I just tried to addressed to the one of the main complaint about Japan’s power in Anniversary and claimed that having Japan with that power is not a must for maintaining balance but happy to see different income distirbutions with No’s or not.
Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2
-
India won’t fall as easily as you think. With US going 100% pacific UK is going to build 2 fighters/3 inf a turn. All of which is going to go to India. 2 fighters place on UK then go to West Russia then to India. If Japan does some crazy buy like 3 transports R1 then the axis should auto loose because Japan won’t have any ability to protect them. India shouldn’t fall with US getting to purchase/non combat move before the game starts, unless Japan wants to throw the game… Normally when US goes 100% Japan first I’d agree with you that India is going to fall eventually because UK needs to pull back to save moscow, but US will be so much stronger having their pearl/east coast fleets survive that they can pressure Japan earlier and faster.
-
With 1940 the situation is more complicated. I think there are a number of ways one could tweak the Global start, some of which involve turn order, or new objective bonuses, or alterations to the production spread. It’s just a much more rules intensive game, so I think there’s a reasonable expectation that the rules used to balance it are probably more involved. But in 1942.2 it’s pretty straightforward.
Here we aren’t really introducing a new rule that needs to be explained/tracked beyond the opening turn. In that way it is more like a set up change, but it uses existing game mechanics for the purposes of moving or introducing more units onto the board. Provides a degree of variability, but within certain limits, which can be scaled up if desired while still keeping the same basic rules. It’s pretty quick to execute and easy to explain even with newer players. All the phases are otherwise by the book, so we don’t have to create a new sort of phase pull it off. That said though, if you do like the bid phase in A&A, I also think the full zero turn with Axis bid has potential. Because new bids can be very entertaining to explore, and this basically gives you a way to turn the OOB game on its head, with the opposite balance by sides. So you have that on option as well.
I agree that the early war can drag. Part of the reason why I like this opener is that it accelerates the US entry, from a 3 round build up before they can do anything of interest, to one which is much more immediate. Global has its own issues with delays already, like on the DoW, but those aren’t present here. I don’t think this tweak takes much time and if anything it probably speeds up the game by giving it a more intense start.
The theme of the US entering the global conflict only recently can still be approximated here if desired, on that first turn, if you choose to restrict it. But after that everything plays as normal.
-
Ya I love the idea of US doing Non combat/Purchase before anyone and then axis bid. In every board since revised US has felt weak to me. That is mainly due to the new transport rule that was introduced forcing US to buy way more fleet to protect its transport shuck, and this change helps with that a ton actually making US feel like a threat again! What do you guys think would be a fair bid for the axis with this set up?
-
Gosh, it’s hard to know where to start! Here’s a first stab at a wish list for Axis bids:
(1) Germany artillery in Libya
(2) Third German sub in North Atlantic
(3) Second German transport in Baltic or Med
(4) +1 German infantry in West Russia and Ukraine
(5) German artillery in Finland
(6) Japanese transport in East Indies or China Sea
(7) Japanese tank for French Indochina Vietnam
(8) Japanese DD for Solomon Islands (stop USA from stacking up there?)
(9) +1 Japanese sub for J1 attack on an Allied Pacific fleet
(10) Japanese artillery for Manchuria -
Do you know if a Manchuria IC bid can be considered?
Or it should remain a set-up change?
A German Sub in Med can help on Egypt amphib or as fodder against UK Cruiser and against an early Operation Torch in North Africa.Since USA R0 saves a lot of Navy, I would rule that Axis bid need to be naval units.
-
There is a thread over in G40 that essentially proposes a very similar thing, which is to have an entire turn of noncomming modify the OOB setup.
In addition to using up an enormous amount of time (in that case, an entire game turn for every power with a chance to move everything) to accomplish very little that could not be accomplished by bidding or changing the setup completely and starting fresh.
First, why are we setting up any pieces any specific place if the next thing we are going to do is move them out of harms way?
