How is A&A 1942?

Major Payne, I can recommend it, especially if you want a shorter game.

Well, I like it, but I’m the kind of guy who hangs around the Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition forum hoping that someone will post something about one of my favorite games, so take that with a grain of salt!

More seriously, I think 1942.2 strikes a good balance between complexity and brevity – you can usually setup, play, and cleanup in about six hours. Those six hours might not get you all the way to the win conditions printed in the rulebook, but it will get you to a satisfying ending – it’ll either be pretty clear that someone is going to win, or it will be pretty clear that both sides have fought to a standstill and have earned a draw. There are enough plausible strategic choices for every player to make – even Russia and the USA – to keep things interesting for many, many games. Unlike Classic and Revised, in 1942.2 you can’t get very far by just buying stacks of infantry and turtling, or buying stacks of tanks and charging recklessly ahead. You can play a more defensive strategy or a more offensive strategy, but it has to be nuanced, and figuring out which nuances work and how to execute them is a lot of fun.

My biggest critique of the game is that there is some dodgy business where the US (and to a lesser extent the UK and Japan) are supposed to start launching supportive aircraft 2, 3, or even 4 turns in advance of when they are needed for defense. For example, the US might build a fighter on turn 1 with the idea of flying it to French West Africa on turn 2, flying it to India on turn 3, and then flying it to West Russia on turn 4. Failing to have the fighter in place in India on turn 3 can lead to the early loss of India against an expert Axis player, and failing to have the fighter in place in West Russia on turn 4 can lead to an early loss of Moscow. To me, this feels fussy and un-fun – it’s one thing to lend Russia some extra support because you want to or because you have the spare capacity; it’s another to be forced into calculating intricate multi-turn flight paths just to stay alive in the opening.

Another concern is that the UK, US, and Japan often spend the first two turns mainly purchasing units, the third turn getting those units into place, and then fight their first decisive battles on turn 4. If the German and Russian players suffer from analysis paralysis, or if the game has to be called off early due to a work/family situation, this can be a long and frustrating wait for the players controlling the UK/US or Japan.

Some other players have criticized changes made to the components for the 1942.2 edition – they miss having paper money to count their IPCs, or don’t like the exact cast of the plastic miniatures – but the 1942.2 chrome works just fine for me. The map is attractive and the pieces are fun to move around. Crowding is average for the Axis & Allies series – there are definitely some noticeable and annoying chokepoints in London and eastern Europe, but for the most part the units fit comfortably in their territories.

Game balance is above-average for Axis & Allies – it is pretty clear that the Axis have an advantage, but the advantage can be fully and easily neutralized by either adding a Russian bomber in Moscow or by giving the Allies a flexible one-time bid of 6 to 12 IPCs at game start. The only major opening battles that get disrupted by the bid are Egypt and the Indian Ocean. The Allies will usually use part of their bid to put an extra infantry in Egypt, dropping German odds of taking Egypt on G1 from 70% to 50%, but unless the Allies make heroic efforts to bring in reinforcements, Germany can still take Egypt on G2 if it really wants to, and a G2 Egypt attack is arguably the stronger play in any event. Another common Allied bid is to put a British submarine in the Indian Ocean, boosting the odds that Britain will be able to trade its eastern fleets to sink a Japanese battleship and a fully loaded Japanese carrier from around 55% to about 80%. In my opinion, this is still a marginal play – the British don’t get to sink any Japanese transports this way, and the British need the two fighters that they would bring into that attack more than the Japanese need an extra pair of capital ships in the Indian Ocean.

One startling feature of the 1942 setup is that the Axis begin the game with almost total naval dominance – the Axis can sink the entire British navy in both the Atlantic and the Pacific if they want to, without even suffering heavy casualties. This is ahistorical, but makes for interesting choices – the British can save up to rebuild their navy from scratch, or they can focus on sending fighters to Russia, or on sending bombers to Berlin, or even build a second industrial complex in Africa (they start with one in India) and become a land power. The Russians also start with excellent counter-play opportunities compared to most versions of Axis & Allies – if the Germans allow themselves to become distracted, the Russians can easily hold the line or even move into German territory early in the game, even without an Allied invasion of the European mainland.

Overall, I think 1942.2 is an excellent edition of Axis & Allies. This is the company’s fourth attempt (five if you count Milton Bradley) at a mainline Axis & Allies product, and I think they finally got it right, or at least so close to right that you can easily patch over any annoyances with minor house rules and careful player-assignment.

