@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?
Balance
-
Since we will be playing this in the upcoming 2010 League along with AA50-41, what are the opinions, based on observations from game play, with regard to balance as far as AA50-42 is concerned?
So far I have only seen ONE Allied win and that was so bad of a fluke it is not even remotely funny. I would have to go back and check my old games, which most of these were a year ago, but I think I have played right at 10 games now. And while I know that is very few games to draw a conclusion from, other than the one game I mentioned these have all been Axis victories that were not even close.
Also all of these games were played with National Objectives on and none of the optional rules.
So what are other peoples observations that have played AA50-42?
-
Plenty of games with 1942 scenario (my default scenario if you ask). It gives advantage to axis but way less than 1941
I play often FTF games in a group of 4 people and the worst player usually plays Germany. First games allies were doing well but lately, as germans are playing better, we feel allies cannot win unless we boost China or playing without NOs
-
Plenty of games with 1942 scenario (my default scenario if you ask). It gives advantage to axis but way less than 1941
I play often FTF games in a group of 4 people and the worst player usually plays Germany. First games allies were doing well but lately, as germans are playing better, we feel allies cannot win unless we boost China or playing without NOs
ugh… not again!
Our experience has been 2 allied wins, 1 axis win (probable, the game is not finished but it doesn’t look good for the allies)
1 allied win was due to USA hitting HB’s and destroying Japan.
-
I have played 4 games of '42 tech+ no+ / no- tech + / no+ tech -/ and no- tech-
The only axis victory was in the tech+ no+ game. If you dont play NOs its very easy to go for a KGF stategy. Japan cant expand as fast as it loses 10-15 ipcs/turn for lack of NO and Italy is doomed to be silly.
-
I didn’t play as many 42 games as 41, but I think that the (un)balance is near the 41 scenario. In 41 $6 is a minimum, imo.
I just played a couple of 42 games, were the allied bid was 8, I lost both, but the opponent was better, and this must be taken into account when judging playing balance, especially for games that are not “cracked” the same way Classic, Revised and AA50-41 has been done.
More data means more knowledge. 42 w/o NOs is practically the same as 41 w/o NOs, but here I have even less experience. All I know is that I doubt very strongly that I’d lose as allied in both scenarios w/o NOs and w/o bids. -
From my experience, '42 is much more balanced than '41.Allies are, I think, at a slight disadvantage. However, one Chinaman and maybe 3 IPCs for anywhere else makes it all work out.
-
There’s no doubt that axis are favored, hard to quantify how much though. I suggest bidding for allies, as were done in previous versions, meaning that the players bids for the side which are at a disadvantage.
-
If a bid is necessary anywhere, I’d say an inf India and an inf China
-
We’ve gotten a few more 1942 games in.
The Axis have rebounded once they figured out the best/better way to take advantage of their good opening position.I will say our last game has been an epic one. Germany went with a naval buy round 1, ending up controlling the atlantic for the first 3+ rounds. UK countered with two IC’s (India, SAF) instead of trying to fight Germany’s advantage in the Atlantic. US bought several DD’s the the atlantic to support a slow build on the Royal navy, sent support to the South Pacific (ftrs, bomber, eventual fleet). Russia hung tough against a Tank push from Germany, Japan and even Italy. We had to stop after 12 hours of play (7 rounds). Wrote that one down (I have it as a battlemap game) and we intend to finish someday…. winner is not yet determined.
One thing we have found is that 1942 axis is not as strong (at least initially) as 1941. In 1941, we play with Dardenelles (black sea) closed, while in 1942, we do not use that optional rule. Mainly because Egypt is not a viable option for Germany to attack in 1942 (at least no one has thought so in our group yet).
-
I have played about a dozen 1-1 games now, starting without a bid…but now I won’t take less than 9 for Allies, so I usually get Axis (with an 8 bid to Allies), and have only lost once (as Axis) due to catching bad dice on a critical air attack.
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will go up as people get tired of losing with Allies, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
If you mean (by KJF) Russia and UK also being offensive against Japan, then so far I haven’t seen this work against an experienced player… Russia really needs every last man to hold out against Germany. UK can hold India and eventually help China…but focusing energy there tends to lead to disaster in Europe and/or Africa.
The USA Pacific offensive can definitely work if you catch Japan off guard, but it’s hard to have a substantial impact on a careful Japan before Russia falls.
KGF has potential to work but it’s a shame to allow Japan to morph into Godzilla when they are relatively weak at the game start.
IMO the strat where Russia and UK go after Germany/Italy while USA goes after Japan has more potential in this than 41, but long term it runs into economic problems much like other Allied strats in AA50.