Isn’t the entire point of a fixed setup is that we know what we can do, not what we can do after we move everything again? Ikusa and Risk don’t have pre-determined setups, they are totally random setups with equal pieces, Fortress America doesn’t obligate you to put any piece in any certain square…and so they are very similar wargames that avoid this problem entirely…
Doesn’t this process simply lead to an analysis of how much more optimally the game can be broken (and in whos favor) by figuring out the optimal way to move everything before the game begins?
Most important; how is it fun to play a pantomime round of war before the real war? G40 is already a kind of 4 hour rehearsal to get to the part of the game where everyone is obligated to be at war…are we moving that to 6 hours?
I’m still trying to bear this post in mind, though I really think it is directed more at that proposed global HR in the other section, rather than the idea presented here.
I agree that a large part of the appeal of A&A is the fixed nature of the opening, but I think I could make the case that the zero turn is actually more fixed than a typically large Allied bid under the OOB turn sequence. Lets say for argument that we are talking about a zero turn that includes the purchase phase as well as non-com. In that situation there are only 4 tiles on the board where new units could enter play, W. US, sz 56, E. US, sz 11. Compare this with an open bid, where there are at least a dozen viable locations (and many more that would be technically “legal” for housing new bid units).
In the zero turn, only one of the three Allies (the US) will see a change to the distribution of their starting forces, whereas with an open bid it could be any/all of the Allies. The US is also the nation with the least capability to actually destroy Axis TUV in the opening round (this start is much more oriented towards preserving American TUV, rather than destroying Axis TUV), but compare that to a bid, where the new units are almost always dedicated to destroying Axis TUV in the opener.
In defense of the traditional bid process, I will say that it certainly has three things going for it… First bidding is common, and players will tend to gravitate towards whatever is popular among other players (people all like to be on the same page going into a game like this.) Second its relatively quick to implement. Third it provides the desired degree of balance by sides (when choosing who will play who), but with an element of variability that presents the opening from getting too stale.
One thing that the traditional bid process doesn’t necessarily accomplish though, which I think people also want, is to create a balanced gameplay situation that looks a bit more like the historical conflict. I don’t mean a full on straight-jacket (there are definite limits to what you can do with A&A, before it loses its charm), but just something that resembles WW2 in 1942 a little more closely, at least for the first couple rounds. With a large enough open bid OOB, you can certainly get to the point where the Allies can pull out a game winning start, but whether that game ends up looking or feeling anything like 1942 while you’re doing it is another issue.
Will an A0 start be enough to truly alter the “drive to Moscow” dynamic that’s been the hallmark/bane of the game since Classic? Probably not. I think that would require a much more substantive change, including the rules for victory or looting capitals, and the distribution of starting forces in Russia. But I think it gets you a lot closer to making a Pacific campaign viable, or even a dual front campaign, which is still no small thing for an A&A game. I don’t think you can really get as far with an open bid. You might be able to with a set bid (i.e. fixed set up change), but those are more laborious to craft and tend to be less popular, since they involve a degree of strong-arming and apologetics, as you try to defend specific changes vs the open bid alternative, or vs every other possible custom change that one might make.
It’s not so much the bid process that I take issue with, but rather, that I don’t think an open bid alone can create the sort of historical play-patterns for the opening round that many players seem to desire for 1942.2. If however, you invert the map with the A0 start, and instead bid for Axis, maybe we end up with something a bit more satisfying in that regard?
I’d have a hard time at this point suggesting a particular bid amount for Axis under those conditions, because the Axis positional advantage is still quite strong, so its tough to say how much they really need to stay competitive. Going back to Classic (and in nearly every game since), people have often used bids to mess with the balance around the Med, Egypt and the Suez canal, to stack the Eastern Front, or alternatively for Japanese transports. I’m guessing you might see similar things here when introducing an Axis bid, if only because its familiar haha. But who knows, maybe it balances all by itself, without the need for a bid? If not, I can imagine some interesting options in the 6-10 range for Axis.
