1942.2 Strategy Guide Introduction: Feedback Appreciated

Thanks man :-D
here’s some more…

Anti-Aircraft Artillery, the AAgun, or AAAgun:
“ACK-ACK” I’m just going to come out and say it, I kind of hate this unit!

Its morphed quite a bit in recent editions, so its cost structure and abilities, still feel a bit unsettled to me. AAguns have always been challenging. In older games AAguns could be captured by the enemy, or fire at all times, or become rocket launchers, finding themselves in situations that the current AAAgun in 1942.2 no longer encounters. The newer unit is probably an improvement over its predecessors, but the AAguns still play in a weird way that is very different from all other units

It’s probably the most complicated and least interesting unit in the whole roster for me from a teaching perspective. Not enough bang for the buck. Of all Axis and Allies units, this is the one I reserve the most curses for! hehe I almost never buy them, and I would probably wish them out of existence if I could, to make the game simpler. But then again, the game really does need some sort of Anti-Aircraft mechanic just to balance the sheer power of mass aircraft.

Since AAAguns are part of the unit roster in 1942.2 we need to discuss them too. But first I have to hate on them a little bit more, spit some black bile, just for a minute, to get it out of my system.
:-D

The AAgun cannot move during the combat phase!

This can be hugely annoying, because people always forget about them, and because it prevents you from loading AAguns onto transports effectively with accompanying infantry units. You are forced to wait until non com, which creates all sorts of headaches, when you’re trying to move these units across the water! They have no normal attack or defense combat value (analogous to other units) but instead use their own separate combat phase. In this phase they are allowed to fire at up to 3 attacking aircraft, but only once, after which point they become essentially useless. They have a hitpoint value of 1, (meaning they can be used as fodder) but again, only on defense. If taken as a bombardment casualty they don’t get to fire back.

All this combines to make a unit that is exceedingly difficult for me to explain to the new player. But let’s give it a shot all the same…

Attacks at 0: cannot move during combat, thus cannot take a territory.
Defends at 1: one time shot, in the opening phase of combat vs 3 attacking aircraft per AAgun.
Moves at 1: again, only on non-combat.
with 1 hitpoint: can absorb a hit as fodder.
Costs: 5 ipcs

Compared to the Air units the AAgun is meant to counter, the eminently useful Fighter and Bomber, that might not seem like a whole lot of advantage for the money. One shot, one time against three planes, for 5 ipcs? That doesn’t seem like a steal exactly. But if it manages to shoot down just a single air unit, it has basically paid for itself twice over.

The AAgun actually has some of the best odds to destroy the most TUV of any unit in a single round of the combat phase. Only a sub vs the loaded carrier can do comparable damage for the cost invested, under optimal circumstances. If the enemy sends 3 fighters against a single AAgun, that AAgun could certainly hit one plane at decent odds. Basically 50/50, flip a coin. It’s not inconceivable you might roll snake eyes and kill 2 planes. And who knows, maybe the gods of war favor you, and you kill 3 planes! That’s like 10-30 ipcs for only 5 invested. It could be major, sure, but how often does it really work out that way?

The players I game with don’t buy many AAguns on the regular, because it is such an inflexible and one dimensional unit. Its potential to influence combat is usually restricted to a one time event. Beyond that it just has to sit there waiting, as a deterrent.

To really be an effective deterrent, you probably need at least a pair of AAguns to adequately defend a large stack from an all out air assault. Most players have 2 AAguns at the outset, but when it comes to buying new guns, getting a pair costs you the same amount of cash as a shiny new fighter! A fighter that not only attacks at a solid 3, defends at a kickass 4, but moves at a 4 as well! Long term investment for the cash, and the fighter is probably way more useful than those 2 aaguns.

At most, I see maybe the investment for a second gun in India, or late in the endgame, when the attacker has mass air, and the defender has a huge defensive stack already. Usually though, players just seem to work with the aaguns they have at the start.

