.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany doesn’t take Egypt rd 1 it’s game over for the axis.  We’ve been playing weekly for ten years and when that happens the axis player conceeds and we start over.

I disagree… we have played a few games where germany in Round 1 left egypt alone and moved his southern fleet to gibraltar, built in the northern waters, and took out the UK fleet and Russian Sub in SZ2,  threatening britain and still moving land units to fight russia.  dont forget that the new spring 1942 game is different in enough ways from Revised and the original game, that the old strategies do not guarantee wins or losses.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany doesn’t take Egypt rd 1 it’s game over for the axis.  We’ve been playing weekly for ten years and when that happens the axis player conceeds and we start over.

I disagree as well. Things get tougher for the Axis and Japan will need to step up and threaten Africa but the game is not lost. Africa can be a drain for Germany, since it diverts units away from the Russian front. Losing the fleet means that those units can be used instead against Russia.

@Hobbes:

I disagree as well. Things get tougher for the Axis and Japan will need to step up and threaten Africa but the game is not lost. Africa can be a drain for Germany, since it diverts units away from the Russian front. Losing the fleet means that those units can be used instead against Russia.

precisely… and having a major threat on UK in the 1st round forces the allies to purchase accordingly

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany doesn’t take Egypt rd 1 it’s game over for the axis.  We’ve been playing weekly for ten years and when that happens the axis player conceeds and we start over.

I disagree as well. Things get tougher for the Axis and Japan will need to step up and threaten Africa but the game is not lost. Africa can be a drain for Germany, since it diverts units away from the Russian front. Losing the fleet means that those units can be used instead against Russia.

Straying from the topic a bit, in your view, how big a priority is killing the Med fleet for the Allies, and when is the optimal time to destroy it?

Personally I’ve been giving it a high priority with a R2 fleet kill, but perhaps that’s misguided, because that can weaken Russia on the mainland.

@Zhukov44:

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany doesn’t take Egypt rd 1 it’s game over for the axis.  We’ve been playing weekly for ten years and when that happens the axis player conceeds and we start over.

I disagree as well. Things get tougher for the Axis and Japan will need to step up and threaten Africa but the game is not lost. Africa can be a drain for Germany, since it diverts units away from the Russian front. Losing the fleet means that those units can be used instead against Russia.

Straying from the topic a bit, in your view, how big a priority is killing the Med fleet for the Allies, and when is the optimal time to destroy it?

Personally I’ve been giving it a high priority with a R2 fleet kill, but perhaps that’s misguided, because that can weaken Russia on the mainland.

The best option to me is UK2 - non combat move the UK carrier to the SZ between Madagascar and Africa on UK1, either land the fighter there or somewhere else to protect the bomber, if necessary and move 1 ftr from the UK to either WRussia or French West Africa. The Axis then have to sink the carrier (with Japan) and take both Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2, otherwise the RAF can attack SZ15. Or G can simply park the fleet on SZ14 and offload units to Libya but that will take the Axis pressure away from Egypt.

The R2 attack is a good option since it allows for only 1 shipload of German units to be transported - but it leaves Russia pretty bare to attack Ukr/Belo/Karelia, and you’ll have to use valuable armor in those attacks. Most likely G will be able to move a large stack to  Karelia on G2 since it can adjust its 1st round buy and buy a lot of armor.

@Keredrex:

@Hobbes:

I disagree as well. Things get tougher for the Axis and Japan will need to step up and threaten Africa but the game is not lost. Africa can be a drain for Germany, since it diverts units away from the Russian front. Losing the fleet means that those units can be used instead against Russia.

precisely… and having a major threat on UK in the 1st round forces the allies to purchase accordingly

You’re only forcing them to buy stuff they’re going to use anyway, be it inf, tanks, boats, planes. They eventually need it all. You only change the order in which they buy things.
BTW, I should’ve worded things better. I meant if Germany attacks Egypt and fails, it’s game over. I have won games in the past where I took Gib round one, sunk the uk navy and bought a Baltic Navy adn I’m sure there’s other strats out there that don’t call for an Egypt attack.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

BTW, I should’ve worded things better. I meant if Germany attacks Egypt and fails, it’s game over.

still dont totally agree… but this does hurt more.  Japan can still possibly dominate and be the game winning country. as long as germany turns defensive cause of the failed egypt attack but still makes a push for russia.  they will just have to be more careful and not lose any more major battles.

im curious… do you currently play the 1942 board?

