Battle of 42 on IL’s map.

@Imperious-Leader I would also like a copy but I imagine there would by copyright issues with this.

@fenderbender4 Hi there. I certainly do not mean don’t attack anywhere. Where there are easy victories make the most of them. But don’t place a significant G force at the mercy of a superior R one.

I haven’t played 1942.2, but for me the famed viability of a KJF strategy is a huge draw over AA50 (which I have played).

In the Gamemaster edition, Revised*, AA50**, and 42 1st edition all require a KGF strategy for optimal Allied play.  This makes 1942 2nd edition a very new experience to entice me with.

I have not played G40 2nd edition yet (only 1st edition).  I understand that is also a KJF game, so for those of you who play that, perhaps KJF is less of a lure.  I have also not played A&A: 1941, and have no idea as to the correct strategies there.

The minor victory scenario (8 cities) entailed a balanced Allied strategy for a strong defense in India.  But I never tried a full blown KJF.  I haven’t looked at that game for as long time, but I would tend to think Germany wins the game if the Allies go KJF in a minor victory setting.

** I have only played the 1941 scenario (with NOs), and cannot attest to the other variations.

One sub point that Argo didn’t mention is that if you commit the transports to the attack, and the naval battle fails, that the whole surviving group retreats together, with the land units stuck on the transports until the next turn.  This makes them very vulnerable to being destroyed, which makes this type of combined sea/amphibious attack high stakes.

This is also why you have to commit to the battles at the same time; not only does it keep the flow of play clean but it also forces you to analyze all the risks you are taking at the same time.  Reshuffling your unit allocations in other planned battles after the first combats are seen is also a no-no, though in a friendly game it is ok to make some revisions.

Still, since you can choose the order you fight battles in, this can be helpful.  You can see the outcome of 1-2 big battles, and then know whether the smaller battles are worth fighting to the bitter end, whether its more important to take the territory vs just clear it.  You do have to fight at least 1 round of combat for every declared battle, my point is that gaining certain information as to the outcome of one important battle can be instructive of the need to fight other battles to their bitter conclusion or withdraw early.

We fight in this order, not sure if its required in all versions by the letter of the rules, but it can make the game have a cleaner flow…

Declare all combats, unit buy is sealed and cannot be changed after we begin to do;

strategic bombings in any order then sea combats without land element in any order sea combats with a landing in any order land combats in any order don’t do any noncoms zero zilch none until now because it keeps the separation of turns and moved units cleaner I realize its tempting…

lots of teams only have 1-2 combats to declare per turn so focusing on doing all your combats first (and ignoring units that will noncom) is also an easy way to keep your mind focused on one task at a time;  things that fight get committed first and everything else can be contemplated at length after combats are resolved.

Thank you for the quick response!!

@UrJohn:

I think to make a WWII game that is realistic, balanced, and fun to play and has a historical starting point you need to give it an earlier start and more vibrant political rules and victory conditions. You could start the game something like 1938 and have a buildup & influence period of a couple of rounds. Each major power should have its own victory conditions. For example, if USSR wound up conquering all of mainland Europe, that would be a total victory for the Soviet player, a total defeat for Germany and France, and a defeat for UK and USA.

Wouldn’t you then end up with the USSR attacking Western Allied troops? Otherwise i like the idea, although I guess a 1 September 1939 start date would do fine.

well yea perhaps