I don’t think it’s because the combat values are necessarily so off, more because the unit isn’t very exciting to play with. Certainly not as exciting as say, an artillery piece for 1 less ipc, or a tank for 1 more ipc. The 5 spot ipc position in the unit roster is a tough one in 1942.2. I think this is a bit unfortunate because the 5 ipc buy used to be a staple (back when that was the cost of tanks) but now, the only unit you can spend exactly 5 ipcs on is the aagun. In a way the numbers are nice, AAgun for 5 ipcs, Fighter for 10 ipcs trying to create some kind of parity with value. But the fighter just outperforms the AAgun in all around effectiveness, so I have a hard time recommending the AAgun as a sound purchasing option in most situations.

If you do buy AAguns, make sure you are grouping them with enough defensive power to back down a “tank sacrifice” play from your enemy. Remember that the AAgun has no defense value whatsoever in a battle where no attacking Aircraft are present. If the enemy sends just infantry/art + tanks for the heavy 3s, the best your AAgun can do is just take the first fodder hit. If your opponent sees a 5 TUV unit vulnerable to a trade, this may entice them to attack with a 6 TUV tank, rather thank risk Aircraft vs AAfire. This can also be an effective bait, if your goal is to draw out enemy armor for counter attack potentional, but the aagun is pretty pricey when used like that.

If your defensive power or counter attack power isn’t strong enough to support an AAgun moving out vs enemy tanks, then you should probably hold the guns back. The safest place for them is in the main frontline ground stack. The stack you “can’t lose!” And of course, there is always a role for them in capital defense. This last is likely the best use of AAguns, and probably the only locations where it might be worth buying new AAguns, if your starting AAguns are out of position or destroyed. Even then though, I’d still have to consider pretty carefully, whether I bought an AAgun for 5, or an infantry unit or artillery unit that can move in the combat phase and actually take land for my side.

The AAgun is a purely defensive unit, and buying one needlessly can set you back, or put you into a defensive corner that its hard to escape from. Sometimes they can have their uses though, so I can’t come out categorically opposed, its just not my go-to buy.

Along this subject of Anti-Air, there is one other unit in the game that has an Anti-Aircraft ability, and that is the Factory unit itself. Industrial Complexes have a built in Anti-Air ability. It doesn’t fire during defensive combat the way the AAAgun unit does, but instead vs bombers, when strategic bombing raids are conducted.

Bombing:

SBR, strategic bombing raids against Factories, can be a major part of the game, among players who are willing to risk their air for SBR versus this built-in Industrial Complex AAfire. A bomber shot down costs the enemy 12 ipcs in TUV, which can make this unit fairly potent vs bombers, if you roll those lucky 1s. Whether you strat Bomb or not, depends a bit on your own risk aversion, how many bombers you have at the ready, and whether or not your enemy is engaging in this style of play too.

Strategic bombing is basically a game resolution mechanism.

It exists to allow faster games, that conclude more quickly, by introducing a decisive/variable element into to the balance by sides. SBR is unpredictable, especially in a dice game! If one side levels a catastrophic bombing run, or one side gets totally smoked by a factory AA-fire, the swing can be huge. The advantage given to one side or the other can force the game towards a clearer finish, as the side that “won” in a decisive SBR/AA vs Bomber Battle can then build on their win, and press the advantage even harder.

Otherwise, if both players content themselves to never SBR (due to risk aversion, and the idea that bombers are best used in combat) then the game can go on much longer. Games with SBR, tend to resolve in a single session more readily, whereas games with little or no SBR can go well over a dozen rounds. Or even longer, depending on how conservative the players are.

I think SBR has fairly strong entertainment value, and it can be very useful in helping to break nations like Germany or Russia. Multiple bombing runs by two teammates against a single enemy target, over the course of a round, can really add up. Sure some of the bombers might go down, but if they don’t and score some decent hits, this can set the enemy back a whole round in the purchasing contest! Especially if you think about the SBR rolls, in terms of equivalent value territories.

Hitting a 6, is almost like depriving Germany of France!
Hit a 5 and its like you just snatched Italy and Poland away from them!
Hit 4 is like West Russia and Ukraine.
Hit 3, all of North Africa, or all of Scandinavia.
Hit 2, same value as Holland.
Hit 1, as if Libya was never theirs hehe.

