Posts made by Sean.C

@Cow:

Is this revised vs the new map? or the other one with the aa50 rules?

Probably be better to pit revised against the new map… then you might see some difference. Also posting it in the 1942 2nd edition thread, you should expect some bias.

Yea i was thinking the same thing too, I’d probably get a different result in the Spring 1942 forum.  But i just wanted to see what people generally thought of it that have been using it.  I figured if people hated it then I’d see a bunch of votes for the old map.

Isn’t the Spring 1942 map basically identical to Revised?  I looked at the two and didn’t see any major differences.

@wittmann:

Philippines. Cannot conquer Asia if you are always looking over your shoulder waiting for US to take a VC you start with.

I don’t play with VC’s.

We play until one of the 5 countries loses it’s capital, or until it’s obvious that one side will never be able to come back.

But now that i look at the map, the Philippines would also work.  It’s also 2 SZ’s away from India, the only thing Borneo seems to have over Philippines is 1 more IPC value.  But if i have an IC in both Manchuria and Philippines, then that shouldn’t matter since I’ll likely be dropping 3 tanks per turn in Manchuria, which will leave me with around 20 IPC to spend in Philippines.  Even with subs, i can’t afford more than 3 units.

I’m wondering what everyone else thinks about where to put a J1 IC?  On the old map, i used to always buy 2x IC on J1 and put in Manchuria and Kwang, but now that Kwang and Kiang are worth 2 instead of 3, so they don’t seem like viable locations.  Also the distance from Manchuria to Russia in both directions is longer, and it’s 3 turns from India with tanks.  Another consideration is now India starts with an IC and will be UK’s primary staging point to help US for a KJF strategy.  It feels like my focus for japan should now be India instead of straight for Moscow.  Before India was just a convenient speed bump on the way to Moscow.

I’ve been thinking instead of a mainland IC in Manchuria (which seems to be too far from anything important), that i should instead put an IC on Borneo, East Indies, or both.  The only problem i see with this is then it will take longer to gobble up all the 1 IPC zones in asia/eastern russia for japan.  So maybe a 2 IC J1 buy, with Manchuria and Borneo?

Borneo is conveniently 2 SZ’s from both Japan and India.

Thoughts?

@hkytown1:

I dig the 2 piece map over the hexi-fold map.

My only major complaint about the 2 piece map is that the lines don’t perfectly line up with each other for me when the two half’s are physically aligned with each other.  Is it this way for anyone else, or did i just get a lemon?  I know, it’s just a cosmetic thing, but still.

Other than that, it now requires me to buy a bigger table to fit it.  It hangs off the sides of my small kitchen table.

@Lozmoid:

I like that Transports can defend at 1 but hits cannot be assigned to air units, pretty cool.

You mean can be assigned to only air units?  Transports taking out any other sort of naval vessel just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.  I never understood how a transport with some AA guns could ever take out a destroyer, let alone a battleship.  MAYBE a sub if it was on the surface, but not if it’s submerged which i would think it would be if it was either attacking or about to be attacked.

@Gargantua:

I like 1B, that’s not bad.

But it’ll make things like 8 transports 1 destroyer a HELL of a force to deal with. I’m not convinced…

Maybe they could operate like AA for eac 2 you have paired or something…

Well with 1B, then only the destroyer and 1 transport would get to defend, and the transport could only hit air units.

I see your point if your talking about 1A though.  So maybe 1B?  I just don’t think having transports have absolutely zero defensive capabilities whatsoever is neither historically accurate or fair.

For 2, i think I’ll leave them at 6.  It seems allies are a little bit behind in this version, and the 6ipc tank rule hurts germany more than anyone else.

@adaptation:

I don’t know why people say Pearl Harbor cannot be done anymore - don’t forget that the Japanese sub is now absolutely untouchable with the new rules and can always go for Pearl Harbor. You can get 3 fighters(9), 1 bomber(4), 1 cruiser(3), 1 sub(2) and 1 AC(1) (grand total of 19) VS sub(1),destroyer(2),AC(2),fighter(4) (Grand total of 9).

Over 95% chance of victory with average IPC losses around 16-18 depending on if you chose to lose a bomber or fighter after your sub.

