Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Axis & Allies: 1942» Forums » General

Subject: A Veterna's Quicky Review. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
Just played this game. Good Points: It's faster and easier to play than earlier versions. It slows the Japanese conquest of Siberia. Strategic Bombing is more attractive at 12 IPC per Bomber and 2 IPC to repair a bomb hit on an Industrial Complex. Taking away the transport's use as cannon fodder and its power to stop an enemy naval move was good. .

yukBut the game still has the faults of its predecessors:

Too much unit crowding in Europe.

North & South America are wasted space. In games with sagacious players, the Central Pacific is always a desert. There's no reason to play the South Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

Turkey and Spain are unrealistically completely out of play. Turkey's and the Black Sea's geography makes no sense.

Artillery doesn't do anything interesting enough to justify a new piece.

Cruisers don't do anything special at all, other than add confusion, as they're too hard to distinguish from destroyers: some of us geezers actually splash paint on the pieces to make then easier to distinguish.

The opening British move in the Pacific Theater, IMHO, is a bit scripted.

Whether or not India falls to Japan in the first few turns has a somewhat disproportionate impact on the outcome.

The naval war still doesn't feel right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeppelin rules!
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I completely agree but the good news is the new 1940 global behemoth fixes all these problems. That game is amazing!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
Yeah, it's quite 'depressing' when you think about it overall in 'general', so, can I have YOURS then? whistle
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
No. I enjoy tinkering with these games too much to let them go,

Europe and Pacific 1940 combined are far too massive to playable in an afternoon. Also, they retain several of the bad features mentioned above.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeppelin rules!
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually Glogal 1940 fixes every single one. Neutral countries can be invaded, British in the pacific aren't "scripted", there was never much for fighting in the south atlantic and indian oceans in WW2 anyway, India is Britain's Pacific capital and extremely pivitol, Europe is split between two axis powers so it won't be so "crowded" and now with convoys and kamikaze attacks and a pacific ocean the size of a Christmas turkey platter naval combat feels right awesome. That's just my opinion. I do see where you're coming from in regards to playtime though. When I first bought the games, my friend and I played a game that lasted over a week. Happy Holidays!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
.
Directed Artillery

- Attacker and defender declare which, if any, of their artillery is Directed Artillery before combat.

- Directed Artillery is not paired with infantry and supplies no attack bonus.

- Directed artillery is rolled separately and hits on a 1 or 2.

- On a roll of 1, the rolling player selects the casualty.

- On a roll of 2, the owning player selects the casualty as usual.

[Note: This is an adaptation of Larry Harris' Dimensional Artillery optional rule that he proposed for A&A D-Day.]

--------------------------

I respectfully disagree about the cruisers. Here's why:

1. They are less expensive than battleships

2. They provide significant attack/defense power at 3

3. They can bombard during amphibious invasions
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
Coldwarrior1984 wrote:
.
Directed Artillery

- Attacker and defender declare which, if any, of their artillery is Directed Artillery before combat.

- Directed Artillery is not paired with infantry and supplies no attack bonus.

- Directed artillery is rolled separately and hits on a 1 or 2.

- On a roll of 1, the rolling player selects the casualty.

- On a roll of 2, the owning player selects the casualty as usual.

[Note: This is an adaptation of Larry Harris' Dimensional Artillery optional rule that he proposed for A&A D-Day.]

--------------------------

I respectfully disagree about the cruisers. Here's why:

1. They are less expensive than battleships

2. They provide significant attack/defense power at 3

3. They can bombard during amphibious invasions


Why would not one declare all one's Artillery to be Directed Artillery (D.A.)? Where's the downside of declaring it as directed Artillery?

Does the D.A. advantage pertain in every round of combat, or only the first?

Can D.A/ pick enemy aircraft? Allowing it to pick aircraft multiplies its destructive power greatly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Destroyers actually beat Battleships in bang-for-IPC investment in naval combat strength. But a Battleship's unique ability to repair itself after a victorious combat makes it as good an investment as Destroyers if you already have naval superiority. So, the Destroyers and Battleships are roughly equal in fighting value. Battleships (2-hit ruggedness plus shore bombardment) and Destroyers (ASW) have unique capabilities which distinguish them. Cruiser's don't.

