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

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.

After replaying it on slow speed, it appears that they are using dice as aircraft range markers and bomb damage.  I hadn’t thought of using dice for range markers but it makes sense.  More practical than using cardboard chits.

2.0 is a totally different game. never liked 1942 1.0

It’s the attacker’s option whether he wants to stop and fight the sub or move on through.  If he attacks the sub then the destroyer must end its movement in that sea zone for the turn.

Last paragraph on Page 11 of the rulebook states that “An enemy submarine and/or transport does not block any of your units’ movement, nor does it prevent loading or offloading that sea zone. As the moving player you have the option of attacking an enemy submarine that shares a sea zone with you.”

@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.

@jim010:

Agreed.  My game Europe at War I decided to use the same stule of colouring for ease of use.  The original is the most player friendly.  (Battle of the Bulge - even though I like it - is the most player unfriendly map I have seen from them)

Bulge isn’t very aesthetical but I think that is due to more to the hex system, still it could use some colour but then again the battle was fought in the middle of winter…

But Spring 1942 1st Edition has the worst board of the games I own. Size, everything seems to be crammed into it (IPC chart) and the borders in Europe aren’t very clear.