Then you end up defending with 2 fighters ( 8 ), 1 cruiser (3), and 1 AC (2) (grand total of 13) VS 2 fighters (6), 1 bomber (4), 1 destroyer (2), and 1 battleship (4) (grand total of 16).

Over 95% chance of losing your Japanese fleet with an average IPC loss around 18-20 for America depending on if they chose to kill a fighter or bomber after their destroyer.

Then you have to consider that UK1 has almost a 70% chance of wiping out the other half of your japanese fleet.

You’re goal here is India, not America.  The only reason people did it before was it was a slam dunk with no losses most of the time with units you didn’t need for India anyhow.  It’s a completely different story now.  Now your looking at the annihilation of a majority of your fleet that you actually need to help take India.

@adaptation:

On a side note, the picture of the 1942.2 setup on the axis and allies homepage is missing a crucial transport and destroyer in sz61

The missing transport and destroyer are in SZ62 instead of SZ61.  They are in the picture, just in the wrong sea zone.

I don’t play with VC’s.  I play until one country falls, because once one country is gone its pretty much impossible for its ally(s) to still win.  The only time i continue a game after one country is out is if both sides take out a country at the same time.  Even then it usually will become obvious which side is going to eventually win within a few turns afterwards.

Basically you keep going until all players agree how the game is going to end.

Your right, historically speaking transports were armed, but from what I can tell only with AA guns.  So how about transports defend on a 1, but can only hit aircraft?  And you still have to select transports last as casualties.  Transports weren’t built to take combat hits, they were built to carry people, and equipment, and to be protected by other ships.

@Lozmoid:

Maybe a vote option could be added to this thread?  :-)

Couldn’t figure out how to change this post to a poll, so I made a new post.  Perhaps a mod can merge the 2 posts?

Someone in my last post about this same question asked about a poll.  Couldn’t figure out how to change a normal post to a poll post so here it is.

I also usually play Axis, mostly because the people i play aren’t as good as i am, so i pick the harder side to win with which has historically been Axis.  I still end up winning almost all my games.

I kind of like the switch in focus also, i just hope it doesn’t make it TOO difficult for Axis to win like Cromwell describes.  Do you foresee an Axis bid soon for japan, if so how much and where would you put it?

I was just wondering what everyone thought of the new map.  I tried searching but didn’t see anyone talking about this.  The 42.1 map seems to be almost identical to the old revised map which has been around a long time now.

The new map seems to almost force the Allied forces to do KJF.  More of the UK/US atlantic ships are destroyed on G1 now, and US Pearl Harbor 2 doesn’t look feasible anymore for J1.  Also UK1 has fairly good odds to destroy the BB, CV, 2x FTR in SZ37, especially if RUS1 puts the Moscow FTR in Egypt.  Then you consider that UK starts with an IC in India and Kwang and Kiang are now 2IPC each so buying IC’s for them doesn’t seem worth it anymore.  Not to mention the distance from a 3IPC japanese mainland territory to India is a minimum of 3 turns away with tanks.  (It used to be J1 you were dropping 2 IC’s and taking india either J1 or J2, MAYBE J3/4 if UK defended it.  Now it’s more like J6, if ever.  In all my revised games i think i saw a KJF maybe once ever, now it seems to be just the opposite.)

Before it was a race to Moscow and Berlin, now it seems to be a race to Caucuses and India with the heat shifting from Germany to Japan.

1A) Transports defend on a 1, but can only hit air units.  Transports still have to be selected last as targets.
OR
1B) Transports defend on a 1 when accompanied with a DD, CA, or BB in a 1:1 ratio, but can only hit air units.  Transports still have to be selected last as targets.  Sort of how ART boosts INF attack.

2) Tanks cost 5IPC

Reasoning:

1. If you do research on historical troop transports for WW2, you will notice they almost always have some sort of AA armaments.  These aren’t going to do anything against a sub, or a destroyer etc etc, but they can shoot aircraft.  Troop transports are for moving troops, not as cannon fodder for naval attacks, so it makes sense to only be able to select them as targets when no other units are available.

~~2) I feel like it makes tanks too inferior to INF/ART, and subsequently slows down an already long game.  I know people say this is a 7 hour game, but most of the people i play against it usually takes closer to 12.  Tanks were 5IPC for how long and everyone thought it was fine?  ~~