Well, OK, if the general plan is “try to save Yunnan by killing all remaining Japanese land units near Yunnan if Japan rolls average-to-poor on the first attacks against China” then I think that’s a good plan. I’m just objecting to the specific tactics you were discussing in the original post.

As far as the 12 planes vs. 10 ground + 3 ftr, sure, that’s a stupid attack for Japan to make – but I’m still not sure you get odds that are that good as China against average luck and a decent opponent.

Carriers in SZ 37, off the coast of Hainan, can reach Yunnan unless you own Szechuan and Hunan and Kweichow – possible, but not guaranteed given all the other commitments you’re talking about.

And now you’re saying buy 4 infantry on C2, but I thought you wanted to buy 3 artillery on C2 – you can’t buy both on the same turn, you don’t have enough cash. If you’re just buying infantry for Szechuan C2, then sure, maybe you can hold Szechuan against airblitzes, but you probably don’t have the offensive striking power to stop Japan from at least trading Yunnan, maybe even taking and holding it.

Meanwhile you have nothing to fight with in north/northwest China, right? Troops from Japanese Manchuria walk west and just eat your 6 IPCs there without a fight.

It’s not necessarily a bad strategy overall for the Allies, especially if Japan takes some unlucky hits J1/J2, but I think you’re somewhat overstating its benefits.

I haven’t done an exact count of the Chinese starting pieces, but just by eyeballing it, it sounds to me like you’re stretching China way too thin.

You send 2 infantry to Hunan C1 and 6 infantry to Yunnan C1 – that’s most of your starting pieces. When you “stack up” in Szechuan on C2 after building 3 artillery, that means your stack is what, 4 inf + 3 art? If that?

Even if Japan only landed part of its air force on the Chinese coast and Chinese coastal carriers (e.g. 12 planes or so, no special prep), that’s still a pretty good battle for Japan. Your Chinese armies only defend at 2, and the planes attack at 3.5, so 12 planes * 3.5 = 42 pips = 7 expected hits, i.e., you can expect to wipe out a stack of 7 Chinese armies in one round of combat. Those 7 armies only have 14 pips to fight back with, so you’re losing 2, maybe 3 planes in exchange for what’s left of the Chinese stack.

I see those as totally acceptable losses, especially if Britain has exposed itself by stacking Burma, sacrificing ships to block SZ37, and so on.

I agree with you that trading Chinese infantry 1:1 for Japanese planes is a great deal, but you’re not going to get that deal if you push China forward so aggressively in the first couple of turns.

If British India is very strong, then even losing 3 planes might be unacceptable, because you’ll need those extra planes to be sure of taking India on J5 or J6…but with the British navy gone, the British expeditionary force in Burma / French Indochina doomed, etc., then India will fall without too much extra effort, so the planes you lose demolishing China are expendable.

Thank you, @simon33. Can you try to specify what you mean by depth? What is depth? What makes a game deep?

Here’s our income chart, if anyone’s enough of a nerd to care about that much detail. Allies had 127 - 115 IPC advantage at end of round 3, and 121 - 108 IPC advantage at end of round 5. In the pictures above, blue chips are 3, and red chips are 5.

Update: finally got a live playtest in, with @Corpo24 and Angel taking the Axis against me and Quincy with the Allies. It was a very tense and exciting game – Germany took Egypt on G1 without a single casualty, but lost 2 fighters against Task Force G in the Western Med and failed to sink the Canadian DD + transport. Britain abandoned both India and Africa, used its navy to capture and hold Scandinavia early (saving Leningrad for the Russians), and built a factory in Australia, which was reinforced by the retreating Indians and some American soldiers and planes. Italy got rich off of national objectives and built a large navy, including a fully loaded carrier, and then shucked 2 loaded transports per turn to the Ukraine, where Germany’s main stack of 15 tanks was threatening both Stalingrad and Moscow.

Meanwhile, in the Pacific, Japan sent a fully loaded carrier with no escort ships down to Queensland as part of an effort to sink the remaining British Pacific boats (I won’t dignify a few stray transports and destroyers with the name of “Pacific Fleet.”) America seized the opportunity to blow it up and establish carrier parity (2 each), and the American and Japanese Pacific fleets mostly played footsie for the rest of the game, with Japan finally wiping Britain out of the East Indies on about J5, and America taking Iwo Jima on US6. Japan slowly expanded on all fronts, making it as far as Yakut in Siberia, cutting China down to one territory, and trading Persia with Russia. Japan also landed a squad in Rhodesia to help the German tank factory in Egypt make sure that the British didn’t get any funny ideas about a factory in South Africa.

