1942 2nd edition, new setup. Changes to opening moves

What revised setup? I might have missed that.

Not to change the subject (ok, I just might), but if you’re returning to A&A after a few years and really like 1942.2, you might consider picking up the recently rereleased Anniversary edition of A&A… it is a lot better than 1942.2 in many ways and better balanced.

@Nowhere:

What revised setup? I might have missed that.

See:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=18945&start=8#p67254

also:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39784.0

Welcome back seawolf…

I played the new setup a bit  - it is a refreshing change and the game becomes more even. Allies now has more motive to accumulate sea force early in Atlantic side. The only thing I don’t like is the new location of where the Germany bomber is placed.  It tends to make Russia a sure thing to attack this territory even though Russia has a choice, since the chance of winning that battle is higher now.

The original OOB setup seems to favor Axis more.  Bid seems to vary along players.  I think 9 - 12 bids are good enough to make a balanced game.

My 2 cents

Greetings

1. Yes
2. +7 to Allies
3. no, so the Allies attack the Japanese fleet and Germany’s Ukraine force on turn 1
4. to consolidate all the old possible Russia v Germany attacks into attacking only Ukraine to make sure the bomber gets wiped out
5. formerly, as you point out, an Axis win was pretty easy all the way up to 20+ bid, so whether we are talking tournament play or not, picking the Axis is no longer a sure(ish) thing.

The biggest drawback with this version is that if the Axis get diced out (we had 3 retals total among both key battles) then you lose the game on the first turn.  Since this is a setup based consideration, and the axis don’t usually get the bid, they can’t alter this vulnerability.  If you are experienced with both teams, the Allies do stand a chance of winning in the 3 hour time limited game as long as they are fairly lucky on the come out, if not, the Axis retain the advantage.  This version is often criticized as a coin-flip for that reason.

1. Semi-official. It’s supported by the designer and some conventions, but not necessarily by the producers.

2. You could play without a bid if you wanted to.

3. No.

4. An R1 attack on Ukraine becomes mandatory; it is slightly more viable to build an Atlantic British fleet or an offensive Indian army. G1 purchases need to reflect the likelihood that 1+ British transports will survive in the Atlantic to threaten France. Germany may want 1-2 boats in the Med, because a Baltic German fleet would be threatened by the British Atlantic fleet, and with the German bomber dying in Ukraine, it is hard to take Egypt without naval reinforcements.

5. The new setup is popular primarily because Larry Harris, the designer, retains a lot of goodwill in the community, and people are eager to follow his suggestions. I think that’s fine – Larry’s done a lot of good work over the years and I understand why people respect him, but I think the new setup catastrophically fails to fix three of the four serious problems in 1942.2. The problems with 1942.2 are that (a) the Axis are much more likely to win, (b) most of the map is strategically irrelevant, © the Allies have no opportunity for counter-attacks in the first half of the game, and (d) the Allies have no efficient shipping routes anywhere on the map. The new setup fixes (a): the Allies can win again. That’s about it. There is still absolutely no reason to visit Norway, Finland, Archangel, Siberia, the central Pacific, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, or Brazil. China is a useful highway for Japan to get to Moscow, but offers no opportunity for any kind of Allied defense. The UK will spend at least the first three turns just building fighters in London that will fly out to defend India and Moscow, and the US will spend at least the first three turns just passively building up its fleet. Russia can and must make smart trades in Eastern Europe, but the trades offer only tactical interest: nothing Russia can do will change its long-term income or prevent its need to steadily retreat toward Moscow. From the coast of the Eastern US and/or the Western US, there are no worthwhile territories that can be reached in one move: your choices are Morocco (1 IPC), French West Africa (1 IPC), the Caroline Islands (0 IPC), or the Solomon Islands (0 IPC). This means that any useful shipping route will require a minimum of three fleets: one to launch from the US coast, one to return to the US coast, and one to actually ferry troops from your forward base (e.g. Morocco) to somewhere useful (e.g. Italy). You can ship troops from Canada to France with only two fleets, but that is a full turn slower, and it also telegraphs your intentions, giving Germany plenty of time to reinforce France. Frankly, I don’t see the point of experimenting with the new setup. Unless you are very poor, I recommend buying A&A Anniversary and playing the Anniversary 1942 scenario instead.

@innohub Where would you recommend placing your bid, and what units? Thanks

Hi DeviousXP

Sorry for late reply as I just got this message…

If you refer to OOB setup, I personally find a bomber addition to Russia alone is a good balance. it adds a lot more variety to Russia player’s option, and make Russia more fun to play.

If not putting a bomber in Russia, the other options would be:

1. Enforce ground force in India to start with
2. Enforce Caucasus with ground force
3. Enforce ground force in Egypt.
4. Add a sub to attack sz37, and add an inf in Russia.

I forgot the exactly units to put (haven’t got chance to play : -(…) usually it’s 1art in india + 1 to 2 inf in Russia.

Russia seems to be the weakest link among Allies to start with, but as long as you can withstand the first 4-5 turns things will get better.

Personally, I think that bid is still too low. Now, whenever I play, India falls on turn 3. It’s physically impossible to get enough units in India to prevent it’s fall. I wouldn’t play with less than 12 but when I play with the new setup it’s for a tournament which usually lasts 6 rounds, maybe 7 before time runs out.

May I know how your opponent attempt to attack against India? I totally agree the first 3 rounds are very tough for UK… I am interested to explore if there are any ways to stop the India’s 3 round collapse.

Blow up the Japanese fleet on the first turn. With half of it gone, when you go 100% KJF, they cannot recover.

I agree with Argothair that there are issues with this version that need tweaking. While Larry Harris’s “patch” used for the tournament set up does not address all of these, I think it makes the game much more balanced.

I can only speak to the stats I have seen, but if I recall correctly - in the 8 GenCon tournament games I have played in using the new setup and the games went 6 Allied victories vs 2 Axis Victories.

The highest bid the Allies received in any of the games with the new set up was 8 (although I know it was higher in some games, at least still 12). The unit placement i saw varied from the sub for Britain off India to artillery & infantry in Caucasus. I was surprised how good it was for Russia with just having 2 extra infantry in the first round.

I believe Greg Smorey who runs the tournaments keeps specific stats on bids and victories since the change in the setup if more details helps.

What you say correspond s to my experience