2nd edition board using G40 pieces and 1942 rules?

@wittmann:

Afternoon SeismicAssault.
You were both right to not remove the Transports.
The attacker has to have a unit left to hit the Transports and he did not.

Thanks!  I was pretty sure that’s the way it went, but wanted to make sure.

@Hobbes:

@stebobibo:

Can you buy and deploy units on the first turn? Because in the rules it says you collect income at the end of each turn, therefore you would have no IPCs to spend on your first turn. If you do start with IPCs and can buy on the first turn, how many IPCs do you start with? Is it the number printed on the set-up cards? Or would it depend on the territories you have under your control at the start of your first turn? Example, USSR on his turn has taken some German territories worth 4 IPCs in total. Would Germany therefore start with 40-4=36 IPCs?

Germany (and the others) start with the money printed on the setup charts. At the end of its turn (after it places the units it purchased with its starting money) it receives income based on the number of territories it controls and their value. So, if G has 36 worth of territories, it will receive 36 IPC that can be used on beginning of its next turn to buy more units.

Actually, Germany starts with 41 IPCs instead of 40; the UK with 31 IPCs instead of 30.

These inaccuracies really bother me because ANYONE involved in the production of this game could have caught them before printing… but didn’t take the time to. Really careless work, and misleading for new players.

In fact, the rulebook as a whole seems largely geared towards an existing player base, rather than carefully explaining gameplay in a methodical fashion to beginners. Things could easily be laid out in a much more logical and intuitive fashion; once again, Wizards misses a trick.

Like Krieg wrote.

But tanks get lonely too.

Fighter escorts yes, Dardanelles no. Fighter escorts makes bombing campaigns more challenging than simply building fleets of bombers and sending them.

Regarding the Dardanelles rule it limits the options for nearly all powers in the Med:

Germany’s Med fleet is reduced to striking Africa. It can’t help pressuring the Russians on Caucasus or dealing with any incursions on Ukraine. Russia R1 tactic of building a submarine to sink the German fleet is removed (the only time on the entire series of games where the Russians can build ships!) The US cannot set a transport chain to reinforce Caucasus (rather a waste of resources but I’ve seen enough people trying it). Japan can’t threaten Caucasus with amphibious landings (which usually makes pressure on the Allies to close the Suez)

Since the game is considered already balanced by most players I disagree that having the rule goes towards balancing it, since I can’t see 1 side getting a big advantage by having it closed.

The main argument thus to use the rule is the historical situation but the game does not intend to fully reproduce History, I so guess it is mostly a matter of taste regarding playability/historical accuracy.

@Imperious:

40-50 not more

I don’t think I paid much less for it.  :-D

Submarines:  Can they attack other subs without a destroyer? It seems like that is not a legal attack.

BlitzKrieg:  Ok say you (German Player) have a front of 10 tanks in West Russia with 20 inf.  Novosibirsk is unoccupied.  The russians have a sizable force on Russia (territory) to defend your attack.  So you send in 9 Tanks all your inf to attack.  You win (as the G’s).  Now can your 1 tank that hasn’t moved blitz through Russia (friendly zone now) and capture Novosibirsk as well?

I’m guessing that its not legal but we are trying to iron that out.

SO not sure if this is an retarded idea.  However, we didn’t like subs not being able to attack other subs.  So our rules of engagements are as follows.  If you want to attack an enemy sub you first have to spot it.  This is determined by rolling a 4 5 or 6.  If you do spot it then you caught them by surprise on the surface.  Then you can attack.  However, the defending sub has an option to defend at “1” or try to submerge and disappear by rolling a 1 2 3.  50% chance vs defending at 16% chance.  If the attack fails and the other sub doesn’t submerge successfully you repeat till the subs are destroyed or the defending sub evades.  Of course the attacker can decide to retreat as well.  I have an alternative rule but i figure i run this one by what do you guys think?

@St.:

I hear alot of people say that revised is more complicated than spring 1942. Now I played the classic version when I was 12. Sure it was a long time but aside from the tech and the board being diffrent I dont see to many changes from the two, and neither one really seems more complicated than the other.

So what happand in revised that was taken away that makes it more complicated than Spring 1942

Other than the Technology and the National Advantages (although the NAs were optional) the game system is essentially the same. I almost never play with Tech because it can be a game breaker.

Yeah, I understand the reasoning of the rule and the need to change it from the old way, but we thought this went too far.  What we’ve done is left them defenseless but still able to be a casualty at any time in combat.  And if you’re attacking an undefended transport or transport fleet, you get three rolls per attacking unit to kill them and any survivors can retreat.

Maybe we’ll give this new rule a second chance next time.