Impressions after 2 plays….

except in 1st edition the transport defended and could be taken as a casualty.

I saw it coming…the game is “unbalanced”  :roll:

There will never have balance is a game like this. It is impossible. The fact is there are three countries vs two…talk about imbalance, its there from the get go.

If you want to just keep doing the same strat for every A&A game that comes out, well, dont buy new games with different map set-ups. Play the Original and stick to the super,ultra-boring UK1-Aircraft-Carrier-US/Europe Shuck, Jap-Factory-in Manchuria-JTDTM-“Infantry Push Mechanic”…zzzzzzz

I have been playing since the mid-80’s and I have tried dozens of different strategies, some bad, some terrible,some that went exceedingly well. If you just do the same thing over and over and over you are missing the real joy of this game.

Guess what?  This isnt a real war. Its a board game. If you lose, you can play a different strat next time.

Sometimes losing is just as fun as winning. If you take chances, even when the odds are against you, thats what keeps the game fresh. Its about having fun, not saving the world.

amen brother

@oztea:

except in 1st edition the transport defended and could be taken as a casualty.

On Spring 1942, 1st Edition you have defenseless transports, that’s why sinking the UK Battleship and transport got so popular as an opening move. On previous Revised the rule is as you described.

Sometimes losing is just as fun as winning

Sometimes… ;)

@malfnuction:

I saw it coming…the game is "unbalanced"�  :roll:

There will never have balance is a game like this. It is impossible. The fact is there are three countries vs two…talk about imbalance, its there from the get go.

If you want to just keep doing the same strat for every A&A game that comes out, well, dont buy new games with different map set-ups. Play the Original and stick to the super,ultra-boring UK1-Aircraft-Carrier-US/Europe Shuck, ���-Factory-in Manchuria-JTDTM-“Infantry Push Mechanic”…zzzzzzz

I have been playing since the mid-80’s and I have tried dozens of different strategies, some bad, some terrible,some that went exceedingly well. If you just do the same thing over and over and over you are missing the real joy of this game.

Guess what?�  This isnt a real war. Its a board game. If you lose, you can play a different strat next time.

Sometimes losing is just as fun as winning. If you take chances, even when the odds are against you, thats what keeps the game fresh. Its about having fun, not saving the world.

Exactly. I had this discussion on the “opening moves thread”, and that is the same thing I was saying, one cannot use the same strategy for each version, because versions are totally different, even one or two spaces makes the thing completely different. So I agree with you, same goes for having fun of course :)

@miamiumike:

So, last night was able to play my 2nd official game of AA42-2E. Now - we are playing using the FTF tournament rules that are used at Origins and GenCon - 5 hour game - most VC at the end of the time wins - unless one side gets the OOB victory conditions. We also used a chess clock to time our moves and this added a sense of urgency.

Russians started out well with 2 attacks on the Germans with minimal losses. Germany responded by eliminating the UK BB/Trans, the Us DD and 2 Trans and bought a carrier and destroyer and men (more on that later).

Japan decided to build a complex in Manchuria, and attacked all 4 US territories- while not taking them all, they did kill the US fighter. They also bought a 3rd carrier. The US consolidated its pretty significant fleet off the West Coast and added to it a ton.

MM

That’s blasphemy! LOL, just kidding, I was “attacked” on the “opening moves thread” for bying naval units for Germany and factory for Japan. But this is the only way, bying some naval units for Germany, to make the way to Karelia a LOT shorter as you said + threatening UK. Also factory on Japan producing units combined with dumping in units with transports as fast as possible on J2 turn is also essential.

@oztea:

Well it wouldn’t be so bad if the UK wasn’t losing a BB and Trans also.

Allow me to counter the Germany. Some here say, take out UK BB+Transport on London.  Take out UK DD on Syria, which I do, I even take Syria with troops on G1 turn. Great so far, I agree.
And then it was argued that 2 Atlantic subs should take out the USA DD + 2 Transports.

Ok, now my turn, UK1 turn starts:

I don’t buy 2 FTR which is stupid thing to do.

I would according to this situation, buy 2 Carriers + 1 INF. I put the 1 INF on India, and 2 Carriers on London, SZ7.
Land 2 UK FTR from London on those carriers. Move a Canada DD and Transport together with Carriers and take one Canada tank with you to London on the way.
When US1 turn starts, fly that 1 FTR from Eastern U.S to one of the UK Carriers.

Now before G2 turn starts, UK should have there 2 Carriers with total of 3 FTR + DD + Transport.
This is some serious naval power, and if Germany starts to attack this with German fleet + air power, Germany would start losing boats + planes.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to strike Canada DD + Transport instead of attacking the USA DD + 2 Transports. Still, UK can build 2 Carriers + having 3 FTR on them waiting for any German attack, even with no UK DD from Canada with them.

As an experienced player, I find it totally unacceptable UK being cut of from the seas for like 3 or 4 rounds, by that time, Allies are pretty much dead. UK needs naval power right away.

