@vodot Yeah, definitely seems like the US would need some kind of economic boost if they have a split economy. I bet playing like this would be more historically accurate and more fun, especially with more than 2 players.
1942.2 Strategy Guide Introduction: Feedback Appreciated
-
OK that’s it for now. If you’d like to comment or discuss, have at it!
Again this is just a primer, mostly for the unit roster, so I will likely edit and modify/format as we go. Probably redraft at some point, on the way towards writing an actual article. But I wanted toss up a working document so others could see how I got here, and how I get to where-ever it is that I end up going with this.
:-DI know its rather long, but thanks for checking it out if you get the chance.
Best
Jason -
Sorry if it is not a big feedback, it will come later in a few days.
About abbrev. for transport.
I stumble upon TP once in a post.
And I’ve been quite found of it.
Because it describe the idea of a ship travelling between sea-port: Trans-Port.Do you know if other used it?
On the other side, with TRN, it is very similar to TRaiN abrev.I know it is more arbitrary than AP (Navy authority is mandatory) but an abbrev. is partly based on how many people used it.
TRN or Trans, Tranny = transport, also AP or sometimes APA from hull designations of the period. Other naval designations commonly used in this game include…
-
I like using TT in analogy with SS, DD, CC, and BB…
-
Good call! I’ll edit in those suggestions. And others as we go. Thanks guys :)
-
Don’t forget the infamous KGF and KJF or JDTM.
-
Excellent! Those too, for sure.
:-DWhen we get 'em all down I can alphabetize the list. Or break it into more relevant thematic sections, with an expanded glossary of common terms and definitions.
-
Gonna sticky this thread and bring down the Russian openers sticky, if thats ok BE.
-
Cool with me. I’ll be working a long weekend, but I’ll dive back into things next week
-
Feeling bad, BE, that as yet you’ve had no f/back beyond the acronyms. Perhaps you saw my reply in Article Submission re being on holiday all month and promising to take a look in early May. Hopefully being a rookie and so a member of your intended audience will lead to some worthwhile comments. Will check before commenting whether you are still taking feedback. :-)
-
Yep. It is just a bad timing.
I hope I will take a deeper look into it. There is a lot of good stuff for sure. -
No worries I will just take it as a sign that my guide has been exhaustively comprehensive thus far.
:-DI dont think any of the ideas discussed above are too terribly controversial though. A Walk through by Nation, or strategy guide to the first round would no doubt elicite stronger opinions. My goal so far was just to set up the scaffolding. We haven’t really started painting yet hehe.
Most of my thoughts on the Russian opening have already been outlined, with some broad strokes for the Allies. So next we’ll look at 42.2 from the German player’s perspective… When I’m less slammed at work.
;) -
Okay Black Elk - I could let you have some feedback this week or possibly next - from the perspective of a rookie who remembers his recent experiences of learning the game - or trying to!
Is it too late or do you still want it?
Cheers
PP -
For sure man. Anything that keeps the ball rolling. My work week schedule has been fairly, wasn’t able to catch any face to face games in April. Perhaps May will be a more A&A friendly month haha
:-D -
Okay BE - I’ll post some feedback here over the next week or so ….
-
Hi Black Elk
I promised you some feedback from the perspective of someone who has just learned the basics. That starting point makes my comments relevant as your intended audience, but also limited by my current understanding of the game.
First I would like to repeat comments I have made before about enjoying the thread as you created it. I certainly have been dragged to a deeper understanding of some of the fundamentals than I had achieved on my own.
Here is my feedback:
1. It could do with an editor paring it down to essentials. I raised the print version on the board and then copied that into a word document. 56 pages! Took out various unnecessary forum titling, standardised to font 11, excluded the introduction (as it presumably won’t make it to the final document) and still had 45 pages. I believe a good editor could at least halve that. But you might find it hard to like the result.
The above comment is all the more true because you have so very much more to share with us yet, running the risk of an article that is hundreds of pages long.
I would be happy to have a go at editing - using the word review functionality so that you can see exactly what I have done and revise as you see fit - if you wish.
2. I can understand why those that came at 41 from 40 or 42 find 41 an unsatisfying starting point. Reducing the whole of WW2 to an evening game necessitates simplification which A&A experts can find hard to appreciate. However, I started from 41 and found it an excellent basis for moving on to 42, both from the perspective of understanding most of the principles, but also because it is easier to commit yourself and others to a new game that does not take up a whole day.
To be honest, I would much rather learn 42 via 41 than in the way you suggest. It takes about 20 mins to explain the basics of 41 and then straight into gameplay, picking up the exceptions as you go. But given your preference (and no doubt others) to start with 42 perhaps the balanced approach would be to represent the two options - as your audience will include those who start in both ways - and then re-orientate the unit discussions thus far to accommodate a 41 starting point as well as the straight to 42 one. Is that worth consideration?
