Why is 1942 scenario so unpopular???

Just give China more infantry…then 1941 wont be nearly as fun.

I like both 42’ and 41’.  Whenever I play I alternate to help make it so that 2 games are never the same.

Put it this way - I’ve owned AA50 since it first came out and my group have only just started our first game of the 1942 scenario two weeks ago! The '41 is that popular! However, it’s interesting because now nobody knows what to do in the '42 game - all sorts of blunders going on and lessons being learned.  :-)

My play group has always flipped to see which scenario, and randomizes who is what country.  Unless there’s a newb in the group; they get Italy.  :-D

I’ll play 42.

If I want to start before Germany attacks Russia…then I’ll play the global 40 game.

At my Axis and Allies Club, we never play 1941.  We always play AA50 with the 42 setup.  The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

Unit values via battlemap do not support the less units in 1942 contention.
Here’s the unit value counts by country (land) comparison (1941 number first):
Japan: 172 166
Russia: 142 146
Germany: 171 166
UK: 142 161
Italy: 45 53
USA: 107 127
China: 22 37

So except for Germany, every countries total unit value of ground units (includes planes) is higher in 1942.

Just for sake of completeness, here’s the naval value comparision
Japan: 117 101
Russia: 6 6
Germany: 44 60
UK: 100 114
Italy: 51 51
USA: 87 127
China: 0 0

@axis_roll:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

Unit values via battlemap do not support the less units in 1942 contention.
Here’s the unit value counts by country (land) comparison (1941 number first):
Japan: 172 166
Russia: 142 146
Germany: 171 166
UK: 142 161
Italy: 45 53
USA: 107 127
China: 22 37

So except for Germany, every countries total unit value of ground units (includes planes) is higher in 1942.

Japan is less, too.

Here’s the thing: on average, the allies have more, the axis have less.  Germany also has most of it’s forces stretched thin and is easily taken out on R1.  This coupled with the general IPC advantage of the allies, yet with the US being far away, I’d say it’s even.

In 1941, Japan takes India and Australia on J2.  India Factory on J3, Tank waves on Caucuses J4+.

If want a more balanced view of each, '41 is KGF, '42 is KJF.

@axis_roll:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

Unit values via battlemap do not support the less units in 1942 contention.
Here’s the unit value counts by country (land) comparison (1941 number first):
Japan: 172 166
Russia: 142 146
Germany: 171 166
UK: 142 161
Italy: 45 53
USA: 107 127
China: 22 37

So except for Germany, every countries total unit value of ground units (includes planes) is higher in 1942.

Just for sake of completeness, here’s the naval value comparision
Japan: 117 101
Russia: 6 6
Germany: 44 60
UK: 100 114
Italy: 51 51
USA: 87 127
China: 0 0

This is really cool, but…if I may make a suggestion?  Could you post the comparison of most likely units on the board at the end of Round 1?  Reason I ask is, we all know for a fact that the American navy is more than decimated after Japan 1, and there are quite a few units lost in Russia, but Russia’s attack punch is significantly higher on R2 than in R1 during the 1941 version. (Because Russia’s more focused on armor/artillery on Round 1 buys.)

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

Unit values via battlemap do not support the less units in 1942 contention.
Here’s the unit value counts by country (land) comparison (1941 number first):
Japan: 172 166
Russia: 142 146
Germany: 171 166
UK: 142 161
Italy: 45 53
USA: 107 127
China: 22 37

So except for Germany, every countries total unit value of ground units (includes planes) is higher in 1942.

Just for sake of completeness, here’s the naval value comparision
Japan: 117 101
Russia: 6 6
Germany: 44 60
UK: 100 114
Italy: 51 51
USA: 87 127
China: 0 0

This is really cool, but…if I may make a suggestion?  Could you post the comparison of most likely units on the board at the end of Round 1?  Reason I ask is, we all know for a fact that the American navy is more than decimated after Japan 1, and there are quite a few units lost in Russia, but Russia’s attack punch is significantly higher on R2 than in R1 during the 1941 version. (Because Russia’s more focused on armor/artillery on Round 1 buys.)

Yeah, this is like in P40 where both sides start with the same number of BB’s, but Japan easily kills one of them.

@axis_roll:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

The reason is that the game is actually even for both sides, and there are fewer units, which means shorter games.

Unit values via battlemap do not support the less units in 1942 contention.
Here’s the unit value counts by country (land) comparison (1941 number first):
Japan: 172 166
Russia: 142 146
Germany: 171 166
UK: 142 161
Italy: 45 53
USA: 107 127
China: 22 37

So except for Germany, every countries total unit value of ground units (includes planes) is higher in 1942.

