@El:

Maybe try a 1 vs 1 game where you can be both Japan and Germany? Sounds like every Axis loss could be attributed to your friends wrecking your plans  :-(

Will probably happen soon. The Axis losses can be attributed mainly to the inexperience of 3 of our group, who still have to figure out that it’s 1942, not 1941 :-)
Actually the two most experienced players played Allies more often. The Japanese player I played with had lost a single match up to his back-to-back bloopers when he played with me.

As soon as everyone will figure out that there is no magic wand for the Axis that makes you win, matches will get more interesting.

But you need to play very precise moves which maximize your potential in the first 3-4 rounds.
Furthermore react on any bad moves from the Allies and capitalize on them.
And on top of it you need a very very good feeling for the necessity of your ressources, because overcommiting (Japanese Navy; Africa) our undercommiting to any theatre and not using the ressources to maximum effect (like strafes against Russia with the tanks; Or taking the infantry of the islands as Japan) will make a steep hill even steeper.

EDIT: And actually I myself play mistakes on a regular basis. Only difference is that mine are original :-)

The main goal of the Ukr attack is IMHO to get the fighter, so Germany can’t use either 2 fighters on AES or 1 fighter on AES plus 3 fighters on the cruiser in the Mediterranean.

Personally I see no reason why I should prefer artillery over tanks. I prefer to save 1 IPC and buy a tank next turn, to have no need for other troops (tiny advantage), 1 additional defense on top of the +1 attack and so much more tactical versatility due to the movement increase.

I like a 6 infantry 1 tank buy, although I see the merits of an 5-1-1. So far it usually worked, then on the other hand it is the Germans in my matches that screw up.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I think we just need to play against some new blood so we can be schooled, embarrassed, curse the dice then finally accept we were missing something.

Read the article on Fortress Europe, review what few play by forum games remain, its a pity old legacy games and posts have been removed but there remains a few.

Yes, I noticed the part about 1942 games, few there, too bad.

I read the fortress Europe article and got quite inspired by it, reading up on it on this board in seperate threads. I used the superior placing of the Luftwaffe in France (british fleet sunk in the process due to my opponent somehow not noticing that I have 2 subs as cannon fodder). Played defensively and most was well (except for a stupid mistake as response to an R2 sub buy in the Black Sea). Too bad Japan self-destroyed on 4th/5th turn. I look forward to play more matches as Germany. I am not the only one, though. Everyone in our group wants to play Germany, and everyone is keen on trying their own special tech, no matter how loud I cringe :-)

Another 3 matches, another 3 losses for the axis.

Match 1: Germany f***ed up, playing aggressively while not being able to do so and maintaining the pressure after a G1 Baltic AC build and average successful R1 WRu and Ukr. So Germany just lost it’s tanks one by one, Japan was too slow, taking the long road, building only 4 transports with no transport on the southern route. Axis quickly gave up.

Match 2: My turn for Germany at last. Went Bomber, 6 INF, 2 arm on G1. Played defensively for a few turns on the eastern front, taking Karelia and building up pressure towards WRu and Ukr. Built another Bomber on G2, so that when UK invaded Norway I could kill his fleet, leaving me with 3 Bombers and no fighters. A russian sub in the Black Sea was a rather clever invest, costing me 12 IPC for 2 dds and forcing me to do suboptimal fleet moves (countering US invasion of Algeria instead of retaking AES).
The US, in what everyone thought to be a silly strategy, advanced with it’s whole fleet towards the pacific. And then disaster struck. My Japan teammate, usually a great player, didn’t notice after a 3 Bomber build from the US that his bombers from WUs could land in the Russian country north of Bur (which he didn’t take on J2 due to lucky russian dice). So there went most of his fleet against better than average dice (which only led to a better outcome for the US). Next turn Japan didn’t take down (or notice) the lone transport in front of Alaska. So Japan was taken with 1 INF, 4 ftr and Battleship Bombardment vs. 4 INF, 1 Art and a ftr.

Man, was I disappointed (and my teammate rather embarrassed). Everything runs according to plan (except for a few unlucky dice), and then such a stunt.

Match 3: Another AC build for Germany (me with UK/US), this time in the Med with a tran. I didn’t want to show up in the first place, and my only comment was “Had I known this beforehand, I had’nt come.”

It still became more interesting than anticipated, due to lucky German dice on the AES counter on UK1 and Germany taking whole of Africa. Japan again didn’t take his transports to the southern route, therefore again being too slow in Asia, never mind not picking up Infantry from the Islands. UK/US shuck to Norway on turn 3, then Eastern Europe on turn 4, then Germany turn 5. German player with mistakes on turn 5, not defending Germany enough (neither with enough INF nor with Japanese fighters). Lucky dice on top for the allies sealed the Berlin deal on US5, Axis surrendering.

So still, Axis looks bad in our matches. If only my fellow players would refrain from pulling ridiculous stunts and questionable strategies.

I had a similar development in my last match. Germany built Carrier and Transport in the Mediterranean on G1 and was lucky with his attack on AES (3 troops standing) and in the counter on UK1 (cleared AES but couldn’t lost all groundtrops. had to land Bomber and Fighter next to it, so the fighters from the carrier could take me out and land on AES). The result was a complete Africa for Germany, a quite unusual occurance.

