How are the Allies in a better place in the '42 setup compared to 41
umrmeche last edited by
i really don’t see how the axis are more disadvantaged by the 42 setup than the 41. Just looking at the units and IPC incomes the allies might be weaker starting out in 41 but they get an IPC income of 40+43+30=113 to the Axis 17+10+31=58. That is a huge disparity of first round income 113-58=55 IPCs and what is more, the axis can’t erase that deficit even if all their wildest dreams come true in the first two rounds. so the allies can play conservatively and use their excess income to build up their armies and navies before feeling any pressure to respond to axis incursions.
however many of the people on the forums seem to think the '41 setup is much more even to the Axis powers. I have to say all of the posts by people saying they have a “surefire” strategy for any one power might need to think for some different strategies for the opponent since i haven’t seen yet any strategy that cannot be countered. this game is all about adjusting to new strategies and tactics and nullifying your opponents advantages while magnifying your own.
a44bigdog last edited by
Somehow I don’t think you have played many games of '41 against a competent opponent.
The Allies do not keep that money at all in '41 as a matter of fact the UK’s money drops like a stone. Japan generally earns 41 or 43 IPCs at the end of round 1 with National Objectives. Germany as well tends to be earning in the high 40s or low 50s at the end of turn 2.
Also in '41 by the time the Axis take what is theirs in '42 plus a bit extra like Egypt, Australia and India (normally around turn 3 for all of them plus a touch more of Africa and possibly Karelia) they have more forces on the board than they are given in '42.
I would recommend going down to the League or Tournament section and looking at some of the games in progress. I have only played a few games of '42 but I have only seen the Allies win ONE and that was by no means a standard game.