Just for sake of completeness, here’s the naval value comparision
Japan: 117 101
Russia: 6 6
Germany: 44 60
UK: 100 114
Italy: 51 51
USA: 87 127
China: 0 0

yeah, but some units might never be used like Rambo over in Western Canada.

I use rambo all the time! lol.

Seriously, it’s one less infantry I need to build as Canada and that’s quite a bit of savings when you consider how badly England ends up needing cash. (They have to build a fleet and an army.  Not to mention, they are limited to 8 units per round over there in London, barring technology of course.)

@Cmdr:

I use rambo all the time! lol.

Seriously, it’s one less infantry I need to build as Canada and that’s quite a bit of savings when you consider how badly England ends up needing cash. (They have to build a fleet and an army.  Not to mention, they are limited to 8 units per round over there in London, barring technology of course.)

What I do is if Egypt fell, build an industry in South Africa, then in Inida, and sometimes just stay on my island and sing a song.

I have a new KJF '42 that will hopefully turn Japan into a mosh pit.  I’m going to try it out next week.

A note on balanced 1942: Giving China 2 more infantry to protect the Flying Tiger (a Larry Harris House Rule) allows China to actually last past turn 2.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I have a new KJF '42 that will hopefully turn Japan into a mosh pit.  I’m going to try it out next week.

A note on balanced 1942: Giving China 2 more infantry to protect the Flying Tiger (a Larry Harris House Rule) allows China to actually last past turn 2.

Yeah that pisses me off, China had the largest population, but gets like 8 Infantry scattered out.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I have a new KJF '42 that will hopefully turn Japan into a mosh pit.  I’m going to try it out next week.

A note on balanced 1942: Giving China 2 more infantry to protect the Flying Tiger (a Larry Harris House Rule) allows China to actually last past turn 2.

Dont need to give them more inf, just NCM two of them to Yunnan or redeploy the fighter to the rear.

@Cmdr:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

I have a new KJF '42 that will hopefully turn Japan into a mosh pit.  I’m going to try it out next week.

A note on balanced 1942: Giving China 2 more infantry to protect the Flying Tiger (a Larry Harris House Rule) allows China to actually last past turn 2.

Dont need to give them more inf, just NCM two of them to Yunnan or redeploy the fighter to the rear.

I agree, although 2 more inf is OK if it’s considered a bid of 6….

I don’t even attack Yunnan on J1 anyway.  I only do it occasionally.  I’m not convinced it’s really Japan’s best move, like I thought in my first 10-15 games.  I’ve had it backfire before, too.  It’s not a sure thing that 3 infantry and 2 fighters can take it.  I think it’s a better idea to take 3-4 fighters at Z35 (I’ve had disastrous results even with 3 fighters, carrier and BB, so usually take in 4 fighters).  Bry is also a very key target not only to reduce Russian units and income, but to force Russia to take it back if the USA is going to have a landing place 1 space from Z62.  Obviously it’s nice to take out the irreplaceable fighter that is the only offense that doesn’t roll on a 1 for China.  But it can’t leave China.  It is more important in my opinion to focus on the other 3 Allies, who can re-deploy their units on their first turn.  It is also important to keep from losing more than 1-2 non-infantry, non-sub units.

Oh, another huge reason to not attack Yunnan.  You can take India J2 with near 100% success only if you don’t attack Yunnan.  In fact, you’ll walk into India, because the UK player is not going to want you to have 90% or higher odds on his 4 infantry, AA gun, and 2 fighters.

Those flying tigers sitting there with 2 infantry in Yunnan on J1 are awfully tempting.  But I’m pretty sure now it’s a good idea to leave them alone.

I agree, somewhat.  My only reservation is that the Flying Tiger can be a real pain in the patooey if Russia reinforces China.  Otherwise, without it, Russia has to invest more in China’s defense (since I presume you want the fighters on the front lines, this means more tanks and infantry to make up for it.)

Just my opinion

I’m not for Russian reinforcement, but that just may be my circumstance.  The games I play only last about 4-5 turns, and Russian infantry in China is a long term investment.  Too few infantry over too long a period.

While taking out the Flying Tiger on J1 may or may not be “optimal”, I still think 2 more infantry in Yunnan is a good fix.

But yeah, China had, what, 300 divisions?  How many is that in infantry pieces?  That comes too…33 infantry conservatively.

I’ve had Russia liberate India or reinforce chihang.  But then, I do a lot of America vs Japan games (both sending and receiving) so it usually works out to send 3 armor, 5 infnatry that way, just as a stop gap.