First Game – What have I learned? IGNORE THIS DUPLICATED THREAD

[Private-Panic]

I am posting this not so much as to boor everyone else with the thoughts of a novice, but to record what I thought I discovered in my first game of 1942.2 and next I will capture in a response to myself what I pick up from reading the various posts on this Board.  As one or two may have noticed I am sad enough to conduct a debate with myself.  In fact after all these years I may just have found someone who agrees with me? :roll:

I decided to play my first game before I read all the advice and expertise here, as it will now mean far more to me.

I came at 42.2 with some experience of 41.  Clearly 42.2 is on a much bigger scale and ideal when you have all day to commit to it.  I can see why some of those used to 42 found 41 unsatisfactory, but having done it the other way around, here are the key differences I note from one game:

• Artillery is a very valuable additional unit and played a big part.
• AAA and Cruisers less so.
• Significant increase in IPCs meant a willingness to risk loss of units and so more general attrition and less strategic focus.
• Germany’s access to a production centre in southern Europe, the number of IPCs in Africa and the UK’s limited production capacity in India (plus the need to transit an additional territory, Persia, to reach Africa) dramatically altered the shape of the game.
• This turned the UK into the weak link among the Allies.  Egypt went in G1, closing the Suez Canal and turning the Med into a G “lake”.
• India was lost to J in turn 4.
• By contrast, R held its own on the eastern front, causing G some problems, swapping Leningrad with G a number of times.  R will have been aided in this by an initial G focus on Africa.  That all changed when in turn 4 G built a production centre in the Middle East and J broke through in Siberia.
• The problem of getting the US involved seems no easier in 42.2.  With the Allied loss of Leningrad and Calcutta, the US’s need to hold onto Honolulu lead to losing the Battle of Midway.  I imagine I allowed the vulnerability of Honolulu to distract the US from sufficient effort to support the UK & R earlier in the game, as it tried to catch up with J’s naval strength.  The strategic crux of the game may instead be to deliver that support to UK & R before J captures Honolulu?
• As a result the Axis won in turn 6.  That suggests I have got a lot to learn about how best to play the Allies! :-o

No doubt I did lots wrong, but look forward to reading how the UK can best hold Africa and the USA get itself involved. :-)

Cheers
PP

[Private-Panic]

Sorry - meant to post this on 1942.2, which I have now done - feel free to delete this!

[innohub]

Great observation!  My humble advice is don’t look at other suggestion and play with your feel first. I find it lot of fun to explore the possibilities myself first, and seek help only when I seem to hit a dead end corner with no clue how to get out of it.

Enjoy and look forward to your more observation!

[Private-Panic]

Thanks innohub

Somehow my posting has been duplicated on this board and you’ll see from the other thread that I had the same thought.  The joy of trying out different things and learning for myself ….

Cheers
PP