Whether the USA goes Atlantic or Pacific, the best bet for Allied victory is probably a healthy bid to Russia and a determined effort to hold Karelia by both Russia and UK.
-
I think even with Dard closed, Allies need a bid…maybe 3-6. Without dard closed, Allies are going for 7-9 on TripleA. I predict bids will continue to go up, but for a strong Russia player 8-9 might be sufficient. Strategies are tricky for the Allies…KGF is hard to pull off due to Germany’s early muscle…KJF is risky due to the initial strength of the Western Axis.
We find the key to the allies is USA: finding a good balance between helping to control the German monster you mention and get after Japan before they get all over Russia’s back door thru china or up the northern route.
KJF is really doable, if Russia can hold off long enough.
KGF is much harder, unless the Italians can be prevented from ever getting going by an early Allied push to sink her navy / hold Africa.
If you mean (by KJF) Russia and UK also being offensive against Japan, then so far I haven’t seen this work against an experienced player… Russia really needs every last man to hold out against Germany. UK can hold India and eventually help China…but focusing energy there tends to lead to disaster in Europe and/or Africa.
Yes, I mis-labeled my aproach. Alot easier to type KJF rather than your reply below:
@Zhukov44:The USA Pacific offensive can definitely work if you catch Japan off guard, but it’s hard to have a substantial impact on a careful Japan before Russia falls.
KGF has potential to work but it’s a shame to allow Japan to morph into Godzilla when they are relatively weak at the game start.
agreed. Easier to keep their growth in check in 1942.
IMO the strat where Russia and UK go after Germany/Italy while USA goes after Japan has more potential in this than 41, but long term it runs into economic problems much like other Allied strats in AA50.
If USA helps a bit in the atlantic, it helps alot
Whether the USA goes Atlantic or Pacific, the best bet for Allied victory is probably a healthy bid to Russia and a determined effort to hold Karelia by both Russia and UK.
we haven’t needed any bids yet and it’s been pretty balanced thus far.
Again, USA is the key, they need to be in both the atlantic AND pacific in the right strength level. That’s pretty hard to do, especially since if your units are in one theatre, you really can’t get into the other one very quickly (except for the 3 US bombers).
-
I have played 4 games of '42 tech+ no+ / no- tech + / no+ tech -/ and no- tech-
The only axis victory was in the tech+ no+ game. If you dont play NOs its very easy to go for a KGF stategy. Japan cant expand as fast as it loses 10-15 ipcs/turn for lack of NO and Italy is doomed to be silly.
use victoriy cities
if japan can take india, australia and honolulu quick, axis win
it promots a 2 frontwar for allies. -
The victory cities are not more or less relevant with any game setting. It doesn’t matter if the game is +NOs or -NOs.
If you got 13 VCs, then you will get 15, if you got 15 VCs you will also get 18 VCs…
With 13 VCs you will conquer the whole world!
I have still to accomplish 13 VCs before the opponent conceded, and I have never bothered to let my opponent get 13 VCs before I conceded. No point in wasting time and try to prolong the inevitable.
-
@Subotai:
The victory cities are not more or less relevant with any game setting. It doesn’t matter if the game is +NOs or -NOs.
If you got 13 VCs, then you will get 15, if you got 15 VCs you will also get 18 VCs…
With 13 VCs you will conquer the whole world!
I have still to accomplish 13 VCs before the opponent conceded, and I have never bothered to let my opponent get 13 VCs before I conceded. No point in wasting time and try to prolong the inevitable.
Don’t know about that…I’m currently in a game where I have 13 VCs and the issue is still in grave doubt. I do think this particular case is in the minority.
-
I think this is related to the fact that when playing TripleA, you can see the TUV, I don’t think players bothers with calculating and adding all the units on the board in a f2f game to know who’s got most TUV.
I would guess that if one side has 13 VCs, (in a 15 VC game) the other side will not win 1 out of 10 games, but perhaps 1 out of 40-50 games.
-
I think the balance is in favor of the allies in 1942 version. The only time my play group has seen a axis victory is using optional rules. The one rule we always play with is the way for a victory is to take a capital and keep it for 1 full revolution. We have lost victory cities before and it not matter because they can be taken back. So we don’t play with a victory city option.
-
@The Legend, you are correct when playing w/o NOs, which is an optional rule, but my experience is that most players on this board, both the PBM players and the f2f players use NOs, and in the TripleA community the trend is the same, it’s a big majority of all players who uses NOs.
I think it’s b/c the game is more fun with more money. -
This brings up another question…what sort of bid (to Axis) would be fair if the game was played without NOs?
With NOs, it’s still too early to make definitive conclusions, but my play experience suggests that even with 8-9 it’s an uphill battle for Allies.