Map and Strategy Differences between 1st and 2nd Editions

[Mallery29]

Again, the only reason why I could see a bid is if you intend on a KGF…I don’t know what the success rate Hobbes had with it (sounds like his games went the same direction like mine with KJF), but even then, I just don’t know what to suggest without going that direction.  Good luck!

The weak shall perish!

[stevechristian]

I keep seeing “KGF”, what’s that mean?  Sorry, recently got back into A&A after over a decade of not playing.

[Mallery29]

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

[UrJohn]

@Mallery29:

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

Interesting idea. I think you  could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC  on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.

[Hobbes]

@UrJohn:

@Mallery29:

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

Interesting idea. I think you  could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC  on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.

The more I play AA42.2 the more I’m becoming convinced that the Allies need to go for the balanced strategy (unlike its predecessors) and that it was designed that way, but for it to work you can’t split the US income.
It may also depend on what type of Victory you’re playing, specially the VC victory because that’s the quickest and most competitive play and that’s the one I’ve been playing so far.
On Revised/AA42.1 there were basically three Allied strats that I used: KGF, Fortress Russia and KJF (VCs were irrelevant since Axis always needed Moscow to win). KJF was usually not worth it unless the dice were hard for Japan and on a KGF the US would withdrawal its presence from the Pacific. Fortress Russia is a counter to the Axis rush to Moscow and can be played with a KGF, were you land with the UK/US on Archangel/Karelia, use those units to stop the Axis advance on Russia and then decide which way to push, either against the Japanese on India or the Germans on Karelia/Ukraine.
On AA42.2 the Indian/Pacific is changed: there’s a vulnerable VC on Honolulu but now the US Pacific fleet has a chance of surviving and contest the Pacific and the UK can drop units on India. Which means that the US may be able to be always switching production between the Atlantic (at least to liberate Africa) and the Pacific.
Even if the US focus on the Atlantic it should leave the Pacific fleet to threaten Japanese transports and prevent a capture of Honolulu. If Japan chooses to take Hawaii it will need 2 rounds to reach it from SZ60, so the US has 1 1 round of additional naval builds to prevent Japan from doing so.

[Mallery29]

I’m pretty sure in total victory, Japan would probably just ignore Hawaii since they aren’t going for cities, so the US could put some units out there, but how effective could you be in the Pacific?  Even with the EI fleet dead, the US has to push somewhere to take the heat off Russia/India.  I’d like to see it work, I just have my doubts.

[Hobbes]

@Mallery29:

I’m pretty sure in total victory, Japan would probably just ignore Hawaii since they aren’t going for cities, so the US could put some units out there, but how effective could you be in the Pacific?  Even with the EI fleet dead, the US has to push somewhere to take the heat off Russia/India.  I’d like to see it work, I just have my doubts.

Yeah, on total victory the Axis target is Russia until it falls and with both Axis players still on the game. Just having the Pacific limits the options for Japan if you also have a big UK airforce on India because then Japan starts having real problems to defend more than 2 SZs with its starting fleet (even with no EI attack).

[Sean.C]

I just don’t see how KJF is even possible with the new sub rules.  6IPC for a 2 attack sub with first strike capability and only hits naval units seems really overpowered to me.

J1, 2TRN and 1 IC.  Wait to see what US does.  If it’s KJF, then mass subs.

Sure japan doesn’t go far on the mainland, but who cares?  UK can’t do anything in the atlantic without the US, and the US can’t fund a balanced pacific and Atlantic fleet.  Japan will get India, and a handful of other 1 IPC spots in asia with just their starting units and end up with around 40 IPC which will be enough to counter any US pacific fleet purchases with subs.

Leave the Subs in SZ 60 and wait.  It takes 2 turns to get to anything important in the pacific.  If the US attacks Borneo, or Philippines, you counter and wipe it out with your subs and your starting fleet likely parked outside India.

Every turn US spends trying to counter the subs in the Pacific is 1 step closer to Germany taking Moscow and the game is over.  Maybe KJF will work if they don’t use this tactic, but i have a feeling once people realize it it will be the defacto counter to any KJF strategy.

