1942.2 Strategy Guide Introduction: Feedback Appreciated

No worries I will just take it as a sign that my guide has been exhaustively comprehensive thus far.
:-D

I 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.
;)

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

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
:-D

3. 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.
:-D

4. 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.

I love this idea! The docs  :-D

I was slammed at work and doing mothers day stuff, but I just had a look. So much cleaner already. Fantastic

Catch you guys in a few. Best!
ELK

Also thinking a little bit more on the factory unit. From a purchasing standpoint, the main consideration is probably still total income over anything else. If you have already achieved the maximum transport capacity off your coastal factories, or achieve a level in the ground game where you are making more money than you could reasonably spend at your facilities on the mass infantry spam, it can make sense to buy new production. This is usually only a consideration for the dominant nation on the map. So for example, when a nation achieves about +1/3rd of their starting ipcs in conquered territory, then production buys can be interesting.  Usually this factory game is played exclusively between Japan, USA and to a lesser extent UK.

Japan starts with 30 ipcs, when they achieve 40 ipcs a round, it often makes sense to buy new production. Most players will buy this either in a forward territory like East Indies, Borneo or FIC, or the safe territory next to the home sea zone, Manchuria. Once they get up into the mid 50s it might make sense to do this again, to put max ground and especially tanks into Eurasia immediately each round. With 24 ipcs income you can shuck 8 inf units out of Japan. With the support factory you can up this production value to between 10 or 12 ground units a round, 36 ipcs in infantry, with the remainder spent on upgrades to art/armor or on air/naval buys. With India that raises the total production in the region up to potentially 13-15 ground units (if you bought a support factory.) That takes 45 ipcs right there to max spam just infantry, so you really want to be collecting pretty heavy as Japan before you go for the second factory. The older games were a bit different in this respect, because India didn’t have a starting factory back then (Classic, Revised, AA50 etc), and tanks were 1 ipc cheaper. Still expanding 5 production points for a cost of 30 ipcs, to drop 5 extra units per round directly into Asia can be very useful. Or up to 7 units a round for that same cost, if they build out of a money island and Manchuria. Additional factories almost always makes sense for Japan, when they are in the ascendant, the only danger of a factory expansion comes right at the beginning under full KJF conditions, otherwise its generally a strong play.

For USA, starting income is at 42 ipcs. To get them all the way up to the mid 50s in ipcs (using my +1/3rd of starting income shorthand) requires that the Americans have either made a full Pacific press with success, or have begun their landings in Europe. In this situation production can be advisable, especially if you’re taking the money islands from Japan, but sometimes also in a KGF, at a location like Norway.

For UK the situation is a bit more complicated. They start at 31 ipcs, and usually this value will be diminishing. Getting them up into the 40s through luck and perseverance can happen on occasion, but UK is usually cash strapped required to spend everything they can for max placement at existing facilities. But UK can also occasionally benefit from a “bluff buy” or a factory  in South Africa, which they can’t afford to fill forever, but which might give them enough of an early mobility advantage to deter Axis forays into Africa. I’ve seen this work, and it was a strong strategy in Classic going back to early SA days, but in the newer boards I think its rather brazen. The UK just has a hard time on this board in early rounds, with everything to do, and never enough money to do it haha.

I said earlier that Russia doesn’t benefit from production buys. I can maybe stretch to imagine rare situations where they might work. Russia starts out at 24. If they get up to 32 ipcs or more per round, like in a full KGF or KJF endgame where the Allies are already totally crushing hehe. The game might be entertaining, but under normal 1942.2 circumstance, never. Germany starts with 41 ipcs, if they get up to around 55 ipcs, again maybe a production buy would work to tilt the balance on the eastern front, or to expand naval production. But again, that seems rare and rather unlikely.

The Factory can also be used as a bait or a draw, if you place one in a contested area of the map, but one where you have a positional advantage. The idea being that the enemy will see you drop the factory and then gun for it, attempting to “steal” your production investment, or get a “free” factory out of the trade. So that’s the bait, trying to draw enemy units into a position where they can be destroyed, or at least distracted. Egypt, SA, Norway and the Pacific money islands can be used this way.

There is also the school of thought that buys factories to lock down some peripheral territory or region, or some specific sea zone. Basically with infantry or destroyer spams. These can help to secure income into the endgame or to secure a defense power or counter attack advantage. East Indies and Borneo seem particularly ideal when used this way. Basically 2 or 3 rounds of solid ground builds, and its nearly impossible for the enemy to retake such islands once they have a factory. Sometimes Japan can take this approach early as a way to secure the income in the Pacific vs a sudden Allied build up.