-
All good points, Black Elk.
I would add, as an other benefit, it allows US player to have a lot to think at the beginning of the game, since R0 and R1 may keep moving a lot of US units on board. You don’t get this with Centre bid.
This US restricted script in OOB 1942.2 is a weakness when playing 5 players.
If US is unlucky when his R1 begins, he has nothing left in China (at most 2 Inf and 1 Fg) and no unit in Hawaiian SZ (nothing to attack if IJN cruiser sunk, if IJN makes a light assault with no carrier) and nothing left on East Coast SZ (2 TPs and 1 DD sunk) making AntiSub mission on u-boats impossible US1. So, US can only move 3 Fgs and 1 bomber. And have to reinforced US West Coast BB, DD, TP with Panama Cruiser and purchase before moving in PTO.All other players have fun the first 90 minutes of play, while US player sit and wait before doing something substantial later, turn 2 (is to early but many impatient US want to move something on board) better turn 3.
Turn Zero, even with no combat, helps US player think about real strategy and how he can balance purchase on 2 fronts war.
Actually, OOB scenario above leads to an unhistorical, boring but optimized all units stack on East Coast for a KGF.
OOB, US player may think to go KJF only if Japan naval combat went sour (or full Carrier on Hawaii) or never attack Pearl Harbour. -
I agree with all of the above. Re: avoiding the drive to Moscow, it might be interesting to combine the A0 start (with or without an Axis bid) with the weighted victory cities someone recently proposed in the house rules section. They have capitals that are worth 3 VCs, secondary factories like Rome and Calcutta worth 2 VCS each, and symbolic population centers like Cairo, Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, etc. worth 1 VC each. The neat thing about this setup is that it can further encourage a historic “dual theater” focus because the Allies can lose if Japan takes, e.g., Honolulu, Sydney, Cairo, and Calcutta without any corresponding Allied gains, so you can afford to give up some ground while retreating before a superior assault, but if you just evacuate the Pacific and send everything through the canal, you might lose before your boats arrive off the coast of Paris!
I think this nicely captures the only “real” threat posed by the historical Axis once the USA joined the war: the risk that the Axis would rack up so many wins in one or another region of the world that smaller Allies (e.g. Australia, Brazil, etc.) would be intimidated into neutrality, and popular support for the war would crumble in the US/UK to the point where they were politically forced to agree to a separate peace.
-
@Baron:
Just a transcript of the file below (for those which don’t want to load the file). And make comments easier.
How to retrieve victory in A&A Spring 1942 2.nd Ed. - House Rules (rev1.0)
(Rules for additional victory cities to increase the strategic depth of A&A 42)At the end of US turn, the victory conditions are checked. If one of the powers has at least 25 victory points, it is considered as the winner of the game. Victory points are provided by holding countries that contain a certain important victory city. Each of these cities provide 1, 2 or 3 victory points and the sum must be 25 or more to win the game.
As far as possible, the victory cities represent a certain kind of importance for the global political situation. Controlling them symbolizes an important part of winning the whole war. However, due to tactical and strategic issues, some of the victory cities (and their specific position on the map) were chosen simply due to the fact that it improves the experience of game play. They open up new interesting strategies and give action to some of the fewer busy areas of the map.3 Victory Points
Russia Moscow
Germany Berlin
United Kingdom London
Japan Tokyo
Eastern United States Washington2 Victory Points
Karelia S.S.R. Leningrad
France Paris
Italy Rome
India Calcutta
Kiangsu Shanghai
Philippine Islands Manila
Western United States San Francisco1 Victory Point
Caucasus Stalingrad
Norway Oslo
Ukraine Kiev
Eastern Canada Ottawa
Egypt Cairo
Union of South Africa Cape Town
Eastern Australia Sydney
Manchuria Beijing
East Indies Jakarta
Brazil Rio de Janeiro
Hawaiian Islands HonoluluStarting Victory Points:
Axis Power: 18 VP
Germany: 9 VP
Japan: 9 VPAllies Power: 22 VP
Russia: 6 VP
United Kingdom: 9 VP
United States: 7 VPThe Allies Power has a beginning advantage of 4 VP and only need 3 more VP to win. This opens up some new strategic possibilities to overwhelm unwary Axis players and end the game rather quickly. However, the capital cities like Berlin or Tokyo should be rather impossible to conquer (getting one of them would be sufficient) but some others are quite exposed and easy to get, like Kiev or Jakarta.
