Hi,
Do any of you know if there are any possibility to play with this setup in Triple A?
KW
It’s already been incorporated! You might need to remove and install the v5 map if you don’t get the update option.
Downloading the map again worked for me, thanks Simon!
Hi,
Do any of you know if there are any possibility to play with this setup in Triple A?
KW
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39838.0
:-)
Looking for someone who wants to play this online, particularly if they want to play Axis.
Hey I will do :-) either axis or allies
BTW…I notice the LH website’s just get updated and I can see all previous discussion that for some reason didn’t appeared. Seems positive :-D
Took a break from this conversation for a bit, maphead and I have been playing the mod in earnest.
This version has some serious issues, most of which Argo laid out accurately. Its not so much that the game isn’t correctly scaled, its that the battle that does take place runs according to a pretty prominent critical path and there aren’t very many alternative choices to victory, as he says, the side stuff doesn’t really matter that much. Russia is too weak to hold out, it tends to collapse within 4 turns and while a 100% dedicated allied rescue plan can save the capital (with luck) it doesn’t save the nation because Japan and Germany have an easy time of grabbing all the $$.
There is a China space that is empty, it seems like having something there, even 2 infantry (but needs more, and more Russian stuff in the backfield) would make it not a total wipeout. Losing the middle so easily without being able to address this fact with your ongoing game play was the biggest flaw in Classic and it is retained here. The Americans need to have a chance to get 4-6 ground units together so that once they have air in Asia, they get to have a 1 shot strikeforce.
Because the side-game is so weak (and because the US has so little $), Germany can’t be stopped. Germany was nerfed for this patch, so there isn’t much variety to its play it has 1 goal only now.
this game was obviously designed to be shorter, but in expert play, its simply short; there is no long game and depending on the correct clinchers, bids, the outcome seems primarily luck driven and the strategy involved is primarily to analyze what buys and moves will not work, there is only 1 allied strategy that works well, and only 2 Axis strategies that work well.
I don’t think there is a strict 7 turn limit to the tournament, that’s just a practical limit given the time allotment and normal speed of play.
One of Argo’s points could be at least partially addressed by upgrading an India inf to an art.
Losing Egypt G1 is a script still and one which I dislike. No additional inf there? What is that?
I agree on Egypt, you either have to bid there or fly there with a precious Russian fighter (ive even lost the battle with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighters before…no guarantees).
Art in Burma is a common tweak, its in Cow’s patch/mod.
IMO all 3 of Russia, US and UK need to at least have the viable possibility of having a living, substantial block/counter force in Asia at turn 4, and I don’t think they do, at least, not enough to protect the $ and save one of either india or Moscow.
I still think the map is more interesting with a US first turn order and an Axis bid. At least there you get a substantially different play pattern out of the opening round, and can still use the default unit set up. Unlike LHTR for Revised, which changed the actual rules for that game, the proposal here is for a tournament tweak to the starting unit distribution. But in terms of the opener the play pattern is pretty similar to the vanilla game.
The German attack on sz 7 (2 subs, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters vs 1 Battleship and 1 destroyer) is still 98% odds to the attacker with both fighters and the cruiser surviving.
The German subs in sz 9 can still sink the US transports in sz 11 with 87% odds and 1 uboat surviving. Or the same for sz 10.
The German bomber, if it survives, can still hit Egypt or sz 17, (or sz 13 to kill the British cruiser and still land in France).
Because of the above, a strafe on Ukraine is a lot less attractive. The Russian attack to take Ukraine is still at like 90%, with an average of 4 units remaining. But its also totally do or die, and really comes down to the first round of combat, which is kind of a toss up.
On Japan’s part the dynamics around sz 37 and sz 53 are pretty much the same as in OOB. They can still push on China/Burma using the sz 61/Yunnan shuck with ease.
I think the 2 extra pips on India are the most significant thing going on here. But they don’t do a whole lot to change the basic play pattern. At best they give you one more round of holding the India factory, or a slightly more effective retreat to bolster Caucasus, or maybe a way to give J a temporary headache if you go for broke and send them on an amphibious assault UK1. But I don’t see them as real game changer in the Pacific naval contest between the West and the IJN. The odds on sz37 or 61 remain what they were OOB.
I don’t know though, Greg and the others in the tournament community seemed to suggest that the bid going into a sz37 attack is like the key to cracking the 7-8 round VC game. And that just isn’t the way I’ve been playing at all, so maybe I’m not seeing it. If that is the case though, and sz37 is critical, then unless the bid range for Allies is pushed under 6 ipcs, you’ll probably still see Allied players bidding for a UK sub or whatever, so they can at least get the fight up to 80% odds.
OOB the odds are only like 65% with 2 units remaining, which makes sz 37 a pretty terrible TUV trade in my view.
Sure if you can bid a british battleship that goes up to 97% with 4 units remaining. But who is going to let that one slide under the new set up? To me it just seems kind of weird anyway, since the sz 37 attack doesn’t have any historical basis for the start date of the game.
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
I upvoted this post for this last paragraph. I’m really disappointed that there won’t be a rule update if the announcement can be taken literally. I would guess house rules will be the order of the day rather than sticking with capturable AA Guns and AA Guns firing at escorting fighters!