@Col.Stauffenberg:

You’re only forcing them to buy stuff they’re going to use anyway, be it inf, tanks, boats, planes. They eventually need it all. You only change the order in which they buy things.
BTW, I should’ve worded things better. I meant if Germany attacks Egypt and fails, it’s game over. I have won games in the past where I took Gib round one, sunk the uk navy and bought a Baltic Navy adn I’m sure there’s other strats out there that don’t call for an Egypt attack.

The order that you buy things is important.  If you buy infantry early, you can march those infantry to the front to be useful later on.  If you buy tanks early, you may be able to grab territory quickly.  If you buy transports early, you can use them a turn sooner; if you buy them later, you may have to interrupt your transport drops to keep your convoy fleet in position to protect your new purchases.

As far as attacking Egypt and failing - it’s bad, but I don’t think I’d resign on those grounds alone.  If you usually stop playing after a certain attack fails, you’ll never see what could have happened.

@Keredrex:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

BTW, I should’ve worded things better. I meant if Germany attacks Egypt and fails, it’s game over.

still dont totally agree… but this does hurt more.  Japan can still possibly dominate and be the game winning country. as long as germany turns defensive cause of the failed egypt attack but still makes a push for russia.  they will just have to be more careful and not lose any more major battles.

im curious… do you currently play the 1942 board?

We actually use the revised board but with 1942 rules and pieces. The 42 board is too small and the borders are hard to see.

As far as attacking Egypt and failing - it’s bad, but I don’t think I’d resign on those grounds alone.  If you usually stop playing after a certain attack fails, you’ll never see what could have happened.

This is something we’ve started doing this past year. We’ve been playing for ten years and we’ve seen (almost) every possible scenario for the round 1 failed egypt attack. After it happens, Germany makes less and less money every round. By round 2 they’ll be at 35 or even less. All the three allies have to do is just attack them everywhere and widdle them down to nothingness. You don’t even need strategy.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We actually use the revised board but with 1942 rules and pieces. The 42 board is too small and the borders are hard to see.

did you account for the territory changes?  central america… alaska… the sea zones by alaska… strategically those changes are major.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

This is something we’ve started doing this past year. We’ve been playing for ten years and we’ve seen (almost) every possible scenario for the round 1 failed egypt attack. After it happens, Germany makes less and less money every round. By round 2 they’ll be at 35 or even less. All the three allies have to do is just attack them everywhere and widdle them down to nothingness. You don’t even need strategy.

i still dont see how this is possible with the new OOB rules.  and if you add in some of the house rules for advantages and technology, each individual game can be more unique.   maybe we should get a game going send me a message

@Keredrex:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We actually use the revised board but with 1942 rules and pieces. The 42 board is too small and the borders are hard to see.

did you account for the territory changes?  central america… alaska… the sea zones by alaska… strategically those changes are major.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

This is something we’ve started doing this past year. We’ve been playing for ten years and we’ve seen (almost) every possible scenario for the round 1 failed egypt attack. After it happens, Germany makes less and less money every round. By round 2 they’ll be at 35 or even less. All the three allies have to do is just attack them everywhere and widdle them down to nothingness. You don’t even need strategy.

i still dont see how this is possible with the new OOB rules.  and if you add in some of the house rules for advantages and technology, each individual game can be more unique.   maybe we should get a game going send me a message

We use the board as is. We don’t like the new territorial changes and we also play with national advantages for germany and a bid for them. Every change we’ve made is for germany’s benefit. We’ve had too many games where it was over round for them( like only taking Egypt with 1 tank or not at all combined with losing two planes right off the bat, etc.) Wins can still happen for the axis with OOB rules but everything has to go perfectly for germany every round.

I’d like to play. I’m thinking about joining gametable online. I tried to get AAA but I find it to confusing to downlowd everything I need to play.

@Hobbes:

The best option to me is UK2 - non combat move the UK carrier to the SZ between Madagascar and Africa on UK1, either land the fighter there or somewhere else to protect the bomber, if necessary and move 1 ftr from the UK to either WRussia or French West Africa. The Axis then have to sink the carrier (with Japan) and take both Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2, otherwise the RAF can attack SZ15. Or G can simply park the fleet on SZ14 and offload units to Libya but that will take the Axis pressure away from Egypt.

