Interest in an A&A org Tournament for Spr 42 2E???

@general-6-stars looking good!

I haven’t played 1942.2, but for me the famed viability of a KJF strategy is a huge draw over AA50 (which I have played).

In the Gamemaster edition, Revised*, AA50**, and 42 1st edition all require a KGF strategy for optimal Allied play.  This makes 1942 2nd edition a very new experience to entice me with.

I have not played G40 2nd edition yet (only 1st edition).  I understand that is also a KJF game, so for those of you who play that, perhaps KJF is less of a lure.  I have also not played A&A: 1941, and have no idea as to the correct strategies there.

The minor victory scenario (8 cities) entailed a balanced Allied strategy for a strong defense in India.  But I never tried a full blown KJF.  I haven’t looked at that game for as long time, but I would tend to think Germany wins the game if the Allies go KJF in a minor victory setting.

** I have only played the 1941 scenario (with NOs), and cannot attest to the other variations.

I am very interested with this idea. I have a channel running right now called “Hunter Jones”. Just send me a PM or respond to this post.

@MarineIguana:

Hi Dave,

This is Andrew, and I participated in last year’s Kublacon tournament.

I agree that the tournament plays very differently, and that Axis has a major edge. 15+ to allies seems like a reasonable range. By far the most important VC is Karelia because it’s the most contestable. France, Phillipines, and India are also considerations.

I’m having a hard time thinking of a tie breaker that i’d feel satisfied with. It seems undesirable to establish tie breakers that alter the immediate game. How about just giving out two prizes without a winner? Short of that, i suggest just rolling a die.

My specific issue with your 4 suggested options is that all favor either the allies or axis.
#1 if both players are strong, the allies will seek to preserve 7 VCs while the axis seeks to capture 1 VC to go from 6 to 7. If one person wins as allies and the other wins as axis, the axis player will come out ahead per this rule.
#2 IPC totals favors Allies heavily, net captured favors Axis heavily
#3 same as #2
#4 heavily favors allies

Even in a single elimination, when you have two strong players against each other, somebody loses and probably too early in the tournament.

For #1, this is how standard tournament rules work. 7+ VCs and you win.

In a timed format, one side or the other will have an advantage. A bid is there to even out those chances. In this format, bids to play the Allies might need to be very high.

I think I’m going to go with:
First tie breaker: total VCs
Second tie breaker: captured territories (not your starting territories)
Third tie breaker: coin toss

I’m also going with 2 finals matches: a game for 1st/2nd and game for 3rd/4th. Anybody left over will be invited to play for fun. Maybe top 4 get prizes? 1 picks before 2 picks before 3 picks before 4.

Just that you have a bid for allies.

@Sean.C:

Isn’t the Spring 1942 map basically identical to Revised?  I looked at the two and didn’t see any major differences.

Ah oh ye of having too little time or a life outside of games! There’s a HUGE difference! Just look at the connectivity of Central United States!!!

@Sean.C:

@adaptation:

I don’t know why people say Pearl Harbor cannot be done anymore - don’t forget that the Japanese sub is now absolutely untouchable with the new rules and can always go for Pearl Harbor. You can get 3 fighters(9), 1 bomber(4), 1 cruiser(3), 1 sub(2) and 1 AC(1) (grand total of 19) VS sub(1),destroyer(2),AC(2),fighter(4) (Grand total of 9).

Over 95% chance of victory with average IPC losses around 16-18 depending on if you chose to lose a bomber or fighter after your sub.

Then you end up defending with 2 fighters ( 8 ), 1 cruiser (3), and 1 AC (2) (grand total of 13) VS 2 fighters (6), 1 bomber (4), 1 destroyer (2), and 1 battleship (4) (grand total of 16).

Over 95% chance of losing your Japanese fleet with an average IPC loss around 18-20 for America depending on if they chose to kill a fighter or bomber after their destroyer.

Plus US player submerges the sub right at the beginning of the J1 attack, allowing it to participate on the counter on US2…

Then you have to consider that UK1 has almost a 70% chance of wiping out the other half of your japanese fleet

You’re goal here is India, not America.  The only reason people did it before was it was a slam dunk with no losses most of the time with units you didn’t need for India anyhow.  It’s a completely different story now.  Now your looking at the annihilation of a majority of your fleet that you actually need to help take India.

Yup, if the UK attacked SZ37 then Japan has to wipe out any remaining UK fleet from that attack and get the UK transports as quickly as possible. Attacking the US fleet almost removes Japan from the Pacific after US1.