Posts made by Hobbes

7. If the Soviets fly their fighter to Egypt on R1 start preparing to hit Russia hard. With a KJF in progress you’ll need to pressure Caucasus as quickly as possible.

@Mallery29:

5. Don’t solely focus on tanks. While tanks are good, fodder is needed.  You have enough initial tanks.  Avoid buying on G1 and possibly G2 (depending on your tactical setup). G3 income should provide you the boost to buy them.

Nein! Nein! Ze need Panzers! ;)

@empulliam:

New on the forum, just curious as to what you all think about an opening move I use with UK pretty often. On the first turn, build a factory in India. I consider the UK pacific fleet pretty much useless against Japan, I say let US deal with it since they have the money, so i abandon it in favor of a land based strategy. I’ve seen people try building a factory in India where they move the one inf over from persia and pull the plane in from the carrier and try and defend it. The problem with that strategy is that if Japan wants India bad enough on the first turn, the math says they can take it. (They will lose some fighters, but having a factory on the mainland seems like a worthwhile trade). Here are my moves (only on the Pacific side) for turn one.

1. send the carrier in India to get the unprotected transport by Kwangtung.
2. Send the Australian sub to get the Japanese sub
3. Put 2 inf from Australia onto a transport and attack New Guinea (Not a huge part of the plan, but technically the math is in my favor)
4. Move inf from Persia into India
5. (here’s where things get dicey) send everything in India, plus the fighter from the carrier, into southeast Asia. Unless the Japan player catches on to what I’m doing, the first two units he allows to be killed will be the infantry there. I don’t really care so much about getting the plane, so unless i’m doing really well I just retreat after I destroy the ground units. This way, Japan has no ground units in range to capture the factory, and next turn I can reinforce it with 3 tanks, and from there just send ground units up the coast until Japan is kicked out of mainland Asia. Then I would use the factory to reinforce Russia from the East.

On the 1st Edition of 1942 this is almost suicidal because the Japanese player should focus everything on preparing to attack India from J2 onwards and he’ll be able to do so unless you commit the Soviets to defend the IC. Which is almost suicidal as well because Germany should also be pushing hard into Russia and it will usually mean that the Soviets will lose Caucasus.
You’re also leaving Africa to Germany if you follow this.

There a few variations regarding bid placement. Either only 1 unit per territory or unlimited placement. Only in territories/SZs where there’s already units of the same power or also in empty ones. The important issue is to discuss first with your opponents what rules you’ll use before you start bidding.

@Krieghund:

There are a lot more differences in the rules between Revised and 1942 than just naval combat (the changes to which were pretty significant, by the way).  The victory conditions also changed, as well as the rules for SBRs, AA guns, and amphibious assaults.

I guess it depends on whether you’re looking at the rules or the map as which two have the most differences.  I tend to look at the rules.

Yup, agree with you in the difference between rule and map changes. But to me some changes (on both aspects) matter more than others. The defenseless transports in 1942 were the biggest change, and the VC conditions also mattered a lot but the others (map, AAs, SBR, amphibs) were minor. The overall strategies didn’t change much, although the updated unit disposition removed the need for a bid to balance Revised.
Between both editions of 1942, the map has major changes on the areas that matter (Asia, Pacific, Europe) and the unit starting dispositions allow for different Allied openings than before (the Jap fleet on SZ37, the IC in India), making KJF a real possibility from the start, unlike Revised or AA42.1. The biggest difference in the rules between both versions is the 6 IPC tank, IMO.

@Krieghund:

This nomenclature is confusing and incorrect.  AA42 is no more a 2nd edition of Revised than Revised is a 2nd edition of Classic.  However, I agree that a lot of people share that misconception.

Well, just my personal opinion that, overall, AA42 and AA42 2nd Edition are much different from one another than between AA42 and Revised :)

I think I understand his confusion, since Spring 1942 is basically a second edition of Revised, which was published in 2004. So you have

2004 A&A Revised (the first edition, although it is not called that)
2009 A&A Spring 1942 (Revised with the new rules from AA50 plus a few changes)
2012 A&A Spring 1942, 2nd Edition (updated with the new rules from Global 2nd Ed plus more changes)

I haven’t gotten it myself due to a lack of funds (but I have Revised and 1942) but I’d advise you to buy the 1942 2nd Edition. I’ve played it about 10 games so far and I enjoy it greatly.

@Shakespeare:

I am somewhat colorblind and when the dark board is setup with all the dark
pieces, I am lost. I can not easily tell the pieces apart from each other except for the UK and the Italians.