I just try to imagine it like I stole all the gold from one of those places, and then the SBR feels a bit more consequential. Of course SBR doesn’t deny income directly, it does so through the Factory damage/repair system. So just because you do 6 damage to a factory, doesn’t guarantee that the enemy will necessarily spend 6 ipcs to repair. They might not need the full production out of that factory this round, so they might just repair a couple points of damage.

In order for SBR to be truly effective you need to “Max-damage” a factory. The damage needs to be higher than the production value of the territory itself (ideally the damage needs to be twice as high!) This will force the enemy to repair, or at least, it will severely limit their options if they don’t.

To ensure that you do max damage against a high value factory, you really need to bring multiple bombers into the raid at the same time. There is no way to control the outcome of this in a dice game, and the swing could be very dramatic. That’s why I think the more bombing that occurs in a game, the more likely it is that one side or the other might get hammered, which leads to a timely finish.

Bombers are fairly affordable at 12 ipcs, and useful for movement on both attack and defense, as I tried to show earlier. So there’s a good chance you’ll see some floating around. Germany, Japan, and the US in particular, will often mass bombers, even UK on occasion, and the more bomber forces are out there, the greater the likelihood that one of them will “go wild” and start making bombing runs.

When the game goes into Mass SBR mode, it’s basically up to the dice. The potential swings in these battles are just too varied to predict with any consistency. The Nation conducting the bombing run might crush with heavy 6s! Or it might get through the AA-fire only to roll a bunch of 1s. Or maybe the factory AA-fire cuts them down outright. There’s no way to tell, until you throw the dice.

There is however, one thing you can do, that will definitely restrict the number of bombing runs conducted, and that is to include the Optional Fighter Escort/Intercept rules for SBR. This is one of two optional rules suggested in the manual, the other is the option to close sz 16 to surface ships. I didn’t really want to get into those just yet, but suffice it to say that in my view, what the Escort/Intercept rules do, is change SBR from a repeating thing to a one time major event. Basically you have to build up large numbers of both bombers and fighters, and then go for a massive strike all at once, in the hope that the enemy fighters you destroy and the bombs you drop, will be enough to overcome the potential TUV loss of dead escorting fighters. It is up to the defender to decide whether they will intercept, and this can be a costly proposition for them, so they might just let the bombers through and save their “would-be interceptors” to fight in normal combats rather than putting them at risk of destruction. One issue with the mass strike SBR under these rules, is that the payoff in bombing might not be very substantial, if the defender does intercept, then the TUV exchange is more about how many fighters/bombers go down. These battles can provide huge TUV swings, comparable to naval battles, or ground battles at a capital, which means players are probably more reluctant to engage in them. This could go either way from a game resolution standpoint. On the one hand it encourages players to wait until they’re confident in their endgame and superior Air forces before they attempt to bomb, but on the other hand, SBR with Escort/Intercept can be a major TUV swing once it does occur.

I will say that I don’t usually play 1942.2 with either of these optional rules in effect anymore. I have played with escort/intercept rules, but I found that my players just stopped bombing altogether, perhaps because they felt unable to assess the potential risks vs benefits of a major intercept/escort SBR battle.

I used to play with sz 16 closed to all but subs as well, but again the players in my group found it awkward. Sometimes they would forget about it, in which case it created strategy and purchase planning problems for them. Or other times they would bemoan the fact that they couldn’t make an attack on Caucasus, because the Bosporus was closed. The default suggested “Open” so that’s what we just went back to. I will say I think that both house rules probably favor Allies initially, so if you do use them, it may offset the need for a bid.

But what is a bid anyway? :-D

I just briefly mentioned above the two official “Optional Rules” for 1942.2 and those are : Sz 16 Closed, and the Escort/Intercept rules for Strategic Bombing Raids. But there are other kinds of “optional” rules too, they’re just not quite “official.” We call these “House Rules” or “HRs.” Some of them are more popular than others. Some groups use all kinds of HRs, others keep their House Rules to the minimum. A lot of people know about at least one house rule though, so lets give it a quick nod, for the sake of completion.

Bidding:
The most common House Rule.

