@Bunnies:

There is no errata/faq that I know of for Spring 1942.

It can be found here.

@Bunnies:

In case Krieghund comes in on this, here’s a question - what happens if the attacker couldn’t retreat to a legal adjacent sea zone?  That is, suppose UK built a cruiser and two transports in the sea zone between London and Paris on UK’s turn.  Then suppose Germany moved some subs to that sea zone on Germany’s turn (but submerged), then UK picked up and dropped off from London to Paris.  In that case, UK attacked, but didn’t move attacking units, so then the attacker couldn’t “retreat to an adjacent sea zone that one of the attackers had come from” because the attackers didn’t move at all.  Would that mean UK could NOT retreat in such a case?

Yes, that’s what it means.  However, in this case UK could simply ignore the subs and would have no reason to retreat.

In genken’s scenario, if the UK fleet could not retreat the battle would end once the attacker was reduced to only planes and the defender to only subs, and the transports would be automatically destroyed.

@Bunnies:

I wonder whatever happened to this game.

Re:

So what makes you say it’s completely over?

If you’re trying to go KGF, and Germany controls/contests Africa on the fifth turn, and you’re asking for advice, it’s probably an uphill battle.  You would only be asking for advice if you were unsure that you could protect Moscow / crack Berlin, and with Germany fueled by African IPCs, and without a veteran’s perspective on how to run a tight logistic game with the Allies, I would guess probable loss for the Allies.  All the Axis need to do is pump out a bunch of tanks and run a bit of interference with Germany’s airforce, which as you mentioned was quite strong.

It sounds like Japan is screwing around (no industrial complexes by turn five), which means you may have a chance, but again, I lack context.

If US was building some Pacific fleet, and Japan went infantry with very light naval/air support (pumping IPCs into 1 destroyer, then subs and/or fighters to match the US threat) then the Allies really are in  trouble, because then probably Japan has some idea of what it’s doing.

If Japan was unopposed in the Pacific and built battleships and carriers, though, the Allies are probably going to win because Japan can’t just lay back and make Germany do all the work.  Same if Japan used its transports to screw with Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/etc. instead of establishing a fast hard unit core in Asia/India to help support Germany’s push against Caucasus.  You might see Japan doing both (i.e. hitting island targets plus hitting Asia/Africa) with five transports, but four transports on turn five with no industrial complexes built means SOMETHING weird is going on - like I said, either Japan was prepared to meet some unusual threat, or Japan was screwing around.

Yeah - what happened in the game?
I agree with Bunnies analysis - against a decent axis player, this game is probably over. But against novice players anything is possible, they may perform unfeasible or uncoordinated moves. In that case it is all about putting yourself in the position to exploit this. By this I mean armor for Russia, establish atlantic navy to threaten Germany, Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

I have always seen it like this:if the axis keeps his combined airforce in WEu,the combined allies should be landing through SZ4.If axis has the airforce in EEu,the allies should go in from SZ3-Nor.In both cases the allies can keep both a steady flow to Europe and slowly reinforce the fleet,away from danger,till it can move towards SZ5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-4nV3s92A4

Thanks!

Thats what is was looking for, TY !

@habs4life9:

But how would you define “the start of the game”?

I would limit it to those territories that are under Russian control at the time of set-up.  It would not apply to territories that Russia conquers and then loses (recognizing that the rationale of the rule should apply to territories like the Ukraine–but when was the last time the British or Americans captured the Ukraine anyway?).  As a practical matter, the rule tweaking I suggest is intended from preventing the British (primarily) from bailing the Russians out in Karelia.

@Subotai:

We know that the map territories will be exactly the same as revised. We know that the naval rules from AA50 will be implemented in AA42. It has not been confirmed that all the other rules from AA50 will make it into AA42. My guess is that all rules from AA50 will enter the new AA42, with possible exceptions of the 4 optional rules in AA50.
At this time it’s only speculations, but it would be cool if also the optional rules from AA50 will replace the current revised rules.

At least we won’t have a broken China in AA42 :-D :-) :lol: :roll:

no new territories than revised???
serious?
would of loved some changes, like bigger north africa
but do like 1 thing bout revised map that i hate in AA50: scandinavia
(5 IPC is to much, and you can’t control it with germany for more than 2 rounds max)