I’m sure he meant if G stacks Ukraine, not just trades it. And I agree with his assessment that axis will probably win if they are allowed to do this in the first few turns
I don’t see the KJF in the current G40, G42 or 42.3’s. I’ve had lots of discussions (including entire plans laid out in the threads eg Setting Sun KJF) about how to execute a clampdown on Japan, but Moscow dies early, and first.
As to your other point, the VC aren’t logical. A newb player can build units on their Axis capitals the whole game, they are impossible to take in anything but the longest and most drawn-out games. They could then insist that they are winning because the other player doesn’t have the patience to fight the game to the end, and that the Allied player has to capitulate or actually accomplish his goal. In 42Online, thats usually a ragequit, or a “siege” where they refuse to give up and force you into greater and greater risks to pin them or stalemate the game–whoever is the more patient wins. That’s not fun either.
Its somewhat worse in G40/42–The Axis can win on either board. In a longer multisession game of G40, Japan can alternate threatening Cairo, Sydney and Hawaii, threatening to pin the Allies on one board by giving up the win on the other. The allies are forced to inefficiently rush/turtle these nodes to prevent the Axis from selecting the weakest one that you fail to cover, and going for that one to clench the game. YG has a points system to address this, economic victory at time is another approach.
I don’t know if the game was really meant to be played to those conclusions. 90% of the games I play in arent, they’re decided by concession. And like I said, the 42Online long game isn’t particularly rich and deep as Hearts of Iron, Conflict of Heroes, Company of Heroes, (or Global War, Twilight Imperium etc., though those dont seem to even be intended for practical play) or any of those modern computer or other wargames. It feels like an Avalon Hill era game in that way–its easier to exploit the rules, balance and other player than it is to make a truly insightful and flexible all-game strategy.
If Germany is able to consistently defeat/retake Ukraine, and Russia has lost its tanks (or ANY fighters) then Russia is slowly weakened by having to counterattack and the Allies lose. Japan can back up a German take, and though its not the fastest way to pressure India, they can also clip away all the $ from Russia–Russia doesnt have the mobility pieces or $ to keep retaking the $2+ territories in 42.2. There are ways to delay this outcome (fighters with UK, the bid, retreat your Russian tanks).
the open is to send everything to attack Ukraine that can come (4/1/3/2?) and then everything else that can come goes to W Russia (9/1/1? i forget) If he gives up the bomber, or you’ll get killed on the counterattack, you should retreat (esp. from Ukraine).
In addition; You bid a sub for the Black Queen battle, otherwise the odds are no good. In one of our tourney games, the bid and original sub survived because of wonky enemy shooting (remember in that battle the fighters can’t hit subs and so need to roll separately) and those 2 subs went on to get 3 further sub-shots+free hits (when in 95% of the games, there are no subs at all down there).
That’s fair, though my main point was that it seems at least theoretically possible that KGF/KJF could be at least well balanced enough vs each other that enough round 1 axis greed makes the generally inferior macro strat viable or even superior. If it’s not currently the case that this is so (with whatever version), then it seems like it could at least be made so by giving axis more power to reasonably be greedy enough to provoke a macro strat switch, along with general compensation gives to allies to balance axis’s greater decision-making freedom.
As for your second paragraph, I’m not sure what to say except that this has not been my experience at all. Almost everyone that I’ve played (both oob and online, but at this point I’ve played significantly more games online just by the very nature of asynchronous play) has played to win, and if they think they can’t win, they resign. I have not found hitting the 9/10 VC goal to be particularly difficult or grueling once I’m clearly winning, with rare exceptions (and even then, it was still fun rather than tedious). Around 90% of my games have been decided by concession as well, but that concession has been predicated on the hopelessness of reaching the 9/10 VC target. If that target changes, everything changes.
Also, the distribution is 3/1/3/2 for ukraine, 9/2/1 for west.