Even the dark dark blue French give me some problems becz the board is so dark that I don’t see the contrast  that helps to differentiate the colors from one nation’s unit to another.

I’ve already had to colorize the infantry units bases of the Russians with a yellow, the Ottomans with a red, the Austrians with a white, the Germans with a silver, the USA will have a bronze.

The other pieces of each country are colorized in some manner in the same color, but less so becz each army must be accompanied by the colored base infantry.

I believe I can leave the UK, Italian and French pieces as is.

Anyone else have this color problem?

Could you post a pic of all the colors you use? I’m curious to see the colors from your perspective.

@wittmann:

I believe the Axis only win if they win quickly and I know that applies to 1940. It might not be true in this version.  I also remember Hobbes saying the Axis need to hit a combined total of 80IPCs to win. That has not happened, despite Japan doing more than her share of conquests. Moscow’s 8 will tip the balance in his favour. 
As I have said do not want to throw away the Allied victory I believe we have on the cards by bad play, so will study our options. (We are 3 players, one Axis.)

On 1st Ed. the breakout point for Axis was around 84 IPC (half the world’s income) - once Axis got and held to that number either the Allies stop them or they’ll most likely lose Russia (and the game).

@Varn:

I’m not so sure Russia can survive, period. This game is even more pro-Axis than the 1st Edition.

On KJF the whole point is that Russia will fall to Germany, the question is when.

@bryanbr:

If you are playing victory cities then the game is horribly unbalanced.  It is too easy for the Axis to get the 9 cities.  Leningrad, Moscow and Calcutta are easy pickings by the Axis by turn 5 to 6.

IMO, if both Moscow and Calcutta fall by turns 5/6 then you don’t know how to play the Allies.

@bryanbr:

@Hobbes:

I sent the Russian fighter to Egypt and did an SZ37 attack with the UK. Germany got a carrier for the Med. Japan killed the Russian stack on Buryatia and did a botched attack on Hawaii. US went Pacific.

It sounds like the Japanese player was just incompetent.

Under no scenario do I see Japan attacking Hawaii if the US is putting the right amount into the Pacific.  If in KGF, the US needs to support the pacific with enough to prevent the loss of Hawaii.

He decided to attack SZ52 on J1 with 1 FTR, 1 BMR, 1 cruiser and 1 submarine. That’s 73% odds with LL, enough to make the US lose the carrier but my sub got lucky and hit with a 1.

@wittmann:

You have probably  played more than me, so I will not go on.
I suppose I hope a game is balanced because it is tried and tested.
I play a good Allied player and he can always see a way to beating me as the Axis.( I hate him. Ike is his hero. And he is English!)
Maybe I am a poor player.
I just do not like hearing how the Axis always win.

My last game with the Allies was against an experienced 1st Ed/AA50 player with was playing it the first time.

I sent the Russian fighter to Egypt and did an SZ37 attack with the UK. Germany got a carrier for the Med. Japan killed the Russian stack on Buryatia and did a botched attack on Hawaii. US went Pacific.

Russia fell on round 5 but Japan’s navy was sunk on round 4 (even with 12 destroyers) and the US conquered East Indies/Borneo/Philippines while the UK had secured FIC, Malaya, Yunnan and Kwangtung. The UK had managed to retain control Africa and had build an Atlantic fleet on UK4.

We ended the game because he had to leave but I was confident that I could defeat Germany with the UK/US with Japan out of the play and Asia/Africa under Allied control. Allies were earning 100+ while Axis had only about 70 IPCs. This was also a Low Luck game, so there was no freaky dice results.

Here’s another nice trick.

Imagine you have 15 armor on Caucasus which are desperately needed back in Germany to defend Berlin against an Allied stack on units on Eastern Europe. But, alas, Caucasus is 3 spaces away from Germany.

What do you do? You attack Eastern Europe with everything on Germany AND the 15 tanks from Caucasus, then you retreat everything after 1 round of combat back to Germany, including the 15 tanks.

Your tanks in Caucasus have just moved 3 spaces in one turn and it’s perfectly legal. :)

@Redmage2k:

First,  if no destroyers are present, do subs get their suprise strike every round or just the first round of combat.

And after all enemy destroyers are removed from combat as casualties, any remaining friendly subs regain their surprise strike ability.

@toblerone77:

Totally get where you’re at Hobbes. I’m just sayin that as far as bang for the buck a first edition 1942 outshines 1941 hands down and at less cost. I have all three games anyway plus two copies of Spring 1942. Its just an observation I made after purchase.

