, nomad 1.
Two aspects:
@rulebook:
Major industrial
complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not
captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher. Minor
industrial complexes can be built only in territories with an IPC
value of 2 or higher.and
@rulebook:
Industrial complexes can’t be built on islands (see
“Islands,” page 8 ).Java is an island that is originally controlled by the Dutch.
HTH :-)
-
Hey guys,
We noticed that the UK NO in G42 has a different application. It says “original” UK territories, but this means that Persia, Italian Somialia Land, Ethopia and E Persia? would all have to be held (on top of the original terrirtories from the G40 game) in order to collect the bonus.
Does everyone here agree that “original” refers to original at G42 setup, rather than original to the printed board?
-
Hey guys,
We noticed that the UK NO in G42 has a different application. It says “original” UK territories, but this means that Persia, Italian Somialia Land, Ethopia and E Persia? would all have to be held (on top of the original terrirtories from the G40 game) in order to collect the bonus.
Does everyone here agree that “original” refers to original at G42 setup, rather than original to the printed board?
What wording of the UK NO are you referring to?
This is how it reads in my version:
@G42:United Kingdom 41 IPCs (UK Eur -31 IPCs, UK Pac -10)
Bonus Income:- 5 IPCs (awarded to the Europe economy) if the UK
controls all of its original territories in its European
economy.
-5 IPCs (awarded to the Pacific economy) if the United
Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
Also the definition of “original” according to the rulebooks has not changed.
@rulebook:When the rules refer
to the “original controller” of a territory, they mean the
power whose emblem is printed on the territory.HTH :-)
Edit:
Additionally I found this on the previous page of this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34278.msg1401171#msg1401171 - 5 IPCs (awarded to the Europe economy) if the UK
-
thanks panther
-
Played it a few times. a fun game good to see a different set up
-
My group just tried the 39 set up for the G40 board by empireman interesting and fun game. Any feed back from the players on what they think about the 42 and the 39
Tanks
S.A. -
the G42 is awesome, and the game can be pre-stipulated to last 7 or 8 hours or rounds, so that you know exactly when the end will be. The climax of the game as far as big confrontations and stack battles also occurs around J7 so it makes for a more closed-ended game.
There are fewer “opener” battles, and the overall forces are smaller and less built up.
G41 by Oztea and BalancedMod are both supposed to be fun as well.
-
We’ve been playing the variants over the last month and a half, and there all fun. I like having more options at my table other than just G 40, and feed back from other players is great
Tanks
S.A. -
Played it, I really Like it it is well Balanced
-
How long is the average G42 game? My groups biggest issue with G40 is how long the game is, everyone gets very antsy at around 10 hrs. Looks like 3-4 hours would easily be cut off with G42.
-
Gencon and Pregencon Game Times G42
Game 102 Win, full game, 7-8 turns, 9 hours with lunch
Game 103 Loss, full game, stipulated 7 turns, 8 hours
Game 104 Win, capitulation on T3, 4 hours
Game 105 Win, capitulation on T5, 6.5 hours
Game 106 Final, Win, full game, stipulated 7 turns, 7 hours -
Gencon and Pregencon Game Times G42
Game 102 Win, full game, 7-8 turns, 9 hours with lunch
Game 103 Loss, full game, stipulated 7 turns, 8 hours
Game 104 Win, capitulation on T3, 4 hours
Game 105 Win, capitulation on T5, 6.5 hours
Game 106 Final, Win, full game, stipulated 7 turns, 7 hourscan you list what side you played for each game?
-
Game 102 Bid +6 (Allies) Played Allies put 2 infantry in eastern Russia. Won KGF after attacking Germany, strat bombing it. Germany+Italy only contributed like 30-40 IPCs to the count, he lost most of the atlantic wall, the Balkans…
Game 103 Bid +0 Played allies tried the same KGF and utterly failed, Loss.
Game 104 Bid +0 Played axis won after our opponents lost almost all UK sea assets and gave up
Game 105 Bid +0 Played axis got extremely lucky and every german unit (3 inf 1 art 1 armor?) in one territory survived on the spearhead as well as subs in atlantic, left Russia scrambing, held off USA in pac
Game 106 Bid +0 Played axis they went KJF and shifted from Hawaii to queensland to java, which led to a massive battle on J7…japan prevailed but was completely open, with japan nearly being taken over, didn’t have India, won economic victory 133/125
-
A 7-10 hour play time sounds a lot more suitable for my group. I’m anxious to give it G42 a try.
-
The best part is not only do you get to start without the multiturn run up with USA, but also that all the action comes to a nice head around 7 hours. If the allies cant make a big fuss by then, the Axis run wild on the tournament condition, which states that the Axis must have 125 or more IPCs by the end of the game. This requires that the hold all the territories at game start (plus a few) gets Germany Italy about 56 and Japan about 54), and hold one more game region in order to win.
You could also use YG victory conditions.
-
You could also use YG victory conditions. �
After just one game, I can see that the Allies would take their Africa token very easily (perhaps I add no Axis surface warships in the Med to that). It all depends if there is an Axis token that becomes just as easy for them, perhaps the 7 cities on the Europe side is easier in the G42 scenario .
-
The cities VC continues to confound even in G42; many attempts by the Allies to defeat the Axis on one side of the board led to severe setbacks on the other side. Several games ended with a major capital lost by the winning side. Germany is under so much pressure in the G42 version it is hard to see how it could clench the necessary cities without losing Rome, Paris or a recaptured Egypt, and taking 2-3 Russian VCs isn’t nearly as easy as in G40.
The economic victory still leads to a binary outcome (Axis win if they rage and lose if they are contained), and a more certain one. However, it still doesn’t state what turn that has to happen by, and as long as the Axis had any chance of reaching it, they could insist on playing another turn. Its not hard to do, and 125 is constantly within reach.
-
This 1942 is pretty well balanced and fun to play. However, it is historically inaccurate. The United Kingdom should have control of Iraq and Syria since these two nations were invaded in 1941. Japan should have control of Burma, the Aleutian Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Solomon Islands, and Celebes. I could list more problems with Larry Harris’s G42 scenario but I think these issues will suffice. It is disappointing to see that Larry Harris didn’t do his homework when creating this setup.
-
This 1942 is pretty well balanced and fun to play. However, it is historically inaccurate. The United Kingdom should have control of Iraq and Syria since these two nations were invaded in 1941. Japan should have control of Burma, the Aleutian Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Solomon Islands, and Celebes. I could list more problems with Larry Harris’s G42 scenario but I think these issues will suffice. It is disappointing to see that Larry Harris didn’t do his homework when creating this setup.
I must agree. If you want a real deal 1942 try the one by Oztea. Larry’s is really a gem if you want a quick game, but it removes just a little too much in an attempt to make things streamlined and “fair.” Yes, it is balanced as a whole, but the theaters are not balanced. I still love it :)
Suggested Topics