Cruisers are 12 IPC, making them a poor investment in naval combat strength. If they were 10 IPC they would be par with Battleships and Destroyers as an investment in naval strength.

Proof: Pit 6 Battleships (cost 120 IPC) against 10 Cruisers (cost 120 IPC) and see what on average happens after two rounds of combat.

After Round 1: 6 Cruisers survive to fight 1 Battleship and 5 damaged Battleships.

After Round 2: 2 Cruisers survive to fight 4 damaged Battleships.

After Round 3: 3 damaged Battleships survive, return to full strength. No Cruisers survive.

A Cruiser is a better shore bombardment investment (by +50%) than a Battleship, but is that enough to justify its existence? When it comes to winning an amphibious attack, three Transports loaded with six Infantry (39 IPC) is a better investment than four Cruisers (40 IPC). Shore Bombardment is a marginal consideration compared to the unique capabilities of Battleships and Destroyers in naval combat.

That's why in my variant piece capabilities post I give Cruisers a special Blockade capability and a speed of 3.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Martin
United States
CAMAS
WA
flag msg tools
designer
"...but only slightly less well known is this:
badge
...never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Note that Cruisers also lose (badly) to an equal IPC-valued batch of Destroyers. The punch-per-IPC is the same (0.25), but both destroyers and battleships win on count, and it's enough to make a significant difference.

Messing with movement seems iffy to me. I'd rather let cruisers have an opening-fire AA shot. Or be able to specifically target planes with their die-rolls.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
[q="Aardvark2 wrote--------------------------

Why would not one declare all one's Artillery to be Directed Artillery (D.A.)? Where's the downside of declaring it as directed Artillery?

Does the D.A. advantage pertain in every round of combat, or only the first?

Can D.A/ pick enemy aircraft? Allowing it to pick aircraft multiplies its destructive power greatly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Destroyers actually beat Battleships in bang-for-IPC investment in naval combat strength. But a Battleship's unique ability to repair itself after a victorious combat makes it as good an investment as Destroyers if you already have naval superiority. So, the Destroyers and Battleships are roughly equal in fighting value. Battleships (2-hit ruggedness plus shore bombardment) and Destroyers (ASW) have unique capabilities which distinguish them. Cruiser's don't.

Cruisers are 12 IPC, making them a poor investment in naval combat strength. If they were 10 IPC they would be par with Battleships and Destroyers as an investment in naval strength.

Proof: Pit 6 Battleships (cost 120 IPC) against 10 Cruisers (cost 120 IPC) and see what on average happens after two rounds of combat.

After Round 1: 6 Cruisers survive to fight 1 Battleship and 5 damaged Battleships.

After Round 2: 2 Cruisers survive to fight 4 damaged Battleships.

After Round 3: 3 damaged Battleships survive, return to full strength. No Cruisers survive.

A Cruiser is a better shore bombardment investment (by +50%) than a Battleship, but is that enough to justify its existence? When it comes to winning an amphibious attack, three Transports loaded with six Infantry (39 IPC) is a better investment than four Cruisers (40 IPC). Shore Bombardment is a marginal consideration compared to the unique capabilities of Battleships and Destroyers in naval combat.

That's why in my variant piece capabilities post I give Cruisers a special Blockade capability and a speed of 3.
[/q]
-------------------------------------------------
I say
The down side of Directed Art. is it doesn't help Inf. when attacking. When defending there is no down side. There should be.

I suppose that is in every round of combat.

I agree, it should be limited to land units.
--------------------------------------------
I also agree the CA adds little to the game.

Why not get a Bomber instead?

Or a DD and some troops?
---------------------------------------------
Over at Anniv. Ed. and earlier at Revised I have put forward my ideas for a more accurate historically game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.