Posts made by IdaRed

@Der:

Do you get what I’m talking about?

I wonder if any of you that play face to face games use any house rules that limit open communication with your Allies, and if so how do you implement them?

I was coming here to post the very same thing and instead find myself responding to your post.  My hardcore gamer friends refer to A&A as a “two-player” game for that very reason.  What usually happens is the two sides are played by committee, or worse, by the dominant player on each side.

A few ideas:

• Only allow written communication.  Require a roll to determine if a message makes it across the table or if it is intercepted.
• Put a limit to the number of summits ie. closed strategy sessions
• Eliminate table talk between allied powers

Still only rough ideas but you get the point.  Playing by committee makes the game into a very tense, chess match and causes the game to become routine too quickly.  Having to make up for your ally’s bonehead move should be part of the fun of the game.

Nice job on the table and the video. The shelf is a great idea.

I’ve always found the USA the most difficult nation to play because you always have to plan everything 3-4 turns out. 
I try to stay flexible and leave options open for action in either theater and keep them guessing.  That way neither Axis power can let their guard down.  Airpower is nice in that it can be quickly shifted.

Those are very impressive, sir.  Not just the details and kitbashing but the paint job and wash as well.

LOL, one of the better iterations of theses spoofs with the dialogue matching the facial expressions almost perfectly.

In addition to the obvious ribbing points, I like the obscure reference to Caucasus being the primary target in '42 FE and it’s decreased importance in '42 SE.

Neat idea. I wonder if this could be made to work with 4 players total, as a way to reduce down time for players, by staggering the turns.  i.e. player 1 plays German and Japan, player 2 plays USA and USA, player 3 plays UK and UK and player 4 plays Russia, China and ANZAC.

Differences (from memory):

Second Edition adds/changes:

-Destroyers
-Cruisers
-Two hit battleships
-AAA (now a combat unit and nation specific)
-Strategic bomb damage works differently
-New costs for most units
-New rules for subs and destroyers
-Completely revised map: Lots more territories and sea zones; income levels and starting unit counts are very different (favors axis); the Atlantic ocean now takes two turns to cross for East USA to England; fighters have to land in Iceland or carrier otherwise don’t have enough range; China and the Pacific Ocean are much revised, et al

Labeling these games as 1942 first edition and second edition is very misleading and has caused tremendous confusion.  They are very different games and other than the basic idea of axis kills russia; allies save russia; they have little in common strategy wise.  42.1 is a straight reprint of the A&A Revised edition printed in 2004 and belongs to the second generation of A&A games.  42.2 is part of the current 3rd generation of A&A games and is far far superior to 42.1.

You definitely want to upgrade to '42 second edition.  Keep your 42.1 for spare parts.

B-29 

Trying to stay OT here, using 41 piece counts and IPC values with 40.2 units and maps could make a very interesting 40 light.  41 is a great game that I hope more will come to appreciate for its simplicity.

41 actually has just barely enough pieces to play but I recently overcame my anal tendency with the pieces and mixed my 41, 42.1, 42.2 and 40.1 games together. Now I have plenty for all the games.  I would expand my editions before resorting to individual pieces.  Eventually you will find yourself with far more than you can fit on a board.  I like the HBG minis in order to have specific units and as a hobby aside from just playing the games.

If it’s within your budget, I would just buy both games together.  Sounds like you will eventually end up with both so better to have matching 40.2 E and P.

In your poll I voted Europe but that is because I find that theater more interesting.  I suggest you go with whichever theater your kids find more interesting historically.  Pacific is actually the more compact and straightforward game, so I would recommend that one for you if your kids don’t have a preference (and you are getting just one).

It’s great to see second generation A&A fans as well as youngsters (that’s you CDG) playing the games.

It’s interesting to see the different perspectives on the various editions of the game.  Having played since 1984 (as have most of my opponents), we find the 41 and 42.2 scale to be more to our taste. 40 just has way too many units on the board and it feels like it should be reduced to the LCD to eliminate the clutter.  That’s why I agree with you PP, 41 is a breath of fresh air for its simplicity.

It would be interesting to see the results of a new poll to reflect the experience gained over the last 3 years since that poll was initially set up.

I realize bidding is an accepted form of balancing A&A and has a long history, but it would be nice to see a standard revised setup to address the bulk of the concern over balance; bidding could then be used for those that think the revised setup doesn’t go far enough or for different skill levels among players.  There is precedent for this with A&A 1941 which I think was the right decision by Larry, Krieghund and Hasbro.

Welcome! I generally agree with your post, it more or less sums it up.  I find the Allies shouldn’t totally ignore Japan and need to slow it down wherever possible.  India will eventually fall but make Japan pay as high a price as possible.  I like AAA guns for that reason.

Yes, it is. 

@Fuhrer:

So I had a game last night with my friends and of course i was japan (drew lots) and on round 4 the US had 3 fully fleshed out fleets in the water (he spent all his money in the pacific for a few turns) took Borneo, and now has my fleet huddled around tokyo. China somehow screwed me over (don’t ask me how) and now has a factory in Szechwan with a lot of Russian infantry in yunnan and anhwei.

In this scenario, it is alright to build a factory in Manchuria since the only way for me to actually get a transport fleet going is if the us actually turns his attention to Germany (who is doing pretty good)?

Sincerely, Hitler

That is the kind of situation where you do not want an IC in Manchuria. I cannot be defended against an Allied KJF.  Instead build in Borneo or East Indies to prevent them from taking.

It depends on the overall axis strategy.  Japan will need IC eventually and Manchuria is a great spot.  However, in my opinion, an IC anywhere on J1 is counterproductive because of the opportunity cost. There is a lot of territory available for the taking the first few turns but Japan needs more boots on the ground to be able to take it.  Spending 15 of your 10 IPC on an IC is tough to swallow especially when you consider that Japan has TT available and doesn’t have enough IPC to build all the things is really needs like more INF, Ftr and some ships.  Waiting is also good because it gives the Axis a chance to see what the Allies are doing, particularly the Americans.

**Great work! Those are awesome. **

Is there something wrong with the pictures on the first couple of pages of this thread?  I only see a placeholder, generic image icon where the pictures should be.  :?

AAA can be useful in defending a territory when your opponent has a huge armada of aircraft.  Remember that AAA fire first and casualties don’t get to return fire.  Normally airplanes would be the last casualties taken or more likely the attacker would retreat before that point.

I like to buy AAA to defend India and maybe Moscow.  But yes, their use is very situation specific and we don’t see many purchased during games.

After replaying it on slow speed, it appears that they are using dice as aircraft range markers and bomb damage.  I hadn’t thought of using dice for range markers but it makes sense.  More practical than using cardboard chits.

What is the purpose of the dice the players would sometimes place on a territory or the board throughout the game? They appear to be markers of some sort.

Referring to the 1942 SE time lapse video posted on the home page of A&A.org here.

Beautiful! Thanks for posting the pictures. I may try some of both options using the mono-scheme as my back up.

Doing it yourself can be cost effective if a game is OOP and sells for a steep premium like AA50.  Otherwise, yes, it is almost always more cost effective to simply buy the in-print game.  Doing it yourself is great if you enjoy the hobby of crafting something or want something unique. But it’s not a way to save money.

Anyone have a color scheme or reference for the armed forces of the neutrals?  Anyone paint their neutrals anything other than a solid color?

I am trying to decide if it would be nice to have the neutrals painted their own scheme or if it would be distracting and hard to tell apart.