@barnee @vodot
LOL I am honestly not surprised. I am a terrible speller.
Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch
-
I still think the map is more interesting with a US first turn order and an Axis bid. At least there you get a substantially different play pattern out of the opening round, and can still use the default unit set up. Unlike LHTR for Revised, which changed the actual rules for that game, the proposal here is for a tournament tweak to the starting unit distribution. But in terms of the opener the play pattern is pretty similar to the vanilla game.
The German attack on sz 7 (2 subs, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters vs 1 Battleship and 1 destroyer) is still 98% odds to the attacker with both fighters and the cruiser surviving.
The German subs in sz 9 can still sink the US transports in sz 11 with 87% odds and 1 uboat surviving. Or the same for sz 10.
The German bomber, if it survives, can still hit Egypt or sz 17, (or sz 13 to kill the British cruiser and still land in France).
Because of the above, a strafe on Ukraine is a lot less attractive. The Russian attack to take Ukraine is still at like 90%, with an average of 4 units remaining. But its also totally do or die, and really comes down to the first round of combat, which is kind of a toss up.
On Japan’s part the dynamics around sz 37 and sz 53 are pretty much the same as in OOB. They can still push on China/Burma using the sz 61/Yunnan shuck with ease.
I think the 2 extra pips on India are the most significant thing going on here. But they don’t do a whole lot to change the basic play pattern. At best they give you one more round of holding the India factory, or a slightly more effective retreat to bolster Caucasus, or maybe a way to give J a temporary headache if you go for broke and send them on an amphibious assault UK1. But I don’t see them as real game changer in the Pacific naval contest between the West and the IJN. The odds on sz37 or 61 remain what they were OOB.
I don’t know though, Greg and the others in the tournament community seemed to suggest that the bid going into a sz37 attack is like the key to cracking the 7-8 round VC game. And that just isn’t the way I’ve been playing at all, so maybe I’m not seeing it. If that is the case though, and sz37 is critical, then unless the bid range for Allies is pushed under 6 ipcs, you’ll probably still see Allied players bidding for a UK sub or whatever, so they can at least get the fight up to 80% odds.
OOB the odds are only like 65% with 2 units remaining, which makes sz 37 a pretty terrible TUV trade in my view.
Sure if you can bid a british battleship that goes up to 97% with 4 units remaining. But who is going to let that one slide under the new set up? To me it just seems kind of weird anyway, since the sz 37 attack doesn’t have any historical basis for the start date of the game.
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
-
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
I upvoted this post for this last paragraph. I’m really disappointed that there won’t be a rule update if the announcement can be taken literally. I would guess house rules will be the order of the day rather than sticking with capturable AA Guns and AA Guns firing at escorting fighters!
1942.2 is not the best board even though it has quite a lot of improvements compared to its predecessors. This upgrade doesn’t really address some of the fundamental problems IMO. I started typing but I think I’ve already given my views.
-
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
I upvoted this post for this last paragraph. I’m really disappointed that there won’t be a rule update if the announcement can be taken literally. I would guess house rules will be the order of the day rather than sticking with capturable AA Guns and AA Guns firing at escorting fighters!
1942.2 is not the best board even though it has quite a lot of improvements compared to its predecessors. This upgrade doesn’t really address some of the fundamental problems IMO. I started typing but I think I’ve already given my views.
Kinda funny… with AA50 coming out, if fans of 1942.2 end up preferring AA50 over 1942.2, does that make 1941 a more relevant game than 1942.2 as 1941 still retains its “easiest to learn and fastest to play” version of A&A, while 1942.2 is longer and more complicated than 1941, but not as fun as AA50?
-
Kinda funny… with AA50 coming out, if fans of 1942.2 end up preferring AA50 over 1942.2, does that make 1941 a more relevant game than 1942.2 as 1941 still retains its “easiest to learn and fastest to play” version of A&A, while 1942.2 is longer and more complicated than 1941, but not as fun as AA50?
Posted on: June 30, 2017, 09:08:57 pm Posted by: WolfshanzeI hope not cuz I love 1942.2. But definitely will pick up a copy of aa50 this time.
-
I am glad to see conversation on the this forum. Larry Harris forum doesn’t get as many views and he prefers closed testing (my impression). Plus this forum is much more open and consists of the players who actually buy the board games. I own every edition personally. This board and the cheap budget fast board released at the same time we’re horrid at first playthrough. The 2nd edition board had two territories changed and transports don’t defend and a bship turned into cruiser…. To make another board, that board is seldom played.
