Map and Strategy Differences between 1st and 2nd Editions

@MistuhJay:

@Hobbes:

I actually wondered about if the Axis player was going to try that on my 2nd game. He had bought a carrier and an IC on round 1, then joined both fleets together off France and ended up with 6 transports plus 2 carriers but he never got enough to try Sea Lion. However, if the Germans landed in Canada, then it would be 12 US units against 16 German ones, so I had to keep units in range while playing KJF.

Germany dropping 16 units in E. Canada? Never thought of that… what if Japan did the same thing to Alaska J3. America has to decide to defend E. US or W. US (and will obviously protect its capital, allowing Japan to assault W. US). It can’t be this easy… can it?

Please show this beginner why this is a bad idea?  =)

You can try to find an old strategy for Revised called Polar Express that is exactly what you are describing. I never tried it on Revised though because it’s too easy to spot once you know what to look for.

Something just popped to my mind about G1.

On 1st Edition the standard G1 attacks (UK fleet, Egypt, etc) usually consist of:

• Retaking Ukraine (+90%) and Karelia
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• Egypt (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)

Which, when you combined odds of all winning all attacks gives you overall odds for G1 of close to 66% (or at least 2/3 that G1 will go as planned).

But on 2nd Edition there’s a substantial difference on the combined odds if you add the G1 Egypt attack:

• Retaking Soviet territories (+90%)
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• US Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• Egypt (+75%)

Or: (100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)*(100/75) = +/-44%

So, if the Allies let Germany attack Egypt and if Germany chooses to do so, then German odds for winning all attacks as expected on G1 drop to less than half. And that most likely opens opportunities for the UK to exploit from failed attacks.

Something for the Soviet/Allied player to consider before sending that fighter to Egypt…

@UrJohn:

@Mallery29:

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

Interesting idea. I think you  could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC  on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.

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, but for it to work you can’t split the US income.
It may also depend on what type of Victory you’re playing, specially the VC victory because that’s the quickest and most competitive play and that’s the one I’ve been playing so far.
On Revised/AA42.1 there were basically three Allied strats that I used: KGF, Fortress Russia and KJF (VCs were irrelevant since Axis always needed Moscow to win). KJF was usually not worth it unless the dice were hard for Japan and on a KGF the US would withdrawal its presence from the Pacific. Fortress Russia is a counter to the Axis rush to Moscow and can be played with a KGF, were you land with the UK/US on Archangel/Karelia, use those units to stop the Axis advance on Russia and then decide which way to push, either against the Japanese on India or the Germans on Karelia/Ukraine.
On AA42.2 the Indian/Pacific is changed: there’s a vulnerable VC on Honolulu but now the US Pacific fleet has a chance of surviving and contest the Pacific and the UK can drop units on India. Which means that the US may be able to be always switching production between the Atlantic (at least to liberate Africa) and the Pacific.
Even if the US focus on the Atlantic it should leave the Pacific fleet to threaten Japanese transports and prevent a capture of Honolulu. If Japan chooses to take Hawaii it will need 2 rounds to reach it from SZ60, so the US has 1 1 round of additional naval builds to prevent Japan from doing so.

@Mallery29:

I’m pretty sure in total victory, Japan would probably just ignore Hawaii since they aren’t going for cities, so the US could put some units out there, but how effective could you be in the Pacific?  Even with the EI fleet dead, the US has to push somewhere to take the heat off Russia/India.  I’d like to see it work, I just have my doubts.

Yeah, on total victory the Axis target is Russia until it falls and with both Axis players still on the game. Just having the Pacific limits the options for Japan if you also have a big UK airforce on India because then Japan starts having real problems to defend more than 2 SZs with its starting fleet (even with no EI attack).

@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.

@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