The R2 attack is a good option since it allows for only 1 shipload of German units to be transported - but it leaves Russia pretty bare to attack Ukr/Belo/Karelia, and you’ll have to use valuable armor in those attacks. Most likely G will be able to move a large stack to  Karelia on G2 since it can adjust its 1st round buy and buy a lot of armor.

Someone use that against me with little succes, since I was buying a trannie a round, I left the BB SZ14 and I was sending the trannie to offload in AE while the bb increased the pressure on sz 12 esspecially with two subs stationed in sz 13. As a German player I am little inclined to let the UK to sink my med fleet R2 like that.

On the other hand I actually dont mind Germans taking the dubious joy of sending some of their units to africa in early rounds, I only try to make sure the Amis are right behind them, killing them all eventually. I do not mind taking the med fleet R3 or R4 I only try to make sure German ships cannot combine with japanese. This ussually means that Germany is pumping 8Ipcs in units for 5 Ipcs income because they never control more at the end of their moves… And that two units are fighting with UK and US not russia which suits me well.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We use the board as is. We don’t like the new territorial changes and we also play with national advantages for germany and a bid for them. Every change we’ve made is for germany’s benefit. We’ve had too many games where it was over round for them( like only taking Egypt with 1 tank or not at all combined with losing two planes right off the bat, etc.) Wins can still happen for the axis with OOB rules but everything has to go perfectly for germany every round.

I’d like to play. I’m thinking about joining gametable online. I tried to get AAA but I find it to confusing to downlowd everything I need to play.

using the board as is (the Revised Board) makes it easier for the allies to hinder the axis… the change to the alaska territ and Sea zones there means the US can move easier from western canada to either the pacific or atlantic especially with bombers, its also easier for the US to stack units in western canada so they can protect alaska, move to eastern to jump on transports and if need be get on transports built on california to move to hawaii, in Revised the SZ55 is adjacent to both Western USA and Western Canada, in Spring '42 its not, also in revised Western canada is adjacent to SZ63 which means its easier for usa to attack that Sea zone from Western USA.  all this makes it easier for america to respond to Hawaii or any pacific movement and harder for japan to stall america and help Germany.

I agree the lines are hard to see in germany on the new board, we got used to it, but on this forum there is a redesign to the 42 board thats much clearer and definitely worth printing to use for the game.  but those changes to the territories are important to the game and change strategies.

@Keredrex:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We use the board as is. We don’t like the new territorial changes and we also play with national advantages for germany and a bid for them. Every change we’ve made is for germany’s benefit. We’ve had too many games where it was over round for them( like only taking Egypt with 1 tank or not at all combined with losing two planes right off the bat, etc.) Wins can still happen for the axis with OOB rules but everything has to go perfectly for germany every round.

I’d like to play. I’m thinking about joining gametable online. I tried to get AAA but I find it to confusing to downlowd everything I need to play.

using the board as is (the Revised Board) makes it easier for the allies to hinder the axis… the change to the alaska territ and Sea zones there means the US can move easier from western canada to either the pacific or atlantic especially with bombers, its also easier for the US to stack units in western canada so they can protect alaska, move to eastern to jump on transports and if need be get on transports built on california to move to hawaii, in Revised the SZ55 is adjacent to both Western USA and Western Canada, in Spring '42 its not, also in revised Western canada is adjacent to SZ63 which means its easier for usa to attack that Sea zone from Western USA.  all this makes it easier for america to respond to Hawaii or any pacific movement and harder for japan to stall america and help Germany.

I agree the lines are hard to see in germany on the new board, we got used to it, but on this forum there is a redesign to the 42 board thats much clearer and definitely worth printing to use for the game.  but those changes to the territories are important to the game and change strategies.

We think the allies have enough advantages as it is, so we won’t ever be using the 42 board

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We think the allies have enough advantages as it is, so we won’t ever be using the 42 board

actually i wrote my previous post wrong…  it should of read…

using the board as is (the Revised Board) makes it easier for the allies to hinder the axis… the alaska territ and Sea zones in the revised board means the US can move easier from western canada to either the pacific or atlantic especially with bombers, its also easier for the US to stack units in western canada so they can protect alaska, move to eastern to jump on transports and if need be get on transports built on california to move to hawaii, in Revised the SZ55 is adjacent to both Western USA and Western Canada, in Spring '42 its not, also in revised Western canada is adjacent to SZ63 which means its easier for usa to attack that Sea zone from Western USA.  all this makes it easier for america to respond to Hawaii or any pacific movement and harder for japan to stall america and help Germany.

