Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Balance
-
We’ve gotten a few more 1942 games in.
The Axis have rebounded once they figured out the best/better way to take advantage of their good opening position.I will say our last game has been an epic one. Germany went with a naval buy round 1, ending up controlling the atlantic for the first 3+ rounds. UK countered with two IC’s (India, SAF) instead of trying to fight Germany’s advantage in the Atlantic. US bought several DD’s the the atlantic to support a slow build on the Royal navy, sent support to the South Pacific (ftrs, bomber, eventual fleet). Russia hung tough against a Tank push from Germany, Japan and even Italy. We had to stop after 12 hours of play (7 rounds). Wrote that one down (I have it as a battlemap game) and we intend to finish someday…. winner is not yet determined.
One thing we have found is that 1942 axis is not as strong (at least initially) as 1941. In 1941, we play with Dardenelles (black sea) closed, while in 1942, we do not use that optional rule. Mainly because Egypt is not a viable option for Germany to attack in 1942 (at least no one has thought so in our group yet).
-
I have played about a dozen 1-1 games now, starting without a bid…but now I won’t take less than 9 for Allies, so I usually get Axis (with an 8 bid to Allies), and have only lost once (as Axis) due to catching bad dice on a critical air attack.
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will go up as people get tired of losing with Allies, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
If you mean (by KJF) Russia and UK also being offensive against Japan, then so far I haven’t seen this work against an experienced player… Russia really needs every last man to hold out against Germany. UK can hold India and eventually help China…but focusing energy there tends to lead to disaster in Europe and/or Africa.
The USA Pacific offensive can definitely work if you catch Japan off guard, but it’s hard to have a substantial impact on a careful Japan before Russia falls.
KGF has potential to work but it’s a shame to allow Japan to morph into Godzilla when they are relatively weak at the game start.
IMO the strat where Russia and UK go after Germany/Italy while USA goes after Japan has more potential in this than 41, but long term it runs into economic problems much like other Allied strats in AA50.
Whether the USA goes Atlantic or Pacific, the best bet for Allied victory is probably a healthy bid to Russia and a determined effort to hold Karelia by both Russia and UK.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
If you mean (by KJF) Russia and UK also being offensive against Japan, then so far I haven’t seen this work against an experienced player… Russia really needs every last man to hold out against Germany. UK can hold India and eventually help China…but focusing energy there tends to lead to disaster in Europe and/or Africa.
Yes, I mis-labeled my aproach. Alot easier to type KJF rather than your reply below:
@Zhukov44:The USA Pacific offensive can definitely work if you catch Japan off guard, but it’s hard to have a substantial impact on a careful Japan before Russia falls.
KGF has potential to work but it’s a shame to allow Japan to morph into Godzilla when they are relatively weak at the game start.
agreed. Easier to keep their growth in check in 1942.
IMO the strat where Russia and UK go after Germany/Italy while USA goes after Japan has more potential in this than 41, but long term it runs into economic problems much like other Allied strats in AA50.
If USA helps a bit in the atlantic, it helps alot
Whether the USA goes Atlantic or Pacific, the best bet for Allied victory is probably a healthy bid to Russia and a determined effort to hold Karelia by both Russia and UK.
we haven’t needed any bids yet and it’s been pretty balanced thus far.
Again, USA is the key, they need to be in both the atlantic AND pacific in the right strength level. That’s pretty hard to do, especially since if your units are in one theatre, you really can’t get into the other one very quickly (except for the 3 US bombers).
-
I have played 4 games of '42 tech+ no+ / no- tech + / no+ tech -/ and no- tech-
The only axis victory was in the tech+ no+ game. If you dont play NOs its very easy to go for a KGF stategy. Japan cant expand as fast as it loses 10-15 ipcs/turn for lack of NO and Italy is doomed to be silly.
use victoriy cities
if japan can take india, australia and honolulu quick, axis win
it promots a 2 frontwar for allies. -
The victory cities are not more or less relevant with any game setting. It doesn’t matter if the game is +NOs or -NOs.
If you got 13 VCs, then you will get 15, if you got 15 VCs you will also get 18 VCs…
With 13 VCs you will conquer the whole world!
I have still to accomplish 13 VCs before the opponent conceded, and I have never bothered to let my opponent get 13 VCs before I conceded. No point in wasting time and try to prolong the inevitable.
-
@Subotai:
The victory cities are not more or less relevant with any game setting. It doesn’t matter if the game is +NOs or -NOs.
