What do we know of the -42 Scenario?

@squirecam does this mean the axis player(s) get to place 3-5 IPCs worth of units, or that the allies get 3-5 IPCs worth?

@dictatorcj

Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.

@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@squirecam

I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.

But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).

Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain

I also did something like this on 42 2E, and worked. A bit risky but worth the fun doing this as an alternative start.

Hi, I know this is an old topic, but I’m curious if everyone still thinks 6 is a good bid for the allies, and if so, are you playing with the national objectives enabled?

I play with the objectives, and we usually do a bid of 9-12 for the allies.

the discussion has been 42, but has gone into strategy.

When AA50 first came out, 41 was new and unbroken ground.  Now that some time has passed, I think 42 is still the Axis and Allies setup to play, only with bigger board!  The addition of Italy for a 3 vs 3 game makes it balanced.  Short games still favor Axis and long games still favor Allies.  It’s how it should be.

Can’t wait for G40!!!

@woodstock said in Can the Allies win in 1942?:

“How long can Russia hold out on it’s own against Germany?”

Quite a while. In fact, Russia can hold out for so long they’ll have taken Berlin. Yup, I’m being serious when I say that, a proper USSR player can hold out against Germany, and Italy, push them back all the way to Rome and Berlin and win the war all together. What I’m saying may seem WAY too overstretched and I dont blame u for thinking that. But I sure as hell did it in the 42’ setup. And after doing it, it made me see the obvious.

The Soviets can’t ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. By turns 7-9 the Soviets will have needed to shift the tides, and be on the offensive towards Berlin, whether the allies have landed or not.

As much as I’d like to think that America and the British have some huge major important factor in this, they really don’t. The entirety of the war effort all rests on the brains and brawns of the player playing the Soviet Union, granted that’s not to say the U.K and the U.S can’t help a brother out, I’m just saying this so called Soviets hold out until “Round 4, 5 or 6” is pretty baloney. Because the that’s pretty much the time when America and the U.K should be SETTING UP to land in mainland Europe, and they still won’t do it for another good 3-4 turns.

Something that one of my favorite Axis and Allies youtubers said, GeneralHandGrenade, spoke of the fact that as the allies (America specifically) There is no short cheap way to win the war for the allies, landing on turn 3-4 is WAY too early for either, frankly a properly played game as the allies could genuinly go on till’ round 11 or 12.

And if any player can’t seem to hold out against the Germans and Italians in the 1942 setup then they’re playing the Soviet Union wrong, and you should probably hand off the role to somebody else, because the player playing the USSR kinda needs to know how to play the game, and play it well.

(i know this is old, I dont even think you’re gonna see this but I was born in the early 2000’s so I wasn’t around for the forums)

Balance issues… Dardanelles should always be closed… NOs favor the Axis, hands down.

Something not in the rules, but a very simple House rule our group uses for both balance and just plain fun…

90% of the time, Japan nukes the Flying Tigers in China on turn 1 before the Allies get to make a single move with them. They are basically placed in a “please kill me” position.

Our group always allows the Allied player the choice to place the Flying Tigers anywhere they want within China on the initial setup… it’s a very minor concession both for play balance and strategic fun.