I have a house setup of this board, but if Larry Harris is going to make his own improvements I will go with that.
-
Cow,
I believe he prefers his own counsel, which makes sense, since he created these great games.
However, this version could be more dynamic, that is not in his purview as I understand it because it would require at least a partial re-building the OOB setup, some “advanced” G40 style rules migrations, possibly even some geometry changes on the map…
Mr. Harris focuses on what is ‘historical’, but this has locked him into;
“Coral Sea”, which misrepresents the power of the US vs Japan at all eras and leaves the USA neutered
“Fall Paukenschlag/First Happy Time” leaves the US with only 1 dd to protect the transports, but without convoy/economics this isn’t a dynamic simulation and as Argo says, the Battle of the Atlantic isn’t dynamic or interesting in this version.
“US/China” is perhaps realistic in how weak the nationalist forces are but there is no room for dynamic play
“Ger/Russia” again, probably realistic in terms of relative starting power but fails to give USSR the chance to meet or exceed the German threat in real life.
“Destruction of the UK navy” never occurred, so it should take much more risk by the Germans to eliminate this
“various Japanese fleets” seem to have been jammed into several gamey situations but the geography and unit types/choice/dispositions are obvious (send em to india) but not realisitic (india was never conquered)…
“unrealistic/irrational proportioning of incomes” the rough proportions of the economic power of the various sides are well represented on paper but quantitatively its two big dragons (40+30) vs one small dragon (24) dogpile.In general, there are too many “do this’s”–things that are more like a checklist of recommended actions rather than a palette of choices.
As Argo and BE and I discussed, this version is fun but its imbalanced–though it doesn’t have to be.
- less “historicism”; forget about the context of 1942, if that makes the game un-fun, change it.
- a battle for the money in the middle and africa; this means more fighting in an area where in real life, little modern “combined arms/schwerpunkt” fighting actually occurred.
- Axis powers that have the initiative, better forces, unrealistically large peak incomes gained by rolling through unguarded hinterlands–there are too many starting advantages that time and strong play don’t overcome
4) A substitution of set-up pre-staged battles at start for a series of dynamic decisions that emphasize choice, not luck. - NOs are often used to accomplish #4 but there aren’t any, they are sorely lacking in this version and should be included as alternate or advanced rules at least 1 per power.
6) settling on or developing a stratbombing sequence that is dynamic and fun (scrambling as BM, G40, or 42.2 are all fine but they are all different) This part of the game is crucial but unsettled–the G40 rule seems fine to me…there just has to be some way to stop the instantaneous threat of economic paralysis because it is much harder to bomb the Axis into submission than Russia.
-
Yeah, I know he hates it when Japan builds nothing but tanks and smashes Russia and all that. He hates blatant ahistorical behavior.
Even if you split USA income to encourage going both directions, one side could build the infantry and fighters and the other side transports and carriers and make d day happen with zero Pacific play.
There is always going to be an optimal path. At the same time, everyone likes a fun game. I mean who hasn’t sat down and played Russia or Germany and decided 5 ipc tanks are great and I will buy nothing but tanks. Then the tanks became 6 ipc and only Germany ever buys it.
-
You are right in that ever since Larry Harris got upset about ahistorical play things have gone awry in the smaller boards. Global is as small as you can get for a historical ish board. boards like big world etc big boards usually because they are so huge USA goes all Pacific. This is why global is popular you get Japan without Japan tanks rolling into Russia and you get to ignore Japan until Japan has nothing but Hawaii left to take for the win or you get to go Pacific or split, you get that choice.
Global gives lots of choices and even with that board you still get players who do the same strategy over and over again.
Check it out I don’t mind like one board that is super historical. If Larry can figure out how to make d day and Pacific happen great, if not the game isn’t going to be that historical.
Honestly the allies want d day. D day is more popular and desired than Pacific. If d day can’t happen without being severely punished people will play a board in which it can happen.
-
market. garden.
drops mic
-
Yeah getting routed by the Germans after landing always sucks, but hey that is d-day for ya.
-
So do the changes mentioned in the first post help the balance? Are folks still using a bid with the setup changes?
-
I have played four games , without a bid. Is still hard, because Japan is still strong. It changes the gane , in that the U.K. Has an Atlantic fleet amd, therefore, a foothold on the Continent. I enjoyed the change .
