Sorry - I meant to post this in the 1942.2 Forum, and it won’t let me delete. I’ll post there instead. If any mods have privileges to do so, please delete.
Speculating the differences between 1st and 2nd Edition
-
If Carriers are treated like cap ships, with 2 hits and no attack (don’t forget that in AA 1942 carriers attack @ 1), I suspect that repairing would occur @ the collect income phase. That would introduce the mechanic of damaged carriers, as planes would need to find landing spaces at the end of the noncom phase or perish if the carrier got shot from under them, but it would still keep repair simple.
I think it’s more likely than carriers will continue ala AA50/AA42. Changing the attack value to 0 changes the range of opening moves of multiple nations (UK, in the pacific, for example), and adding in a 2nd hit potentially buffs too many naval purchases and starting navies (Japan) for the scale/scope of this game.
-
Both sides start with the same number of carriers (2 Japan, 1 UK, 1 US) so both would benefit. And Japan now has to deal with 2 strengthened Allied carriers… if it wants to try Pearl Harbor light (1 ftr, 1 bmr, cruiser and sub) the odds are a little better for Allies. If it wants to be sure he’ll have to bring more fleet… leaving SZ60 open to subs. And the same with the UK Indian Ocean carrier… it would get harder to get rid of those starting Allied carriers.
-
I guess it comes down to what WOTC has 2nd edition pegged for.
If it is just to fix the trouble with the small map then I doubt we see much new in the way of rules or units from the Global games. As mentioned, the extra movements abilities don’t fit, which I think also kind of eliminates mechanized infantry as well.
If it is set to be a true mid-tier game between global games and the new 1941, with a larger map and more spaces, then some of these become much more possible.
-
Both sides start with the same number of carriers (2 Japan, 1 UK, 1 US) so both would benefit. And Japan now has to deal with 2 strengthened Allied carriers… if it wants to try Pearl Harbor light (1 ftr, 1 bmr, cruiser and sub) the odds are a little better for Allies. If it wants to be sure he’ll have to bring more fleet… leaving SZ60 open to subs. And the same with the UK Indian Ocean carrier… it would get harder to get rid of those starting Allied carriers.
I rarely do pearl 2 light, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to damage a carrier doing pearl heavy as you’d lose fighters if the damaged carrier couldn’t land them. so you effectively don’t have a 1-attack unit option no matter what AND have another hit (US carrier) to roll against.
My point was more that the UK doesn’t have to option to sac their indian carrier against the lone japanese transport, which isn’t necessarily a preferred move, but I’ve seen it done. And the same with the austrailian UK transport, which would need a fighter tasked against it, rather than a lone japanese carrier. Again, not always a preferred move, but I’ve seen it done. I don’t think the goal is to reduce the variety of opening moves or change setup, and I see a 2 hit carrier with no attack as a likely option unless more extensive setup changes are made as well. If that’s the case then, I can see it.
All that said, I’d welcome setup changes. I’m not convinced that the near copy of revised was best (it’s better, but best?), as there became less or no risk for certain openings in many cases. not that I prefer revised rules & setup, I just think 42 could have benefited from a little more adjustment rather than the substitutions of cruisers.
-
Both sides start with the same number of carriers (2 Japan, 1 UK, 1 US) so both would benefit. And Japan now has to deal with 2 strengthened Allied carriers… if it wants to try Pearl Harbor light (1 ftr, 1 bmr, cruiser and sub) the odds are a little better for Allies. If it wants to be sure he’ll have to bring more fleet… leaving SZ60 open to subs. And the same with the UK Indian Ocean carrier… it would get harder to get rid of those starting Allied carriers.
I rarely do pearl 2 light, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to damage a carrier doing pearl heavy as you’d lose fighters if the damaged carrier couldn’t land them. so you effectively don’t have a 1-attack unit option no matter what AND have another hit (US carrier) to roll against.
Interesting. Most players favor the light option to protect new transports from the Allied subs and in case something goes wrong you won’t lose major units during a US counterattack.