Again I would be happy to give it a go if you wish.
3. You don’t include factories as a unitÂ, except to mention their AA capability briefly when discussing AAguns. Of course, the rules are a little different for factories as against AAguns, with the latter rolling against a max of 3 bombers. Is there a worthwhile discussion on the value of an IPC purchase vs other expenditure options?
4. You do have a section on bidding. This seems inappropriate to a new player manual. New players will be trying to understand the OOB game. Expert players may decide to give rookies the benefit of starting as Axis, or additional starting units, or something. But that is not a bid.
5. Lastly, some thoughts on what next ….
- The need for the allies to co-ordinate.
- The threat to Russia, the value of keeping it alive, and options for doing so.
- KGF vs KJF.
- The strategic importance of the centre of the board and options for maximising each side’s chances in this area.
- India as the UK’s only imperial IPC needing to support all UK efforts outside Europe, so maximising India production each turn, plus reinforcement options, plus additional IPC options - e.g. Egypt or South Africa.
- Germany’s alternative areas of strategic focus - N Atlantic, Russia, the Med, Africa - how to choose between them …
- The challenge of getting the US engaged.
- and so on - I am sure you can add a lot of other strategic challenges to this list …
At this level you would be addressing the fundamental drivers of the game and opening the minds of new players to the strategic challenges they have to address.
There are also a number of useful or otherwise opening moves, such as R1 West Russia, J1 SZ53, UK1 SZ37, etc. These will all have been discussed at length elsewhere and a list of links would be very helpful.
Black Elk - I do hope this has helped. I have tried to give your efforts the attention they deserve. If we do end up with a shorter article, with which it is easier to engage, that may allow further thoughts to come to the fore.
Cheers
PP :-) -
Great feedback Private Panic! Thanks for giving it a look over. Its always helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on this stuff. Brevity is probably not my strongest suit, so I’d agree it could use a fair amount of pruning, or some savage machete hack downs in a couple sections. All my posts on these boards tend towards the long side of the force, so if you’re motivated and have a red pen at the ready, I’m game.
;)2. I like the 1941 game, and can see a definite benefit to using it as an intro. It’s certainly much faster to set up, and the more limited roster selection makes for a quick grab and go playstyle. The only real downside of that board in my view is the limited scale, both for the map and the overall game economy, as well as the total number of unit sculpts included, and this places certain limits on the replay value. I often try to get back into the head-space of the first timer, and recall my experiences when I initially tried to play A&A. I think Axis and Allies is definitely one of the more challenging boardgames to learn and to organize with your friends, so in that respect its nice to have that simplified 1941 game available. On the other hand, I still look to Classic and Revised, as the boards that had me really falling for A&A, and 1942.2 is much closer to these in scope than 1941 is. 1942.2 is the workhorse 5 man board, my go to for multiplayer games. I suppose all I would say, is that if your standing in the gameshop holding both boxes in your hands, trying to decide which one will give you the most bang for your buck, 1941 or 1942, I’d say you’re probably better off dropping a few extra ducats and grabbing 1942.2. Sure its a bit more expensive but its a lot more expansive! You get more sculpts out of the deal, and more chips, a larger map and broader overall layout.
The jump from 1942.2 to the 1940 games is on a whole different order of magnitude, both in terms of the initial cost and the rules overhead, but the choice between 1941 and 1942.2 is something a new player might realistically consider for the price. So I just wanted to put it out there, that I think 1942.2 can be a fine place to start if someone wants to dive right in and skip over 1941. Also there is a certain respect in which I think 1941 is actually a fairly challenging board, despite being billed as “the starter” or “the beginner” map. Its set up time is quick sure, but the scale of the economy and the narrow margins for error that result from the opening set up, can actually make that board quite novel even at a higher level of play. The unique sculpts alone make it a worthwhile investment to A&A players, it’s a cool game to have in your arsenal. So if you can swing it, I say buy both! But if I had to choose one or the other, well
:-D3. the Factory is a unit which definitely warrants more in depth discussion. Good call. This is something that will need to be included, though I admit it can be rather tricky. The discussion about when to make an investment in additional production is rather less straightforward than with most of the other units. This is because there is a strong “national” component to factory buys. What I mean is that some nations benefit in a disproportionate way from having factories available as a purchasable unit in 1942.2.
The unit is critical for Japan. For the USA, or potentially the UK, it can be a potent option under some specific strategies, but not what I would call essential in the way it usually is for Japan. For Russia and Germany the newly purchased factory is kind of a non-factor, since Russia can’t afford them and Germany doesn’t need them, except under very rare Super G endgame conditions. In 1941 Industrial Complexes do not exist at all as a purchasable unit, and there is no SBR in that game, which may leave the new player who comes to 1942.2 from 1941 scratching their head a bit.
