Map and Strategy Differences between 1st and 2nd Editions

[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:)

[Witt]

Would you move the Eastern Inf units away from Japan towards Moscow or leave them facing Japan?
I think your plan could save Uk, if Germany took the bait. Would need to see it on the board, but as Germany I would probably stick to sinking UK BB with 2Subs and 2 Fts, US TT with the 2 Subs, BB andRomanian Ft vs DD in 17, then amphibious landing against TransJ with Tank and Inf and advancing/retaking Russian gains in the East.
Would probably still buy an AC and TT for the Med and 4Inf and 2Art for Germany/Italy.
Then again I have only played once and lost! (Japanese failure to take India).

[Hobbes]

@wittmann:

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!

With a KGF I would not attack SZ37. I’d rather sink the Japanese transport and destroyer since those are a bigger threat on the medium run than the Japanese fleet. The function of the US Pacific fleet here is to pin down the Japanese fleet to the Pacific (instead of Japan sending the ships to the Atlantic and/or its airforce to Europe) and protect Honolulu (and if necessary reinforcing the US Pacific fleet later on).
Taking Philippines with the US can be a distraction for Japan but nothing more - the goal is to secure Russia and Europe.

@AxisBrutality:

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:)

Against an experienced German player Russia is dead. It loses 1 FTR it needs to trade territories and it spends all its first turn income on naval while it already starts at a disadvantage on the ground. Germany buys 3 inf, 2 art, 4 armor, hits the UK Battleship on SZ7 and the US fleet and ignores the Russian carrier/battleship (why would it want to attack it? just to please the Allied player?).

[Witt]

Thanks Hobbes.
I see your point with the Jap transport: is close to the action and better taken out.
Can the Axis  win if the Philippines are lost? If I were the US I would grab and hold on to them. Even build an IC!
Not played enough though, admittedly.

[Hobbes]

@wittmann:

Thanks Hobbes.
I see your point with the ��� transport: is close to the action and better taken out.
Can the Axis  win if the Philippines are lost? If I were the US I would grab and hold on to them. Even build an IC!
Not played enough though, admittedly.

You can make an VC grab on the Philippines to try to get the 10 VCs for the Allies or to prevent an Axis win at the end of the US turn. If the Allies managed to hold to all of their starting cities and get Rome, Paris and Manila at the end of the US then that’s victory for the Allies.

[AxisBrutality]

@wittmann:

Would you move the Eastern Inf units away from Japan towards Moscow or leave them facing Japan?
I think your plan could save Uk, if Germany took the bait. Would need to see it on the board, but as Germany I would probably stick to sinking UK BB with 2Subs and 2 Fts, US TT with the 2 Subs, BB andRomanian Ft vs DD in 17, then amphibious landing against TransJ with Tank and Inf and advancing/retaking Russian gains in the East.
Would probably still buy an AC and TT for the Med and 4Inf and 2Art for Germany/Italy.
Then again I have only played once and lost! (Japanese failure to take India).

I would move everything towards Moscow, exept 4 INF in Far East, which are 2 INF on Buryatia and 2 INF on Soviet Far East. I would gather those 4 INF on Soviet Far East. It’s strange place to stack them but not if you look at what USA will do next. On US1 turn, I would land U.S FTR from Hawaiian Carrier on Soviet Far East and a bomber. The point is to make it possible to do an counter attack on US2 somewhere in one of the Chinese territories, because you would then have 2 US INF, 2 FTR and 1 Bomber. This is by far the most effective way to engage in combat where U.S. Forces can attack the Japanese in one of the Chinese territories. There is no other way to do it, than this way.

Yes, of course Germany might ignore a Russian A-Carrier but the point here is to help the UK to build itself up. Usually I’ve found out it’s easy for UK to do that if we go KJF. There is a option to build an IC on Egypt, and for the U.S. to build on Alaska in order to save India and support Russia in their Far Eastern territories while you keep big Japanese forces commited to Japan, they can’t move anywhere else if you have an IC on Alaska.