My point was more that the UK doesn’t have to option to sac their indian carrier against the lone japanese transport, which isn’t necessarily a preferred move, but I’ve seen it done. And the same with the austrailian UK transport, which would need a fighter tasked against it, rather than a lone japanese carrier. Again, not always a preferred move, but I’ve seen it done. I don’t think the goal is to reduce the variety of opening moves or change setup, and I see a 2 hit carrier with no attack as a likely option unless more extensive setup changes are made as well. If that’s the case then, I can see it.
All that said, I’d welcome setup changes. I’m not convinced that the near copy of revised was best (it’s better, but best?), as there became less or no risk for certain openings in many cases. not that I prefer revised rules & setup, I just think 42 could have benefited from a little more adjustment rather than the substitutions of cruisers.
Exactly like you say, the UK has a ton of options on UK1 on the Indian, like the Japanese. It will change those a bit.
-
Another thing I wonder about will be how transports are treated. I can’t remember if they were treated as defensless in Spring 1942 or did they still have a defense of 1? I know that in Anniversary they introduced the defensless transport idea. Spring 1942 came out after Anniversary but I can’t remember if they used the old transport rules or the new ones.
It would be kind of interesting if 1942 2nd edition went back to defendable transports. Of course then you would see players putting up a stack of transports and using them as fodder to protect their battleships and carriers. You would also no longer see a single sub doing away with 10+ unescorted transports.
-
Another thing I wonder about will be how transports are treated. I can’t remember if they were treated as defensless in Spring 1942 or did they still have a defense of 1? I know that in Anniversary they introduced the defensless transport idea. Spring 1942 came out after Anniversary but I can’t remember if they used the old transport rules or the new ones.
The sequence is: Revised/LHTR - AA50 - Spring 42 - Pac/Eur/Global - Spring 42 2nd Ed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the changes for P/E/G40 have been already tested on the AA42 map because I suppose it would be easier to check for effects on a smaller map.
It would be kind of interesting if 1942 2nd edition went back to defendable transports. Of course then you would see players putting up a stack of transports and using them as fodder to protect their battleships and carriers. You would also no longer see a single sub doing away with 10+ unescorted transports.
If players want to play Revised again, then can always switch back to that rule. I prefer defenseless transports a zillion times to the old system, because the logic should be: fleets exist to protect transports and not the other way around. The old way also favors the Allies too much and makes air attacks on fleets uncommon.
-
Hobbes-I agree with you on the transports and Revised. Fleets exist to defend transports, not the other way around.
Don’t get me wrong, I also agree that warships should be protecting transports. I always thought it was ludicrous when someone used transports as fodder. I even agree with the defensless transports idea. It really makes you watch out for enemy positions and decide whether or not moving troops into a certain position is worth losing that transport.
Also, in Classic and Revised, nothing would piss me off more than to have a lone transport roll a lucky “1” on defense and take out a bomber, fighter or even a battleship.
The only thing I don’t like is when you have a large stack of transports, like 5 or more, and one single enemy sub, destroyer or fighter simply moves to that position and takes them all out. Granted, if you have such a large stack, obviously you SHOULD have been protecting them with warships. It just seems to me that a large group of transports, say more than 4 or 5, ought to have some sort of defensive capability.
OR, if not that, perhaps there should be a rule that for every 3 or 4 transports, you need 1 enemy unit to kill them. 1-4 transports = 1 enemy unit, 5-8 transports = 2 enemy units, and so on. -
Hobbes-I agree with you on the transports and Revised. Fleets exist to defend transports, not the other way around.
Don’t get me wrong, I also agree that warships should be protecting transports. I always thought it was ludicrous when someone used transports as fodder. I even agree with the defensless transports idea. It really makes you watch out for enemy positions and decide whether or not moving troops into a certain position is worth losing that transport.
