@rommel13579
I also don’t use my mechs to attack.
Axis & Allies Global 1942 Section. (Link posted for setup)
-
a 1941 setup would have been 10x better.
Players could still do their own versions of Barbarossa and attacks on pearl harbor. The axis player gets a nice haymaker turn to start.
If you are going to play 1942, after all the territories have changed hands, why not just play the Spring 1942 2nd ed game?
I mean, you are playing on a bigger board with more unit types, but for what. The territories that have been added, have already been conquered by the axis, so they are behind the front lines, and you are going to end up fighting over the exact same areas you would in a game of Spring 1942 2nd ed.Also the Larry 1942 setup unit count just feels like it was transposed from the 1942 2nd edition setup anyway, with some very minute tweaks.
So you start out with less stuff than you would normally have, and are earning a lot more money than you have in units already on the boardIm just spitballing numbers here, but lets say in OOB 1940, by the 5th turn, which is around 1942, lets say Germany has 200 IPCs worth of units on the board and is collecting around 60 IPCs. But in this setup, it feels like they only have like, 125 IPCs worth of units on the board, and are still collecting like 60 each turn. So the value of the units already on the board changes dramatically. With less already on the board, you can lose half of your units (in value) in attacks around the world and that portion will be replenished by your 60 IPC purchase. While in a normal 1940 game, your units are more expensive to replace, because if you lose too many, you can only replenish 1/4th of your units on the board with your purchase, rather than 1/2.
I know that sounds meaningless, but that’s why I like higher unit counts, because players have to treat their armies as large, but fragile, because losing too large a portion of it in one turn means you will outpace your ability to replace&replenish those stacks. If you blow your wad of fighters in one climactic battle, now you are never going to be able to afford to replace them all. This encourages standoffs, and slow plodding stacks in a defensive posture. Rather than suicide attacks, that you can afford to replace the dead units wholesale.
If you had 10 fighters and lost them all in a battle, you cant replace them as easily. But if the world starts with a smaller ratio of fighters, like if Germany only started with 5 lets say, they could easily just replace their whole airforce after an attack that kills an entire enemy armada, and return to relative parity. But if the unit count is inflated, using your forces in suicide strikes guarantees you will fall behind because of your lack of ability to replenish your forces to the scale they were once at.
-
The link in post no. 1 of this thread refers to an older version of the document (note the reference to “Alpha+3” in the pdf).
The latest document is here:
http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/G42setup2013424.pdf
(note the reference to 2nd edition rules).
-
Thanks for the clarification P@nther, 2nd edition clarified some unit placements and NO’s. The main difference was a change to the turn order putting Germany 5th.
One aspect of G1942 that I like was the removal of the 2 French coastal IC’s. It makes a really big difference. Germany starts with a dd/transport in the Med, but will need to build an IC (Yugo?) if they want to add to that fleet to help Italy. The US/UK doesn’t get a free IC on the mainland, so they have to plan accordingly. Although this is 1942, Sea Lion is still on the table IMO. England starts with far less units, and AA guns (they need to add inf if the Germans build some fleet). Much of that depends on where the US builds though, and if they can drop units on London (they go before Germany).
With the US starting at war Spain could be a viable strat if the allies can either capture the other true neutrals, or kill their standing armies that emerge at roughly the same time (trying that in the game I’m playing now).
As a side note:
With the new turn order there was some questions about how the US could easily kill off the 2 German subs in sz107. Krieghund suggested you move one of those subs to sz 103 for now (not quite official, but good enough for me).BTW Oz you seem a little bitter. I will say that I’ve played your version a couple times in the early days, and it was fun, but not lately (don’t know what tweaks you have made). I personally thought that you had too many units on the board at set-up and stated that (defiantly not what they were looking for in a tournament format). Personally I agree that a 1941 set-up would have been better (I also prefer the 1941 set-up for AA50). Maybe they will work on that as well, and it would be cool if they used some of your set-up or ideas as a template (all powers would still be brought into the war on the first round).
I’m not on board w/more units at set-up, because I’m looking for a slimmer version for quicker play, or to introduce newer players to the game in FTF play. The powers that be wanted fewer units at set-up, and if you make a major blunder it should cost you the war (game). I’ve only played a few games of G42, but there doesn’t seem to be a lack of strength IMO. There is quite a bit of air power, and Germany/Russia start with several tanks. Japan is a monster (lots of income, and potential for much more), even if the US goes full tilt Pacific. You are right, you need to be more careful not to make suicide runs, because it will be harder to recover. I would have also liked a reduction to the NO’s so there was less income floating around, but hey that’s me, and I know others want more (so to each his own).
-
The duel setups in the Anniversary edition was one of the best things Larry ever did
-
The duel setups in the Anniversary edition was one of the best things Larry ever did
Agreed!
-
G42 setup linked in the first post calls for BOTH Italian units AND French units in TUNISIA.
Which is correct?
-
Anybody? Looking to start playing tomorrow morning and would like to clear up this confusion beforehand.
Surely some of you have played the G42 setup.