But back to the KGF which I am just suggesting here, I was considering an IC on Western Canada in order for UK to start building ships as fast as possible, but now I am trying to see if it is possible to do that even earlier.
Sure I can buy 2 INF, 2 Art for Russia instead of the Carrier but, UK will be very fast in the game if you go for the carrier.

If someone builds only a mixure of ground units with Germany as suggested, that means UK fleet survives and you can start attacking Norway and everything in nearby on UK2 and especially UK3 turn. You can already take Norway on UK2. Then U.S. is actually not needed in the Atlantic if the UK is able to complete a fleet like that so fast. U.S. can concentrate as they should, in the Pacific.

Downturn is that Russia will lose 1 FTR which cost 10, but Germany will lose Cruiser and Transport + you have slowed down 2 German units from reaching Karelia by one round because the German Transport is gone. It’s worth trying this out at least.

I mean, UK will take Norway on UK2, while Germany will put pressure on Russia on G2. Then UK can build Cruiser + 2 Transport outside London to make a bigger attack from UK3. Build 2 INF on India also. It’s interesting to try out.

[Mallery29]

Do we have to go through this again?

1. Alaska IC = waste of money = Alaska conquered by Japan.
2. UK fleet will get sacked on UK2 by the Germans if you build it
3. Egypt IC = waste of money = Egypt conquered by Axis
4. Why are we abandoning India?
5. The German CA/Trans is not worth Russia’s time/resources.
6. Taking Norway is a waste of UK resources when you end up losing it on G2 (and the naval)

Hobbes, I’m going to put your “balanced” US theory to work this weekend, but what are you recommending for US1-3 buys on it?  I figure 2DD/Trans for EUS and DD/SS for WUS for US1  (although a CV would be nice here though too for WUS). 
When you went after the Japan DD/Trans, did you go for Borneo as well?

[AxisBrutality]

@Mallery29:

Do we have to go through this again?

1. Alaska IC = waste of money = Alaska conquered by Japan.
2. UK fleet will get sacked on UK2 by the Germans if you build it
3. Egypt IC = waste of money = Egypt conquered by Axis
4. Why are we abandoning India?
5. The German CA/Trans is not worth Russia’s time/resources.
6. Taking Norway is a waste of UK resources when you end up losing it on G2 (and the naval)

1. No, there is NO chance for Japan to conquer Alaska. You must tell how do they do that ? And with what, when? Japan doesn’t have sh!t to attack Alaska with after they lose East Indies.
   U.S. has 1 BB, 2 DD, 1 Carrier with 2 FTRs, 1 Sub, 1 Transport, and that’s just what they start with. Add another 2 FTRs flying towards Alaska, 1 Bomber, 1 Cruiser from Panama to West U.S. and then U.S. builds another Transport, Battleship and IC. 
   On US2, USA builds another 2 Battleships, there is NO chance for Japan to take anything there. On US3 a lot of fun starts happening, not so fun for Japan though.

Another thing I should point out is that there are only 2 spaces from Alaska to Manchuria which is worth 3 IPC. USA can attack and take Manchuria, effectivly liberating or holding free all Russian territories and taking a territory worth 3 IPC just as Philipines.

Japan can try to move some of the fleet towards Alaska an we’ll see how long Japan has boats outside Alaska. Or Tokyo for that matter if they split anything in two.

2. The point is you can’t “sack UK fleet” and take Egypt at the same time. By looking at where Germany puts it’s fighters, UK can make a choice where to go for an IC, on Eastern Canada or Egypt. Since no German player wants to go “hard” into Egypt, then an IC is very much possible there. If a German player goes “hard” on Egypt, well, an IC can always be placed on either Eastern Canada for starting to build ships from UK2 turn or IC on South Africa, therefore Germany will not be EVER able to take whole Africa anyway. There is enough cash to build 3 units on India each round if needed.

3. I am not abandoning India, India will always be defended to the death according to my strategy, I am simply adding helpful additional production where UK can open a 2nd front, in Egypt or Eastern Canada.