Another UK DD, with the two Carriers isn’t really that big of a deal.
It doesn’t make or break the defense there.

2 carriers is a bad buy. one and a destroyer gets the same effect (minus the US fighter)

Really depends what lives on G1 for the UK. are 2 subs still in 11?
Are 2 subs still in 7?

I am surprised to see usa doing pacific campaigns… Isn’t japan supposed to take moscow while the allies work berlin?

I don’t think I will get a group to play the low VC conditions.

Also why is uk afraid to lose his fleet? Does usa not have air to land on an empty uk carrier? You know you can buy the fleet without the transport right? Germany won’t sink it unless it is the only thing his fleet can do, in which case he’ll win or lose and die in the counter and not get much of a reward.

Russians should always be aggressive till japan shows up especially if germany is buying naval, I mean come on.
~
I don’t see how UK cannot hold his fleet.

Just block with 1 destroyer, buy your stuff blam, usa flies on your carrier, SHAZAM.
~
In anycase, you should crush ukraine with russia round1. Gives you better odds at holding egypt.

Probably want to land a russian fighter on egypt as well. turns it into a 5v5 fight with allies rolling bigger die.

you can do lots of interesting things now with that fleet, merge it, ship it to the med / around south america, sink east indies (risky, you roll lower dice).

In anycase you want to attack with russia round 1. two spots, game is won or lost in caucasus, who cares about karelia really, you could counter attack that spot if you got the buffer zone in front of russia. Come on now.

For your first game, you should try to race aggressively, tell us how that goes.
~
I already hate this game because 1 sub vs 1 dd 2 tran and 1 sub vs 1 dd 1 tran… sound familiar? welcome to AA50 1942.

USA doesn’t really have the planes to be doing that if Japan attacks pearl on J1 and knocks that fleet around.

AxisBrutality, you were attacked for building a complex in Alaska and moving your US fleet up there to get eliminated……re-read…I didn’t say anything about a Japanese complex…

@oztea:

Another UK DD, with the two Carriers isn’t really that big of a deal.
It doesn’t make or break the defense there.

2 carriers is a bad buy. one and a destroyer gets the same effect (minus the US fighter)

Really depends what lives on G1 for the UK. are 2 subs still in 11?
Are 2 subs still in 7?

CVs have a D of 2, and the planes, which you can now auto land like in Global on the Carriers each have a D of 4….so 2(2s) and 4(4s), and when the US comes on US3, you add 1(3) and 4-5(2s)…so how is it a bad buy? Next turn I can start bringing troops through.

Good luck paying for all that crap and holding Japan at bay at the same time.
Ive never seen a game end well where the Americans send their fighters to Europe to play defense….as Japan goes hog wild in the pacific.

The UK should support the planes…that’s why I insist on the UK3 buy, and not the UK1 buy that axisbrutality desires…I see his point IF the Canadian transport lives…it would be pretty tough, but you could possibly take German planes with you and for sure eliminate the German sub fleet…so that move isn’t a bad buy by axisbrut, I may not do it, but I don’t think that one is a bad idea if you let the canucks live…but remember, the US fleet in the Pac survives, and the UK have a good chance of surviving as well…use the Brit transports to reinforce India (lose Austrailia, not a big deal, pull the troops off) or cause chaos by taking Borneo…

Like I said, I’m just trying to push it into the Germans hard fast so they can take their eye of the prize (Moscow)…US2 can be an all Pac buy to help out the Pac Fleet and then you can continue to pour money into the Pac if you desire…the UK/US3 maneuver can set up the Brits for landings in Europe/Norway/Africa depending on what you need, but any money sent to the Pac, means the Brits are on their own…which is fine, because the Naval D of the UK/US3 should hold, and if you still were worried about it, a UK4 buy in conjunction with hitting Europe would be fine (more DDs, add a cruiser, chronosphere, etc)…

Hey I was wondering if anyone was buying a couple tanks for India UK1, and pulling all units to the Mid east UK2. The game I’m playing now I bought a couple tanks, and waited til UK2 to start moving everything to Mid east (was too late, and didn’t have the air w/units to protect them). I got to Caucasus in time to make a difference, but was killed off fairly easily. It did work as a diversion for Germany though. They had to back down from attacking Moscow (for a couple rounds), and it only fell when Japan came in through China (and a few through India). Russia destroyed the Japanese stack in Kaz, but went in too hot. I just wanted to knock them down w/hit & run, but ended up taking Kaz and stranding over 10 units there allowing Germany to get Moscow (damn dice worked to good for me in the second wave, can’t win w/damn dice even when I win). Chances are that Germany would have put balls to the walls and took Moscow down anyway, but I also had a pretty good sized combined fleet and UK force already in Karelia (w/some tanks) via the Baltic, w/US on Norway and Finland via Baltic (can you say straight rule?).

Maybe have US go mostly Pac in the beginning to keep them from going bonkers. I lost a significant battle mid game when Japan attacked the US fleet after I moved every thing to invade Iwo. They had slight odds, but it was the very one sided dice gods that decided the fate of the Pacific. I did manage a counter attack, but once both fleets were down, Japan still had most of the Pac, Asia/India and a second fleet F-ing w/Africa heading to the Med.

