Posts made by _Flin_

@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.

@Bunnies:

Buncha cute ways to counter.

You bet. Great insights.

@LMD:

Every game has gone to the Axis (about 14 games now), and every one has been a KGF strategy.

Do not play KGF.

We routinely go with the Norwegian Gambit (preserving the UK battleship) and have never failed.  Yes, we lose the R fighter on Germany R1, but one Russian fighter does not make the difference.

Do not play the Gambit. Maybe the Russian fighter combined with the lack of the BB as a target is more important than you account for.

This advice isn’t global, of course KGF and Norwegian Gambit are viable strategic and tactical options.

But if it doesn’t work for you, try something else.

• R1 Attack on WRus and UKR. Move 6 INF into Bur, 2 INF to Yakut.

• US1 build an AC, DD for Western US, placing Hawaii ftr and WUS ftr on the AC. Move Bomber to Alaska. This way you threaten SZ 60 with the fighters, SZ 61 with the bomber. If J2 doesn’t go for Bur, you can reinforce Bur with 2 fighters on US2 and maybe sink undefended transports in SZ61, landing in Bur.
  Then go for the Solomons. Try to build to 2-3 transports (moving ground troups to the Solomons. ) and a few planes every now and then for the Pacific (over time, not necessarily in one round). Have a surprise tranny take an island or 2. Threaten Borneo, Phillipines and East Indies all in one go from the Solomons.
  Use the US sub and the UK sub roam the islands, threatening transports and ACs.

The main goal is to threaten Japan and lure Japan into spending scarce money on expensive navy. If Japan ignores your moves, be more aggressive. Phillipines is a victory point, so are Shanghai and India.

I am not saying that this is a very great strategy. But it forces many decisions onto the Japanese player.

And if you have problems in the Atlantic, try building the AC, 2xDD on UK1 in SZ2, then be aware you might land the US ftr on the carrier on turn 1.

@aqian:

The key is if you do not conduct SZ2 combat, UK could build a safe fleet in UK1 and start to harassing the north or west coast from UK2 with a BB bombardment.

And additionally the BB is a “get out of jail, free” card for naval battles. BB, AC +2ftr, 2xDD is 18 defense value and the first 3 hits will be 12 IPC still leaving 14 defense.

Just to match that defensive power Germany needs 2 Bombers, 2 fighters, 2 subs. And the first three hits reduce it to 11 attack.

To kill such a fleet, Germany needs to buy correctly, position correctly, and strike immediately when it gets the chance. And the heavy Luftwaffe purchases might leave the ground forces struggling vs. Russia.

“So, you remember when you asked my a fortnight ago what happened with that girl I met at that party? And I didn’t tell. Look at my bad luck tonight and connect the dots. And then, still, you’re probably not even close. I rule.”

@Hobbes:

On J1 moving the J transport on SZ60 to drop 1 inf, 1 arm on Indochina can be a big help. It allows J to reinforce Egypt or take India by J2. You should also pull back the units on Algeria to Libya (no point in having them destroyed).

This usually leads to UK1 tank, inf in Algeria, with US reinforcing with tank, art, 2 inf and maybe a ftr. The ftr, however, would then not be available to land on the UK AC, so UK build probably takes place in SZ2. Which brings up the question of fighter placement on G1. If the UKR fighter is gone, then it probably will be the best to go for 2 ftr on WEur, and 2 on Norway? If the UKR fighter exists, attack AES with 1 ftr only and 3 vs. the Mediterranean cruiser, putting 3 ftr on WEur and 2 on Norway (if they survive, that is)? So you can smash Algeria, in case AES doesn’t get countered? Hmmm… :evil:

Afterwards, if the Allies want Africa they will take it - but while doing so they are diverting units from Europe.

Forcing decisions on them makes it easier for them to make errors.

Even if the US fleet takes Solomon on US3, they probably won’t have enough to prevent being sunk if they decide to take any of the islands, but you’ll need replacement fighters.

Probably we just play too defensively and conservative, so in the long run this favors the allies. Therefore usually the US fleet binds more of the Japanese fleet than necessary.

