I believe that the axis won 7 or 8 of the 10 or 11 G42 games played (perhaps all without a bid), so your conclusion is shared by many…but not myself.
The victory condition and tournament time meant that many people stipulated or played to exactly 7 turns (unless opponents conceded the victory). This predictable end creates some gamey outcomes that would not exactly be featured in an completely open G42 game. People send in everything to die in one last ditch effort to stop or achieve Economic Victory. Buys on the last turn are not game-affecting for several teams.
That would lead to a question, is it “tournament” balanced, or “generally” balanced. The G42 scenario comes to a certain head around turn 7-8 (when the KJF/KIF/KGF is in full swing)
but several things I said “would never happen” such as seeing Moscow (x1) London (x2) Japan (x1) or Sydney (x1) fall in this tournament, did come true 6 times!
I believe that the axis won 7 or 8 of the 10 or 11 G42 games played (perhaps all without a bid), so your conclusion is shared by many…but not myself.
The victory condition and tournament time meant that many people stipulated or played to exactly 7 turns (unless opponents conceded the victory). This predictable end creates some gamey outcomes that would not exactly be featured in an completely open G42 game. People send in everything to die in one last ditch effort to stop or achieve Economic Victory. Buys on the last turn are not game-affecting for several teams.
That would lead to a question, is it “tournament” balanced, or “generally” balanced. The G42 scenario comes to a certain head around turn 7-8 (when the KJF/KIF/KGF is in full swing)
but several things I said “would never happen” such as seeing Moscow (x1) London (x2) Japan (x1) or Sydney (x1) fall in this tournament, did come true 6 times!
This just confirms my belief that my Victory Token house rules would make a great tournament format… now I just need to test them under those conditions.
The G42 setup is balanced under tournament rules. However, if you play out the game instead of stopping at the end of 7 rounds then the setup is clearly in the allies favor. However, I believe it is more balanced than Global 1940. I’ve been playing G42 regularly since it was released and can attest to the above.
I agree with Tamvann, G42 endings are very gamey.
I hope to play your token version at some point Younggrasshopper.
We had a bid in each of the tournament games we played, 3 to allies in the first and 3 to axis in the second. Neither had much impact.
We had a bid in each of the tournament games we played, 3 to allies in the first and 3 to axis in the second. Neither had much impact.
So the difference was an extra infantry unit somewhere?
Yes, 1 in India and 1 in Shanghai.
I’m thinking about expanding my YouTube content to include G42 videos… although I’m terrified talking about something I’ll have very little experience in. If you don’t mind I may have more questions for you and Tammvan about this setup.
Glad to help!
My games at Gencon had a clean bid (none to either side) and then a 4 bid to the Axis.
My games at Gencon had a clean bid (none to either side) and then a 4 bid to the Axis.
I’m gonna see this setup for the first time next week.
@Young:
I’m gonna see this setup for the first time next week.
I love the 1942 setup, but for different reason than most. The reason being is that it makes me fall more in love with the 1940 setup. :-D
YG, Tirano is just jaded for a young guy. He loves the impossible slogging of the G40 format so much, that he has dreams of red-chip stacks of infantry that go al the way to the ceiling after a nonstop 3 day game.
G42 is at least playable because it comes to a head around US7-8…rather than R10-12. Not so many gambits (except the “kill two American fleets to open the game is a must” that I learned from Jim).
I use black chips for 25 units. It helps with the swaying red chip stack!
Marsh
@Marshmallow:
I use black chips for 25 units. It helps with the swaying red chip stack!
Marsh
lol
