What are the difference between 1942 and Revised?

i would say if you own the 50th anniversery edition, you could problably skip the 1942 edition.  unless you are looking for a cheap way to aquire game pieces.  1942 is a smaller version of the 50th anniversery edition designed for new players.

Hi Kuni2,

A&A1942 has the Cruiser pieces; Revised does not.
Revised has Technology; A&A1942 does not (but you could add it in if you wanted).
Revised has National Advantages; A&A1942 does not.
A&A1942 has much improved and updated rules.
A&A1942 has better sculpted playing pieces.

If I were you, I would not bother buying A&A Revised as the 1942 is much better in my opinion. I own both and believe me, Revised does not get played any more; just ravaged for spare parts! :-)

To throw in a couple thoughts about the differences too, to see the full scope of how the two line up.  The Classic Editions were the 1st & 2nd Editions, Revised was the 3rd Edition and '42 is the 4th Edition.  The Anniversary is a deluxe larger-scale model of this and the theater and campaign games are smaller-scale models.

Rules and pieces in '42 are a hybrid of Revised and the Anniversary, but the evolution of the game is much akin to the transformation from Classic to Revised.  New pieces, revised rules, slight board modifications and such.  The game does take a different feel, but not as drastic as going to a larger or smaller game.

Sea combat and rules as well as price changes also occurred (to add to Lozmoid’s) list.

All that and that Revised is now out of print, so you’d have to buy an inflated priced copy 2nd hand…

You can play Revised with the 1942 equipment.  The only board changes are in North America, which are insignificant.  1942 is what Revised should have been IMO.

ya, don’t buy revised, just buy 1942
if you want to play revised, you can use the board and pieces from 1942 and just use the revised rules

actual differences:

In Revised, there was no such thing as Cruisers, and in Revised the Destroyers were a 3-3-2-12 unit with anti-submarine capabilities
In 1942, there are now Cruisers, which are a 3-3-2-12 unit with Shore Bombardment, and the Destroyers became a 2-2-2-8 unit with anti-sub ability

In Revised, Subs were a 2-2-2-8 unit, in 1942 they are a 2-1-2-6 unit
In Revised, Carriers were a 1-3-2-16 unit, in 1942 they are a 1-2-2-14 unit
In Revised, Transports were a 0-1-2-8 unit that could participate in combat and be taken as a casualty
In 1942, Transports became a 0-0-2-7 unit that may not participate in battle and may not be taken as a casualty until ALL of the fighting units on your side have either died or submerged
In Revised, Battleships cost 24, in 1942 they cost 20 (never get bought anyway)

In Revised, Shore bombardments instantly killed the unit if they hit, meaning the unit could not hit back.  In 1942 they unit is considered a casualty and gets to roll its dice before dying against the attackers troops.
In Revised, you could do as many shore bombardments as you wanted even if only dropping off 1 infantry.  In 1942, you may only do one shore bombardment per unit you are dropping off.

In Revised, Strategic bombing instantly killed IPCs.  In 1942, Strat Bombing damages the factory, meaning that for each point of damage on the factory, the enemy can produce one less unit there.  Factories can take up to twice their territory’s IPC value in damage, and each point of damage may be repaired for 1 ipc.
In Revised, Bombers cost 15 and AA guns cost 5, in 1942 Bombers cost 12 and AA guns cost 6 (noone buys AA guns anyway)

In Revised, the sea zone (63) that touches Alaska also touches Western Canada, In 1942 it doesn’t touch western Canada.
There are also some minor changes to north america, such as western canada does not touch central america, etc.  There are all completely unimportant.

Lastly, neither Revised or 1942 have National Advantages, the poster above must be thinking of AA50.

Because there are now Destroyers AND Cruisers, the setup is pretty much the same as before except:

Japan SZ 50 is now a Cruiser

Germany SZ 5 is now a Destroyer (nerf)

UK SZ 35 is now a Cruiser
UK SZ 15 is now a Destroyer (nerf)

USA SZ 20 is now a Destroyer (nerf)
USA SZ 10 is now a Cruiser (also a nerf, it may have same a/d as before, but now it doesn’t have anti-sub capabilities, so, Germany has 50% chance of destroying your cruiser and both transports turn 1)

UK SZ 13 is now a Cruiser instead of Battleship (big nerf)
Russia SZ 4 is still a Submarine (minor nerf)

I think thats everything.  1942 is a much better game, but it is a little bit harder to play as the Allies if you are just learning.  Overall, it promises to be more balanced than Revised, which was weighted towards the Axis and required a small bid of 6 ipcs or so for the Axis (if the Allies player was very experienced).

If they do what again?

Does that make the Nova version the Zeroth Edition?

@Veqryn:

In Revised, the sea zone (63) that touches Alaska also touches Western Canada, In 1942 it doesn’t touch western Canada.
There are also some minor changes to north america, such as western canada does not touch central america, etc.  There are all completely unimportant.

Not true, those changes are very important: both make Polar Express (japanese assault against american mainland as counter to KGF) much more difficult

Also, trannies not defending makes a balanced approach almost impossible (allied need that fodder in Atlantic ocean if they are going to buy a Pacific navy)

In resume, you will have 100% of KGF & JTDTM in AA42, while in Revised you had more choices

@Funcioneta:

@Veqryn:

In Revised, the sea zone (63) that touches Alaska also touches Western Canada, In 1942 it doesn’t touch western Canada.
There are also some minor changes to north america, such as western canada does not touch central america, etc.  There are all completely unimportant.

