Ah ok. So this is in case you kill the battleship on R2 and Germany builds say, a cruiser and a transport. or combo with UK bomber and go after German Battleship (suddenly liking this idea, then no need for Russian sub, course then you give Germany two rounds to drop)?
Was actually just thinking, ever hit the Med on UK1. It’s risky but its 60-20-20 with 1 bomber+1 Ftr. Course then you are probably hitting Egypt with 3inf 1 cruiser, which may prove tricky.
Ah ok. So this is in case you kill the battleship on R2 and Germany builds say, a cruiser and a transport. or combo with UK bomber and go after German Battleship (suddenly liking this idea, then no need for Russian sub, course then you give Germany two rounds to drop)?
If you move the UK fighters to West Russia after they are done killing the German Baltic fleet they can be used to kill any German fleet on SZ16. But the UK will either need to retain control of Jordan or pull back the Indian ocean carrier to the SZ between Kenya and Madagascar.
Interesting, without fighters does UK build Navy on UK1, if so how do they protect it from Germany G2?
Huh, I’ve never seen Japan run into the troubles you are describing, mayhaps we just aren’t using Allied Navy to full potential. Let me run this by you, was our situation last game if I remember right:
UK1: Carrier and Transport to Borneo, Cruiser to sz59 to kill Jap transport, sub to jap sub and sz40 transport to new guinea.
J1: 1BB 1 carrier 2 Ftr, 1 Trans to Borneo , 1 sub 1 BB 1 Cr 1 Car 2 Ftr to Hawaii (this seemed a bit much to me, but I wasn’t the one playing Jap). 1 Ftr and 1 Bmb to kill the cruiserJapan took zero losses, realistically could only lose a fighter in SZ59. I don’t think I’ve ever lost a capital ship as Japan in J1.
So this leaves far to much to counter in Hawaii, then an easy retreat J2, the transport is already positioned to start offloading islands and a second transport can be built J2 or J3. The J fleet at this point is 2 BB 2 Ca 1 Cruiser 1 Sub, time to build some destroyers and plenty of fighters and bombers within reach if the American approach anything important.With the Allies I’d usually use the UK transport to retake and position the carrier to be a landing pad for fighters to kill the German fleet on SZ15 if it tries to retake Egypt. And I’d also have moved the 6 Russian infantry to Buryatia - Japan can still destroy them but it will take a lot of resources.
A full Pearl attack can prevent the Americans from attacking the Japanese fleet on SZ52 but the US can still build a fleet to challenge the Japanese on the Pacific. Usually it is better to go Europe instead though - a big half of the Japanese fleet is away from Africa/Indian Ocean and there’s almost no transports for Japan to perform landings.What are the usual moves for Russia/Germany/UK in your games?
There is a bit of variance still, but we are settling in the area of:
Russia loads up inf and a sub in R1 takes some combination of Norway, West Russia, Ukraine. Land fighters in Caucasus. Load 6 inf in Bur R1 and taken Manchuria in R2 if available. From there does a bit of back and forth with Germany and tries to slow down Japan where possible.
Germany takes anglo-egypt G1 (losing battleship in round 2, though I am personally rethinking this one), kills UK BB if still have Norway, kills sz1 tranny if not. Take back Ukraine and consolidate ground forces wherever logical. Build some subs and bomber +inf&art.
UK builds carrier and 2 destroyers U1, transports/ships/inf/art afterwards. Land in West Europe where available, otherwise come in from Norway. Most of the time UK1 retakes anglo-Egypt with carrier and trans, but i was just demonstrating the maximum pain you can do to Japan. Though, I don’t know what you mean by landing pad for fighters, whose fighters? Planes from UK can’t get there and the Russians can make it back to Caucasus.
So we’ve gotten to the point in our house games where Japan has 1 unstoppable strategy. Two IC’s in Asia on J1. Assuming the Japanese player isn’t retarded he starts with more than enough navy to keep the Americans at bay for 4 or 5 turns.
Almost. 2 ICs on Asia means that J will not buy a destroyer for J1 nor transports. It means its fleet will be locked into 2 SZs, since it will need to use its battleships to defend against the UK and US subs.
No transports also mean less units that can reach Africa on the next turns, helping the Allies to retake Africa from any German thrust. Plus to keep those ICs occupied it will have to spend some 18-30 IPCs just for units on the mainland.