Other considerations that might come into play with the factory unit are things like blocking actions. A factory is a permanent blocker. Once bought it can’t be removed. This can sometimes make a factory buy on the Eastern Front interesting, in the event that USA or UK takes one of those spaces during a KGF scenario. Provided Germany is not in a position to take and stack it, the factory can prevent certain blitz routes. I’ve seen this happen occasionally in W. Russia, usually in the hopes that USA can drop 2 units directly onto the Russian front line, and be stack supported with Russian units/Air immediately. Basically any “originally German” territory on the eastern front could potentially be used this way, its rare, but might be a reason for preserving those American infantry in Szech for exactly this kind of late game play. A similar build can also be achieved by UK, with a tank rush. The danger here is that G takes the factory and stacks it eventually, but it can force heavy trading if USA or UK wants to ignite the dynamite, and then leave the Soviets to clean up the mess when they bounce, in W. Russia for example hehe
:-D

I think factory units are fun. Even at the OOB cost of 15 they can be entertaining. A good factory game on 1942.2 can be the among the most intense.

Control of the Center: Just like in chess, the player who has the most attack power covering the middle of the game board has the overall advantage and the best chances to prevail in the endgame.

Broadly speaking the center is that swath of Russian and British starting territory that separates Germany from Japan overland in Eurasia. Most specifically it refers to the territory of Moscow itself, and the pivot territories immediately surrounding Moscow, especially Caucasus, but also West Russia and Kazakh. These last three territories form a little scalene Triangle of Doom around the Russians, if the Axis manage to break one of those corners and stack it, the Allied position can rapidly collapse. But the center also extends beyond Moscow, and the production choke point of Caucasus, to cover all those territories and sea zones that stand in the way of Axis convergence at the middle of the gameboard.

It radiates out from Moscow, and involves territories like India, and Egypt/Trans (Suez), Persia, Karelia/Arch, Novos, Evenki and Ukraine.

This region of the map is a focal point for turn order exploits, many plays that involve grouping teamed units together, to project an increased attack/defense power over the course of multiple turns.

In the long term, all nations are trying to stack heavy ground in this region, in order to first deadzone and then dominate the rich production/income at the center. And long term, it is the attack/defense power of Infantry and Artillery that is the undisputed king. But in the nearer term, during early rounds, players can use the “movement” advantage of air units and armor to try and tilt the balance in one direction or the other. Here air transits and tank drives are used to back up the movement of inf/art stacks and cover them as they push around and work to get into position.

So long as the Allies are able to maintain a wedge between the two Axis powers, their overall economic strength and turn order advantage (3 turns rather than 2), makes Center control relatively straight forward. But as soon as Axis achieve economic parity, and start chiseling away at the key pivot territories and production pockets around Moscow, the balance in the war could easily start to favor Axis. Everyone is trying to get the pendulum to swing their way.

There are two schools of thought here. Once is to push heavy inf and artillery stacks early, then catch up in later rounds with more mobile units. This is the more conservative style of gameplay, that puts a premium on the gaining the late game advantage with larger ground numbers. Usually you’ll be giving up some territory/income early on, in the hopes of recouping it later, during the mid-game rounds, once those ground forces have moved to the front.

Another school of thought, is to use the mobile units first, to strike forward early, and then hold the line. It can be effective as a way to achieve more income early on and to deny the enemy control of a key production location, or a critical choke point. This is the more radical or risky style of gameplay, where you launch to front early with the heavy hitters (expensive, high TUV units, like tanks or air) and then play catch up with your ground stacks. Here the danger is always of overextending yourself too early, and getting caught up in a defensive logistics quagmire. From the German perspective, this where burst ahead in the opening rounds and then dig. Instead of attacking forward against Moscow, your focus is rather to take a Russian factory and then hold it while you wait for the Japanese to arrive and make up the difference on defense power. From the Allied perspective its usually the choice between setting up a fighter/tank wall to cover the center, or actually launching ground forces and marching them towards the center (which requires transports and pushing over several rounds.)

I think there are merits to either approach, and also ways to do them both in tandem, with hybrid buys over several rounds, or with a different role/purchasing focus for each nation on the team. But ultimately the side who controls the center is the side who has “time” on their side. At the beginning of 1942 it is the Axis who have to face down the ticking of the clock, but if they take Moscow that dynamic essentially reverses. Eurasia becomes like a huge island that Axis can cover with an air shield, and since they no longer have the pressure of convergence with Japan, or cracking Moscow, they are free to redirect their cash for other things… like new naval armadas or bomber wings! Basically, its a huge pain for the Allies to recover the center in the endgame once they lose it to the Axis.

Some Allied players will make the calculation that it is more profitable to take a starting Axis capital, even at the expense of losing Moscow, in order to offset the loss, trade capitals and then carry things into the endgame with the Anglo-Americans alone 2v2. That is the “anything goes” sort of deep endgame, which is harder to pin down, since it often turns on narrow climactic battles and fast paced TUV exchanges. This is the Classic KGF or KJF type game from Allies.

There is a third version of Allied victory strategy though. A ready acronym to describe it is escaping me, but basically it involves the Allies just grinding it out at the Center, on the assumption that as long as the Allies this region, and maintain control of London and Moscow, there is virtually no way for Axis to win regardless of how much money they are making. Red Turtle tactics and the like.

Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb
Center.jpg_thumb