[Mallery29]

Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, I’ll go KJF, but I’ll wait you out in the Solomons while Russia and India take your cash flow…please buy subs…I encourage it…and when I’m ready, you’ll lose either Borneo, the Phillipines, or both…

“be my guest, be my guest, put your Submarines to the test”.

Be smart, just buy the IC/Trans regardless (or some other legit combo)…Don’t put the war entirely on German shoulders. You won’t win…

[Hobbes]

@Sean.C:

I just don’t see how KJF is even possible with the new sub rules.� 6IPC for a 2 attack sub with first strike capability and only hits naval units seems really overpowered to me.

Yes, but… subs only defend at 1, and if the attacker doesn’t bring a destroyer you can’t assign them as casualties for attacking planes.

Which means that if J invests on subs on J2, then the US switches to carriers and fighters and the subs become  completely useless against Allied airpower unless the attacker decides to bring a destroyer to combat, and the defending surface ships become outnumbered and outgunned against the planes.

Rock, paper, scissor logic. You need balanced fleets if you want both to deny control of SZs to contest and to protect/use SZs for amphibious landings, otherwise you’ll be only able to achieve one objective.

@Sean.C:

Sure japan doesn’t go far on the mainland, but who cares?  UK can’t do anything in the atlantic without the US, and the US can’t fund a balanced pacific and Atlantic fleet.  Japan will get India, and a handful of other 1 IPC spots in asia with just their starting units and end up with around 40 IPC which will be enough to counter any US pacific fleet purchases with subs.

Without the mainland Japan is outproduced by the US and the Indian UK. Increasing Japanese income is hard: you need India to reach and hold a 40 IPC income or take most of the Russian territories. And to get India most likely you’ll need to ignore the US fleet and focus everything you got on it. If you’re buying 5 subs a round you’re spending all Japan’s money on subs and your starting forces are not enough to take China and India.

Leave the Subs in SZ 60 and wait.  It takes 2 turns to get to anything important in the pacific.  If the US attacks Borneo, or Philippines, you counter and wipe it out with your subs and your starting fleet likely parked outside India.

Every turn US spends trying to counter the subs in the Pacific is 1 step closer to Germany taking Moscow and the game is over.  Maybe KJF will work if they don’t use this tactic, but i have a feeling once people realize it it will be the defacto counter to any KJF strategy.

The US fleet just keeps distance from the subs and sends an occasional transport to land on Borneo/Philippines, forcing Japan to react and retake it. Then Japan either loses a transport or the whole fleet is forced to move away from India.

[Mallery29]

[quotee]Rock, paper, scissor logic.

Damn you rock!  What happen to Spock?  And per the rules, you can use fire, but only once in your life…(Friends)

[UrJohn]

@Mallery29:

Damn you rock!  What happen to Spock?  And per the rules, you can use fire, but only once in your life…(Friends)

Spock may disintegrate Rock, but Paper covers Rock AND disproves Spock!

[Canuck12]

@Hobbes:

The more I play AA42.2 the more I’m becoming convinced that the Allies need to go for the balanced strategy (unlike its predecessors) and that it was designed that way,

I have been thinking the same thing. And I am practically PEEING myself at the prospect. So far, I think this is the best AA edition yet! Including Global… maybe.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Japan doesn’t conquer the world like in Revised, 42.1 and Anniversary. They have to really fight for their gains AND the Axis can win without taking Moscow!

It has been a real pleasure to play so far.

[Hobbes]

@Canuck12:

Anyway, the bottom line is that Japan doesn’t conquer the world like in Revised, 42.1 and Anniversary. They have to really fight for their gains AND the Axis can win without taking Moscow!

Completely agree. The real question for Axis involves which of the 4 cities (Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta and Honolulu) they should aim for, either on a 9 or 13 VC. On a 13th VC that involves Leningrad, Moscow and Calcutta to knock out Russia out of the fight. But at the same time they are dependent on the possible Allied strats:

• Leningrad (Germany) - easy to take and retain if the Allies are going on KJF, hard on KGF (Germany)
• Honolulu (Japan) - hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KJF, easy on KGF
• Calcutta (Japan) - hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KJF, medium/hard on KGF
• Moscow (Germany)- hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KGF, medium/hard on KJF

[Canuck12]

That’s right. And perhaps my favourite part is that strategies will change mid-game, like we occasionally see in global '40.