Sorry I can’t say much else, Ike. -
@wittmann:
I have played four games , without a bid. Is still hard, because Japan is still strong. It changes the gane , in that the U.K. Has an Atlantic fleet amd, therefore, a foothold on the Continent. I enjoyed the change .
Sorry I can’t say much else, Ike.Thanks Wittman
-
I played some games and wish to play more with this set up but couldn’t find much opponent…
I think it’s a fun change but…the Germany bomber is too tempting to not getting killed in the 1st round…so the first round would often become an instant death to Russia if the outcome does not work as expected…but perhaps the first thought from Larry would be perhaps Russia does not have to take that attack anyway… just too tempting not to do it :-D…
-
Now that the tourney is over, I can give the rough verdict (50+ games played live)
The patch does balance the game
We went in thinking that the Allies still needed a large bid, and bid accordingly and got Axis each game
However, 7 is plenty he bought 1 arty and 1 man in Caucasus, opened. He got pretty lucky, destroying 18 hits worth of units with 3 replies.
So he won.
As our opponent Karl said “Well, in this one (version), who does well in the opener usually wins, if you don’t do well, its an uphill battle all game”
as a result, and esp. compared to global and other games, this one is no longer broken, its just sorta flat and boring.
-
I am not even slightly surprised, but I am glad to get your detailed report.
Does anyone have thoughts or proposals on how to create a tournament-length (i.e., reliably shorter) axis & allies game that is not flat or boring or essentially decided on the first round?
-
Its a great question, Argo.
Here is an order of ease of changing things
Change the Initial Setup
Change the dynamics with small NO-like rules or optional rules
Change the geometry of the Map
Change what the Units do, or add new custom units.
Change the Rules along with 1-4.#1 is the easiest, you and I and Cow have discussed why the “historical” elements of the setup conflict with the playability ones. Larry’s intent with this patch was pretty solid, just for balance. But we have a bigger purview; to make this version more fun.
After going back to Global 40 and playing that a few times, one thing I’ve noticed is that the bigger scale games just have so many more choices, the paths are longer, more varied, richer, and even in the critical path there is room for substantial variation (im working on a G1 G40 attack, which I heretofore dismissed as sub-optimal, because it is!). Diplomacy added a huge amount of text and complexity to the rules, but the reward there is also huge.
So, its a huge and daunting task.
-
Here are a few thoughts.
I find some of the balance issues seem to be related to the map as much, if not more to the OOB set up. In most games by the end of round 1, Germany is making more IPCs than the US and Japan more than UK. So adding a few pieces to the board don’t fix this. The Axis already have a crap ton of stuff, but since their economy often can be bigger than the Allies quickly then it is almost insurmountable. One example of this is (and one of my biggest peeves about the game), if the UK builds up a navy to hit Germany, no matter how big the navy is, you can only put 8 units against Germany b/c your production is so limited. Even if those unites are the 4 Inf and 4 Arty = 28 IPC.
Several immediate problems are evident:
- effectively that is the British economy unless something in the pacific is going extremely well.
- With this minimum build in the mainland to pressure Germany, you cannot defend India. The economic power is simply not there. Even if you are holding ALL of your territory and have Scandinavia (+3) you would be at 34. So you have 6 IPC to put in India… this is not enough.
- Even when the US is manhandling Japan and you are solid in India, your 28 IPC/8 units is a joke agains Germany who is at 40+ without even making ground against Russia. You land and you get obliterated if you even have surviving units.
So my thought process is what if you start the Britain at 10 instead of 8 on the mainland, and maybe even India at 4 instead of 3? It gives you the ability to actually build more units at either location and either hold India or actually do more to Germany. And still maybe not even enough b/c with an extra 3 IPC of economy you only get 1 more Inf. Not sure where to go form there. Bump Canada 1 IPC also just to give more underlying economy that is not going to get whisked away immediately.
Circling back to my first point - if the US/UK economy is less than the respective Axis they are faced with by the end of round 1 that is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. The Axis should be able to get there, but not by taking a few territories that are givens in the first move of the game. There are a lot of possibilities here that could be explored. Maybe like 1941, Russia’s Eastern most territories are worth nothing so Japan cannot gain as fast. Similar with 1-2 China territories for the US? Too much obviously would throw things in the other direction, but I think there is something to this.
