Map and Strategy Differences between 1st and 2nd Editions

[Witt]

Hi Hobbes. Icannot see much point in Subs in this game, unless it is to cause the other side to invest 2 more IPCs to counter buying Destroyers. As there is no convoy disruption they seem to have lost purpose and worth.
I feel no need, for example, to waste a DD and Ft to kill Russia’s starting Sub. Would rather keep a DD with my capital ships and let it sail around the new(and pretty) map to its heart’s content.
Equally buying Subs for the Baltic as Germany( with no scramble to help defend) a UK/US DD and Air attack will sink them and still allow an amphibious landing in 1 of 5 territories.
I would definitely buy Naval on G1 and G2, just not a Sub.

[Hobbes]

@wittman:

I would definitely buy Naval on G1 and G2, just not a Sub.

To me that is precisely the moment where you need to buy ground units to use against the Soviets 1-2 turns later.  * Germany can stack Karelia on round 1 or 2 (with enough units so that Soviets can’t retake it), depending on Soviet purchases and moves.

• Or, Germany can stack Ukraine on round 1-2, again depending on Soviet purchases/moves.
• Either move forces the Soviets to keep a stack on West Russia or to move it to Caucasus, giving Germany more leverage on the Eastern Front and facilitating Japanese advance (unless there’s a KJF in place)
• The Baltic fleet is not that important - it is convenient to have a way to drop 2 INF on Scandinavia or Karelia but if you can get a stream of German infantry moving into Karelia then it is much more useful than having the Baltic fleet.
• Putting more resources to the Med is wasteful. Germany starts earning 3 IPC from Africa and if it conquers Egypt it gets to 5 IPC. Just sending 1 INF and 1 ARM to Africa costs 9 IPC to Germany - invest too much with Germany and you’ll only get your investment back if you conquer the whole of Africa and keep it for a few turns.
• Also, any units sent to Africa are less units to be used against the Soviets. Since Germans and Soviets are usually earning 40 and 29 IPC by trading Karelia, Belo and Ukraine, sending those 9 IPC means that that Germany and Russia are deploying the almost same number of units per round against one another. That is not good, if you are trying to reach Moscow while Japan is facing a KJF :)

With the new VC the Axis strategy really changes - on 1st Edition it was conquer Moscow, then get the necessary VCs to win. Here it depends on KGF (conquer Calcutta and Honolulu, secure Leningrad, Paris, Rome and Berlin) or KJF (conquer a combination of Calcutta/Honolulu/Leningrad/Moscow, while securing enough of your starting VCs for a win).

[Mallery29]

@wittman:

Hi Hobbes. Icannot see much point in Subs in this game, unless it is to cause the other side to invest 2 more IPCs to counter buying Destroyers. As there is no convoy disruption they seem to have lost purpose and worth.
I feel no need, for example, to waste a DD and Ft to kill Russia’s starting Sub. Would rather keep a DD with my capital ships and let it sail around the new(and pretty) map to its heart’s content.
Equally buying Subs for the Baltic as Germany( with no scramble to help defend) a UK/US DD and Air attack will sink them and still allow an amphibious landing in 1 of 5 territories.
I would definitely buy Naval on G1 and G2, just not a Sub.

Big fan of subs still…it slow down the US/UK fleet in time for me to get to Russia and hurt them.  The BB I only need to risk one SS, so I save one, so I should have 2-3 not counting my buy of one SS.  With my planes and Subs, the fleet won’t come till its really ready, and I don’t know if that’s going to be enough to save Russia.  With a second Bomber, I make the Allies really think and probably force them into a KJF strat…which is glorious for Hitler.

[Witt]

I am new to 1942, so thank you for your ideas.
In Anniversary games I have played,  both sides  used to have a DD build up and Subs seem to have been ignored. 1940 has seen the Sub’s resurgence for good reasons. Just seemed they are not as necessary in 1942.
I love conquering Russia and understand you have to match them unit for unit, or you won’t defeat them. Buying  Baltic Navy does not help Germany, I know. Without NOs or a VC in Egypt, you are right, Africa can become a sideshow unless you take it all and bankrupt the UK.
And they can always build a Factory in SA and stop you.

[Hobbes]

@wittman:

I am new to 1942, so thank you for your ideas.
In Anniversary games I have played,  both sides  used to have a DD build up and Subs seem to have been ignored. 1940 has seen the Sub’s resurgence for good reasons. Just seemed they are not as necessary in 1942.

The baseline is still the 42 1st Ed. I haven’t played much Anniversary but I never went for German naval builds as well there, even though they are common. With the Allies going KGF any German Baltic fleets are toast, the question is how long they can survive and harass the Allied naval buildup, while on KJF you’ll rather need the 14 IPCs spent on a carrier rather to be on land. Just the surviving German subs and its airpower are usually enough to deter any UK naval build up on round 1 and the Indian IC sucks up a lot of the UK’s income.