Good analysis from Argothair above.  I’ve played and enjoyed classic ever since I learned it in 1986.  Played well over 100 games I’m sure over the years.  I just recently purchased 1942.2 so I will offer my two cents:

Good points:

The board is much larger than classic.  It is also much nicer, more realistic with additional territories.  I feel it is a substantial improvement over classic because of this.  I personally like the IPC tracker built into the top of the board as it eliminates having to have that extra tracker placed somewhere else.

I like the extra units are really a nice step up.  You’ve got artillery, destroyers and cruisers added to the game.  And the units are no longer generic looking.  Each power has their own unique looking pieces so that is really a nice touch as well.

The chips are now grey (one unit), green (three units) and red (five units).

Industrial complexes are limited to the IPC worth of the territory it’s on.  As an example, if you put a factory on a territory that is worth 3 IPC then you can put a maximum of 3 units there every turn.  I like this, as in my opinion, it offers a more realistic balance.  It also makes you think a bit before buying/stacking.

I like the new rule that factories have their own AA guns and the AAA gun pieces are for regular combat.  Offers another nice tactical twist over classic.

Infantry attacks at a 2 if with artillery.  Nice touch.

Tanks defend/attack at 3.  Very helpful.

I like the destroyer/submarine interaction.

I like the way IC’s are damaged during strategic bombing better in 1942.2 than classic.

Drawbacks:

As noted above, they did away with the paper money.  Now that isn’t a deal breaker, just inconvenient.  I simply use the money from classic (like many players do) so it is a non-issue.

I would like to have seen more chips included in the game.  Again, I include the white/red ones from classic so non-issue.

I would like to have seen Industrial Complexes be actual pieces like in classic.  But again, if you simply use the classic factories it becomes a non-issue.

I would have like to see mech infantry and tactical bombers included.  But I simply ordered some units from HBG.

So overall I think the benefits vastly outweight any perceived drawbacks, most of which are easily corrected.  I think it is quite superior to classic in just about every way.  And it will definitely go quicker than 1940 global for when you want to enjoy A&A but need it to go quicker.

SEP aren’t you forgetting the green chips that are worth 3 units.

major_payne, like these guys I also would recommend it. Since you been playing Global you will think this game is quite easy to play.

@Frederick:

SEP aren’t you forgetting the green chips that are worth 3 units.

It’s up there in the good points  :-)

My bad I must of skip that. You said that there’s not enough chips I think there’s enough I usually don’t run out.

@Frederick:

My bad I must of skip that. You said that there’s not enough chips I think there’s enough I usually don’t run out.

You’re probably right.  Sometimes however we’ll to a HR free-for-all and in those games you need a lot of chips.  Always like to have more than I need just in case.  The green one is a nice touch though and YG also adds a blue chip that is worth 10.  Also a nice touch.  Don’t know if the blue one comes standard in the 1940 game but well worth getting.

:-)

Great points! Just have to give this game a nod as well.

I played a fair amount of global, and while I clearly enjoy G40 if I can find an opponent willing to put in the time, I think that 1942.2 just works a lot better for me, with a faster pace and faster resolution time.

I think this map, with the new territory and sea zone divisions, is sufficiently different enough from previous boards to provide some definite strategic interest and replay value even for someone already familiar with the 1940 boards.

Probably the only thing it lacks beyond not having the paper money and no factory sculpts as mentioned above, would be a tech tree. But given all the issues with tech development in the past, and the attitude of many players who would just ignore that aspect of the game for simplicity, I can see the argument for just ditching tech altogether. This is probably the one area where an official addendum or consistent HR scheme for 1942.2 might be fun, since it’s hard to adapt the other tech trees onto this board.

The G40 tech tree doesn’t work, because it involves new units that don’t exist in 1942.2. The Classic/Revised techs are too outmoded. So if tech is something that interests you, I’d go with rules from the AA50 game, as they seem to get the closest to a workable system. There are still some kinks, on account of the way AAguns have changed into a combat unit, but basically it works the same way as before, just splitting the relevant techs to include factories or aa.

I don’t find that I miss the mech or tactical bombers from 1940 all that much.  I don’t know, somehow they just haven’t really found their place in the normal roster for me yet. Both still feel a bit gamey, and the way their advantages are tied to combined arms thing always seemed a bit over involved. So in that respect the return to a more streamlined unit roster can be kind of refreshing. I prefer the 1942.2 production system to the Minor/Major system introduced in 1940. Probably the only other thing that might stand out, is the carrier being 1 hit with a combat value again. I prefer this as well, so all in all I’m pretty happy with the board. It seems fairly adaptive so I expect it will be my go to from here on out, until another board at this scale is released.

