Difficulty finding 1942 2nd edition opponents…

@krieghund @Nerddog

For any strange reason the link provided in the first thread of the stickied topic
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/18542/1942-2-rulebook-available-for-download

namely:
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

still links to the FAQ document (PDF) of November 24, 2014, that AFAIK is the latest one that ever had been published.

However as this link probably will become invalid anytime, it is still a good idea to publish this sheet here.

If I understand correctly your rephrased question, you want to know if it’s possible to play an A&A board game (like A&A 1942) using the large-scale pre-painted models that are used in these product lines…

A&A Miniatures (Original)
A&A Naval Miniatures
A&A Air Force Miniatures

…rather than by using the very small unpainted plastic sculpts that come in the board game itself.  The short answer is no.  The A&A board games are designed to be played with large numbers of tiny sculpts placed on a map board.  The so-called “A&A miniatures” games use models that are gigantic in size compared to the ones in the board games, and there’s no way that they’d fit on an A&A map board.  Besides, you’d need to buy dozens or even hundreds of these “A&A miniatures” to have enough units to play an A&A board game, which would be fantastically expensive – assuming you could even find them on the market, because they’re a discontinued product line.

In principle, assuming that you owned the required dozens (or hundreds) of “A&A miniatures”, you could theoretically use them to play an A&A board game by keeping all the “A&A miniatures” in labeled groups off the board and representing them on the game map by smaller labeled markers or tiny sculpts…but in essence that would bring you right back to playing the board games with tiny sculpts – which is how they’re meant to be played in the first place.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

It’s not always needed but if that is the outcome of your group games I would set up a allied bid system it could help

@Baron:

The Triple A 1942.2 SBR rule is each plane get Att or Def @1 and StB get 1D6 damage.

However, the math also shows that it is not better to bring along Fg as escort than throwing only StBs.
Almost the same odds: 0.825 IPC/ SBR run (with 1 StB 1 Fg) vs 0.861 IPC/ SBR run (with 2 StBs).

The only difference is with 2 Bombers there is much risk (of loosing more IPCs) but also much reward (more damage against the defender).

From this, my analysis will be that there is no need to escort 2 bombers or more with Fighters as long as you get a 1:1 ratio against defending interceptors. Better to put your Fgs on other missions.

Below there is the maths.

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1

Sum: +8.195 - 7.334 = + 0.861 IPCs damage/StB

I can also add that it is even more the case with G40 SBR, no need to throw a Fg on an escort mission if you have at least 2 StBs and a 1:1 ratio against defending interceptors.

According to the maths of G40 OOB SBR rules, the odds to inflict damage to the defender are clearly increasing keeping 1:1 ratio, from 1 StB, 1 StB+1Fg and, finally 2 StBs.
The odds are even better than a single bomber against an undefended Industrial Complex ! ( +2.583 vs + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run)

G1940 SBR: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor/ damage 1D6+2
Sum: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1 / damage 1D6+2
Sum: + 4.845 - 3.666 = + 1.179 IPC. damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 4.85 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 damage: 1D6+2
Sum: +7.775 - 5.33 = + 2.445 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 damage: 1D6+2/StB
Sum: +10.973 - 7.334 = + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 3.667 = + 3.972 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +11.459 - 5.666 = + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor (A1 vs D1, damage 1D6)
Sum: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D1
Sum: +3.69 - 3.667 = + 0.023 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2 : 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 / damage 1D6
Sum: + 2.025 - 5.056 = - 3.031 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +6.155 - 5.33 = + 0.825 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +8.195 - 7.334 = + 0.861 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: + 5.973 - 3.667 = + 2.306 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: +8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/StB

OOB SBR rules for 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor damage: 1D6
Sum: + 2.917 - 2 = +.917 IPC damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB A1 first strike vs 1 Fg D2
Sum: + 3.8 - 4.8 = - 1 IPC damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2 / damage 1D6
Sum: + 3.071 - 7.185 = - 4.114 IPC. damage/SBR

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Sum: + 6.018 - 7.555 = - 1.537 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Sum: +7.547 - 9.556 = - 2.009 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Sum: + 5.973 - 5.159 = + 0.814 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 first strike doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Sum: + 8.214 - 6.315 = + 1.899 IPCs damage/SBR run

So the only case for advocating Fg escort is within OOB SBR rules from 1942.2, the odds are less worse for the attacker if it keeps pairing 1 StB with 1 Fg.

Playing 1942.2 online with Triple A SBR rules however, it is a different story. As in G40, 2 StBs has almost the same odds of doing damage as a single StB raid against an undefended IC.
(.861 vs .917 IPC/SBR run)

So, based on these comparative stats, we can say that the actual OOB 1942.2 SBR rules is more historical than the 2 others, since the game mechanics give less risks for bombers when paired to Fg but it is at the expense of making SBR strategies much less appealing for attacker, and for Allies in particular.

Here is the link to HR forum for what I think is a more historical and balance SBR rules:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34118.msg1311386#msg1311386

We have illegal Bangladeshies making our curries in Hereford.
They are not bad.

@WILD:

Would have liked to see a 3rd optional rule for no ICs on islands (Oz has brought this up on another tread). We really liked that in G40, and I kinda expected it to be brought over to 1942 2nd edition. Maybe it will be added as an option in the official faq

Smo63 will that be the case in the tourney’s, will you outlaw island ICs? Didn’t see anything about it in your pdf file about 1942 2nd ed tourney rules.

Didn’t plan on it.  Why would we?

@AbuMaju:

what about miniaturemarket??? i ordered it off there before i found this thread, does anyone know if that site is good

My preorders from them are due in tomorrow as well. You should have received a tracking notice in your email.