Changes from Revised?

@Hobbes:

Check the Fortress Europe strat on my signature. You might find it to your liking :)

Yeah, I just spent a few hours on a response.  :oops:  Well, you know how this bunny gotta p wrath and all . . .

Generally, I like the idea, but I think the Allied counters I proposed, if properly executed, should leave the Axis with - well not PROBLEMS, but not an out and out victory either.

Strat bombing is good in 1942 also, far better than Revised.  Bombers drop to 12?  Woaah.  I mean, yeah, I’d probably still want to use bombers against hard targets, but this is ANOTHER whole Craig Coburn thing where he takes these Jap bombers and I-Bombs Russia.  He never COULD pull it out in Revised, but 12 IPC bombers changes things, it really does - especially with the new costs, insta-death transports, and even sub fodder rules.

(starts humming Aladdin’s “a whole new worrrlllld”)

@Fleetwood:

The Allied fleets must stay together……
but has anyone found Africa harder to control as the Allies in Spring 42 compared to Revised?

Not really harder, just different.  you can’t totally look to revised as a basis for what you can do here, because of the changes. 
Its not necessarily a must to keep the allied fleets together.  it all depends on how you build them and where the opposition is.

I personally like for germany to waste fighters on a vulnerable american fleet at SZ12.  when there is a stronger back up on SZ10. that means those fighters are not bothering Russia…. but like i said it depends on the positions

@St.:

I hear alot of people say that revised is more complicated than spring 1942. Now I played the classic version when I was 12. Sure it was a long time but aside from the tech and the board being diffrent I dont see to many changes from the two, and neither one really seems more complicated than the other.

So what happand in revised that was taken away that makes it more complicated than Spring 1942

Other than the Technology and the National Advantages (although the NAs were optional) the game system is essentially the same. I almost never play with Tech because it can be a game breaker.

I really need to get some more f2f games in with some experienced players. I play my uncle who used to play the classic MB version with my brother. My uncle is really good at seeing things that might be a potential problem in future rounds so I try to pay attention to what he does and file that information away for future use. It is hard to remember all that stuff sometimes though. I have played all the AA board games with my uncle and he usually beats me in the global games but we are pretty even in the battle specific games like Bulge or Guadalcanal.

This would be interesting to play out. Something would have to be done with the UK navy off Australia or else they could just take it. Maybe putting two inf on the island would be a deterrent. I imagine it would fall to America whenever they felt like taking it out, since they can outspend JP by 12 ipcs. If Japan sends all it’s navy there then Russia and UK are laughing. It would be nice to have more options in the Pacific but I still think it’s not enough to threaten America and would only distract Japan.

@manincellv:

It is not worth getting without Italy.  Italy has set the standard now.  Its not a real A&A game without it.

Yes. Italy is awesome.

There should be no difference in the cost or function of units in AA50 and AA42.  That way makes it easy for a player seasoned in one version to try out the other.  So far I think we’ve had five A&A theatre scale games, and five different rule sets for subs!  One can get confused sometimes.