Posts made by Hobbes

@CWO:

@John:

I guess I’m the lucky one! :-D

You could even conduct a miniature replication of Operation Crossroads, the American A-bomb test that used a few US-owned Japanese warships as target vessels.  A green German Hipper-class cruiser would be nice too (since Prinz Eugen suffered the same fate), but alas WotC never seems to have made that particular production goof.

Addendum for the Rulebook:
If you win with the Allies you’re entitled to collect all remaining Axis ships in a single SZ then drop all the game dice into that SZ while saying “booommm”.

@JEB:

Yes, it seems that attacking and taking egypt on the first round would solve the problem. I’m kinda new to the game, and the reason I haven’t attacked egypt on round 1 was that I read the “Don’s axis and allies essays” and he promptly advocated NOT to attack egypt on the first round but wait until the 2nd instead. He seemed like a knowledgeable guy, so I wonder how he would have dealt with this. Because he didn’t advocate buying a carrier either, but just one transport and rest inf.

I also have read Don’s Axis and Allies essays more 10 years ago, and they are great for Classic, but you’re playing Spring 1942 and a lot has changed between both games :)

Germany losing the Med fleet on UK1 isn’t critical:

• The 2 units that would go to Africa can instead be sent to Russia
• Sending more than 4 German units to Africa than the starting ones is usually a waste of resources. Those 4 units cost 12-16 IPC and Germany will only get 4-5 IPCs per turn from Africa in return.
• Japan can also threaten Africa more effectively if it sends transports to French Indochina.
• Overall the important objective is to increase the total Axis IPC income to 84+. And most of the richer territories are on Europe/Asia.

If you want to try some reading for Spring 1942 try this:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27312.0 - German Operations
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23032.0 - Soviet Strategic Defense
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19962.0 - German Fortress Europe Strategy
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25203.0 - German Case Blue Strategy

@innohub:

@Hobby

FYI - While I am playing with opponent today using AAA(play by forum), I think it occurred once that even I attack a submarine with destroyer and cruiser, the submarine from enemy side can still do a surprise attack before I fire.  Is this a bug?

42 2E is a great game.  I am addicted to it recently  :mrgreen:

Cheers,

It’s just the way TripleA manages combat, where any subs present will always fire first before surface ships (combat is coded to happen this way). But the end result is the same as A&A: any ships hit by the sub would get the chance to fire back.

@innohub:

Sorry for the confusion.  Today I looked at it again and in fact see no difference :-D.  It was possibly the distortion of the map proportion that made me feel this way (and also meaning I am still a newbie in this game :lol:)

There was a mistake on the Indian ocean SZs so you might have noticed. I’ve already posted a fix it but it hasn’t been added to the release version yet.

Could you list the specific differences you’ve found so that I correct them?

@TripleOZero:

To remedy this, I made these home-made setup cards for our shop copy of the game. I was hoping people could look them over and tell me what you think (especially if you find blatantly obvious typos!)

amphibious (not amphibius)

Artillery can attack or move without infantry; it doesn’t have to be paired up with them.

They look good :)

@teacher877:

We have played AA1942 several times, and usually the axis players will choose to invade Russia first, so is it feasilble to turn the way around and try to invade Britain first?

Only if the other player makes a miscalculation or if you get very lucky with the rolls. I’ve seen players buying 1 carrier and 3 transports for Germany and placing them on the Baltic, then attacking Gibraltar with the Med fleet. That would give them 5 inf and 5 arm plus 5 fighters (assuming Russia attacked Ukraine and won on R1) and 1 bomber. But the UK can buy 8 units and bring the armor from E. Canada, giving them 12-13 British ground units+ 3 fighters (2 UK, 1 US) + 2 bombers (UK + US) and the US can still move 4 ground units to the UK and use the cruiser to block the Med fleet.

Why would you use a single helo to take a city? Unless there’s a laser there, you’d be risking the losing the unit to an US counterattack and by retaking the city the US player draws an additional partisan card.

@hamiltmc:

Thanks for the replies. That’s what the rules say, but it seems wrong because in theory everything in a round is supposed to be simultaneous.  We’ve developed some house rules over the years and this may be a new one. It just seems wrong that a plane can move extra spaces in the same round simply for landing on an allied carrier.

There’s another situation where tanks can legally move 3 spaces: imagine you have 10 German tanks in West Russia and there’s an allied stack on Eastern Europe. If you attack it with the 10 tanks and 1 unit from Germany and retreat back to Germany after combat your tanks have moved 3 spaces.

Just another of those game quirks.

@MistuhJay:

One question, Hobbes: what’s stopping UK from sinking your battleship with its BMR/DD?

@Hobbes:

if the UK (and the US) focus completely on KJF and leave the German Med fleet alive and in position on SZ14 until G3… and the German fighter on Ukraine survives… interesting…

As I posted afterwards, lots of ifs for this strategy to work ;)

@hamiltmc:

My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

You got extremely lucky. If the fighter from Egypt has survived G1 and joins the UK fleet, Japan still has 86% odds of winning if it attacks with 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship. Otherwise Japanese odds are 98%.

