@Der:

Do you get what I’m talking about?

I wonder if any of you that play face to face games use any house rules that limit open communication with your Allies, and if so how do you implement them?

I was coming here to post the very same thing and instead find myself responding to your post.  My hardcore gamer friends refer to A&A as a “two-player” game for that very reason.  What usually happens is the two sides are played by committee, or worse, by the dominant player on each side.

A few ideas:

• Only allow written communication.  Require a roll to determine if a message makes it across the table or if it is intercepted.
• Put a limit to the number of summits ie. closed strategy sessions
• Eliminate table talk between allied powers

Still only rough ideas but you get the point.  Playing by committee makes the game into a very tense, chess match and causes the game to become routine too quickly.  Having to make up for your ally’s bonehead move should be part of the fun of the game.

Nice job on the table and the video. The shelf is a great idea.

I’ve always found the USA the most difficult nation to play because you always have to plan everything 3-4 turns out. 
I try to stay flexible and leave options open for action in either theater and keep them guessing.  That way neither Axis power can let their guard down.  Airpower is nice in that it can be quickly shifted.

Those are very impressive, sir.  Not just the details and kitbashing but the paint job and wash as well.

LOL, one of the better iterations of theses spoofs with the dialogue matching the facial expressions almost perfectly.

In addition to the obvious ribbing points, I like the obscure reference to Caucasus being the primary target in '42 FE and it’s decreased importance in '42 SE.

Neat idea. I wonder if this could be made to work with 4 players total, as a way to reduce down time for players, by staggering the turns.  i.e. player 1 plays German and Japan, player 2 plays USA and USA, player 3 plays UK and UK and player 4 plays Russia, China and ANZAC.

Differences (from memory):

Second Edition adds/changes:

-Destroyers
-Cruisers
-Two hit battleships
-AAA (now a combat unit and nation specific)
-Strategic bomb damage works differently
-New costs for most units
-New rules for subs and destroyers
-Completely revised map: Lots more territories and sea zones; income levels and starting unit counts are very different (favors axis); the Atlantic ocean now takes two turns to cross for East USA to England; fighters have to land in Iceland or carrier otherwise don’t have enough range; China and the Pacific Ocean are much revised, et al

Labeling these games as 1942 first edition and second edition is very misleading and has caused tremendous confusion.  They are very different games and other than the basic idea of axis kills russia; allies save russia; they have little in common strategy wise.  42.1 is a straight reprint of the A&A Revised edition printed in 2004 and belongs to the second generation of A&A games.  42.2 is part of the current 3rd generation of A&A games and is far far superior to 42.1.

You definitely want to upgrade to '42 second edition.  Keep your 42.1 for spare parts.

B-29  :-D

Trying to stay OT here, using 41 piece counts and IPC values with 40.2 units and maps could make a very interesting 40 light.  41 is a great game that I hope more will come to appreciate for its simplicity.