Oztea's 1942 Global Setup

knp7765 · May 2, 2013, 2:47 PM

I just noticed that Novgorod (Leningrad) doesn’t have an airbase and naval base.
Is that on purpose?

Micoom · May 2, 2013, 5:57 PM

In my last game in which I played the axis I also noticed this no air and naval base Novgorod. That meant I couldn’t send the german fleet from there to sz112 to protect against allied invasion. However as described earlier, germany crushed Russia. I will test the new russian setup.

oztea · May 4, 2013, 12:37 AM

There is not an Airbase or Naval base there. This represents them being so damaged that it would cost 15 IPCs to bring them back to functionality.

Russia might still be behind in pieces slightly….this might require taking some German pieces away, which I will also consider.

knp7765 · May 5, 2013, 2:41 AM

I noticed an odd setup situation. Germany has 1 submarine in SZ 109. UK has a lone transport in SZ 109.
Since Germany goes first, the German U-boat will automatically kill that UK transport. There is no warship to protect the transport and since there is no destroyer, UK can’t even scramble fighters to protect that transport.
Is this on purpose? If so, why?

ghr2 · May 5, 2013, 4:38 AM

attach triple A map?

oztea · May 6, 2013, 7:15 AM

The reason that transport is there alone is to tie down that sub. Germany can use it in an attack somewhere…but it will be giving the UK a free transport essentially.
If it stays there, it is in a raid zone, and the UK or US must make an effort to kill it or the UK will lose cash on their turn.

It’s my way of getting a little raid damage against the UK.

oztea · May 6, 2013, 7:19 AM

TripleA setup 5-06-2013

Global 1942 Oztea Setup 2nd Edition 5-06-2013.tsvg

poloplayer15 · May 7, 2013, 3:36 AM

does the UK really need any more raid damage? with the two damaged bases in the med, the obliterated factory in England, the lack of a Med fleet (yes i realize the carrier from the Indian ocean can supplement the Med fleet), and the complete lack of destroyers in the Home Fleet. it just all seems like its too much for the UK to do anything about it. I realize that this is based off historical events and actual troop placements and such, but i feel like the UK can get knocked out of the war wayyyyy too fast. just my feelings on the matter

oztea · May 7, 2013, 6:28 AM

Well the US starts with a lot more than what it usually does in A&A and they can pick up some of the slack for the UK.

After a turn or two, the UK levels out. What I can’t let it do is be in a position to start loading and dumping transports on the French coast this early in the war.

poloplayer15 · May 8, 2013, 3:34 AM

okay. that makes sense with the US. and I do realize what your saying about the french coast thingy. I was just curious. keep up the good work. Your two setups are beyond fantastic. cant wait to try your 1942!! :wink:

Derek · May 24, 2013, 10:36 PM

So there are 2 threads for this :P and neither state they are for G40.2

Which is it?

Can we remove one of them lol

oztea · May 29, 2013, 5:16 PM

They are both for 40.2
There are 2 threads because one is a 1941 setup and one is a 1942 setup.

Elrood · Jun 4, 2013, 2:42 PM

Hi Oztea,

we are playing '42 now, and I wonder a bit about Japanese choices… they dont really have any. US is so overwhelming, that they can only pull back starting turn 1. No reall aggressive potential (like the choice to attack Hawaii in J1 in the '41 scenario)

I dont know yet if it was just poor choices by the Japanese Player, but in Turn6, Japanese territory and fleet are pretty much gone and only Germany is holding up against the Allies… Doesnt really look like an Axis win… yet… with all allied resources pushed at Germany…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31172.45

Did you get similar responses from elsewhere? We will try '42 again, but may be there have been some balancing suggestions already - especially for pacific scenario.

Regards
Elrood

P.S. we plan a real boardgame this week (no tripleA) and I am torn between Oztea '41 and '42,
'41 seems to be better balanced but '42 promises faster action…

oztea · Jun 5, 2013, 3:16 AM

42 still has balance issues. The farther along the timeline we go, yes Japan does lose a lot of options.

41 is my pride and joy. 42 was created because Larry 42 feels hollow.

Elrood · Jun 5, 2013, 9:37 AM

@oztea:

42 still has balance issues. The farther along the timeline we go, yes Japan does lose a lot of options.

41 is my pride and joy. 42 was created because Larry 42 feels hollow.

Ok, I have got the same impression! :) Keep up the good work- we will probably start with Oztea '41 today on the Board, since '40 2nd, takes to much time to evolve… (which we dont have, being young parents and all)

Elrood

oztea · Jun 5, 2013, 3:02 PM

It was easier to make 41 because it is little more than just a 1940 advanced 2 turns ahead (with some minor historical fluff here and there)

But 1942 was from the ground up a different beast, being probably 5 or 6 turns into a 1940 game

Elrood · Jun 5, 2013, 8:09 PM

agreed! 8-)

That stupid Bismarck cost me my first game of '41 as Axis… I tried to save it and bring back to Germany and ended sacrificing a whole round of income in the attempt… throwing good money after bad, its called I think… :roll:

But the choices you can make in '41 are really what makes it worthwhile. Really good stuff.