A&A is unlike most boardgames. In nearly every board game, there will be some randomized “event” that occurs at the outset, which is designed to make each game more or less unique. Perhaps its something as simple as “roll the dice, to see who goes first” or “shuffle these cards, then make a random draw” or perhaps “select which spot you want to put all your forces.”

A&A doesn’t work this way at all. Instead, in A&A, the starting forces and the money and the turn order and all the rest, are set. They’re pre-determined, fixed by some grand Logos, like clockwork.
:evil:

The basic starting conditions do not change from game to game, but are instead thought of as representing World War II at some set point in time. The “start date.” Here the randomized element comes later, mainly through combat rolls, or through unit movement, or unit purchase, but the opening set up is constant.

The A&A approach to game design has an upside, because it means that it is possible to “learn” from each game, various ways to take advantage of that “set opening.” You try something the first time, it totally backfires, next time you try something else, but from the same essential starting position. This allows players to concoct strategies, and to tease out the “best moves” or the “winning openings” etc, because each time out the board remains basically fixed.

But the A&A approach to game design has a downside too, because it means that at some point a player will learn how to “break” the game, or crack the secret code, exploiting the unit set up for some optimal winning strategy as one side or the other. When one side is recognized to be too dominant, and returning consistent wins (ie. “Axis always win!” or “Allies always win”) and a consensus develops among experienced players, you will start to hear discussions about whether the game is “balanced” or not.

Balance, or “balance by sides,” is just a way of saying that, in an ideal universe, we think players should have have a roughly equal chance of winning the game vs an opponent of comparable skill, regardless of which side they are, whether playing Allies or Axis. This is more of a gaming aspiration, or a boardgamer’s wish, than anything particularly historical, or reflective of the “balance of sides” in World War II. It’s the disbelief we suspend, in order to get a functional boardgame, and a game that can still be fun for any of the 2-5 players gaming.

When a new Axis and Allies game is first introduced, no one can really say whether its balanced or not, because nobody has truly seen it in operation, other than the designers and maybe some early playtesters. But after some time has elapsed, it often turns out that the “Official” set up, seems to favor one side.

At this point players will often introduce a Bid. Or a bidding process to play one side or the other.

What is a Bid? Well, in its most basic form, a bid is extra IPCs awarded to the side/player perceived to be at a disadvantage.  The Underdog gets extra loot.

I don’t know exactly where or when this bidding process was formalized, probably over several tournaments and across many years. The most popular way to do this now is what I call the “pre-placement” bid. Here the IPCs awarded to the underdog, can be split up between the Nations on that side, and used to place additional units before the game begins. The units are “purchased” with the Bid IPCs in the same way and for the same costs, that you would buy those units during the actual game.

If the underdog is allowed to choose how these IPCs are distributed (what units to buy, and where they go) this is what I call an “Open Bid.” Frequently an Open Bid game, is used a way to determine who will play which side: Axis or Allies. Rather than flipping a coin, or rolling the dice to make this determination, the players instead enter into a kind of opening contest, or a “bid” to play a given side. One player will open the the Bid, by saying something like “I will play this side for X ipcs.” Then you alternate offers, either increasing the number of ipcs awarded, in an ascending bid. Or decrease them in a descending bid. Most people I play with use a descending bid.

For example, in 1942.2 player A opens: “I will play Allies for +13 ipcs”
Then player B counters: “I will play play Allies for +12 ipcs”
Player A persists: “10”
Player B demurs, "hmmm 9? "
Player A: “8!”
Player B: “OK, you can have 'em. Good luck!”

Then player A takes his 8 ipcs from the bid and decides how they want to spend them for their side. In this case Allies.

Usually there are some extra rules to restrict where the units can be placed. Most people go with these: No more than 1 unit per territory or sea zone. Must be placed in a territory you control and already occupied by units from your Nation.
That’s an open bid. And it’s called a bidding, because you’re really auctioning off the side you don’t want to play, to your opponent haha.

If the unit type and location is chosen in them in advance, I call that a “Set Bid” or more simply, as an adjustment or “hard change” to the unit set up."

