Does anyone still use paper money (ipc's)?

If Russia is aggressive in its first move, all things considered, it’s game over for the Axis. It’s why I favor a house rule that forces the USA to spend a certain amount of money in the Pacific Theater-and units purchased can only be used in that theater of operations…

Well I added Italy to my set so am using the Anniversary Edition '42 setup in which Japan goes first - but the Anniversary Edition setup still has the British units there by India. Guess I’ll just leave it alone.

@Mannstein:

This has probably been subject of discussion before, but I want to give it another go; Who’s your power of choice? Not the most fun or exciting or challenging power to be, but the most succesful or “safe”? If you had to play for money, would you prefer to be axis or allies? If it was a matter of fun or excitement, (and luckily it usually is) I’d play axis anytime. But it seems allies have a lot better chance of winning usually? I’d say it’s about 70/30 allied favour? … What do you think? Maybe Hobbes and Bunnies will reply also - they seem to have played a few games, maybe they have some statistics they’d like to share?

Thanks in advance…

There is no most successful or safe single power.

The game’s pretty much about using the powers in combination effectively using calculated risks.  If you don’t work well with your allies or your allies don’t work well with you, you will probably fail.  If you don’t take calculated risks, emphasis on risks, you will fail, because only by taking risks can you maintain a forward position and therefore enough income to remain competitive.  You cannot “play it safe” and win unless your opponent is also “playing it safe”.

Luck and skill are far more important than which side you play in Spring 1942.  (Which is NOT the case for Revised.  There, I think the Allies have a REAL advantage, which can be offset by giving the Axis a bid.)

If pressed to commit to an answer, I would say I think the Allies have the advantage.

I personally find the Allies more interesting and challenging to play, because I pretty much know what I want to do with the Axis at any given time (I might stare at the board for quite a while, but I usually end up with a very concrete idea of what I want to do.)  On the other hand, I feel my Allies game is a lot looser and has room for a good bit of improvement.

That’s why I feel Allies have the edge.  I think I know what the Axis can do, and I think I don’t know all the things the Allies can do, and I fear the unknown.  It’s scary, sort of like when you open up the refrigerator and discover you’re out of carrots, then you wonder if there’s any carrots left at the grocery store.

by small, you mean Map size?
if so, there are Full scale maps you can print out.  there is one map  that you can print  up in 12 sections,  so i print them up on a printer at work. 
,
I have the file, but it  may be too large to email.  but there are links elsewhere on this site, but i could not find them

@Nomarclegs:

The most important asset for any power in Spring ’42 is flexibility.  Japan (with her large air force and navy, as well as local production facilities) has incredible flexibility.  As USSR I’d opt to preserve as much of my flexibility as possible. That means keeping my men alive.

I agree with the issue of flexibility for both, but the first round is a window of opportunity to harass Japan’s flexibility by giving it a lot of targets to hit so that it can’t focus on everything. If the results of Russia’s opening attacks favored the Russians or just gave out the average losses then those units can be used to throw a few speed bumps at Japan or pressure it.
If you combine all 6 units on Buryatia then Japan has a very big problem to solve, in addition to the usual ones:

US fleet at SZ52 China UK cruiser/carrier at SZ59 UK sub at New Guinea/Solomon UK transport from SZ40 Remaining UK fleet on the Indian Ocean India

And this assumes that the UK didn’t went to attack FIC or Borneo, instead of retaking Egypt. If I’m playing Japan, one option is to attack SZ52, China and Buryatia, but to do so it would mean the Indian advance will be delayed, as well as any reinforcement of the Germans on Africa until round 3. I’ll have to use a lot of the airforce, to prevent any dice failures.
The other is to hit China, SZ52, and get rid of most UK naval units, while reinforcing Manchuria and transporting 1 inf, 1 arm to Indochina, ensuring the fall of India on J2 (and opening the possibility of building an IC on J3). At the same time it positions Japan to reinforce Egypt with plenty of fighters and units carried by the transport, which can also be used instead to bring the 2 inf from East Indies to attack India.

On the first one, Japan will kill 6 Russian inf at the average cost of 2 or 3 of its infantry. It will also have to bring more land forces from Japan if it wants to advance past Yakut. The UK will also have attacked Indochina, taking away the possibility for an IC build there until round 3, the same round that India should fall. Indian IC on built on round 4, produce units on round 5 that can finally be used on round 6. Meanwhile Africa should fall sooner to the Allies, will take more time to threaten/reinforce Africa with Japan.
But…  if Germany got lucky against the Russians (the deciding factor for me) and destroyed a large part of their army then this option is a must because it will give 2 simultaneous blows to Russia’s power.

Second one, the 6 Russian inf get away or make a kamikaze against 2 inf, 2 ftr on Manchuria. Usually they are pulled back and can reach Russia by round four. If there’s no Russian threat to retake India then I’ll get that IC for it and by round 5 I can start using its units. Meanwhile, the UK’s production is going down and down (India, Persia, Jordan, Egypt, the rest of Africa, possibly Australia), either forcing the Allies to retake Africa or start facing a losing economic situation, which gets worse as Japan keeps building its attack forces and advancing towards Russia.

Tough call? Yes, it can be.

@Bunnies:

Which would you rather have?  The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction?  Or . . . The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction With Puppy package?

in my experience, the puppy IS the Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction.

@Dylan:

Well in all the games that have this thing, I’ve kept it, but never used it. One game anyways someone asked if I we could put all the pieces and chips under it, so I agreed, but I don’t know what it’s for?

I use it to put the pieces that were hit during a round of combat so I know that they get a shot back in defense. Once they get the defense shot then I remove them from play and put them back in the baggie.

I voted the DD, it is the backbone of every defensive or mixed fleet.

The CC imho is the least usefull unit, but still has some use in large fleets. The question always is, why buy a CC and a DD with 20 IPC when the same money can get you a BB. Well, the answer is fleet volume.
When playing Dice, you can get lucky or unlucky. But, no matter how lucky you get, one BB will only get you one hit (in att or def) while one CC and one DD, if you are lucky, will get you two hits. So, for every second BB I buy, I prefer adding some pure volume in my fleets by bying a DD and a CC.

Another equivalent is to buy 2 SS and one DD, but when def is a primary concern and volume is needed, 2 SS are no more than fodder, given the attacker will have a DD (or else his air hits won t be assigned on the SS, and they will be useless even for fodder…).

The optimum setup for a mixed fleet (for example a US2 pacific fleet aiming for south pacific in US3) is 4 SS, 3 DD, 1 CC, 2 AC loaded, 1 BB, 2 TT (carrying 4 inf). Total IPC cost 82 (buy US1 2 AC, DD, SS, US2 1 ftr, 1 TT+1 inf, 2 SS, DD).