His claim goes against what is stated on the Manual:

Page 10, section Order of Play: “A round consists of each player taking a turn (…)”
Page 12, section Air Units: “An air unit’s movement in any complete turn is limited to its total move value”.

The rest of the rules don’t mention anything about move limitations being posed on a fighter launching from an ally’s carrier, so a fighter always has 4 moves at a start of its turn, regardless if the carrier has moved on an ally’s turn of the same game round.

This effectively allows a fighter to move a total of 6 spaces in a game round, 2 when the allied carrier’s turn plus 4 on the fighter’s turn. It also makes gameplay simpler because otherwise both would have to remember or record the movement of all carriers carrying allied fighters to know how much they could move.

The best way to check for piece compatibility is to check this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23386.0 -  Evolution of Axis & Allies pieces

It has images of all pieces released so far for each nation. One thing to look out for is that, starting with Spring 1942, the infantry pieces became taller and with a bigger circular base.

@Zesr88:

I’m looking to pick up my own version and have been going back and forth between the 1942 2nd Edition, and picking up just the original 1987 version on Ebay. While i realize that they are very similar I’m having a tough time discerning the major differences other than the GB India Factory, and “new” units. I’m sure this has been asked to death and I appreciate in advance any light someone with more experience could shed on the situation.

Update: I just went ahead and got the 1987 MB Edition @ a steal.

The 1987 edition is known as ‘Classic’. On 2004 it was updated to the ‘Revised’ edition, which then was updated to Spring 1942, 1st Ed and now we have 2nd Ed. I wouldn’t call them ‘very similar’ - 2nd Ed has several additional units (Cruiser, Destroyer, Artllery) and more complex rules plus all the map changes.

@stuckeyneila1982:

I tried playing against myself in triple A on classic map and Germany just cannot penetrate the fighters and infantry in Russia without Japans help, hence the plan to concentrate on Japan first.  It really bogs the Axis down and prevents them from gaining IPC’s and allowing the Allied 3 turn advantage to win the game. But i would like to get some players together and develop the strategy turn by turn.

Try playing against a live opponent. Germany turns into a monster because it gets a free ride on Africa and the Eastern Front and its production goes sky high. It can contest/secure 11 IPCs from Europe (Karelia, Ukraine, Belo, West Russia and Archangel) and 3+ more from Africa to add to its starting 40. The Russians can’t stop the Germans from stacking Ukraine and then West Russia because they can’t attack a German stack on either location with only infantry. And when Germany stacks West Russia, then the Soviets have to vacate Caucasus (which doesn’t fare well to the Indian IC) or lose Russia. Either alternative means bye bye to the Allies and Japan merely needs to stall the Allied offensive on Asia/Pacific.

@stuckeyneila1982:

yes both UK and Russia will send fighters over the AA gun in Karelia  to Russia,  its a risk but probably will only loose 1 in 4 at the most.

Why is it a risk?

USA will concentrate on destroying the Japanese fleet first then landing units to Soviet far East by having the main Navy at Alaska and another group of transports at western USA i know it would take 2 turns to land in far east but i don’t think Japan with the fleet gone could hold of UK and a pile of USA and Russian infantry from two sides.  then when japan is off Asia the Allies can mass tanks to Russia then to Germany.

Question is can Russia keep Germany at bay with 2 fighters one from UK and one from USA and 5 Russian infantry a turn Until Allied tanks roll in From Asia?

What if Japan buys a carrier and subs on J1?

@Uncrustable:

What about Japan building an IC in DEI?
It seems a pretty effective counter to a USA pacific build

That works to protect the DEI in the short run but on the long run it’s the same problem with the Allies building an IC on India: the Japanese navy now has more SZs and transports to protect if you want to use that IC for land units to Asia and if the US fleet defeats Japan on the sea you now need to defend both Japan and the DEI from amphibious landings. The US can also still build an IC on Borneo, which is actually better than DEI from threatening Japan.

@Uncrustable:

So even KJF UK focuses on the Atlantic
Should Russia aggressively counter any Japan advances in Asia ?

During the first rounds if Japan pushes aggressively it can pay off to let its starting units advance closer to Russia - afterwards the Russians can destroy them at ease without worrying about losing its forces to a Japanese counterattack, unless Japan has completely ignored the US and the Pacific and is pumping out only ground units. Russia can trade space for time and the further Japan advances the longer its lines of reinforcement will be stretched.

@Uncrustable:

Hobbes what is your version of KJF?

The IC on India forces the Allies to defend the territory, at the cost of nearly everything else: Africa, China, Yakut, Europe, etc. You need to stop Germany, so that means the UK needs to build its fleet, take Norway and keep Africa out of German hands, while reinforcing Russia. Meanwhile, the US builds either an AC, 2 DDs and a CA (or even two ACs) and gets ready to land on Solomon on US2. Japan then either chooses to push inland on Asia or counters the US naval buildup on the Pacific.

If I was the German or overall Axis player, I’d be loving this plan. ;)