Spring 42 1st Ed. is one of the best A&A games IMO since I rather play the smaller games. My main gripe with it is really the map design, specially in Europe. If it’s cheap than 1941 take it. Specially if you’re a piece fanatic ;)

4. Even with an Indian IC it’s usually impossible for Russia to defend both ICs (India and Sinkiang) against Japan while holding back the Germans. Japan masses its army on FIC, the Allies may prevent the fall of India but it only takes Japan to move that FIC army to China and then Sinkiang falls.

@toblerone77:

As of this topic post’s date, you can buy AASpring 1942 for less than 1941. I just bought a second copy of AA Spring '42 given what I see as a price hike in MSRPs, decreased levels of production numbers of A&A titles and total units overall .

The goal of 1941 is to introduce new players etc. I wonder though which does better in introducing new players?

1941. I was only going to buy it for the new sculpts but the moment I got the box and looked at it I realized it’s the best to introduce the game for some of my friends (I already tried Spring 1942 1st Ed with some).
The low IPC income can be frustrating but it’s extremely helpful when deciding to buy units since it reduces a lot of the decision making process. It is also easier when you dont have to explain strat bombing, battleship bombardement and so on.
In other words, if you can’t get people to start and like 1941 then you better forget about Spring 1942 2nd Ed. or Global for them.

In addition Spring 42 has essentially the same content if not more literally material content yet significantly lower cost than AA42 2ED, what does this mean for the future cost and availabilty of A&A games?

Your thoughts?

Is this a sign of things to come for better or worse?

Hm? I haven’t received my copy of Spring 1942 2nd Ed yet but it seems it has about the same content (units - AAs, more individual sculpts, but no ICs or money) than 1st Ed.
Overall, I’d get 2nd Ed. to 1st Ed. - haven’t looked at the 2nd Ed. map carefully but the 1st Ed. map is awful graphically. Plus so far it’s a more open game (with more possible winning strategies for both sides).

@Clyde85:

So I can’t believe im doing this, especially while im completely sober but here goes,

I’ve been dating the same woman for about a year now, we are very much in love but things are getting difficult between us. We seem to be growing apart and while both of us realize this is happening and have spoken to each other about it, neither one of us can really seem to figure out what to do about it. We rarely do things together anymore, our conversations are very limited a rarely have any depth to them and our sex life has come to a screeching halt and i’m just about at my wits end. While recently she has made more of an effort to be more affectionate and open, it really hasn’t improved things much, outside of me worrying less that she wants the relationship to end, things seems to have gotten worse. She claims that this has happened to her before, where her libido just drops off for no reason and she becomes terrified that it will never come back. She said that we’ll just have to wait things out and see what happens. Is this a hint im just not getting? I know that I have a nasty habit of getting comfortable with the women i’m dating and becoming sedentary in my ways, which may make them think I’ve lost intrest, but I really don’t know what to do about it. Also, we live together and the fate of a very wonderful cat hangs in the balance here. I really have no idea what to do and im so out of ideas or places to turn that im here on my board game forum asking for advice (and let me stress that I haven’t had a drop of alcohol in 72 hours!) so any advice you guys could give I would greatly appreciate.

This may sound a little weird but did she started taking the pill about the time when your ‘cooling down’ happened? Because, if so, there may be a scientific explanation for what is happening. Basically when a woman starts taking the pill (or becomes pregnant, which is how the pill works, by fooling the body) her body chemistry goes completely the other way regarding who’s she’s attracted to and that’s why pregnant women don’t feel attracted towards their husbands.
This is the article where I read about it: 6 Factors That Secretly Influence Who You Have Sex With

Btw, I haven’t made my mind on this (I have a new relationship so I’m keeping an eye on it) but looking at my past girlfriends there’s at least 2 or 3 that this describes what happened: she started taking the pill, a few months afterwards she brakes up.

@Jermofoot:

I think there was a topic over a year ago, but thought I’d put another one.

Anyone reading the books or watching the series?

I’m nearly on book 4, less than 200 pages to go (out of about 1200).  The series I’m about midway in the first season.

I like how the show is pretty close to the books, although they seem to make slight changes based on time and continuity’s sake.  Nearly the closest adaptation I’ve seen of anything.

I finished the last published book, A Dance With Dragons, about two months ago and I’ve enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ve seen already both seasons, on the 2nd one you seen more adaptations from the books but they keep the major plot elements (and characters) almost the same.

I don’t really know what character I like the most in the whole of the series! :)