Aesthetics aside (and Imperious already knows all about my views on that with 1942.2) I think this second edition map is the best thing we have going. I much prefer it to 1940.
Global takes Axis and Allies in the exact opposite direction of where I would like to see it go. I think the designers paid a lot of attention (perhaps a little too much attention) to the wishes of a group of elite and seasoned A&A veterans, which resulted in AA50 and the 1940 games (with the combined G40 game pushing things to an extreme upper limit of complexity.) As a counter-point, or balance against this move towards increased complexity, I think Spring 1942 was rushed out. People were disappointed with it, either because it was too similar in feel to Revised or too different (transport rules come to mind for the latter.) In response to that fail, two games were pushed out in rapid succession. The current second edition of 1942, and the 1941 starter board. There is a certain segment of our player community that has been pushing back against this trend towards increasingly complex A&A games and ruleset (I am one of the people who thinks this way, sometimes I think I am in the minority, but anyway) I believe this is the reason 1941 was put out. I am not happy with the execution, but I do agree with the aim. We need a really strong starter board. One that you can play and finish in two hours, and that doesn’t take too terribly long to teach. But it also needs to be engaging enough, strategically interesting enough, so that an experienced player can enjoy the experience as much as the new player. 1941 didn’t accomplish this to my satisfaction. 1941 fails in many ways, some of which I have discussed elsewhere, and so by default 1942.2 is the best current board! :-D
It is the only one still in print, at a moderate scale (in terms of total number of territories, unit roster, simple rules for neutrals, and standard 5 player nations) that you can still buy in a store.
I love it, or love it secretly but hate on it outwardly because it gets close to what we need but falls short in other ways. So I gripe on what frustrates me, even though I like it in other respects. Here lets make a quick list.
Cons…
Con: The name! Axis and Allies 1942 second Edition just doesn’t cut it for me. Having a new board listed as an “edition” of a previous board doesn’t get me excited.
Con: Set up time and gameplay length. Both are still at the way upper end of most popular boardgames. The test of a good boardgame is one that can be finished on a rainy day, or at a small party with friends, and can conclude in an evening (without requiring a dozen cups off coffee and actually watching the sun rise.) :D
I think the problem here, is that the fixed unit set up is not really incorporated into the gameplay. It is just reading off a set-up card, a chore that has to be accomplished before the game begins, and a major time sink. Kids at recess would barely have enough time to set it up, I remember even going back to the Classic days haha. 1942.2 despite being better than some previous games in this respect, is still way heavy on the set up time required. My solution would be to expand the purchasing or bid concepts, and reduce the dependence on the starting set up. The best way I can think of to do this is to put more money into the game, hence the next con.
Con: No paper money! A major mistake. Its part of the enticement to play with paper money, and an easy entry point for people who are approaching it casually. Getting rid of it in favor of some other tracker, like a credit card in Monopoly, is pretty annoying. You need the cash in hand. Whether your are representing a western plutocracy or the Comintern, having the cash in hand is an aid to the full experience and fun of the game.
Con: Few optional rules. Aside from the brief introductory note about intercepts and sz 16, the game doesn’t offer a whole lot in the way of expansion. No technology for one. We all know the reason (poorly implemented techs busted previous games, heavies come to mind and long range air), so players opted out of tech. The solutions to the tech problems were necessarily complex, so I guess for that reason they were ditched altogether, though I wish they remained as an option. Also no NOs, national objectives or advantages or whatever we call them, or any means to modify the unit values or costs, or the amount of money in play. Say what you will about porting them over from previous games or modding things with house rules, in practical terms, if it isn’t listed in the rulebook that comes in the box, it doesn’t exist.
Con: A somewhat lackluster gamemap. I mean, I don’t want to pick it apart completely. There are aspects I like in terms of some territory and sea zone divisions, but its not quite as beautiful as it could be in the design.
Con: Unit crowding chip fest. The map is still too small to properly accommodate the amount of units being fielded in certain areas (especially at the center, where multiple player/nations co-locate.) The solution here is either to get a bigger map, or smaller units. I favor the latter option. The map itself will always have an upper limit based on the amount of table space available in most households. Kids are generally down to sit on the ground, but young adults on up prefer to sit at a table. 1942.2 is in the appropriate size range overall, you can just about fit 5 people around it (with room for their units and space off to the side to roll) but on top of board the units/chips starts to get crowded very quickly.