I agree the lines are hard to see in germany on the new board, we got used to it, but on this forum there is a redesign to the 42 board thats much clearer and definitely worth printing to use for the game.  but those changes to the territories are important to the game and change strategies.

ive played both boards extensively and revised gives the allies particularly america a slight advantage in comparison to the 42 board

@Keredrex:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

We think the allies have enough advantages as it is, so we won’t ever be using the 42 board

actually i wrote my previous post wrong…  it should of read…

using the board as is (the Revised Board) makes it easier for the allies to hinder the axis… the alaska territ and Sea zones in the revised board means the US can move easier from western canada to either the pacific or atlantic especially with bombers, its also easier for the US to stack units in western canada so they can protect alaska, move to eastern to jump on transports and if need be get on transports built on california to move to hawaii, in Revised the SZ55 is adjacent to both Western USA and Western Canada, in Spring '42 its not, also in revised Western canada is adjacent to SZ63 which means its easier for usa to attack that Sea zone from Western USA.  all this makes it easier for america to respond to Hawaii or any pacific movement and harder for japan to stall america and help Germany.

I agree the lines are hard to see in germany on the new board, we got used to it, but on this forum there is a redesign to the 42 board thats much clearer and definitely worth printing to use for the game.  but those changes to the territories are important to the game and change strategies.

ive played both boards extensively and revised gives the allies particularly america a slight advantage in comparison to the 42 board

I’ve been reading this discussion regarding the Revised and 1942 boards, and I agree with everything said so far regarding how they give 1 advantage to one side or the other. I’ve come to summarize the changes this way: the 1942 version favors less either side to use the Northern Pacific route to attack the other (either Japan landing on Alaska or US bombing SZ60 from EUS). Whether it is the Axis or Allies who are more affected that’s a very looooonnnnnng discussion :)

@Hobbes:

I’ve been reading this discussion regarding the Revised and 1942 boards, and I agree with everything said so far regarding how they give 1 advantage to one side or the other. I’ve come to summarize the changes this way: the 1942 version favors less either size to use the Northern Pacific route to attack the other (either Japan landing on Alaska or US bombing SZ60 from EUS). Whether it is the Axis or Allies who are more affected that’s a very looooonnnnnng discussion :)

good point… but that being the case… if you had to choose which it would favor more than you look at the IPC’s… america has more money to spend towards any advantageous position.
If you give them even the slightest amount of hinderance… like more movement spaces between them and there objective.  you give the axis more time

Hello all. First post. AA 1942 is the first of these games I’ve owned and so far I like it better than the original or revised, very balanced.

Anywho, I’ll add a vote for borneo. I like to send the fighter to take out Jap transport, try and take Borneo and New guinea in first turn. If you get lucky and pull off both, it pisses off and really slows down Japan. I actually had a Japan player not attack Russia or the American fleet first turn just to be sure he could kill the UK fleet and retake Borneo.

One thing I was considering for next game was an attack on indo-china, 4 infantry+1 fighter and a bombard vs 2 inf 1 f.

@Mr.Biggg:

One thing I was considering for next game was an attack on indo-china, 4 infantry+1 fighter and a bombard vs 2 inf 1 f.

how do you get 4 infantry to French indo-china… there are only 3 in india and the transport starts there. it can only move 2 spaces so it cant get the infantry in persia or transjordan, and the other transport by australia is too far away.

@Keredrex:

@Mr.Biggg:

One thing I was considering for next game was an attack on indo-china, 4 infantry+1 fighter and a bombard vs 2 inf 1 f.

how do you get 4 infantry to French indo-china… there are only 3 in india and the transport starts there. it can only move 2 spaces so it cant get the infantry in persia or transjordan, and the other transport by australia is too far away.

Was actually just a rule clarification I just found out about. I thought you could move one space, then get on a transport. So yeah, with 3 infantry and 1 fighter, I don’t think I’ll be going after 2 inf 1 fighter.