Anyway, is it better to surrender India to Japan if you can get those units into Caucasus to make Germany’s life miserable (or to deal w/Japanese in Russia). Germany spent some $ on navy G1 (probably too much), so that also contributed to slowing down the march to Moscow. I managed to tie up the Luftwaffe, and kill the Baltic fleet, making significant landings up north. After discussions (w/opponents) I think it might have been better to just make landing in France to force the Germans to defend more (tying up the Luftwaffe more), instead of fighting them on Russian soil. I would have been able to liberate Moscow though if the Germans would have had to fight my entire Russian army. The UK did make an attempt, but the Germans ended up w/12 tanks after the fall of Moscow. It would have only been a handful of German tanks if my hit & run leftovers could have returned home (UK had enough to drop 1/2 doz German tanks, even w/ a couple Japanese ftrs moved in).

Wait why does usa have to do pacific again? Of course Japan does pearl. That doesn’t mean you have to counter, it is just boats in oceans.

I never dealt with it before in any other version of 1942, I think I did KJF a few times, and it was viable, but never really a dominant strategy.

Don’t sweat pacific. Besides you shouldn’t play the low VC count anyway - as winning without a capital is stupid, no one will agree that is a victory.
~
just trust me, R1 kill ukraine and west russia. land 1 fighter egypt. UK1 buy your dang naval. Do what you want for fun with india/aussie fleet, USA1 reinforce uk naval, if pearl is loaded, ignore it (it will take ages to cross the med from hawaii or to wrap around south america). It is not something you have to deal with, it is bait, ignore it.

build atlantic ships.

This game favors allies slightly, but because of the starting setup, I wouldn’t do a bid.

Just powerslam germany, Japan races for russia. Just play a normal game first then make your critiques.
~
Also the book is filled with misprints. The book don’t say you got to use their VC count, which was obviously a misprint as well.

@Mallery29:

The UK should support the planes…that’s why I insist on the UK3 buy, and not the UK1 buy that axisbrutality desires…I see his point IF the Canadian transport lives…it would be pretty tough, but you could possibly take German planes with you and for sure eliminate the German sub fleet…so that move isn’t a bad buy by axisbrut, I may not do it,

Hi again,

Yes, that’s the point of my strategy, I would do this if the Canada DD and Trans survives, which it seems like here, they do.

It’s simple logic. Those who buy 2 UK FTR on UK1 will lose because that player will fight on Germany’s terms.
If a player buys a UK Fleet, as I do, then the fight will be on UK terms, simple as that. And if Germany does NOT attack, well then, voila, UK has a fleet when they start UK2. And if Germany does attack on G2 turn, both fighters AND carriers are better at defence, instead of bying just 2 UK FTR and using them at German fleet, where UK FTR are WORSE at attacking than defending.

Other things worth mentioning is that those 2 German subs attacking U.S DD + 2 Transport can NOT get to the London SZ7, it’s 3 spaces to there. So Germany would not have more that 1 sub there to attack UK fleet with, because Germany will lose at least one sub in the beginning attacking UK Battleship + Russian sub.

This is the point of the mind game, making the opponent go into traps and/or play on your terms.

Same goes for the trap I layed in Syria, where some UK players wanted to attack my German Battleship on Syria, which meant that Japan fleet could survive, and slaughter everything in East-Asia. I don’t say UK should attack the Japanese fleet, but I am saying that forcing UK to attack my German Battleship was fun, taking away UK’s ability to attack Japanese Fleet and the situation was that UK would lose planes big time on both UK1 and UK2.

So a good rule here, when UK, no matter what Germany does, build Fleet Power all the way! That’s what UK is, a fleet powered nation, not a nation to sit on an island with a few small fighters which are worse at attacking than defending, and being cut off from the rest of the Europe and the World.

Japan should always build a factory right away, although I can agree that you don’t want U.S. to build factory on Alaska, but that depends on the situation, U.S. could wait with that one a little later though.

And when it comes to Russia, one of the reasons as I can see, is that Russia’s offencive capabilities, as I said, collapse if people attack Ukraine, so do NOT attack Ukraine, it’s a trap. That German fighter there does NOT have anything more to say regarding Egypt, so the advantage of attacking Ukraine is totally lost compared to 2009-version. � We all agree that West Russia should be taken care off + I would go for Belarus, and not Ukraine.

As I said earlier, Russian should never engage in a battle where they start losing artilleries right in the beginning on G1 turn, and losing tanks, which are now in this version, even MORE expencive. Russia losing 33% of it’s artilleries and 50% of it’s tanks after G1 clears and takes back Ukraine is not good for Russia’s offencive capabilities. Tanks are as good in defense as in attack so do NOT lose them, and same for the artilleries, they boost INF, so don’t lose artilleries either. Also artilleries are as good in defence as in attack, so there is no advantage what so ever for Russia to go into Ukraine.