Wow, the answer to a rules question is not often that Obvious  :-) ! Completely missed that part. Thanks for pointing it out!

Hi,

A mech infantry may blitz along with a tank (paired 1 on 1) IF both start in the same territory. However, do they also have to end their movement in the same territory, or may the mech infantry, after moving into the unprotected enemy territory together with the tank, move into a different second territory (friendly or enemy)?

Thanks, Zeus

Thanks amanntai,

I like your idea of giving the originally proposed unit def 1, as indeed rockets were primarily offensive; they were very inaccurate, making it harder to hit units on the move (as attacking units would normally be) as compared to targeting fixed positions (as defending units would usually be in).

I think I will implement it this way and see how it plays.

Thanks, Zeus

Hi,

First off, I’m sorry if there’s already a topic about this (if so, please point me to it). I don’t know if it is like this for everyone, but the “google custom search” functionality places its results overlaid on the topic overview, making one unreadable mess of letters :-( .

Anyway, with their multiple launchers and large payloads, rocket artillery, though less accurate, in general was able to saturate a target area much quicker than a comparable “regular” artillery battery, but then needed much more time to reload.

I was thinking of representing a rocket artillery unit with the same stats and rules as a regular artillery, but rolling 2 dice instead of 1 for each rocket artillery unit to represent the large number of launchers. However, rocket artillery would only be able to fire on uneven combat rounds (ie the first, third, fifth etc round of each combat), to represent the slow reload.

Even though over the course of a long battle the difference with regular artillery shouldn’t be that big, in short battles I guess it would have a bigger impact that the unit could basically make its round two attack even if it’s chosen as a casualty in the first round.

So my questions:

– Would this be feasible, or is it too OP?
– How many points do you think this unit should cost?
– Do you have specific rules for rocket artillery, and what are they?

Thanks, Zeus

Hi,

I could download them yesterday evening without any problems using Microsoft Edge on Windows 10. I guess it was either the time of day or a firewall issue or something vague like that  :-).

Thanks for your efforts! The maps look awesome, and I will definitely look into having one printed.

ZeusEQ

Hi Dedo,

Thanks for your quick reply. You mentioned using this button before in this topic, so I already did it that way. I just retried, but the result is the same unfortunately. I tried this both at home and at work. Maybe it’s a browser issue? Or maybe you are logged in to the site (as I assume you have an account there), and so get a different experience.

Both at home and at work I’m using Internet explorer. I’ll try again tonight from a different PC that uses a different browser (though still Microsoft).

Thanks, ZeusEQ

Hi,

Reading through the rulebook, it seems sub movement is a bit vague. In the section on combat movement it says it is allowed to move through an enemy-occupied sea zone as long as there is no enemy destroyer present. But wouldn’t ending up in an empty or friendly sea zone mean that this move should be done in the non-combat movement phase? The move doesn’t result in combat, even though it goes through an enemy-occupied sea zone.

And contrary to this, in the section on non-combat movement, it repeats that a sub can move through or even end its move in an enemy-occupied sea zone, but if a destroyer is present, it has to stop there. However, wouldn’t this be combat movement?

Thanks, ZeusEQ

Hi,

Thanks for all the hard work. I would love to check these out, but it seems MediaFire is just not allowing me to download them, giving messages like “the file could not be downloaded” or “the download was interrupted” (and half the times when I click the Download button, it opens a popup, but doesn’t ask me to save it somewhere at all). Are the links still valid, and/or are there any backup links?

Thanks, ZeusEQ

Hi,

Old player here, having played A&A Classic a lot, but last over 15 years ago, and now waiting impatiently to introduce the 1942 2nd ed in my current gaming group!

So I set up the board to get an understanding of the opening situation, and then came here to see what the experts think of opening moves. Very interesting read, even though I only went through the first half of page 1 so far :-).

However, I didn’t quite understand the quoted part below, and was hoping someone could clarify for me.

@Black_Elk:

Finally there is the aspect that involves movement or range, which for infantry is just 1 space from where they are placed. Now when you look at the map and the production spread for Russia, you’ll see that with an 8 infantry buy, some of these units won’t be able to get into the fight immediately, because the factory in Caucasus can only produce 4 units at a time, and the factory in Karelia is indefensible in the first round, and inf units placed in Moscow will be two moves from the front during the second round. So having surveyed the situation on the ground, for the purposes of attack, buying 8 infantry doesn’t really get you the full 8 attack points the very next round. Instead you end up with just 4 attacks points “at the ready”, from the infantry out of Caucasus, and the other 4 infantry units placed in Moscow will take at least one more round to move out “into position.” To defend against German counter attacks in the second round you still get 16 on defense, but from the perspective of an early Russian offensive, the 8 infantry buy nets you just 4 attack points and 4 attack fodder hitpoints “at the ready” in the second round.

Looking at the board, the Russia territory (with the Moscow factory) is adjacent to German-held West Russia. Why then would units placed at this factory be two moves from the front? Is this assuming Russia will attack and take West-Russia in the first turn? Or is this tutorial intended for a different board? Or am I overlooking something else?

Thanks, ZeusEQ

Hi,

I’m looking for some insights into the reasoning behind some unit stats. Note that so far I only played the classic version, and the last time was some time ago, but I received 1942.2 today and am planning on introducing it asap into my board gaming group  :-).

I understand that in a land battle, some units are clearly better suited to being on the defensive, as they can dig or otherwise make use of cover (infantry for example); hence the 1/2 stats for infantry make perfect sense to me. Other units excel on the attack, and loose their advantage if forced to take up a static position (tanks) - hence, the change from 3/2 to 3/3 actually does NOT make much sense to me; 3/2 seemed to me to capture the offensive nature of tanks perfectly. Was this change requested by players, or something the designers ever explained?

Anyway, for land units defense and offense makes a difference. But for naval and air battles, why would a fighter on the defensive be better than the same fighter on the attack? if anything, the attacking aircraft might have the benefit of surprise, but once the battle is joined (whether dogfighting with enemy aircraft, or strafing enemy land units), it doesn’t matter at all whether you’re part of the attackers or defenders, right? For bombers, I understand they wanted to represent their offensive nature with the 4/1 stat, but even there, the attack should be the same irrespective of what side of the battle you’re on.

For naval battles, the same thing goes, however most naval units already have their attack and defense the same, with the only exception being the carrier (and there I would think they should just be 1/1/ in a naval battle).

So what am i missing here?  :-)

Besides the stats themselves, I would also think some units would be focused on certain other units. Fighters for example are obviously much more effective against other aircraft than they are against land units, and would be expected to keep enemy bombers off their land-bound friends’ heads, and keep enemy fighters away from their own bombers. Bombers on the other hand would be very effective against land units, but almost defenseless against fighters.

I haven’t tried yet, but would it make the game too complex or slow it down too much if some sort of “priority targets” would be assigned to some units, and their hits should be assigned to those types of units first? I guess that once there are no more of those priority targets available, their effectiveness would go down, and so should their attack/defense power.

Apologies for the long post, I tend to get carried away with stuff like this  :lol: .

Thanks,

Zeus