One other thing regarding the map and India. If there was one extra sea zone for Japan traverse before they drop the mother load against India it would be a game changer. I’m thinking SZ 36 or 61. What if you cut one or the other in half so Japan could not land stuff directly from the mainland in Burma in a single move or get their navy there to devastate India so quickly? These Ideas would make India more defensible and give more flexibility to the Allies IMO. I do however wonder if this extra season would be too powerful for the Allies.
Anyway, some thoughts. Any ideas pro or con? I’d love to dialogue.
-
I agree with your overall analysis, but disagree with some of your math.
America starts with 42 IPCs to Japan’s 30 IPCs. Japan should usually start turn 1 with only one surviving transport, which means Japan cannot really afford to go on any crazy adventures – an aggressive J1 might pick up $1 from Russia, $3 from China, and $1 from Burma, for $35, compared to $39 for the USA.
On J2, Japan could pick up another $2 from Russia, another $1 from China, retake Burma, and maybe pick up $1 or at most $2 from Alaska, Hawaii, or Australia. So even at the end of J2, Japan’s income is capped at $40, much of which needs to be spent on the Asian mainland. Meanwhile, the US will still be earning $38. So it’s not literally true that Japan is out-earning the US after turn 1, and even after turn 2, Japan can’t afford to outspend the US on its navy.
Similarly, Britain starts with 31 IPCs. They may or may not lose Egypt before their turn starts, but they can often retake it, and/or take Norway or NW Europe. So Britain should usually still be collecting $31 at the end of its first turn. They can often repeat this on the second turn, i.e., retake Egypt / Burma or capture Norway or NW Europe. So Britain’s income might eventually go down to $28 or lower, but not at the end of the first turn. It’s also not fair to compare Britain’s income directly to Germany’s, because Germany is also fighting Russia, especially in the early turns when Russia doesn’t really have to spend any money/troops against Japan. Russia should be earning at least $26 in the first few turns. Assume that the UK max-places infantry in India every turn, which costs $9. So, the combined UK + USSR income of $28 - $9 + $26 = $45, which is about the same as Germany for the first few turns. Germany starts with $41, and they will often lose West Russia and trade Leningrad and Stalingrad, which puts them up $4, for $45. So there’s economic parity on the western front, to start with.
And this is exactly the problem: as you point out, the Axis have economic parity in Europe after one turn, and in the Pacific after two turns. The Allies, at most, will earn a premium of $15 over the Axis before the Axis can eliminate the Allied economic advantage, and that money isn’t nearly enough to build the fleets they need to cross the oceans, let alone to establish a viable beachhead. The Allies don’t have an opportunity to set up a meaningful advantage anywhere on the board before the Axis start double-teaming Russia. This is not just unbalanced, but boring: the most interesting positions arise when each side has (at least one) advantage, and you have to win the game by exploiting your advantage and neutralizing your opponents’ advantage(s). 1942.2 doesn’t generate those positions very often because the Axis are the only ones with any structural advantages. The Allies have to rely on either bad Axis dice, a large bid, or a bad Axis mistake in order to establish any counter-play. If the Axis play a perfect game and don’t get diced, then the Axis will win every time, no matter what the Allies do. This is probably true even in 1942.3. I haven’t playtested it, so I can’t be sure, but I don’t see anything in the 1942.3 setup that would alter the fundamental strategy. As you point out, DespotDoug, the problem is with the income values on the map at least as much as with the particular setup of the pieces. To fix the scenario by tinkering with the pieces, you would need to give the Allies either a fleet that can survive the turn-1 Axis airblitz, or an offensive striking force somewhere in the British south, or both.
If you wanted to try to fix the problem by fixing the income values, I favor adding +1 IPC each to West Canada, East Canada, Australia, South Africa, Persia, Alaska, Hawaii, Sinkiang, Archangel, Vologda, Evenki, and Novosibirsk. I won’t say more than that here because it belongs on the House Rules forum, but feel free to post in House Rules, or to PM me, and I’ll be happy to discuss it further with you.
-
Thanks for the thoughts - a lot of good points. :-)
Just to clarify - I realize I inverted this later in my first post, but I meant Germany vs US economy and UK vs Japan. So approximates for turn 1: Germany at $45/US $39 and assume a UK hold at $30/Japan $34. I know this doesn’t factor Russia, but to everyone’s point that is a quick downhill run. Just trying to simply illustrate the disparity before getting to the Russian economy and the mass of Axis units!
Appreciate the feedback!
Suggested Topics