Broadly speaking, what you need to consider as a naval power like Japan, USA or UK, is whether a factory for 15 ipcs invested will get you more (long term) than a loaded transport with an infantry and artillery unit for 14 ipcs would get you.
If you can actually afford to max out a newly purchased factory with units after you buy it, or if the ability to drop units at the front trumps your need for total TUV or attack/defense power (near term) then the purchase may be advisable. Remember that buying a factory means a full round before you can make use of that investment at 15 ipcs. That’s the equivalent of 5 infantry units, or a fully loaded transport, or aircraft that might otherwise be in the fight immediately.
As a general rule, a territory needs to be worth at least 2 ipcs to support a viable factory in 1942.2. Optimal locations for factories in this game are Manchuria, East Indies and Borneo. Also France, though that is a special case, because even though it has a high potential production value at 6 it is also surround by other territories with high existing production and is itself hotly contested by both sides making it much harder to hold reliably. France is usually an endgame thing, if it happens at all.
Somewhat less optimal but still potentially useful are territories like, French IndoChina, Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Philippines Norway, South Africa, Egypt etc. Basically any territory worth 2 or more could be a contender in specific endgame situations. I’ve even seen super G games where they end up buying additional production for sz 16, so I wouldn’t rule anything out there, though I would say that if you’re buying more production than you can utilize effectively on placement, you’re probably shooting yourself in the foot, also worth considering is whether the production actually get you any more effective range than you have out of existing factories. For example, before buying a factory in Brazil or Alaska as USA, it makes sense to ask whether this really gets you any closer to the front, than simply placing units in North America. I have more to say on factories I think than I can cover off the cuff, but you’re right! definitely something we need to ruminate on some more.
:-D4. It tried to put the bid section last, because I agree with you, new players probably won’t play with a bid. On the other hand, I think its worth knowing what a bid is and how it is used in A&A, even if you don’t employ a bidding process in your own game, if only because its such a common house rule in Axis and Allies. I’ve had a lot of new players in tripleA ask me questions like “what’s a bid?” or “what does bidding mean?” so I figured I’d toss it in there for good measure. This stuff might be inappropriate for new players to use in their first games, but it is relevant to a lot of the discussions on these boards, so at least from that perspective I thought it might worth touching on.
5. Great stuff, lets charge ahead! :-D
We’re already approaching mini-book length here anyway, so might as well gun for something as encyclopedic as possible haha. I guess I’m all for circling around, and rounding em down as we go. -
Glad to have been of help BE.
I’ll have a go at editing it down then - aiming at brevity w/out losing insight - and post the result as an attachment here - probably late next week.
Your answer on the factory shows that there is worthwhile stuff to say. I’ll paste that into the shorter document as a placeholder so that you can build on it.
Re bidding - I guess then that it will come at the end of whatever article you end up with, even after the sections yet to be added. I might add some of your words here as to why it is included.
That’s my spare time next week gone then! Thanks for keeping me out of mischief! :-D
-
Thank you, Black_Elk, for sharing your great, compendium-like ideas about the game in such an entertaining way of writing.
And thank you, Private Panic, for your feedback - which included “editing”.I must admit, that when I started reading (and I still have by far not finished reading), I at first had a hard time getting all those information from my computer screen. So - as Private Panic - editing thoughts came to my mind.
First I used the Chrome built-in PDF-printer to print the “print-version” of the thread as PDF. This increased readability a lot.
Then I copy-pasted the content into a Word-document and manually did some editing - so did Private Panic.
At a later time I found out that you (BE) edited some content in this thread - so my editing experience started again. ;-)
As writing a “Strategy Guide” is a living process (for a long time) an idea came to my mind:
Why not use Google Docs for this ‘project’?
This would reduce the forum-sided complexity to a single link to the document.
All interested forum members could have read-only access to the latest version of the document, just following the published link.
Write-access can be granted to selected people and attachments would not be needed.Just my thoughts on the editing-issue. :-)
-
Don’t know about Google Docs Panther - was going to use Word - but happy to take advice and do what others think best. :-)
BE - tell me if not Word - plus I might need help if Google Docs.
-
https://www.google.com/intl/en/docs/about/
There are other, similar solutions of course, but this one might be the most popular.
The browser-based user interface is Word-like, but a lot easier.I am happy to help, if needed. :-)
Edit:
Just a simple example of ‘how it looks like’ when a document is published “read-only”:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_yY9OEjpoi1cBgHQQ4qHSAwRIMaPTgwrLt9ldszufg/
Suggested Topics