Not true, those changes are very important: both make Polar Express (japanese assault against american mainland as counter to KGF) much more difficult

Also, trannies not defending makes a balanced approach almost impossible (allied need that fodder in Atlantic ocean if they are going to buy a Pacific navy)

In resume, you will have 100% of KGF & JTDTM in AA42, while in Revised you had more choices

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the transport change might make it possible for the Allies to try different strats in the Pacific.  For example, USA could spend all of their cash on air, and then attack the Jap fleet in SZ 60.  With the USA popping out highly mobile 12$ bombers, the Japs could be forced to spend hard cash on useless destroyers and aircraft carriers and/or keep their fleets clustered up.

If this kind of strategy is viable, then perhaps in aa42 the Japs will be forced to buy mainland factories right off the bat which could slow down their growth.

I’m eager to play this game and see how it goes.  I hope it isn’t true that KJF is less viable as I think the ability to pursue KJF is one of the strongest aspects of Revised–in AA41, for example, the map dynamics are way too favorable towards KGF.

@Zhukov44:

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the transport change might make it possible for the Allies to try different strats in the Pacific.  For example, USA could spend all of their cash on air, and then attack the Jap fleet in SZ 60.  With the USA popping out highly mobile 12$ bombers, the Japs could be forced to spend hard cash on useless destroyers and aircraft carriers and/or keep their fleets clustered up.

If this kind of strategy is viable, then perhaps in aa42 the Japs will be forced to buy mainland factories right off the bat which could slow down their growth.

I’m eager to play this game and see how it goes.  I hope it isn’t true that KJF is less viable as I think the ability to pursue KJF is one of the strongest aspects of Revised–in AA41, for example, the map dynamics are way too favorable towards KGF.

Yep, Japs will have their own problems as well. As interesting side note, trannie weakness of Japan also damage Polar Express so I guess you are right and they are forced to escort their trannies with starting fleet. That is not going to hurt JTDTM too much anyway (not more than allied KJF and allied sucks in KGF)

As for AA41, map dynamics + crappy setup + corpse China are way too favorable towards axis victories. Try 1942 scenario instead  :-)

Um, the game is a bit too young to determine if there will be a viable pacific strategy.  I can see one possibility where the US builds up many a merry bomber to land on Yakut and SBR/deadzone Japan’s sea zones while the UK assaults from the south.

And aa41 does kill any allied movement in the pacific, but China is not the problem.  The real problem is there is absolutely no method for the allies to get units into the pacific fast enough before Japan’s income sky rockets.  The other problem is the can opener tactic forces the Russians to play much more defensively allowing Germany to steam-roll them without allied aid, and there is also the fact that Africa has become much more expensive for the allies to contest than in any other AA game (which is the only part of that I agree with) forcing the allies to ignore at least one theater of the war to have any effect in another.

Another diference between revised and the new one(1942) is the sweet looking map! seriously its a step up.

sweet looking tiny map that is  :mrgreen:

yeah, it is smaller. but it looks sooo much better than revised.

@bugoo:

And aa41 does kill any allied movement in the pacific, but China is not the problem.  The real problem is there is absolutely no method for the allies to get units into the pacific fast enough before Japan’s income sky rockets.

In fact, one of the reasons of skyrocketing Japan is China killed J1. The other is 5 starting jap trannies. What were thinking the testers? Too much beer?  :mrgreen:

Eh, the only part of china I hate is the invisible wall.  I have in games ignored china, as they take until turn 4ish to take the territory for your NOs back and at that point you earn enough anyway.

Yes, the easiest ways to fix Japan would be to take away 1 or 2 transports, place a factory in India or Austraila at the start of the game, grant the UK/US transports a bit more protection or distance so J1 cannot smash them, or any other number of things.  But the true problem is no one can effect japan until turn 3 at the earliest and at that point it is too late.  Also, the UK cannot afford to send much at all to the pacific without russia dying and africa being overrun.  I feel the largest failure of the AA games is how much stronger than Russia Germany is.  I hope in the new games Russia has a massive income convoy route to represent the massive quanities of materials the US sent her, and to represent the fact that Russia started pushing the Germans back before we even landed in France.  Not saying I want the axis to always loose, I just want a Russia that can survive past turn 4 without allied help.  Without that, the allies cannot afford to fight in the other theaters much.  Strengthen Russia and Italy to balance it out.

Would anyone be willing to try out a game where both Italy and Russia make 10 more IPCs each in AA50 just to see if it makes for a more global game?  I think it would, esp if the extra income was in other theaters.

maybe give Italy five more…idk about ten

@bugoo:

Eh, the only part of china I hate is the invisible wall.  I have in games ignored china, as they take until turn 4ish to take the territory for your NOs back and at that point you earn enough anyway.

I see no reason to ignore China when you can puppet (conquer) it J1. However i agree with the hate against the invisible wall in the cases when Japan makes the ignore move or not do the J1 exploit or even worst, the 42 scenario. I prefer calling it “ACME” wall because chinamen are Willie E. Coyotes that cannot pass the wall and japaneses are Roadrunners that can merrily pass the wall with a magic “Beep, beep!”  :mrgreen:

And just remember how much we all wanted poor Coyote catch the Roadrunner  :-D