Once these new Bid units are introduced, the balance of the game effectively resets. And you play the game again and again, until the bid falls into some kind of standard range between say “6-12 ipcs” or “8 to 15 ipcs” etc. typically awarded to the underdog side. And of course, then the original issue of “OOB balance” is superseded by the question “is it Balanced for Bid?” If you think a bid at X ipcs is balanced, then you allow your opponent to take the underdog side for X. If you think X ipcs is too powerful, then you Bid lower than X, to make sure you still have a chance to win.

All this we call bidding, and it is important to recall that this is still a house rule! It’s not discussed anywhere  in the game manual (although I wish it was, or at least something like it.) It’s probably the most popular house rule, just judging by how many players adopt it, or are at least familiar with it. The process isn’t exactly codified though, different play groups sometimes adopt different approaches to it. One popular variant, and the bid I like best, is to award IPCs purely as a bonus to starting income and not as pre-placement units! This means you still get extra money, but you have to buy the units during the normal purchase phase. Here the Bid amounts (in IPCs) are invariably larger, but this type of bid has the advantage of not disrupting the opening battles.

Finally there are house rules, that introduce other kinds of advantages to one side or the other (or both) or which create new conditions for the first round, by other means. These are practically endless, and there is a whole section dedicated to it on these forums. Its one of my favorite sections here, because there are always interesting ideas and discussions kicking around there. Sometimes these HR discussions come, sometimes they go, but every now and again I catch a winner, and then I try to introduce them among my players to see which ones catch.

Some players will be more receptive to this style of gameplay, others prefer to play strictly “by the book.” Some are ok with open bidding, others use set bids, or no bids at all. Some players play with Low Luck rules instead of the normal Dice rules, others find LL totally anathema to what they enjoy about A&A. It really all depends on who you are playing with. I’d say for a first time out, don’t overburden your new players with too many discussions about optional rules, or bids, or how the game needs “such and such” for balance.

Instead, if the player is new, just set the conditions for them and treat it like “this is how we play at my house.” If you just approach it in a more authoritative and matter-of-fact way, the more likely the new player is to just accept the rule. But I’d still suggest keeping things limited at the outset.

There are so many potential ways to change the game, and its such a nuanced and tricky game to begin with, that you really need to start somewhere. And 1942.2 OOB actually isn’t all that terribly off in terms of balance, you can do some very simple things to bring it into a more balanced state. One simple way I like is just to increase the starting income for everyone, by the same amount. Basically everyone wins the bid. This isn’t about balance so much as variety. Say everyone Nation gets an extra 5 ipcs or 10 ipcs.

Rules like that are simple to grasp, but they can change the dynamics of the game in a very dramatic way, by altering the first round purchase options. One minor rules change can make the whole game new. Like zeroing the game back to the release day, where the players have to “unlearn, what they have learned” and then do it all over again.
:-D

This Glossary section will need to be expanded, but basically posting it here as placeholder

Common Terms and Abbreviations:

A&A or AAA or AA = Axis and Allies, the basic game or franchise.

TripleA = a game engine or software capable of playing the above, on a computer.

1942.2 or 1942 2nd Ed= 1942 Second Edition, also called the 1942 “red box” to distinguish it from the first edition which is generally called “Spring 1942.”

V5 or WorldWarII v5 = the same as above, in TripleA.

IPC = Industrial Production Capacity, or Industrial Production Certificate

PU = Production Unit, the same as above, in TripleA

Players:
Russia = R, RU, RUS.
Germany = G, GR, GER.
United Kindgom = UK, but also B, Br, Brit, GB, for the British or Great Britain.
Japan = J, JP.
United States of America = US, USA, sometimes Am or just A, for American.

IJN = Imperial Japanese Navy
USN = United States Navy

Jerry = the Germans. or Germany
Tom = the British, or Great Britain
Just for kicks, and punches
;)

Territories:
Arch = Archangel
Bury = Buryatia
FIC = French Indo-China, or Indochine
EI or DEI = East Indies, or Dutch East Indies
WUS, CUS, EUS = Western, Central, and Eastern USA

Units
AA or AAgun or AAAgun = Anti-Aircraft Artillery
ARM = Armor, or Tanks
ART = Artillery
INF = Infantry
FT, Fig = Fighter
SB, StB, StratB = strategic bomber

SBR = strategic bombing raid, or run

TP, or TT, Trans, Tranny = transport, also AP or sometimes APA from hull designations of the period. Other naval designations commonly used in this game include…

BB = Battleship.
CA = Cruiser, also sometimes CC or CL for different concepts of the unit.
CV = Aircraft Carrier, also called a “deck” or AC.
DD = Destroyer, Dest.
SS = Submarine, Sub also U-boat.