Depending on how well your battles go, you can actively change your strategy to capture whichever VC is optimal at the time. The whole balance keeps the game really honest. Because once India has fallen, Japan can choose at any given time to shift gears and push hard for Honolulu. So the US really MUST keep an eye on the Pacific, forcing the roughly balanced build.

[stevechristian]

@Cromwell_Dude:

It means “Kill Germany First.” It is not easy to pull off. However, I think experienced players should play a more balanced game than just KGF, just my honest opinion.

Glad to have you back! Can’t wait to hear about your experiences! What brought you back? Have you got the new 1942 yet?

Thanks for the info!  What brought me back was a recent re-introduction to boardgaming by a friend.  I went from zero boardgames to 75 in about a year and just added 1942 2nd edition to my collection.  A few colleagues from work are really into A&A and have talked about getting together for a game so I figured I’d take the plunge, buy the new edition and host my first A&A game night.  Got my first game next weekend and am looking forward to my first battle in almost 10 years!

[Canuck12]

Sounds like it will be a great time. I’m always jealous of people with co-workers into AA.

Welcome back and Enjoy!

[Hobbes]

Some random thoughts about KGF:

• It only takes 2 fleets for the US to land in Europe on both editions, the only difference being that you need 3 fleets if you want to threaten Germany on 2nd Edition.
• On Africa the US transports get sunk on G1 (preventing a US1 landing on Africa) but with the Russian fighter Egypt doesn’t fall on G1.
• India is actually a plus, since the presence of the IC delays its capture due to the UK units being produced and denies to Japan a lot of needed income that it could otherwise get from J2 onwards on 1st Edition. The downside is Japan to have the IC but if the UK gets 3 or 4 rounds of production on India then both sides should place about the same number of units during a game. (and the UK units can pull back to defend Caucasus/Russia).
• The Buryatia/Yakut route has 1 space more (delaying Japanese advance) - plus the Japanese should focus rather on India or Yunnan-Schzwan.
• Japan cannot anymore easily pick 2 inf on Okinawa/Iwo Jima using transports on SZ60 like it did on 1st Edition.
• Indochina and Kwangtung are worth less, making less useful to put ICs on those territories. Placing an IC on  Manchuria is less efficient than using transports until the IC on Japan is maxed out in production.
• The US can land in Africa on US2 or on US3 in Finland/Norway/France/NW Europe - takes 1 turn more than on 1st Edition but so is the Japanese advance (and income) delayed on Asia for at least 1 more turn.

[Witt]

Thanks Hobbes. How do you make the Philippines safe from the US while Japan’s fleet(presuming the EI fleet has been sunk on UK1) is off trying to take India?
Sorry, probably not the thread to be asking in!

[AxisBrutality]

@Hobbes:

bump

.  Lets do something radical or at least experimental with russia, just a suggestion, here it is: 2 FTR take on German cruiser and transport, and the German cruiser and transport sink, russia may lose 1 FTR but germany lose 19 ipc, this strategy is to help uk in a lot more complex way, although i like the safe option, just flying FTR to Egypt , and building IC on Egypt worked also. But lets try this, after 2 russian FTR take care off cruiser and transport, i am considering building 1 carrier, 1 art and 2 inf for russia OR 1 battleship, 1 art. Carrier or the battleship would be placed North of karelia. Now Uk would buy 2 carriers on London and 1 inf on India. Uk lands 2 FTR on one of the carriers. canadian destroyer and transport join the fleet. 1 FTR from USA lands on 2nd uk carrier. Now R2 turn, russian battleship or carrier with 1 russian FTR on it joins the uk fleet before G2 turn. Also there is a russian sub there from early on. So I would try to buy 1 carrier, 1 art and 2 inf for russia. Germany have 1 FTR from norway and the bomber which could threaten russian carrier with 1 FTR on it but it’s a very even game if Germany decides to attack. But then again, germany Will not have resources to take our uk battleship, 1 russian sub and the fleet outside the USA . I have to try this out, do comment what You think:)