Page 7 of 7

Re: Balance Issues 1942 2nd Ed. Re-Visited

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:12 pm
by VanGal
After winning the GenCon Tournament I have the following observations:

1) Axis must win by turn 5. After that the Allies become too strong.

2) The German bomber needs to stay in Germany. In Ukraine it is only bait for the Russians.

3) The game is very even. Very little should be given to either side for a bid.

We won the first game as the Axis (barely).
We played the Allies the following 3 rounds with bids of 7, 6, and 3. All units going into the Caucasus.

In the final game the British attack on the East Indies SZ failed miserably (losing 2 ftrs, ss, 2 CA, AC including 2 fully loaded transports) but we overcame that by the end of the game with the Allies gaining ground against Germany and Japan.

Overall the game is fairly even with the new setup and all of the games were very enjoyable. The opponents we played against were fun to play with and I look forward to playing against them again in the future.

Carl aka VanGal

Re: Balance Issues 1942 2nd Ed. Re-Visited

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:18 am
by ChristophfromGermany
I didn't have the opportunity to try the new setup proposed by Larry Harris yet. But reading all the comments and looking at the map my first thought was: Why had the German bomber to move all the way from Germany to Ukraine? The goal was to get it out of range to harm the Royal Navy. Then placing it in Poland would do the job perfectly. Placing it in Ukraine triggers the USSR to attack both Western Russia and Ukraine. I still doubt whether this is the right thing to do, but I will give it a try as soon as possible.
What do you think about placing the German bomber in Poland rather than Ukraine?

Re: Balance Issues 1942 2nd Ed. Re-Visited

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:04 am
by ChristophfromGermany
I had a game last weekend and my friend played the Axis. We used the new setup and the tournament rules, but no bid as we both don't like it and alternate with the Axis each game . Last time I had the Axis and won - but it was a close shave.

This time Moscow fell after three rounds :oops: He took every unit he could get and turned against Russia on full scale with both Germany and Japan. And he bought just tanks with Germany on the first two turns. Even though I played carefully with Russia (I just attacked Western Russia on turn 1) and very aggressive with the US and UK, gaining both France, Italy and Southern Europe as well as Solomons and Borneo by the end of round 2, he took Ukraine and Karelia on turn 2 (even though I sent 2 British fighters as support) and Moscow on turn 3. To my defense I must say that he scored 80 per cent of his dice rolls with tanks and fighters while my dice rolls were horrible. You can afford to loose one major battle as Russia, but not three in a row. My mistake was, however, to underestimate the ferocity of the attack. The best counter to this strategy would be to produce three British tanks in India and to send as much infantry to Persia as possible. Then you can reconquer it or seriously weaken Germany on turn 2 - this would probably have saved Russia. But I thought my infantry stacks, supported by two British fighters in Karelia and two Soviet fighters in Caucasus would be sufficient. With normal dice rolling it probably would have been enough. But not that evening :shock:

I do agree with VanGal: Axis must win by turn 5 and this can only happen if Russia falls. Otherwise Germany will be killed by the fighting on two to three fronts which it must lose inevitably - just as the real war.