IC = Industrial Complex, commonly a Factory, Fact, sometimes Production Facility.

TT = Territory, generic for any land space/tile on the gamemap.
SZ= Sea Zone, same deal but for naval spaces.

HBG = Historical Board Games, a company the sells extra materials that can be used with A&A games.

Com = the Combat game phase, or movement during this phase.

Non Com = the Non-Combat game phase.

Att or “A” = Attack
Def or “D”= Defense
usually followed by a number, as in A1/D2: “attacks at 1, defends at 2”

HP - Hit Points

TRN = turn
RND =Round

VC = Victory City

KGF = Kill Germany First
KJF = Kill Japan First
strategies for the Allies that focus on a single Axis power.

JDTM, or JDTM = Japanese Drive to Moscow, or Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow.
a common Axis strategy. Less common GDTM, GTDTM =German Tank Drive to Moscow. Somtimes described as the Hammer and Anvil, if coordinating.

More as I get around to it, or gather up suggestions ;)

OK that’s it for now. If you’d like to comment or discuss, have at it!

Again this is just a primer, mostly for the unit roster, so I will likely edit and modify/format as we go. Probably redraft at some point, on the way towards writing an actual article. But I wanted toss up a working document so others could see how I got here, and how I get to where-ever it is that I end up going with this.
:-D

I know its rather long, but thanks for checking it out if you get the chance.

Best
Jason

Good call! I’ll edit in those suggestions. And others as we go. Thanks guys :)

Excellent! Those too, for sure.
:-D

When we get 'em all down I can alphabetize the list. Or break it into more relevant thematic sections, with an expanded glossary of common terms and definitions.

Cool with me. I’ll be working a long weekend, but I’ll dive back into things next week

No worries I will just take it as a sign that my guide has been exhaustively comprehensive thus far.
:-D

I dont think any of the ideas discussed above are too terribly controversial though. A Walk through by Nation, or strategy guide to the first round would no doubt elicite stronger opinions. My goal so far was just to set up the scaffolding. We haven’t really started painting yet hehe.

Most of my thoughts on the Russian opening have already been outlined, with some broad strokes for the Allies. So next we’ll look at 42.2 from the German player’s perspective… When I’m less slammed at work.
;)

For sure man. Anything that keeps the ball rolling. My work week schedule has been fairly, wasn’t able to catch any face to face games in April. Perhaps May will be a more A&A friendly month haha
  :-D

Great feedback Private Panic! Thanks for giving it a look over. Its always helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on this stuff. Brevity is probably not my strongest suit, so I’d agree it could use a fair amount of pruning, or some savage machete hack downs in a couple sections. All my posts on these boards tend towards the long side of the force, so if you’re motivated and have a red pen at the ready, I’m game.
;)

2. I like the 1941 game, and can see a definite benefit to using it as an intro. It’s certainly much faster to set up, and the more limited roster selection makes for a quick grab and go playstyle. The only real downside of that board in my view is the limited scale, both for the map and the overall game economy, as well as the total number of unit sculpts included, and this places certain limits on the replay value. I often try to get back into the head-space of the first timer, and recall my experiences when I initially tried to play A&A. I think Axis and Allies is definitely one of the more challenging boardgames to learn and to organize with your friends, so in that respect its nice to have that simplified 1941 game available. On the other hand, I still look to Classic and Revised, as the boards that had me really falling for A&A, and 1942.2 is much closer to these in scope than 1941 is. 1942.2 is the workhorse 5 man board, my go to for multiplayer games. I suppose all I would say, is that if your standing in the gameshop holding both boxes in your hands, trying to decide which one will give you the most bang for your buck, 1941 or 1942, I’d say you’re probably better off dropping a few extra ducats and grabbing 1942.2. Sure its a bit more expensive but its a lot more expansive! You get more sculpts out of the deal, and more chips, a larger map and broader overall layout.

