@skay85 The Rulebook can be found here.

@all-encompassing-goose said in Ways to make the game better?:

@cernel I do have a bad track record for accidentally making posts in the wrong topic but I got Spring 1942 from Ebay. Unless the seller makes a mistake and gives me the 2nd edition, I know I’m receiving Spring 1942. Also, you cannot get 2nd edition anywhere in new condition for less than $60 which I state in the post I ordered SE for $30 (with all the shipping added)

Definitely worth the money (assuming it’s like new), but your decision to pick the 1st edition does not make a whole lot of sense to me. If you wanted a game that could take less than the 1940 games and still have the Axis&Allies experience, I would think the 2nd edition of 1942 is the most obvious choice (unless you are still playing the first edition of the 1940 games).

This said, one thing that Spring 1942 has going for itself is balance: the game is fairly balanced (being only very slightly unbalanced in favour of the Axis) and can be reasonably played with no bid (and no optional rules picking) at any skill levels, which is rare or even unique for any Axis&Allies world games.

My suggestion, however, is to alter the starting set-up by relocating the American destroyer into the sea zone next to the Eastern United States territory: it near-to-perfectly balances the game (by giving a very small advantage to the Allies) and avoid the very dicey attack by the German sub in than zone on round 1 (being either a +26 or a -6 swing value for the Axis).

@panther Thank you very much panther…

@krieghund Thanks krieghund…

@cernel said in Playing in 2017 still, General Strategy/Discussion:

That submarine is making a battle with an average +10 value swing there (140% the value of the attacking force!), which is more than sending it to kill the lone British transport

Actually, sending the German submarine which is in the North Atlantic to kill the transport next to Eastern Canada (average +7) instead of taking the shot against the 1 cruiser and 2 transports next to Eastern United States (average +10) is some less than a -3 difference since, if using it to kill the British transport, then nothing can kill the submarine on the same round, whereas the 50% chance of the submarine surviving next to Eastern United States implies the ability for the Americans to make a battle with 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 bomber (or even more units) against 1 submarine, which is an about +4.4 value swing, to be reduced to +2.2 on the account that the submarine will be there only 50% of the times. So that covers at least most (2.2/3) of the difference between the two options the submarine has if you actually think that having that submarine alive next to Eastern Canada at the start of the second German turn is actually worth its value or more. Opinions?

In any case, the battle next to Eastern United States is certainly a good option which your opponent may take and, in this case, it will be a 50/50 on either:

Germany having 1 less submarine for nothing. America having 1 less cruiser, 2 less transports and having to invest units to kill 1 German submarine, with slightly more than a 1/6 chance also to lose 1 destroyer in the process.

@amp12 What were you doing with these Allied countries in Europe at the same time? Just curious.

If Russia is aggressive in its first move, all things considered, it’s game over for the Axis. It’s why I favor a house rule that forces the USA to spend a certain amount of money in the Pacific Theater-and units purchased can only be used in that theater of operations…

I always make sure the USA buys a certain amount of IPC’s against Japan. And those purchases can only be used against Japan. It gives a more authentic feel to the game. And it makes yhe Allies fo something else than Europe 1st every move.

It’s quite worth it. My favorite version of the game.

@panther thanka. Not sure why the word acronym didn’t show this article. I did it in topics and posts search. Very helpful though.

@Du-Bist-Toten said in General Questions:

FURTHERMORE, the rules introduce another VERY interesting concept. They actually say that a sub can be held hostage in a zone, unable to go anywhere unless 1) the enemy destroyer above it leaves or 2) the sub fights its way out. In other words, a sub, when under an enemy destroyer, must either fight or “be frozen”. So it’s kinda trapped! Just move your destroyer to the same zone as a sub and then choose not to fight it; then the sub will be frozen until you move! The sub won’t attack you on the sub’s “turn” (even though the option is there) if the firepower of your fleet above it is too powerful! This “freezing of the sub” occurs because the rules say “If a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, it MUST end its movement there.”

I’m afraid you’ve got this wrong. The rule you quoted means that a sub must stop if it encounters an enemy destroyer after it starts moving. If it begins its movement in such a zone, it may leave, as it did not enter the zone during its movement. Moving into a zone with an enemy destroyer merely stops a sub’s current movement - it does not pin the sub indefinitely.

So my question here is as follows: If a sub decides to fight it’s way out, and after one round of combat an enemy destroyer is still above it, can the sub just “chill out” and “just be frozen under the water” again AFTER the enemy retaliates for that round? OR does the sub have to fight to the death?

In this situation, if a sub were to attack rather than move away, it would have to fight to the death, as it could not submerge and would have no legal way to retreat. However, as I mentioned above, it may leave the zone, so it could move to an adjacent friendly zone and come back in combat movement before attacking, thus establishing a retreat route.

BUT, if NO DESTROYER is present, can the sub attack the fleet above for just one round, and then move two spaces away during non-combat movement IF the counter fire didn’t kill the sub? If a destroyer IS present above and the sub DOES kill it, can the sub move two spaces away during non-combat movement?

Neither of these is legal. Any land or sea unit that either made a combat movement or participated in combat may not move in noncombat movement.

I hope this helps.

@SS-GEN thanks!

So happy to finally get the clarification on this. It’s been bugging me. As usual, it’s in the rulebook somewhere, just needed to find it!

Outdated so unstickied today.