Now I was formerly also of the mindset that retreating from the R1 ukraine battle is good if he gives up his bomber as a casualty, but I’ve found that G stacking everything (including all fighters not sent to the G1 SZ7 battle) in ukraine is a pretty devastating response that forces your stack off West and into cauc. So now I feel like I have to take the terrority R1 no matter what and just accept the loss of those 3 tanks on G2.
@Kakarrot1138 Yes to your detail, you laid out the battles correctly and you can play for just the VC win. It just takes a lot of patience to overwhelm the germans, and one screw up–he can blow you up wherever you’re weakest. I enjoyed Online for a while, then got frustrated and turned it off. It’s good that new people and old are having fun playing after so many years, and I look forward to live play resuming in earnest.
Air is really good for Russia in each version because they have so many must-win battles (where a failure to block that territory can leave your capital/stack open to attack). If you’re reduced to just infantry and arty, you have to send overmany to ensure a take and this depletes you even more rapidly.
Another thing that this thread was originally about (U0) was shaking up the game so that some of the silly things that “must” happen don’t. In 42.2-3, picking off the US destroyer is too powerful and leaving the US without a starting fleet isn’t historical. Attacking the UK fleet and demolishing it is too easy even with the added DD and subtracted sub…it would be better if something else had to give. Killing the USA at PH is too easy (though the best japan strat usually ignores that to take India faster). Those are all reasons why this U0 discussion started–which I’m not a huge fan of but you could just have a simpler solution like no attacks on the USA turn 1…
@taamvan said in Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch:
Air is really good for Russia in each version because they have so many must-win battles (where a failure to block that territory can leave your capital/stack open to attack). If you’re reduced to just infantry and arty, you have to send overmany to ensure a take and this depletes you even more rapidly.
I agree that the 2 fighters you start with are indispensable. Are you advocating buying more of them as russia?
@Kakarrot1138 I’ve come to like that move better than inf and arty. In all versions. But, in all versions–even when Germany is unfocused…Russia is too weak and cant counterattack.
The bid as-played only falls into the critical path dilemma more, by letting the player decide what influences the path the most. That is what these 42.3 threads were originally about, eg U0. Direct further setup tweaks would be better–a great version of 42.4 may be in here somehow (hopefully one that lets the germans keep the bomber, makes Russia survivable, and doesn’t steal away the US fleet so easily). One example is the direct hack – add a Russian Strat Bomber to help a weaker player, any version. Works.
Easily said, not easily done.
If we build it, they will come.
Like what move, exactly?
I fired it up in A&AO a few times to see if anything was patched up recently, but I haven’t really been able to finish any ranked games in months. These days I feel like I can blink and loose a day pretty easily. Now that I’m all habituated to endless lockdown, getting anything done within 24 hrs is a stretch and I’m not particularly reliable lol. Usually what happens is I’ll stick it out for the first 4 or 5 hours if I catch a live one, then someone dips… I sleep all day, and come back to the auto forfeit. Alas
I think the big gripe with this one is that it just doesn’t really feel like the game is set in 1942. To much stuff in the first round script doesn’t look like 1942 at all. Its one thing when a big exchange happens a few rounds out and you can suspend disbelief, its another when it happens on the very first turn.
Some things that definitely didn’t happen in 1942, but which the game scripts into the first round would include stuff like German U-boats sinking the Royal Navy at Scapa Flow, or blowing up the US Atlantic fleet on G1. Britain sinking the entire Regia Marina in the med, or the Japanese fleet in the East Indies on UK1. Japan running a second attack at Pearl Harbor on J1, or just flattening China entirely. Even the Ukraine opener on Russia’s first turn doesn’t really make sense for the timeline. So yeah, the critical path is usually pretty muddy and seems to be winding away from historical expectations straight into the woods lol.
I do hope we get a proper 3rd edition or a new standard A&A board at some point. This map isn’t the worst, but the set up is pretty lackluster and one dimensional. I really think they need to provide some way for players to influence the composition or distribution of at least some of their starting forces. Like similar to a tournament bid, but more gameful in the implementation, just so there would be some more variety in the first round, or so the playpattern wouldn’t have to be so predictable a few months out. Clearly that would need to be written down in the manual somewhere, not just hacked off the cuff post release hehe.
