Do you think we need a section in the Global 1940 area of the boards, or at least a sticky for the 1942 set-up?
Morning Toblerone.
Yes, I do. I would appreciate that.
Is this an alternate setup from Larry himself?
@IKE:
Is this an alternate setup from Larry himself?
Yes Larry had a hand in it, was developed for tournament play to make for a slightly quicker game with all powers starting at war.
Yes I think it should have its own topic heading (or at least a sticky for discussion in the G40 section). This version seems to be picking up steam in casual FTF games (as ppl hear about it). It is a good tool to introduce newer players to the G40 map and rules w/o most of the political stuff. A second set-up is also a great change of pace giving slightly different strategies to the game (very much like the AA50 Anniversary edition that came w/2 set-ups OOB)
Wow I was really hoping to see more votes for this.
Just my 2 cents worth. I would be all for having the 1942 Global setup having it’s own topic heading and stickyed in the Global 1940 thread. However, I don’t think it should have it’s own full section because it is not an actual game in and of itself. It is a variation on the Global 1940 setup. All the other sections are devoted to actual games…in other words, full games that come in a box.
Granted, Global 1940 is created by using Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 together. You can’t go to a gaming store and pick up a box that says “Global 1940” on it. However, since it is the result of two purchased games, it deserves it’s own section. To me, Global 1942 is simply an alternate scenario of an existing game.
However, I don’t think it should have it’s own full section because it is not an actual game in and of itself. It is a variation on the Global 1940 setup. All the other sections are devoted to actual games…in other words, full games that come in a box.
G42 is not a variation of the 1940 setup. It is a different scenario and a different game, even though it is made from the same components as G40. You cannot discuss specific strategy of either and apply them to the other.
A&A Anniversary has two different setups and child boards for them, so I don’t see why G42 couldn’t get its own child board in here.
I don’t see why it truly makes a diffrence. I see the 42 set up as a side game for those who are interested in a change up from 40 nothin more nothing less. I just don’t see being clammering to go out and buy Europe and pacific 1940 just to play a 42 variant of the game dose it marit it’s own little cliff note in the 1940 page anything more absolutly not.
Can someone provide a link to this setup…
Thanks.
I can’t remember where the link is but if I find it I’ll post it. I haven’t played this F2F I’ve just played solo on tripleA. The guys on Dicetruction play this a lot. I think this in coming years could become more popular as we will not be having any more new releases for A&A for a few years.
One of the biggest compliments I’ve heard for this game has been that the action starts right off the bat. As stated on this thread and elsewhere AA50 has dedicated space for either scenario so I think it’s warranted, that’s basically why I created the poll, so people could share their thoughts on the matter.
Thank you for that… gonna suggest to my group that we play this at the FMGC in September.
G42 is a way better game. Less stuff to keep track of and much quicker. In G40 the same things seem to be done every time in the first few rounds anyway. This’d be a great game for FMGC and I’m really hoping to make it this time. I think a subforum like has been applied to AA50 would be appropriate.
@Most:
G42 is a way better game. Less stuff to keep track of and much quicker. In G40 the same things seem to be done every time in the first few rounds anyway. This’d be a great game for FMGC and I’m really hoping to make it this time. I think a subforum like has been applied to AA50 would be appropriate.
I really hope to see you and your crew there, the convention could always use more beard.
Just my 2 cents worth. I would be all for having the 1942 Global setup having it’s own topic heading and stickyed in the Global 1940 thread. However, I don’t think it should have it’s own full section because it is not an actual game in and of itself. It is a variation on the Global 1940 setup. All the other sections are devoted to actual games…in other words, full games that come in a box.
Granted, Global 1940 is created by using Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 together. You can’t go to a gaming store and pick up a box that says “Global 1940” on it. However, since it is the result of two purchased games, it deserves it’s own section. To me, Global 1942 is simply an alternate scenario of an existing game.
I wasn’t sure on terminology but I’d like to see at least a sticky or subforum. It might even generate some popularity for the scenario and tournament play.
Just my 2 cents worth. I would be all for having the 1942 Global setup having it’s own topic heading and stickyed in the Global 1940 thread. However, I don’t think it should have it’s own full section because it is not an actual game in and of itself. It is a variation on the Global 1940 setup. All the other sections are devoted to actual games…in other words, full games that come in a box.
Granted, Global 1940 is created by using Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 together. You can’t go to a gaming store and pick up a box that says “Global 1940” on it. However, since it is the result of two purchased games, it deserves it’s own section. To me, Global 1942 is simply an alternate scenario of an existing game.I wasn’t sure on terminology but I’d like to see at least a sticky or subforum. It might even generate some popularity for the scenario and tournament play.
Global War is a 1939 variant that has no endorsement or affiliation to Larry Harris, and it has it’s own forum here on this site (although I admit that it was I that suggested to Dave at the 2012 FMGC that it should get it’s own forum space).
Do you think we need a section in the Global 1940 area of the boards, or at least a sticky for the 1942 set-up?
Your request may get noticed better here… at least by those that have the ability to do something…
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 board
Im 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