I love conquering Russia and understand you have to match them unit for unit, or you won’t defeat them. Buying  Baltic Navy does not help Germany, I know. Without NOs or a VC in Egypt, you are right, Africa can become a sideshow unless you take it all and bankrupt the UK.
And they can always build a Factory in SA and stop you.

[Petebu]

I am thinking that the attack on Egypt is must now with the 2 games you won as the Allies. I have not played the new game yet and I cannot wait, I will be the Axis. Do you have any other advice as the axis player in this new ediition?

[Slackaveli]

@Petebu:

I am thinking that the attack on Egypt is must now with the 2 games you won as the Allies. I have not played the new game yet and I cannot wait, I will be the Axis. Do you have any other advice as the axis player in this new ediition?

put your fleets together and squash the USA lol.

[Cow]

Hobbes, ukraine russia round 1 or not? Big debate about it on forum.

[Hobbes]

@Cow:

Hobbes, ukraine russia round 1 or not? Big debate about it on forum.

3 games as Allies, so far I did Ukraine on all of them, only the first one failed. I’ve only used 2 armor in all 3 attacks though and if I can kill all German units except for the fighter I will pull it back.

The odds are exactly the same as in Spring 42 and it is the single attack that the Soviets can make to hit Germany hard. And if you can pull back and leave the fighter that’s even better, although it will be bad news for the Atlantic.

[Hobbes]

@Slackaveli:

@Petebu:

I am thinking that the attack on Egypt is must now with the 2 games you won as the Allies. I have not played the new game yet and I cannot wait, I will be the Axis. Do you have any other advice as the axis player in this new ediition?

put your fleets together and squash the USA lol.

I actually wondered about if the Axis player was going to try that on my 2nd game. He had bought a carrier and an IC on round 1, then joined both fleets together off France and ended up with 6 transports plus 2 carriers but he never got enough to try Sea Lion. However, if the Germans landed in Canada, then it would be 12 US units against 16 German ones, so I had to keep units in range while playing KJF.

[Hobbes]

bump

[MistuhJay]

@Hobbes:

I actually wondered about if the Axis player was going to try that on my 2nd game. He had bought a carrier and an IC on round 1, then joined both fleets together off France and ended up with 6 transports plus 2 carriers but he never got enough to try Sea Lion. However, if the Germans landed in Canada, then it would be 12 US units against 16 German ones, so I had to keep units in range while playing KJF.

Germany dropping 16 units in E. Canada? Never thought of that… what if Japan did the same thing to Alaska J3. America has to decide to defend E. US or W. US (and will obviously protect its capital, allowing Japan to assault W. US). It can’t be this easy… can it?

Please show this beginner why this is a bad idea?  =)

[Hobbes]

@MistuhJay:

@Hobbes:

I actually wondered about if the Axis player was going to try that on my 2nd game. He had bought a carrier and an IC on round 1, then joined both fleets together off France and ended up with 6 transports plus 2 carriers but he never got enough to try Sea Lion. However, if the Germans landed in Canada, then it would be 12 US units against 16 German ones, so I had to keep units in range while playing KJF.

Germany dropping 16 units in E. Canada? Never thought of that… what if Japan did the same thing to Alaska J3. America has to decide to defend E. US or W. US (and will obviously protect its capital, allowing Japan to assault W. US). It can’t be this easy… can it?

Please show this beginner why this is a bad idea?  =)

You can try to find an old strategy for Revised called Polar Express that is exactly what you are describing. I never tried it on Revised though because it’s too easy to spot once you know what to look for.

[Mallery29]

I would hope one of those units might be an AA and a tank?

[Hobbes]

Something just popped to my mind about G1.

On 1st Edition the standard G1 attacks (UK fleet, Egypt, etc) usually consist of:

• Retaking Ukraine (+90%) and Karelia
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• Egypt (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)

Which, when you combined odds of all winning all attacks gives you overall odds for G1 of close to 66% (or at least 2/3 that G1 will go as planned).

But on 2nd Edition there’s a substantial difference on the combined odds if you add the G1 Egypt attack:

• Retaking Soviet territories (+90%)
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• US Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• Egypt (+75%)

Or: (100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)*(100/75) = +/-44%

So, if the Allies let Germany attack Egypt and if Germany chooses to do so, then German odds for winning all attacks as expected on G1 drop to less than half. And that most likely opens opportunities for the UK to exploit from failed attacks.

Something for the Soviet/Allied player to consider before sending that fighter to Egypt…

[Mallery29]

because Germany already had the edge in 42.1, I always preferred hitting the EUS fleet….CA vs. Sub…hit and you are on cruise control as Germany.  Miss it, and you can still win.

[Mallery29]

Again, the only reason why I could see a bid is if you intend on a KGF…I don’t know what the success rate Hobbes had with it (sounds like his games went the same direction like mine with KJF), but even then, I just don’t know what to suggest without going that direction.  Good luck!

The weak shall perish!

[stevechristian]

I keep seeing “KGF”, what’s that mean?  Sorry, recently got back into A&A after over a decade of not playing.

[Mallery29]

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

[UrJohn]

@Mallery29:

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

Interesting idea. I think you  could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC  on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.