4. This was just a suggestion regarding German Cruiser and Transport. It should be tested at least, there is no naval besides 2 or 3 German subs, since most German players will not try to take out 3 Carriers, 4 FTR, 1 DD, 1 Russian sub. As I said, I can just build an IC on Egypt OR Eastern Canada and UK will have either ground units OR naval units on UK2.

[Mallery29]

1. Japan doesn’t HAVE to go after India…it can stalemate it and still put heat on Russia. Losing the EI fleet leaves a CA, BB, 2DD, SS, CV, multiple FTRs and a Bomber in range.  If you put heat on Russia, it gives Germany the advantage when it needs to turn its attention to the UK.
2. Axis don’t need Egypt to win this game…they didn’t need Africa in 42.1 either.
3. Did I direct my India comments to you? No…
4. This was a mistake done by inept Russian players in 42.1 to go after the DD/Trans in the Baltic…it wasn’t needed and a waste of Russian time.  So why go after a CA?  Just either use both FTRs to hit Ukraine (to save tanks), or do what you suggest and send your FTR to Egypt.  I’d rather see that out my Russian ally than losing a FTR for no reason (if I saw my Russia ally do that, I’m just going to start building inf on UK to prepare for the invasion because there’s NO WAY Russia can make a valid stand to give the US/UK time to get into the war to save Russia).

[AxisBrutality]

@Mallery29:

1. Japan doesn’t HAVE to go after India…it can stalemate it and still put heat on Russia. Losing the EI fleet leaves a CA, BB, 2DD, SS, CV, multiple FTRs and a Bomber in range.   If you put heat on Russia, it gives Germany the advantage when it needs to turn its attention to the UK.Â
2. Axis don’t need Egypt to win this game…they didn’t need Africa in 42.1 either.
3. Did I direct my India comments to you? No…
4. This was a mistake done by inept Russian players in 42.1 to go after the DD/Trans in the Baltic…it wasn’t needed and a waste of Russian time.  So why go after a CA?  Just either use both FTRs to hit Ukraine (to save tanks), or do what you suggest and send your FTR to Egypt.  I’d rather see that out my Russian ally than losing a FTR for no reason (if I saw my Russia ally do that, I’m just going to start building inf on UK to prepare for the invasion because there’s NO WAY Russia can make a valid stand to give the US/UK time to get into the war to save Russia).

1. Well, what will you build on J1 turn not knowing at all that US player will put an IC on Alaska? Most probably 2 TT, 2 DD right ? Or some kind of mixture of TTs and land units.
   So what does Japan build on J2 seeing 4 FTRs, 1 Bomber, 1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 Sub, 1 Transport, 2 DD standing outside Alaska and on Soviet Far East already after US1 turn + another Battleship and Transport built on Western Canada on US1 turn which are joined by a US Cruiser from Panama, heading to Alaska on US2 and another 2 Battleships being built on Alaska on US2 turn. Do tell how Japan can pressure and with what, what do Japan buy having NO clue that a US player will build IC on Alaska + what will Japan build on J2 turn when they see what’s happening? Not much Japan can build to match what USA will have after US2 turn. At least not much if you want to have some kind of front on the mainland, remember Japan only have 4 FTR left after East Indies going toast, while the U.S will have the same number of FTR, and 4 times as many Battleships as Japan after US2 turn. I just looooove when they absorb hits and attack the coast :)

2. Well, where will you use the income left, build FTR on London ? It’s a possibility, 2 FTR on London and 2 Art and 1 INF on India, but I like Tanks on India though so I could go for only 1 FTR on London and save 3 IPC.

3. I agree regarding Cruiser and Transport, but it was just a suggestion. The core of my proposal was to build Russian Carrier on Karelia, that’s the point, that can be done without risking any of the Russian FTRs.  And of course, the best strategy is to send FTR to Egypt, I am just trying to see if there are ways to make that UK fleet getting ready as fast as possible which it can with the help of Russian Carrier, and I don’t need then to attack Cruiser and Transport, because Carrier can be built anyway.  So the point is to find out if Russia can go for a Carrier on R1 and no Russian FTR will be lost as long as they don’t attack German Cruiser and Transport.