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.
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.
On my calculations, more most of the times doesn’t mean better, I prefer K.I.S.S.
If you look at 1941/Global/AA50 the tendency on Europe has been to make Germany choose between the northern/southern routes, or separating more Karelia/Leningrad from Caucasus/Stalingrad. That may be added to 2nd Ed.
On China it’s anyone’s guess - they could add 1 more territory to make the Chinese route to Russia be longer but it really doesn’t change much.
On thing is for sure, the map is indeed larger. That’s about all I know right now.
On thing is for sure, the map is indeed larger. That’s about all I know right now.
Is your statement based on information from the sales flyer or have you received the review copy of A&A 1942 2nd Edition?
You’ll know soon enough. :-D
Is your statement based on information from the sales flyer or have you received the review copy of A&A 1942 2nd Edition?
Flyer - http://www.axisandallies.org/p/announcement-axis-allies-1942-2nd-edition/ 8-)
The map is indeed bigger - I think a good size, in fact. There is still along the top of the map a place to track IPCs which I think could have been done without.
OOB - no tech, no NOs.
MM
