1942 2nd edition is an upgrade from 1st edition with 1) AA guns that are specific to countries and rules that they can be eliminated, 2) more country specific sculpts, 3) integrated AA to defend IC’s, 4) much better chips than are in any other AA game :) and 5) a better map.  You now have an out of the box map that is playable in terms of territory size (1st edition is ridiculous!!!).  The map was also redone to improve play balance.  Get this one for the map alone.  The bonus is the new sculpts.  Personally 2nd ed 1942 is the most balanced of all the A&A games.  I know a lot of people say the allies can’t win 50/50 without a bid, but I think most of those guys are trying older A&A strategies for this game and wonder why they can’t win.  The pacific is finally important in the traditional A&A game.

1942 2nd ed is best of the best including better than anniversary edition of A&A in terms of playability and balance and fun after probably hundreds of games of all versions.

I still vote to nerf independent AA guns in all versions of AA and just keep integrated AA with IC’s.

Thanks barnee, I would like to play against axis players and see why allies are considered to lose so much. Thank you for the information.

I only play with people I know around me and also with the AI. I have not played against experienced players such as at Triple A or with email yet. I want to do so though.

I only play with people I know around me and also with the AI. I have not played against experienced players such as at Triple A or with email yet. I want to do so though.

Thanks barnee, I would like to play against axis players and see why allies are considered to lose so much. Thank you for the information.

I see so much talk about how the allies need a bid to win (G40 2nd ed). I don’t see how the allies can lose. With good play, axis is always defeated by allied player. Again, Larry Harris makes sure allies win. It is closer for sure. But allies cannot lose with solid play. I wonder why so many here think allies are lost? I play first many games and think axis are totally dominant, but after time and many more plays, allies cannot be defeated with good play. Where is the justification that axis always wins without bid?

@wawawd Changed my name to Panzer 5 to match the triple a forum name.

Hello, would like to get involved with this league. Standard G40 v2, bid for side and without low luck. Let me know.

1942 2nd edition is an upgrade from 1st edition with 1) AA guns that are specific to countries and rules that they can be eliminated, 2) more country specific sculpts, 3) integrated AA to defend IC’s, 4) much better chips than are in any other AA game :) and 5) a better map.  You now have an out of the box map that is playable in terms of territory size (1st edition is ridiculous!!!).  The map was also redone to improve play balance.  Get this one for the map alone.  The bonus is the new sculpts.  Personally 2nd ed 1942 is the most balanced of all the A&A games.  I know a lot of people say the allies can’t win 50/50 without a bid, but I think most of those guys are trying older A&A strategies for this game and wonder why they can’t win.  The pacific is finally important in the traditional A&A game.

1942 2nd ed is best of the best including better than anniversary edition of A&A in terms of playability and balance and fun after probably hundreds of games of all versions.

I still vote to nerf independent AA guns in all versions of AA and just keep integrated AA with IC’s.

The axis can almost always take Moscow (the exception being really lucky rolls for the allied player and really unlucky rolls for the axis player early on). If the allies can hold Moscow past round 5 and not lose a bunch of UK/USA fighters defending it, then they have a good chance to win it even after losing Moscow.

I think with this game the allies have to play the pacific in a big way.  Losing Moscow is not a loser for the allies, you just need to have USA IC’s on the big three Japanes islands when that happens.  Obviously there are other things the allies need to do too but this seems to be the key to defeating the axis.  Games go long……

Well, (not to be patronizing) but it depends on what the allied strategy is.  If it is KJF then it must be expended to maximum effect on UK1 on Japan and the rest combined with USA fleet over time.  If it is KGF first, then preserving the fleet and combining it with the european fleet on UK5 or so has some merit.

It depends on who your opponent(s) and allies are/is.  With inexperienced players, KGF is definately the best method.  This applies to both your allies in a multiplayer game and your axis opponents.  The better strategies for defeating the axis involve neutering Japan and are much more sophisticated and not recommended if your allies are newbies.

What amazes me is that this board is “supposedly” a forum for experienced axis & allies players.  Yet, the KGF strategy is chosen as the best.  Clearly, study of the game and numerous plays reveals that a more balanced allied strategy with a strong emphasis on curtailing Japan is the best strategy.  However, this requires good coordination with the allies and is rarely achieved in a multiplayer face to face game as there is usually a weak link on the allied side.

“Germany is the anvil and Japan is the hammer” - this is why KGF fails consistently against experienced axis players even with the revised edition which clearly favored the allies.

The fastest and most reliable method to win against experienced axis players is KJF, which is really a misnomer because you can’t ignore Germany.  But this requires excellent Allied coordination in its’ execution which is not doable with subpar allied teammates.

I consistently won as the axis playing triplea (A&A revised) with no bid and one on one.  The 1942 edition is even more favorable to the axis but I think it is balanced provided the allied player(s) is/are experienced and good at strategy.

Awesome!  Thanks for the link.