Things looked grim for the Allies during turn 6 – the British were trading France with Germany, but were unable to fill their fifth transport (no extra factory in the west and no money to buy one); America was trading Morocco with Italy each turn and looked unlikely to penetrate further than Libya for a long time. Meanwhile, Japan’s slow, steady progress was becoming a real threat – Japan was about ready to break China and break the still-holding-but-slowly-retreating Siberian Guards, which could have created a decisive income swing. Allies were up about 10 IPCs as of turn 6, but that could have disappeared or even been reversed by turn 8 if things continued according to schedule.

Fortunately for the Allies, the back-and-forth trading in France left the Axis stack in Ukraine exposed to a Russian counter-attack. Russia attacked with 75% odds to win, and rolled better-than-expected, taking back the Ukraine with 3 artillery, 6 tanks, and 1 fighter remaining. At the same time, lightly supported Russian infantry rolled out of Leningrad to take the Baltics and Belorussia, rolling the Germans back in the northeast. The Germans and Italians had no forces available to counter the advancing Russian front – they could not both hold eastern Europe and keep trading France, so the Axis surrendered.

One fun gambit that we didn’t get to see the result of was the American bomber attack on the Italian fleet – the Americans built 3 extra bombers in the Eastern US and stacked land forces in Libya with the idea of holding it for a turn using British fighters that were no longer needed to defend Russia. The US bombers (including a couple that flew from Australia to Stalingrad to join the party) would fly 5 spaces to the central Med, and then land in Libya – which would then be permanently secured, because the Italian navy would no longer have the transports to help the Germans take it out. That attack could have gone quite badly for the Americans; the extra turn of setup meant that the Italians got a chance to build, so they could have dropped another 3 destroyers or something in the sea zone, and they might have won that battle, with disastrous results for the Western Allies – but we’ll never know, because Axis morale collapsed in the wake of the Russian victory in Third Battle of Kharkov.

Everybody had a good time, and we don’t feel that any changes are needed to the national objectives – they seemed to give everyone a fair chance to win and to choose their own style. There was a little grumbling about how German got ganged up on, but what do you expect when Egypt, Burma, Pearl Harbor, and the San Diego navy all fall turn 1 without a single Axis casualty, and the Luftwaffe bites the dust on turn 1 without a single Allied transport getting wet? I blame the dice, rather than the NOs, for that particular strategic decision.

@Imperious-Leader With respect, that’s off-topic. There are lots of other threads about 1942.2; this one is about Revised vs. Global. Please keep the 1942.2 discussion off of this thread.

@DoManMacgee Thanks; both of these posts were super-helpful for me.

@Slip-Capone Can you elaborate a little bit on how or why these rules opened up new strategies? It looks like almost every territory worth 2 IPCs or more is a Victory Territory. How does playing with this list of Victory Territories change the strategy compared to just saying “whoever has more money after 6 rounds wins?”

Very interesting, thank you. So, digging a little deeper, can anyone articulate what it means for something to be a “wargame” or why G40 would scratch the “wargame hunger” better than Revised? In concrete terms, why does G40 feel like a wargame?

Also, does anyone have a link to the WBC tournament rules for Revised? I’m not familiar with them.

And, yes, one thing I like about SiredBlood’s rules is that they encourage a broader variety of strategies, even in competitive play. At the first SiredBlood tournament, I saw neutral crushes, I saw Sea Lions, I saw paratroopers hitting Cairo, I saw India Crushes, I saw serious attempts by Japan to grab the eastern Pacific islands from US/UK, I saw Italians in Brazil and Canada and Pakistan, and I think once, just for variety, I saw the traditional Italian can-openers for German tanks rolling into Moscow. I’m sure some of that is because it’s new and people are still sorting out what works and how to counter the oddball openings, but I also think the victory conditions (where both VPs and IPCs are distributed more evenly across the map) helps players branch out a little, compared to either G40 2nd Edition or Revised, where the vast majority of the money and the VPs are in or adjacent to Berlin or Moscow.

Like, if you look at the strategies available in Revised, the Germans need to hold France / Rome / Berlin, all of which are adjacent to each other, and that’s 22 IPCs and 3 VPs, which is enough to hold out for a very long time. Similarly, if the Russians can keep trading the bubble of territories immediately adjacent to Moscow, that can bring in over 20 IPCs. So almost all the action focuses around those two ultra-rich clusters of money, factories, and VPs. It kind of has to, right?

But what else are you going to do? Either the action has a central focus (in which case people will complain that the only thing to do is go right for the center) or the action doesn’t have a central focus (in which case people will complain that it feels casual and screwy and ahistorical and winds up in stalemates where you trade the same peripheral territories forever). Maybe I’m feeling too philosophical today to talk sense. I’m just trying to figure out what makes A&A games fun and what makes them frustrating, at a really abstract and general level.