If you got 13 VCs, then you will get 15, if you got 15 VCs you will also get 18 VCs…
With 13 VCs you will conquer the whole world!
I have still to accomplish 13 VCs before the opponent conceded, and I have never bothered to let my opponent get 13 VCs before I conceded. No point in wasting time and try to prolong the inevitable.
Don’t know about that…I’m currently in a game where I have 13 VCs and the issue is still in grave doubt. I do think this particular case is in the minority.
-
I think this is related to the fact that when playing TripleA, you can see the TUV, I don’t think players bothers with calculating and adding all the units on the board in a f2f game to know who’s got most TUV.
I would guess that if one side has 13 VCs, (in a 15 VC game) the other side will not win 1 out of 10 games, but perhaps 1 out of 40-50 games.
-
I think the balance is in favor of the allies in 1942 version. The only time my play group has seen a axis victory is using optional rules. The one rule we always play with is the way for a victory is to take a capital and keep it for 1 full revolution. We have lost victory cities before and it not matter because they can be taken back. So we don’t play with a victory city option.
-
@The Legend, you are correct when playing w/o NOs, which is an optional rule, but my experience is that most players on this board, both the PBM players and the f2f players use NOs, and in the TripleA community the trend is the same, it’s a big majority of all players who uses NOs.
I think it’s b/c the game is more fun with more money. -
This brings up another question…what sort of bid (to Axis) would be fair if the game was played without NOs?
With NOs, it’s still too early to make definitive conclusions, but my play experience suggests that even with 8-9 it’s an uphill battle for Allies.
-
I have only played 2 games of AA50-42 w/o NOs, but I’d be willing to play axis with a $9 bid, same as in Revised.
What’s funny is that I actually managed to lose a couple a NO- games in the 41 scenario as allies… :-) before I figured it out.
I have heard rumors that even top Revised players tried a German naval strat soon after the game was released. But not for long… So don’t underestimate experience/n00b factors :-D
-
I think the reason we didnt play national advantages is we never played with any optional rules in the previous games and when we tried it in the 1941 version the game just dragged out forever. However I think we played it our own way where you could build as many units as you wanted on your capital. So everyone was going for there national advantages and loading up with infantry and having these huge massive battles. took forever. we like to be able to get a game in in 5-6 hrs. if it runs over that then it gets dragged out for days.
The revised edition the axis had a definite advantage without any optional rules. The axis player would have to make a mistake to lose that game.
-
@The:
The revised edition the axis had a definite advantage without any optional rules. The axis player would have to make a mistake to lose that game.
Ehhhh……
There are no optional rules in the Revised edition, and axis need about 8-9 ipc in a unit bid to balance the game, assuming fairly experienced players on both sides.
Also there are no national advantages in AA50, that is in Revised Enhanced, in AA50 there is National Objectives = NOs.
-
NO or NA…you knew what i meant.
As far as the bidding goes. Ive read where ppl on here do that but we have never tried it. Not really sure how to incorporate the bid system. It would also be a hard sell bc my play group is stubborn and are set in their ways…lol…However im interested in hearing more about bids and how they work.
-
The best bidding system, imo, is that player(s) starts bidding downwards for the side that they believe to be at a disadvantage.
Let’s say player A bids 10 for axis in AA50-42, w/o NOs. Player B bids 9, and player A says OK. Then player B gets axis with a $9 bid. Then player B buys units before the game starts, and places these units wherever he wants.
Some bidding rules states only one unit pr. territory, and other bidding rules you can place several units on the same territory. -
In my ftf play group we think that 42 with NOs and tech is faily well balanced as long as access to seazone 16 is not allowed. We are all pretty good players.
-
In my ftf play group we think that 42 with NOs and tech is faily well balanced as long as access to seazone 16 is not allowed. We are all pretty good players.
lack of sz 16 access really limits Italy’s options and the Regia Marina is subject to early destruction. If one must play it I suggest relaxing the rules a little allowing access to the portion of sz 16 which is west of the Dardanelles. This allows Italy some better logistics as they can reinforce Bulgaria, some better protection for the fleet, while still denying access to Russia.
-
lack of sz 16 access really limits Italy’s options and the Regia Marina is subject to early destruction. If one must play it I suggest relaxing the rules a little allowing access to the portion of sz 16 which is west of the Dardanelles. This allows Italy some better logistics as they can reinforce Bulgaria, some better protection for the fleet, while still denying access to Russia.
That’s a really interesting thought. Is this just a suggestion, or have you actually played games with this house rule in effect? If you have played with this rule, then how did it work out?
Suggested Topics