Usually if Japan takes the ‘Light Pearl’ option against SZ52 it will lose at least the cruiser during that attack (with the US submerging the submarine). An usual US buy can be 1 carrier, 2 destroyers and 1 cruiser. That gives it a force of 1 AC, 1 BB, 1 CA, 2 DDs (1 moving on US1 to SZ54 from Panama) and 2 FTRs to take the Solomons on US2, if it sends 1 DD to Wake to act as a blocker against the fleet at SZ60.
It really depends on the Japanese moves and if it has send units to destroy the UK units on the Indian ocean but a 2 IC buy can be a really bad move for Japan if they lose any planes or major capital ships on J1 and the US decides to send everything to the Pacific. Japan now has 2 territories on Asia that need to defend at all costs (when 1 falls the other is usually doomed) plus defending Japan and the money islands from the US fleet. Of course, what Germany will do with the US going full Pacific might be enough to take down Russia.But even if you don’t want to go Pacific then it’s a matter of getting to Germany (or reinforcing Russia) first than the Japanese. The 2 IC buy is also suboptimal for Japan because it will keep a lot of Japanese infantry on the islands enjoying the beach instead of using them against Russia. And if Japan buys only tanks it is even worse because they’ll advance individually and can be easy pickings for the Russians during the middle game.
Huh, I’ve never seen Japan run into the troubles you are describing, mayhaps we just aren’t using Allied Navy to full potential. Let me run this by you, was our situation last game if I remember right:
UK1: Carrier and Transport to Borneo, Cruiser to sz59 to kill Jap transport, sub to jap sub and sz40 transport to new guinea.
J1: 1BB 1 carrier 2 Ftr, 1 Trans to Borneo , 1 sub 1 BB 1 Cr 1 Car 2 Ftr to Hawaii (this seemed a bit much to me, but I wasn’t the one playing Jap). 1 Ftr and 1 Bmb to kill the cruiser
Japan took zero losses, realistically could only lose a fighter in SZ59. I don’t think I’ve ever lost a capital ship as Japan in J1.
So this leaves far to much to counter in Hawaii, then an easy retreat J2, the transport is already positioned to start offloading islands and a second transport can be built J2 or J3. The J fleet at this point is 2 BB 2 Ca 1 Cruiser 1 Sub, time to build some destroyers and plenty of fighters and bombers within reach if the American approach anything important.
So we’ve gotten to the point in our house games where Japan has 1 unstoppable strategy. Two IC’s in Asia on J1. Assuming the Japanese player isn’t retarded he starts with more than enough navy to keep the Americans at bay for 4 or 5 turns. With 6 tanks/inf/art per turn in Asia with air support we’ve repeatedly had them blow through any resistance, including and excluding IC’s in Sinkang or India.
Leaving the allies with 1 option, blitz Germany. Which, on a lot of occasions, we can manage before Japan takes all of Russia. But it makes for repetitive games. I know this isn’t the house rule forum, but do you think this needs a house rule to prevent this scenario? A simple one would be no J1 IC building allowed. Or increasing the price of Japanese IC.
Came up with an interesting scenario happened in a game last night.
G1 I killed UK battleship. I placed my destroyer and a sub in sea zone 3. Because I wasn’t sure on the semantics of the rules I warned the UK player- “if you try to transport into Norway your transport will auto-die”.
My reasoning being,
If I had just brought the destroyer, the UK player would have a chance to kill it with his planes and amphibious assault. If I had only brought the sub, he could ignore it and land. Since I brought both, he engages battles with the destroyer, bringing the sub into the battle. Since the planes can’t hit the subs, the subs get to shoot all day until the transport dies or retreats.
Was I right in this rule interpretation? Or does the battle end when the destroyer dies? Seems like an odd situation that may not have captured the intent of the rules.
We actually had a player mistakenly start recording cash on the button pieces on the board instead of production, then the idea stuck. It’s actually a very convenient way to record cash, and there is zero reason to record production.
so how do you keep track of production? just count it out every turn?
Yeah, we always found ourselves checking it by counting anyways. You don’t have to count every territory though, just add up the couple territories you are up and subtract the couple you are down, takes about 10 seconds.
68 views but only 5 votes and 1 comment, :cry:
Map question:
Does SEA zone 3 touch Karelia?
Thanks
Me and my roommate have been playing 1942 and enjoying the hell out of it. I’ve played revised and original before and imo, 1942 is much better in balance and rules.
But, I am considering picking up a new AA game to spice it up a bit. Also our 1v1 1942 games take a while to set up and a long time to play.