1942.2 is not the best board even though it has quite a lot of improvements compared to its predecessors. This upgrade doesn’t really address some of the fundamental problems IMO. I started typing but I think I’ve already given my views.
I have to admit, with the recent news about AA50 getting re-issued soon, it’s harder for me to see the appeal of 1942.2 long term. I’d almost rather figure out how to balance the AA50 1942 scenario without Objectives/Tech, since you’d probably end up with a similar play pace to 1942.2, without much overhead in terms of rules, and the scale is still pretty manageable.
I upvoted this post for this last paragraph. I’m really disappointed that there won’t be a rule update if the announcement can be taken literally. I would guess house rules will be the order of the day rather than sticking with capturable AA Guns and AA Guns firing at escorting fighters!
1942.2 is not the best board even though it has quite a lot of improvements compared to its predecessors. This upgrade doesn’t really address some of the fundamental problems IMO. I started typing but I think I’ve already given my views.
Kinda funny… with AA50 coming out, if fans of 1942.2 end up preferring AA50 over 1942.2, does that make 1941 a more relevant game than 1942.2 as 1941 still retains its “easiest to learn and fastest to play” version of A&A, while 1942.2 is longer and more complicated than 1941, but not as fun as AA50?
Kinda funny… with AA50 coming out, if fans of 1942.2 end up preferring AA50 over 1942.2, does that make 1941 a more relevant game than 1942.2 as 1941 still retains its “easiest to learn and fastest to play” version of A&A, while 1942.2 is longer and more complicated than 1941, but not as fun as AA50?
Posted on: June 30, 2017, 09:08:57 pm Posted by: Wolfshanze
I hope not cuz I love 1942.2. But definitely will pick up a copy of aa50 this time.
I am glad to see conversation on the this forum. Larry Harris forum doesn’t get as many views and he prefers closed testing (my impression). Plus this forum is much more open and consists of the players who actually buy the board games. I own every edition personally. This board and the cheap budget fast board released at the same time we’re horrid at first playthrough. The 2nd edition board had two territories changed and transports don’t defend and a bship turned into cruiser…. To make another board, that board is seldom played.
I have a house setup of this board, but if Larry Harris is going to make his own improvements I will go with that.
Cow,
I believe he prefers his own counsel, which makes sense, since he created these great games.
However, this version could be more dynamic, that is not in his purview as I understand it because it would require at least a partial re-building the OOB setup, some “advanced” G40 style rules migrations, possibly even some geometry changes on the map…
Mr. Harris focuses on what is ‘historical’, but this has locked him into;
“Coral Sea”, which misrepresents the power of the US vs Japan at all eras and leaves the USA neutered
“Fall Paukenschlag/First Happy Time” leaves the US with only 1 dd to protect the transports, but without convoy/economics this isn’t a dynamic simulation and as Argo says, the Battle of the Atlantic isn’t dynamic or interesting in this version.
“US/China” is perhaps realistic in how weak the nationalist forces are but there is no room for dynamic play
“Ger/Russia” again, probably realistic in terms of relative starting power but fails to give USSR the chance to meet or exceed the German threat in real life.
“Destruction of the UK navy” never occurred, so it should take much more risk by the Germans to eliminate this
“various Japanese fleets” seem to have been jammed into several gamey situations but the geography and unit types/choice/dispositions are obvious (send em to india) but not realisitic (india was never conquered)…
“unrealistic/irrational proportioning of incomes” the rough proportions of the economic power of the various sides are well represented on paper but quantitatively its two big dragons (40+30) vs one small dragon (24) dogpile.
In general, there are too many “do this’s”–things that are more like a checklist of recommended actions rather than a palette of choices.
As Argo and BE and I discussed, this version is fun but its imbalanced–though it doesn’t have to be.
Yeah, I know he hates it when Japan builds nothing but tanks and smashes Russia and all that. He hates blatant ahistorical behavior.
Even if you split USA income to encourage going both directions, one side could build the infantry and fighters and the other side transports and carriers and make d day happen with zero Pacific play.
There is always going to be an optimal path. At the same time, everyone likes a fun game. I mean who hasn’t sat down and played Russia or Germany and decided 5 ipc tanks are great and I will buy nothing but tanks. Then the tanks became 6 ipc and only Germany ever buys it.
You are right in that ever since Larry Harris got upset about ahistorical play things have gone awry in the smaller boards. Global is as small as you can get for a historical ish board. boards like big world etc big boards usually because they are so huge USA goes all Pacific. This is why global is popular you get Japan without Japan tanks rolling into Russia and you get to ignore Japan until Japan has nothing but Hawaii left to take for the win or you get to go Pacific or split, you get that choice.
Global gives lots of choices and even with that board you still get players who do the same strategy over and over again.
Check it out I don’t mind like one board that is super historical. If Larry can figure out how to make d day and Pacific happen great, if not the game isn’t going to be that historical.
Honestly the allies want d day. D day is more popular and desired than Pacific. If d day can’t happen without being severely punished people will play a board in which it can happen.
market. garden.
drops mic
Yeah getting routed by the Germans after landing always sucks, but hey that is d-day for ya.
So do the changes mentioned in the first post help the balance? Are folks still using a bid with the setup changes?