Con: Unit scultps. The bases aren’t flat enough to prevent wobble and accidental knocking about. Fighters don’t sit comfortably enough on their carriers. Ground units don’t fit or sit well on transports. Bombers are too wide. Most ships are too long. The relative length and width of ships (by basic ship type) is too inconsistent. Factories, which are the most important unit, and one whose new mechanics may require it to sit on chips, is not glorious enough, tragically demoted from plastic to cardboard.
Con: Valueless territories, I’ll harp on it in passing, since I am already typing a wall, but everyone knows I think all territories should have an ipc value :)
Con: Limited variability on the set up. There is only one official set up for this board. I don’t see why you couldn’t print two set ups for the same map… One for a quick game and one for a longer game. This would be easy enough to accomplish, you just print on both sides of the national card (one set up on the front, another on the reverse.) Then you could get more gameplay out of the same map.
Con: Russia is still too weak, USA is still rather slow, and the gameplay patterns encouraged by the rules and mechanics still favor the JTDTM.
Con: Victory Cities and general conditions for victory. I still don’t think this map does anything to alter the problem VCs have had since they were introduced in Revised. They remain too complicated, or too few, and too removed from the in game dynamics, such that they become more or less irrelevant. I like the idea of VCs or Victory Territories or some other way to denote key locations on the gameboard, but the 1942.2 implementation isn’t much better than Revised on this count. For one thing, it strikes me as weird to have different numbers for Axis vs Allies (such that Allies need X, but Axis need Y.) If its going to work, Victory should be achieved by capturing a set number of such cities or territories for either side. And should be easy to track. And players should be forced to track it, because of some in game dynamic (like more money!) And it shouldn’t just be one way to win among many (with minor victory, major victory, total victory or whatever) it should be the only way to win! Then players will pay attention to the VCs and their rules.
Otherwise they will default to ‘capture the capital’ concession, since that is clear and decisive and traditional going back to Classic, and is supported by effects in game (you get a bunch of money when it happens and the other player gets screwed.) Something like that needs to happen when you capture X number of VCs, otherwise players just ignore them.
Con: It was released too close on the heels of Spring 1942, and didn’t do enough to distinguish itself as a stand alone successor to Revised.
Pros…
Pro: Its an Axis and Allies game, that I can currently purchase (or try to convince others to play) and it has a similar feel and scope when compared with its direct predecessors Classic and Revised.
Pro: Artwork on the cover box. I don’t care what anyone else says, but the A&A cover art consistently slays it. They are beautifully done. Definitely don’t change the style. Put in whatever flags we need, but keep that man painting, because the cover art has been glorious since the first.
Pro: SBR and cheaper bombers, the new system is an improvement. Its not perfect, but is more interesting than it was in Classic and Revised.
Pro: Overall unit roster. I have individual thoughts about individual units, but on the whole the roster is more dynamic than it was in Revised or Classic. The adjustment to warships in particular was a step in the right direction (cheaper overall, with the addition of the cruiser, and other tweaks to make them more attractive.) I think this is at the upper limits of the unit roster for a game of the moderate scale, maybe another type or two, but I wouldn’t push for more than that. The units that exist currently should be sufficient. It doesn’t take too long to teach the basics and compare values.
Pro: Start date and turn order felt familiar, and channeled the spirit and nostalgia of the original.
Pro: Consistent rules for all player nations. There are no weird exceptions I have to explain to people like China in AA50. No complex rules regarding neutrals (for all intents Neutrals have no influence on the gameplay at all, with the possible exception of Turkey, depending on how you want to interpret the sz16 option.) This was an improvement for simplicity from Revised, so I’m glad 1942.2 treats things in a similar way.
Pro: Its reasonably affordable. I was able to pick up a couple boxes without breaking the bank.
Pro: Now that it exists, I find myself incapable of going backwards. 1942.2 is interesting because it is similar to the other simple-world boards, but new. Having played all previous boards to death, I find that this is the one I prefer right now, and which I spend the most energy thinking about in my spare time. :-D