Anyhow, hope you guys are well, and maintaining through the plague.
Io Saturnalia!!!
Best
Elk
this emphasis on history
is to me a mystery
for things to be fun in a game
things should not turn out the same
if you want divergent play
throw those history books away!
“but the game is world war two”
real tanks roll dice? I never knew
if you want to start a list
of all the thing the gameplay’s missed
terrain, morale, food, intel, weather
oil, iron, and shoe leather
Not enough? Look at the board
No doubt but that things were ignored
Europe, Asia, take your pick
Differences are laid on thick
There’s much more that could be said
Of game design but cheese and bread
Are what I crave so off to kitchen
To make a sandwich that is *****in
@Kakarrot1138 buying 1 fighter R1
@Black_Elk Its good to hear from you again, buddy. Variant setups would at least force people to make some new decisions, and I’m sure Beamdog is open to that.
@aardvarkpepper I’m also not a slavish devotee of absolute realism or historicity. But, like you said, it is a WW2 game. The refrain is “if it were historical, the Axis would lose in 5 turns”. Its a good framework to create a game and is thematically immensely popular. They did break with this tradition and decide to mash in the nearly-as-popular Zombies–how can you screw up ZOMBIES with WW2?? Well, the answer (over in that thread) is you fill the game with exploits, printing errors, overpowered random cards, and useless tech! Now, that’s history!
Now that this setup adjustment has been out for a while, I’m curious as to whether people are playing with it outside of the tournament setting, and, if so, what the results have been. Actually, I’m curious to know whether people think it’s balanced (and makes the game more fun) in both tournament and casual play. All opinions are welcome!
@krieghund My take: more balanced, less fun. After a few games of 1942 I took the pieces & dumped them in my Global set. The more the merrier.
Yeah, I reprinted my cards for the Tournament set up and use zombies carrier rules now. A&AOnline helped to solidify that superseding OOB for me in 42. I haven’t played any ranked games since it came out of EA, cause I’m a tripleA player at heart if I’m going digital, but I still log in to A&AOnline to keep tabs on the ranked results and to check stuff like user interface tweaks. It’s kinda hard to parse the numbers, since they are usually posted in aggregate rather than just the top drawer, but it seems to breakdown like 55% to 45% or thereabouts Axis vs Allies pretty consistently with the Gencon setup. 7 seasons and something like 100,000 games played - close enough for me. At the home table I use Gencon as the starting point now for 42. I still got one reliable buddy who likes to lean into HRs with me, so I still do that to liven things up, but we build it out from the Tournament set up these days, for sure.
I still think it’s fun! The hound’s approve! hehe
Hope you’ve been well, and all the best!
D DoManMacgee referenced this topic on
Hey guys, I read through all of the comments and I share your opinion: The game is more balanced now, but it is also more predictable and straight-forward.
Since I am still a fan of the 1942 game, I’d like to make a 4.0 setup so to speak - With the help of your ideas and with (hopefully) a lot of feedback from the community. there should already be a new thread in this forum for this.
However, I am already grateful for this long thread since so many great aspects have already been mentioned.
This “4.0” goes to house rules, then:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40242/1942-2nd-ed-an-approach-to-a-4th-set-up/1
@Black_Elk said in Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch:
Yeah, I reprinted my cards for the Tournament set up
Hey @Black_Elk, which cards/files did you print to refresh your setup cards? I’m teaching 42.2 (live, to a full table!) in a couple weeks and would love to set it up with 1942.3.
EDIT: Nvm, I [re]discovered @Mondueo’s great 42.3 setup cards here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/39616/larry-harris-3-0-setup-cards-for-printing?_=1709213218386
@vodot Hey thanks! if you have any questions on how to print them just let me know. I designed them to be front and back with the backside being a unit key. Also, here is the L.H. version in case you missed it.