Also, in Classic and Revised, nothing would piss me off more than to have a lone transport roll a lucky “1” on defense and take out a bomber, fighter or even a battleship.I may have been the one jumping to conclusions, sorry about that. There’s just still plenty of players who will swear for the old transports and hate the new ones.
The only thing I don’t like is when you have a large stack of transports, like 5 or more, and one single enemy sub, destroyer or fighter simply moves to that position and takes them all out. Granted, if you have such a large stack, obviously you SHOULD have been protecting them with warships. It just seems to me that a large group of transports, say more than 4 or 5, ought to have some sort of defensive capability.
OR, if not that, perhaps there should be a rule that for every 3 or 4 transports, you need 1 enemy unit to kill them. 1-4 transports = 1 enemy unit, 5-8 transports = 2 enemy units, and so on.Makes sense. BUT I love combined air attacks where Japan goes kamikaze on the UK fleet and manages to leave the transports undefended for Germany to kill. They had defensive capability… it just got stripped from them :D
-
Knp7765… Spring 1942 did have defenseless transports ie “no combat value” in the rulebook (ref to your question a few posts ago). Also, agree with you, Cromwell and Hobbes regarding “fleets exist to defend transports, not the other way around”. Personal note - i prefer the colors of 1984 map to all the others that came after, but i’ll be buying both games whenever they come out. Regards all, graaf
-
Just updated the post with the possible changes brought by the 1941 edition that may also be a part of the new rules for Spring 1942 2nd. Edition.
-
For those of you who say ships protect transports, guess you never heard of the Q Ships ?
-
For those of you who say ships protect transports, guess you never heard of the Q Ships ?
You mean the single dozen ships that were armed on WW2, 12 out of an Allied fleet of thousands and thousands of defenseless transports? Yeah, I’ve heard of them :)
-
ahh but see if transports can defend themselves, then they would not be easy pickings, but on the other hand I do not believe a transport should be able to take out a ship or such only fighters, like subs only take out naval units, transports should only be able to take out fighters (unless a Q ship).
-
Subs were technically capable of taking down fighters too yet no one complains about them not being able to fire at aircraft.
A&A is a game of grand strategic scale. And on the grand scale, transports represent absolutely no threat to warships.
-
ahh but see if transports can defend themselves, then they would not be easy pickings, but on the other hand I do not believe a transport should be able to take out a ship or such only fighters, like subs only take out naval units, transports should only be able to take out fighters (unless a Q ship).
Have you checked the operational histories of the Q-Ships? They were a complete failure - that’s why there were so few of them built. Why would you want to add to a game a concept that was tried and discarded? It’s like the IJN’s conversion after Midway of the Ise and Hyuga, two old Battleships, into battleship-carrier hybrids - a failure as well.
-
I hope the expanded map for the second edition of A&A 1942 will include more territories, especially in Europe and China. I think a new 1942 map that more closely resembles the map of A&A50 would be a big improvement.
-
I think that might be what we’re looking at for this game. Consider the price. If I recall correctly the 1st edition was $40ish this one is supposed to be $60ish. Aside from new sculpts this should be a pretty good game. With all the Global interaction on Larry’s site It’s hard to imagine any thought going into other games but I am thinking that this might be a masterpiece. Global has been touted as that but it’s very complex. Despite the talk of 41 being the most played, in the designer notes, I think this will be the most loved, by us that is, the uber-obsessed. That’s my hope anyway. A game that’s not too long, not too short and looooong on variations to strategy.
P.S. I hear from top men that this game will blow our minds. I can’t wait! This will truly be the year of A&A.
-
AGREED
-
I hope its just a reprint of anniversary, with tokens for factories.
1941 - Super simple intro game, reminiscent of classic
1942 - Intermediate game, introduces units like Cruiser and Artillery, as well as concepts like Strategic Bombing and new Industrial Complexes.
1940 - Advanced game, New units such as Tactical Bomber and Mech Infantry, new concepts like raiding, National Objectives, and Facilities.
Suggested Topics