Try giving a 3 IPC (1 inf) bid for the Axis. Just that can make a big difference on Africa.

I think we have to try that.

Thanks a lot for the great advice!

On R1, we usually go for a conservative WR and UKR.
6 INF to Bur, 2 INF to Yakut, 1 INF in Kar, 0 Inf in Archangel.
Usually trying UKR with 2 tanks.
From then Russia tries to get Land towards Germany, while concentrating on keeping it’s tanks and fighters, building tanks up slowly.

G1 goes for the usual stuff, kill British fleet, invade AES, take Karelia, reinforce Norway, move subs to Atlantic, stay in Algeria.

UK1 invades Algeria with Bomber, tank and Infantry. Builds AC, 2DD. Stays in India. Kills Japanese transport with fighter, lands in China. Then builds up fleet later, goes for Africa. Around turn 4 Atlantic is secured. 1-2 punches start vs. Norway. If Luftwaffe is reduced SZ5 will be staging area to ship towards Karelia/EE.

Japan is forced to take China. Small Pearl Harbor. Buys 2 trannies. Usually an additional fighter and 2 INF. Goes Bur turn 2, India turn 3. Proceeds towards Moscow, while Fleet protects transports and hunts subs. Plays cat and mouse with the US Fleet, which takes Solomons. Balancing fleet and ground troops is hard, esp. due to the need to protect the transports from US Air Force.

US buys Transport and 2ACs. Sometimes 1 AC and an additional fighter & DD. Sometimes Counter Attacks Pearl Sea Zone with help of Bomber. Reinforces/Invades Algeria. AC with 2 Fighters on East Coast turn 1 is important, to reinforce Bur in case Japan doesn’t take it on J2. From there on builds mainly transports, a 1-2 DD, a few fighters and a bomber every now and then. About 12-15 per turn for ground troops. Around turn 4 Atlantic is secured. 1-2 punches start vs. Norway. If Luftwaffe is reduced SZ5 will be staging area to ship towards Karelia/EE.

Usually over the course of the game the Axis makes a few mistakes to many, either staging to risky attacks, now enough attacks, buying too expensive stuff (ships!) or the one strategic error (leaving too few in Western Europe, while having their Panzers too far away) and loses.

Then maybe our best player plays Allies more often than Axis, which adds to the perception of imbalance.

Hi there!

This is my first post. I have been lurking here for a while, since me and my friends just rediscovered A&A 1942 and are quite hooked on it. After reading through many of the threads, I figured I have somequestions about the proposed strategies. Furthermore, most of them do not apply to the games we usually play.

So I have a few specific questions, concerning a variety of topics for nearly all countries.

1. Our general setup and game
We usually play R1 and G1 with pretty standard moves.

• R1 WR and UKR (sometimes strafe), but never Norwegian Gambit;
• G1 British Fleet, AES, a bit in Russia with consolidation in UKR, taking Karelia/UKR, sometimes setting up Belo and UKR for trades.
• UK1 buys AC, 2 DD, attacks Algeria with Bomber/INF,ARM, sinks Baltic fleet with Fighters. Usually no AES counter. Sinks Jap Trn off Kuangtung with fighter. Indian fleet flees.
• J1 Attacks China, Small Pearl, buys 2 tran and ground units.
• US reinforces Algeria, spreads ressources Atlantic/Pacific.

So what usually happens is:
Germany gains some ground in Africa until it loses Med fleet and succumbs to continous invasion from SZ12.
Japan plays Cat&Mouse with the US fleet, taking Bur turn 2 at the latest (because sneaky US reinforces with Fighters from AC off US East otherwise) then J3 it’s usually India.
Allies build up navy in the Atlantic, bomb Germany. Russia and Germany trade, while Russia builds up Infantry stacks.
Any German try to gain a foothold in WR or UKR gets countered. By turn 4-5 allies land either in Western Europe,
or come over Norway. The smaller US fleet (usually an AC, BB, DD, SS and trans) in the Pacific is enough to distract some Japanese IPCs, while playing cat & mouse with the Japanese Fleet, which isn’t strong enough for a frontal assault unless united with the Indian fleet, which usually chases after running CA/AC/tran. Japan marches towards Moscow, but has neither the troops nor the speed to get there and have an impact against the Inf stacks. So usually by turn 6-8 all hope is lost for the Axis.
With a firm footing in the Atlantic and in Africa, the Allied fleet ships troops towards Karelia.
The Axis have lost their initial troop advantage.
Germany is usually at around 28 - 31, Japan at around 40-45; so the Axis is down about 20 IPC a turn.
Which is usually enough, because the Allies just play it safe and just pile up more and more until there is no way for the Axis to attack anymore.