-
The Second Edition revisions that P@nther linked clear this up, Italy controls Tunisia and there are no French units there.
Global 1942 2nd Edition Setup
Linked again for good measure. -
Thanks Colonel,
I somehow missed Panther’s post. Appears that the turn order has also changed. -
Hey guys, if you ever wondered what the original setups looked like with the units stacked up next to each other, well wonder no more.
First I have the land and air units for the 1940 Global setup.
Next are the land and air units for the 1942 Global setup.
Overall, it doesn’t seem to be much of a change between the two setups. Most of the nations seem to lose some infantry except for the US which gained. Also, while UK lost planes, the US seems to have gained some. The Axis seems to be almost the same. Germany and Japan have more fighters but less bombers.
One big change is German armor. Germany has a stupid amount of tanks. They have more tanks (16) than all the other countries combined (15), including the other Axis nations.By the way, as for the chips:
Yellow = 20
Blue = 10
Red = 5
White = 1
-
Here are pics of the naval forces from the 1940 setup and then the 1942 setup.
Japan is almost the same. Italy’s navy is severely depleted. The Royal Navy is really cut down but the US Navy seems to have grown.
I wonder what would be the outcome of one big huge naval battle: All Axis vs. All Allies
-
@knp. thank goodness for our resident quartermasters on the boards +1.
-
Great stuff KNP!
Strategy wise, I am really unsure how Germany is supposed to get any momentum against Russia in this game. They can be wiped out of Russia R1 (except for E. Poland and Bessarabia) and then have next to nothing left. I am only one turn into a test game, but wow, it looks quite grim for Germany after just 1 turn.
-
Great Stuff KNP (as always).
-
Great stuff KNP!
Strategy wise, I am really unsure how Germany is supposed to get any momentum against Russia in this game. They can be wiped out of Russia R1 (except for E. Poland and Bessarabia) and then have next to nothing left. I am only one turn into a test game, but wow, it looks quite grim for Germany after just 1 turn.
I thought that the Germans might be under powered too. They get their teeth kicked in the first round, but start to rebound after that (tanks from W Europe). The Germans can mount a pretty good come back around turn 3, but seem to get bogged down again soon after as the Russians also get stronger (hard to drop Russian income, and they can get Iraq for extra bonus). Pressure from the US in Europe will also take its toll. I think Japan can make its presence felt in the Mid East, and on Russia’s back door though, so taking on Moscow looks to be a coordinated effort (much depends on where the US plays).
-
WILD BILL, vonLettow,
I agree with both of you guys. With Russia going first and the setup the way it stands, Germany really doesn’t stand a chance in Russia. I’ve tried this game a couple of times now, and both times Germany gets wiped out in Russia (Ukraine, W Ukraine, Smolensk, Belarus and Baltic States). Plus, Russia is strong enough that they can keep up the pressure or at least keep Germany out of Russia for most of the rest of the game.
In our last game of Global 1942, Russia actually took Berlin in round 3 or 4. Germany was able to take back Berlin and kick the Russians out of E Europe, but that gave Russia a LOT of money to spend and they were able to get a lot of really nice equipment (planes, tanks) that in most games of Global 40 they can’t afford to get. Germany had a lot of problems keeping the Russians back and fighting the Brits too. I don’t think there is a real chance of an Axis victory on the Europe side.
Japan had a decent chance as they were spread out all over the Pacific and Asia and China and Russia were very weak. Even with their higher income, they couldn’t keep up with the US Navy and eventually got cornered on their island.
Once that happened, the US went full tilt toward Europe and whatever small gains the Axis were able to make there soon disappeared. -
We played this weekend and Japan won, I believe on turn 6. USA went KGF with little to nothing in the Pacific and Japan ran wild taking almost all of China and then India on turn 5. Moscow stacked infantry and also had an armor stack rolling through south west Europe. USA took Italy down but it was too late as Japan took Hawaii.
Next time more attention to the pacific. Either more $ into the USA fleet in order to challenge Japan’s massive fleet or Persian factory to reinforce India.
-
I have not won as the Axis as yet, but should this game be seen as more of a tournament set up and the Axis given a timer victory instead?
I find it fun and do not see it as a must to win as the Axis, only a different perspective and possibly historical ending. (?)
Perhaps the Japanese should lose 3 units and the Germans be given 3 in exchange.I hope, incidentally, all are playing with the amended Sub set up as suggested by Krieghund.
I mean moving one German Sub to a different SZ, so one of the two survives. -
We should also play without the stupid Russian NO of Spread of Communism including Africa.
This is a ludicrous extension of the NO.
Stick to European territories. -
@wittmann:
I have not won as the Axis as yet, but should this game be seen as more of a tournament set up and the Axis given a timer victory instead?
I find it fun and do not see it as a must to win as the Axis, only a different perspective and possibly historical ending. (?)
Perhaps the Japanese should lose 3 units and the Germans be given 3 in exchange.I hope, incidentally, all are playing with the amended Sub set up as suggested by Krieghund.
I mean moving one German Sub to a different SZ, so one of the two survives.Where did Krieghund post that suggestion?
Suggested Topics