It is a little unfortunate that it was released as a “second edition.” This was a branding mistake in my view.

The think maybe rulesets should have “editions” or like “re-releases” of previous maps, where most of the content is the same. So it makes sense for the 1940 games to have first and second editions, because the maps are consistent.

Spring 1942 could probably have been called “Revised Axis and Allies: Second Edition.” or something along those lines. But on the whole I don’t like the way this current game is called “second edition” as it adds to the confusion a bit, and probably diminishes its sense of importance for the franchise. If a game features a new map, it should be considered a new game.

Right now I think 1942.2 is the flagship for A&A. Global is too expensive and too rules intensive to be very accessible. 1941 is too simplistic and scaled back to be the long term workhorse. So that leaves us with 1942.2, and it does a pretty good job fitting the bill.

@Black_Elk:

It is a little unfortunate that it was released as a “second edition.” This was a branding mistake in my view.

The think maybe rulesets should have “editions” or like “re-releases” of previous maps, where most of the content is the same. So it makes sense for the 1940 games to have first and second editions, because the maps are consistent.

Spring 1942 could probably have been called “Revised Axis and Allies: Second Edition.” or something along those lines. But on the whole I don’t like the way this current game is called “second edition” as it adds to the confusion a bit, and probably diminishes its sense of importance for the franchise. If a game features a new map, it should be considered a new game.

It may be nitpicky, but there is good reason it’s called 2nd edition and that’s because it is, in fact, the 2nd edition of Axis and Allies Spring 1942.

The second edition of Axis & Allies: 1942 was released 2012.  The “first edition” was 2009.  Revised Axis and Allies was (iirc) 2004.

1942.2 has a larger board, different unit set up and a few small rules changes from 1942 (Honolulu as a VC, IC’s have air defence vs strat bombing built in, and a couple other minor changes) so it truly is a 2nd edition of Spring 1942.

I recall the release history  :-)

The point I was making is that Spring 1942 (first edition 2009) used essentially the exact same game map as Revised (2004). Only the rules were altered.

1942 second edition (2012) used a new map.

I think the difference is how you interpret the word “edition”.

When a book is reprinted as a 2nd or 3rd edition, you might see a new foreword, and some corrected typos, perhaps an expanded appendix. But if you start adding a bunch of new chapters, then its basically a new book. We usually call that a sequel, or a revision, rather than an edition, or use some other language that indicates that the book itself has been substantially reworked, and is different than whatever print run preceded it. I don’t know I guess you could make the case for dictionaries or text books or manuals changing with new editions, like say Dungeons and Dragon’s 2nd or 3rd edition players handbook, but usually that’s following some naming convention precedent. The problem with A&A is that they never really established the precedent.

Classic had 3 editions, Revised was sometimes called 4th edition A&A, but that never stuck. And by the time you get to AA50 and spring 1942. Most people stopped bothering trying to track where the game fell sequentially in its release. In TripleA the smaller scale 5/6 man maps are tracked with a V (for version or volume) for every release since Revised.

Classic (technically v1)
Revised (technically v2)
AA50 v3
Spring 1942 v4
1942 second edition v5
1941 (starter board) v6

The v is consistent for all the total war boards. On the other hand, the 1940 games with their political entry rules are tracked differently. As Europe, Pacific, or Global 1940 with a first edition, alpha, and second edition, to distinguish them. So players know which game we are talking about.

I think you can kind of see where I’m coming from with fine art prints too. Like if you release a 1st edition print run, and then do a second edition, the second print run shouldn’t show a different image.

To my way of thinking, some simple rules changes or a minor set up change, and you can maybe get away with calling it a second edition of the same boardgame, but if you dramatically change the map design then it is basically a new game, and this should be reflected in the title for better branding.

Its a semantic issue granted, but I think it contributed somewhat to the confusion around 1942 sec ed. I remember even the guys at my local game shop didn’t know what I was talking about. The naming conventions for A&A are rather confusing, which was the main thrust of the post I made above haha.
:-D

I would suggest that if you haven’t bought the game yet, and want to make sure that you’re getting the right board, be sure to go by the release date, or the box color ;)

2.0 is a totally different game. never liked 1942 1.0