So it seems to me that the Allies have a big advantage here. Out of maybe 10 matches, the Axis managed to win once, after a G1 2 Bomber build and mistakes by fearful and drunk UK/US players.

On to the questions:
1. Germany
1.1. Africa
In G2 usually there are 2 tanks left in AES, sometimes an additional infantry.
Algeria gets taken. Period. First the British transport, then the double US. If UK neither attacks Algeria, nor AES, nor builds factory in SA, all is well.
When any of the above happens, then what?
Current trend in our games is the all out attack on Algeria by the Allies.
Sink the fleet, well, of course, it’s usually CA+ 2 or 3 trans. Then fortify Libya with 2 additional inf and tank blitz through africa? And buy additional navy to protect Med fleet?
Counterattack Algeria? Invade Transjordan to flee next turn through Suez?
How to hold onto Africa a bit longer? Threaten the Atlantic with a turn 1 double bomber buy? Or just grab as much as possible and wait for Japan?

1.2. Russia
Now I have seen all out Infantry buys for Germany. Being too slow and succumbing in Western Europe turn 5-6 (probably wrong balance then…).
I have seen aggressive play more often, always leading to removal of the infantry shield and self annihilation by Germany due to losing IPCs by the bucket.

Is there a certain rhythm to the Eastern front? Like: Buy Inf 4 turns, then tanks, then attack on turn 6?

1.3. Atlantic
The Atlantic is a lost cause. If UK1 goes AC/DD/DD SZ8, there is not much Germany can do. It can attack, sure. But the whole Air vs. Naval battle always takes away about a ftr and a SS.

So how do you balance Africa/Russia/Atlantic? Are the Japanese fighters the key to that?

2. The UK
In the other threads, many people say they retake AES as soon as there are 3 or less units there. Isn’t that automatic doom for all Axis Africa ambitions?
You can even build an IC there next turn, because which German in his right mind would attack there with 2 troops, while the US is in Algeria?
The problem I have with this is: How comes that everyone talks about German strategy as if they make any progress in Africa at all? When it is next to impossible to keep AES for longer than G1?
On the other hand I do not see the advantage giving Japan India as a present… sigh… so many decisions. ;-)

3. Japan
When reading about Japan, it usually reads like “Well, you need 5-6 trannys asap, then an IC at preferably India, all while storming towards Moscow and pushing 8 Units a turn on the Asia, while flying fighters to Western Europe, taking Africa, and ANZAC, because the subs are no problem, since you bought 2 DD anyway.”. And I am like: “WUTLOL?! Can I haz IPCs?” (sorry for the language ;-) )
In our matches, the standard opening leaves the Indian fleet on the run, 4 Inf in India, the UK ftr at China and 6 Inf in Bur. Japan with one tranny.
The only reasonable move is to take China turn 1 and Bur turn 2. If Bur isn’t taken on turn 2, the US fighters will come over.
So progress is steady, but slow. How can Japan put more and faster pressure on Russia? All the while moving off to Africa and protecting Bor/Phi/East Indies?

It is a complete mystery to me how the Axis can win this game on a regular basis. There seem to be so much more mistakes to make. And it seems as if the Axis will get punished way harder for mistakes or bad luck.
Then, on the other hand, the Axis has to play aggressively, because it can’t win the long run.

It’s tough, but then here it says the game is balanced. How? (Maybe we should introduce bids…)

Thank you for your help, please excuse if I sound a bit angry, just been torturing my brain about that for two weeks now.

EDIT: Ok, next post i reread first, before I edit like 100 times :-)