The jump from 1942.2 to the 1940 games is on a whole different order of magnitude, both in terms of the initial cost and the rules overhead, but the choice between 1941 and 1942.2 is something a new player might realistically consider for the price. So I just wanted to put it out there, that I think 1942.2 can be a fine place to start if someone wants to dive right in and skip over 1941. Also there is a certain respect in which I think 1941 is actually a fairly challenging board, despite being billed as “the starter” or “the beginner” map. Its set up time is quick sure, but the scale of the economy and the narrow margins for error that result from the opening set up, can actually make that board quite novel even at a higher level of play. The unique sculpts alone make it a worthwhile investment to A&A players, it’s a cool game to have in your arsenal. So if you can swing it, I say buy both! But if I had to choose one or the other, well
:-D

3. the Factory is a unit which definitely warrants more in depth discussion. Good call. This is something that will need to be included, though I admit it can be rather tricky. The discussion about when to make an investment in additional production is rather less straightforward than with most of the other units. This is because there is a strong “national” component to factory buys. What I mean is that some nations benefit in a disproportionate way from having factories available as a purchasable unit in 1942.2.

The unit is critical for Japan. For the USA, or potentially the UK, it can be a potent option under some specific strategies, but not what I would call essential in the way it usually is for Japan. For Russia and Germany the newly purchased factory is kind of a non-factor, since Russia can’t afford them and Germany doesn’t need them, except under very rare Super G endgame conditions. In 1941 Industrial Complexes do not exist at all as a purchasable unit, and there is no SBR in that game, which may leave the new player who comes to 1942.2 from 1941 scratching their head a bit.

Broadly speaking, what you need to consider as a naval power like Japan, USA or UK, is whether a factory for 15 ipcs invested will get you more (long term) than a loaded transport with an infantry and artillery unit for 14 ipcs would get you.

If you can actually afford to max out a newly purchased factory with units after you buy it, or if the ability to drop units at the front trumps your need for total TUV or attack/defense power (near term) then the purchase may be advisable. Remember that buying a factory means a full round before you can make use of that investment at 15 ipcs. That’s the equivalent of 5 infantry units, or a fully loaded transport, or aircraft that might otherwise be in the fight immediately.

As a general rule, a territory needs to be worth at least 2 ipcs to support a viable factory in 1942.2. Optimal locations for factories in this game are Manchuria, East Indies and Borneo. Also France, though that is a special case, because even though it has a high potential production value at 6 it is also surround by other territories with high existing production and is itself hotly contested by both sides making it much harder to hold reliably. France is usually an endgame thing, if it happens at all.

Somewhat less optimal but still potentially useful are territories like, French IndoChina, Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Philippines Norway, South Africa, Egypt etc. Basically any territory worth 2 or more could be a contender in specific endgame situations. I’ve even seen super G games where they end up buying additional production for sz 16, so I wouldn’t rule anything out there, though I would say that if you’re buying more production than you can utilize effectively on placement, you’re probably shooting yourself in the foot, also worth considering is whether the production actually get you any more effective range than you have out of existing factories. For example, before buying a factory in Brazil or Alaska as USA, it makes sense to ask whether this really gets you any closer to the front, than simply placing units in North America. I have more to say on factories I think than I can cover off the cuff, but you’re right! definitely something we need to ruminate on some more.
:-D

4. It tried to put the bid section last, because I agree with you, new players probably won’t play with a bid. On the other hand, I think its worth knowing what a bid is and how it is used in A&A, even if you don’t employ a bidding process in your own game, if only because its such a common house rule in Axis and Allies. I’ve had a lot of new players in tripleA ask me questions like “what’s a bid?” or “what does bidding mean?” so I figured I’d toss it in there for good measure. This stuff might be inappropriate for new players to use in their first games, but it is relevant to a lot of the discussions on these boards, so at least from that perspective I thought it might worth touching on.

5. Great stuff, lets charge ahead! :-D
We’re already approaching mini-book length here anyway, so might as well gun for something as encyclopedic as possible haha. I guess I’m all for circling around, and rounding em down as we go.