What game would you recommend? The board can’t be much bigger than 1942 because we don’t have a bigger table for it. Also it would be nice to have a game that had less setup time, but that’s not a major deal (don’t want a game so simple we get bored after 2 games).
My last night bold move R1
I’m not 100% on numbers, so you may have to use imagination.
Buy: 1 sub, 6 I
Attacks:
3 I 1 T 1 F to Norway
3 I 2 T 1 A 1 F to Ukraine
6 I 1 A 1 T to West RussiaWent into Ukraine and West Russia figuring heavy losses but good odds on taking (We play a homemade low luck variant. Not sure on what actual low luck rules are, but we just give the option of taking any six die points as a hit or you can roll). Norway I didn’t figure on taking, just wanted to be sure to kill the plane.
Results
Heavy losses in West Russia but took, Got reasonably lucky in Ukraine, Lost everything but fighter in Norway. I chose to keep my fighter alive instead of taking Norway. The territory wasn’t important, just getting the fighter.Overall: Crippled Germany’s fighter squads and opened the door for R1 UK into Norway. Left Russia weak and spread thin, but with Ukraine and west Russia taken, had multiple rounds to reinforce the line while Allies stormed in. Landed fighters in Caucasus for R2 kill German BB and T.
Actually now that I think about it R1 buy was 1 Sub 3 inf 1 A 1 T
My last night bold move R1
I’m not 100% on numbers, so you may have to use imagination.
Buy: 1 sub, 6 I
Attacks:
3 I 1 T 1 F to Norway
3 I 2 T 1 A 1 F to Ukraine
6 I 1 A 1 T to West Russia
Went into Ukraine and West Russia figuring heavy losses but good odds on taking (We play a homemade low luck variant. Not sure on what actual low luck rules are, but we just give the option of taking any six die points as a hit or you can roll). Norway I didn’t figure on taking, just wanted to be sure to kill the plane.
Results
Heavy losses in West Russia but took, Got reasonably lucky in Ukraine, Lost everything but fighter in Norway. I chose to keep my fighter alive instead of taking Norway. The territory wasn’t important, just getting the fighter.
Overall: Crippled Germany’s fighter squads and opened the door for R1 UK into Norway. Left Russia weak and spread thin, but with Ukraine and west Russia taken, had multiple rounds to reinforce the line while Allies stormed in. Landed fighters in Caucasus for R2 kill German BB and T.
One thing I was considering for next game was an attack on indo-china, 4 infantry+1 fighter and a bombard vs 2 inf 1 f.
how do you get 4 infantry to French indo-china… there are only 3 in india and the transport starts there. it can only move 2 spaces so it cant get the infantry in persia or transjordan, and the other transport by australia is too far away.
Was actually just a rule clarification I just found out about. I thought you could move one space, then get on a transport. So yeah, with 3 infantry and 1 fighter, I don’t think I’ll be going after 2 inf 1 fighter.
1. No. Units may not move before loading onto a transport or after unloading from one.
2. It is not optional.
For number 1, Oh really, we had always played they could walk up to a transport area. That certainly changes a lot. I was only really questioning the ability to blitz then transport.
Question 1. Can a tank blitz through an enemy territory, load on a transport, then be part of an amphibious assault?
Question 2. Is using the ability of a destroyer to enable planes to attack subs required? For context, I found myself in a position as Germany to destroy the allied fleet in the Atlantic, mostly by using planes. UK had several subs and I didn’t really want to attack them as they would be fodder for an aircraft carrier and a battleship. At the same time I wanted to bring in my ships as fodder. If I bring in a destroyer can I somehow opt out of his ability to reveal subs to my air?
We actually had a player mistakenly start recording cash on the button pieces on the board instead of production, then the idea stuck. It’s actually a very convenient way to record cash, and there is zero reason to record production.
Hello all. First post. AA 1942 is the first of these games I’ve owned and so far I like it better than the original or revised, very balanced.
Anywho, I’ll add a vote for borneo. I like to send the fighter to take out Jap transport, try and take Borneo and New guinea in first turn. If you get lucky and pull off both, it pisses off and really slows down Japan. I actually had a Japan player not attack Russia or the American fleet first turn just to be sure he could kill the UK fleet and retake Borneo.
One thing I was considering for next game was an attack on indo-china, 4 infantry+1 fighter and a bombard vs 2 inf 1 f.