The match went to the Allies, nevertheless. Germany overcommited to Africa (having 35 IPC of troops there, plus AC and additional transport) and played some horrible mistakes in the endgame, not fortifying Germany enough when it was threatened by UK/US + Russian troops from East Germany.

Allies ignored Africa completely, except for turn 2 when it was used as a distraction for the impending invasion on Norway and for a combined allied fleet.

After having played 10-15 matches lately, I tend more and more towards limiting African investment. Like Hobbes said in another thread, if the Allies want Africa, they will take it. And strengthening Africa with its 1 and 2 IPC countries (11 total) considerably weakens the eastern front, where there are so much more interesting targets.

Currently, I’d take 5 INF 1 tank over the Battleship anytime. Or Bomber, INF, tank.

Africa has no victory point, no strategic advantage except for lowering UK income / vs. lowering Russian income. But then, it’s Russia who you have to beat if you want to win.

So if anything, I’d go for an AC + tran for the Med. It has basically the same effect, but adds another route to Caucasus. On the other hand, neither a Carrier nor a Battleship will ever defend either Germany or your panzers on their way to Moscow. So… nah…

@Hobbes:

And the Russian sub is the Millennium Falcon… go get them Lando!

Building the second Death Star in the Endor System then is the equivalent to a German Industrial Complex in South Africa.

@Bunnies:

• US reinforces Algeria, spreads ressources Atlantic/Pacific.If you split US early, it’s usually not a good idea.  You have to race Japan’s 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 fighters, and bomber in the Pacific, and keep an eye on Africa and Europe, which usually means building US defensive fleet early to escort US transports.  The more you concentrate force in one area, the more force your opponent will need to bring to bear to counter, the more flexibility you will have.  The less you concentrate your force, the less your opponent will need to counter, the more flexibility your opponent will have.

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Nevertheless this is what usually happens in our matches, and still the Allies win, when actually they shouldn’t. Because they split. Seems as if we just play Japan totally wrong.

Sounds to me like the Axis just aren’t pressing their potential attacks hard enough.

The fine balance, especially at the Russian front for the Germans, is hard to figure out. I hope I can play Germany this sunday and try the new insights.

Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

Never a Jedi I’ll become. To much anger inside of me I have.

Thank you for your comments. Especially the part about the massive transport buys in the first turns was something Japan never used in our matches. So usually Japan had 3-5 transports, always leaving them on the short side.

@Black:

The easiest one I can think of at this point it to allow aircraft to sink a sub on a role of 1 instead of 3.  The lower role would signify the difficulty of spotting and sinking the sub beforeit submerged.

Sub rules are good the way they are. Planes are the best weapon for sea battles already. Further strengthening them would not only reduce the effectiveness of subs, but of destroyers as well. Therefore it might be necessary to adjust IPC prices. Which in turn would change the balance again. etc.

Realism is not the aim of a game. Fun is. Exaggerated realism usually leads to 128-pages long rulebooks and games that take 2 hours to put up and 25 hours to play.

The older I get the less I like complicated board games. Simple rules, fast games, big depth ist what usually brings the most fun. Reading rulebooks, rulesmongering, irritation about rules and forgetting the important tiny details usually doesn’t.

A&A 1942 is already at the edge (for my personal taste, which of course isn’t valid for everyone), but strikes a nice balance between total abstraction (as in Risk or Diplomacy) and playability (opposed to hardcore games like Advanced Third Reich). If you want to go more hardcore, you could try the Spring1940 versions together and play the worldmap. Or take a look at the Hearts of Iron III computer game.

@Black:

Gent

I’m planning you uses some additional game piece.  I’d like your thought on their values.  Do you think these units would be useful?

Mech Infantry
2/2/2 6-IPC

I’m wondering if this would compete too much with artillery but arty still had the advantage of giving +1 to inf.

Medium Bomber
3/1/6 10-IPC (strategic bombing - dice role divided by 2 & round up)

I originally made these for the other A&A when a bomber cost 15 IPC.  In these games the medium bomber cost 12 IPC.  I found medium bomber to be more useful for the axis.  Now that a bomber cost 12 IPC in 1942 I’ve decided to make the cost 10 IPC.

Jeep Carrier
1/1/2 10-IPC (Can carry only one plane)

The mechanized infantry has no advantage at all compared to a tank, which has 1 more attack, 1 more defense, and is 1 IPC cheaper. Why would anyone buy that instead of a tank?

I like the idea of the carrier and the small bomber, however think they are priced too highly.

Nevertheless I’d propose you take a look at the Europe/Pacific 1940 games. They have mechanized infantry (Infantry with 2 movement), tactical bombers (sort of a flying artillery that can land on carriers), and other tasty additions, like harbors and airfields, the possibility to invade neutral countries, and national objectives that give additional IPCs.

@Black:

What exactly is a KGF?  Does this mean you are going to try to kill off Germany first before Japan?

KGF is an abbreviation for “Kill Germany First”.
The strategy involves the USA not spending anything on the Pacific at all, but putting all into the Atlantic. Japan can roam freely in Asia, while the allies all go for Germany.
In the end, it often develops into a race for Moscow vs. Berlin.

It is a successful Allied strategy, hard to counter, and on top leads to rather short games, as a valued side effect.