I know this is a little early since a lot of people have not played the 42 as much, but I was just interested. I myself have played about 12 '41 games and only 3 ’ 42 games. So far I like the 41 better.
What version do you like and why do you think the version you choose is the better version?
Which version do you think will become standard?
Version Votes
41 1
42 0
Questioneer
:-)
'41 is better. '42 is IMO heavily weighted toward the Allies.
I am liking 41 since playing it.
Surely the fact that 95% of games played here are '41 speaks for itself
I personally like 41’ but I do enjoy doing 42’ about a 1/3 of the time just to shake things up a bit.
I like 41 best, because 42 reminds too much about revised, which many people have played to death and beyond (at least that is my take on it)
besides, who doesn’t loke throwing 2 battleships in the water in britain round 1 :) or moving the mighty japaneese fleet on to new adventures or rusia with 30+ income ;)
1942, because 1941 scenario, with NOs (and you should play allways with NOs) gives monster advantage to axis. In 1942, axis advantage is far lesser
For no good reason other than novelty I pick '41, even though the German T1 high probablity opening moves really set the entire tone of the game. I really do think if AA does another “Delux Uber Edition” it may be the be all end all, this one has concepts that are very close to perfection.
I love the fact that you can have 4 different games of AA-50 , both with and without NA’s, we usually trade off every other game so we start out differently every game. But I agree for the novelty of it, 41’ is more interesting right now.
1942, because 1941 scenario, with NOs (and you should play allways with NOs) gives monster advantage to axis. In 1942, axis advantage is far lesser
Again I feel I should correct this statement, AA50 seems as balanced as Revised, I’m close to ask you to stop lying… :evil:
Not b/c of anything personal, it’s just a fact that I liked Revised, and I like AA50 even better, even with some flaws/mistakes to the end product. With more than 3 units preplaced, b/c thats what the TripleA ladder uses in Revised ($9 bid), so a “monster advantage” would mean 4 units or more, it’s a given allied victory, that is, for those of us who can actually play the game…at a decent level!
If you don’t like the 41 +NO, it’s perfectly ok by me, but it’s simply not true that the game is more unbalanced than Revised, even if the game designers didn’t manage to stop the JTDTM.
I agree, the balance in AA-50 is is good for both 41’ & 42’ , I really think that some of you long time revised players who have played that game so long that you know it in & out have to realize that this game is totally different from that game. there are so many ways to play it that you can’t rely on any old gameplan you’ve always used. The thing to do play it like it’s the first time you have ever played A&A and just enjoy what a great game it is in all the ways to play it.
I’m enjoying 1942 more so far. The allies seem to have more options for taking the fight to areas outside of europe. Japan actually has to make tough choices (they can’t do everything at once, which they can in 41) and a rich germany makes for a better game. Russia is much weaker, but still hard to crack. And it’s nice having an airforce, which they can’t afford to buy in 1941. It means you can utilise that sub in interesting ways.
A point to note is the turn order is much better for the allies in 1942. Russia can take chinese territories after japan’s move, meaning that China can get credit for it. Britain can grab the german territories for Russia’s 10 IPC objective before Germany can fight back which is incredibly powerful. And italy can no longer grab territories to help german NOs (russia goes in between now). There’s nothing very good for the axis with this turn order.
I like that there is no strike on Egypt G1, meaning more stable outcomes to games.
My one bugbear with 1942 is the DD and 2 transports sitting in sz10, in range of a german sub… a big swing in unit value rides on the balance. It’s too tasty a morsel not to attack: 40% chance of killing 22 IPCs of navy, 20% chance of winning 2, 40% of losing 6. At least it’s not as erratic as the egypt situation in 1941 though, where 20 IPC income difference every turn hangs on the outcome.
If you haven’t played much 1942, I recommend giving it a go. While the setup looks like revised, the game has obviously changed a lot in fundamental ways (i.e. Italy, NOs, China…).
@Subotai:
With more than 3 units preplaced, b/c thats what the TripleA ladder uses in Revised ($9 bid)
Well, a bid of 9 is too much for Revised, even restricting to one unit each territory. That and the double match rule are good reasons to me for not playing TripleA ladder
I mean, 9 restricted to one means tank alg, inf lyb + 1 IPC to Japan. Or one trannie in some wacky places (there is more than one, and I discovered that one 1 baltic sea can be very painful - I lost that game as allies). I think any bid greater than 7 is too much. But sadly, sometimes I must bid 9 if I want play allies just for change :|
I’ll glad to play AA41 anyone as axis with 12 bid to allies after June 12th :-P Techs ON, of course
I don’t play competitive games with tech, b/c there is no such as competitive and tech, it cannot be combined… and maybe $9 is too much in Revised b/c in the old ladder it was 51% axis victories with the same $9 bid. So $8 could be more appropriate.
And this is not about me vs you, anymore than in discussions on if a bid is needed in AAR, and how high it should be.
I’m stating pure facts, with decent experienced players, there’s no need for a higher bid in AA50 than AAR.
I’m willing to play live games anyhow, but this is not about a duel, it’s about understanding the fundamental mechanics in AA50.
This reminds me of a discussion on another forum if bids in AAR is necessary… :roll:
