Dicetruction Does 42.2

Wow! Thanks for the amazing feedback! We really appreciate you taking the time to go through the whole thing so carefully. We hope you will share this with others interested in learning the game.

Audio balancing with other folks is always tricky. We did our best.

The Geronimo Easter egg is available in both videos. Each has one subtle error. Find them and win a prize.

Perfect !!! Pretty much had it right then.

Thanks very much

I haven’t played 1942.2, but for me the famed viability of a KJF strategy is a huge draw over AA50 (which I have played).

In the Gamemaster edition, Revised*, AA50**, and 42 1st edition all require a KGF strategy for optimal Allied play.  This makes 1942 2nd edition a very new experience to entice me with.

I have not played G40 2nd edition yet (only 1st edition).  I understand that is also a KJF game, so for those of you who play that, perhaps KJF is less of a lure.  I have also not played A&A: 1941, and have no idea as to the correct strategies there.

The minor victory scenario (8 cities) entailed a balanced Allied strategy for a strong defense in India.  But I never tried a full blown KJF.  I haven’t looked at that game for as long time, but I would tend to think Germany wins the game if the Allies go KJF in a minor victory setting.

** I have only played the 1941 scenario (with NOs), and cannot attest to the other variations.

@calvinhobbesliker:

This thread is from early 2017, when Anniversary hadn’t been reprinted yet.

Oh, i missed the fact that someone brought the thread back from the dead, my bad.

Yeah,
but there was a secret derivative formula between Lanchester’s law formula and Vann formula.

But until now, no one break the code. Even Vann hidden it so well, he cannot found it…

We usually play AA50th, but …
For 42.2, if we bother to worry about balance, we use a standard bid format (if everyone agrees) based on starting IPC’s (I’ll play axis at +X IPC’s to start … whoever uses the lowest +IPC bid plays the axis).

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

@Black_Elk:

OK I have updated the link per request, to provide a Low/Medium scale production mod for 1942.2 as well, using ideas outlined in this thread.

http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/High-production-mod-for-1942-second-edition-tp7585507.html

Any thoughts?

I believe Russia at 30 is definitely workable. As a starting income it is much better than 24. A solid 30 ipcs allows for a purchase of 10 inf, or 4 inf 3 tanks, or 4 inf 2 art 1 fighter, or 6 inf 1 bomber etc. To get Russia up to 30, you don’t have to mod the start values nearly as much. Though I do suggest, if trying this out, that we just bring the values of the valueless territories to 1, since this activates the Pacific and gets away from the idea of even needing spaces at zero for this game to still work fine. :)

I propose the following, for all Axis and Allies games going forward: If a territory is not worth 1 ipc, then don’t put it on the map! If it is important enough to be on the map, then it is important enough for a single ipc. If not, it should simply be collapsed into another territory.

I really agree with you on this.
A zero IPC territory have no interest in itself, unless someone put a big fleet with Transports around in a prep-step for an invasion of a more important territory, besides this, it is a deserted area. And if any player have to choose between a zero and a 1 IPC before going further, he will prefer to fight for something instead of nothing.