The Axis Power needs additional 7 VP (4 more than the Allies), which might look really imbalanced, but some of the Allies’ Victory Cities are really simple to get (eg. Cairo, Honolulu). In this version the Allies players do not only have to defend Moscow and London, but also the rest of the world, which is totally different to normal games. Instead of the ordinary great battle in Europe, now the Axis also can strike at new areas. For example getting India, Karelia, Egypt, Australia and Hawaii is enough to win.
The national setup charts were changed significantly. With these changes, the setup is less historically but more motivated by providing a larger variety of strategic possibilities, bringing the war to regions where normally nothing happens and last but not least by improving balance.
Changes to the Rules
Minor Industrial Complex
Cost: 10 IPC
Placement: Any territory with at least 1 IPC and that was under your control at the beginning of your turn.
Unit Production: Up to 2 units with maximum of 10 IPC worth each
Upgrade: Can be upgraded to Major Industrial Complex for 15 IPCMajor Industrial Complex
Cost: +15 IPC (only upgradeable from Minor Complex)
Placement: Any territory with at least 3 IPC production, already containing a Minor Complex, and was under your control at the beginning of your turn.
Unit Production: Up to 5 units with no IPC worth limitCruiser
Price reduction to 10 IPCBattleship
Price reduction to 18 IPCAircraft Carrier
Price increase to 15 IPC -
Mr. Argo,
Wasn’t trying to troll a good suggestion, I guess I’m just getting frustrated at how biased this version is, and tending now (at 20+) games to wonder how it is being played online. We’re up to a 18-20 bid and still on G4, we got a stack of 17 tanks and 9 infantry blowing away my 21 infantry 2 armor 3 arty 6 planes.
Revising the entire game process, VCs or turn order is a patch, one I won’t be able to use either in house games, club games or tournaments. While I like playing the allies, its becoming abusive because it feels like I’m trying to do the impossible by patching up so many first turn vulnerabilities. I’d like to switch it up to torture my friends and make them try to do the impossible as well, but at that point we would have to settle on a bid that is so high (24+) that it essentially does let you change the starting setup.
The fact that we are trying to change both the beginning (dispositions), middle (drive to Moscow) and resolution of the game (VC) in one post seems to be an indication of how much repair would be needed to make the experience equal on both sides.
Anyone want to play allies for +38 IPCS?!?! ANYONE?? :)
-
I sympathize. If you guys were hoping for a match more like Revised or AA50, 1942.2 will probably be a disappointment. Even with a large bid, you are not looking at a breakout situation for Allies. Even a large bid isn’t going to put you reliably on the offensive, it’s more there to keep you from dying too quickly.
Unfortunately its a lot harder to provide detailed feedback for face to face games. With a gamesave I can usually point to a specific turn when things came unhinged for Allies, but here we’d need more info. Germany really shouldn’t be in a position to take Moscow in 4 rounds. My guess is this is W. Russia we’re talking about? Or else something must be going a bit off with the deadzones on the Eastern front. The Russian stack seems a little thin for the 4th round, but they still have the advantage.
With the forces you described…
Germany 9 inf, 17 tanks, 5 fighters and 1 bomber (?) vs
Russia 21 inf, 2 tanks, 3 artillery, 6 fighters, 2 aaaguns25% odds for the German attacker with a single tank and the aircraft surviving. About 35% if they brought 6 fighters instead of 5.
Add 2 more fighters to that Allied defense, and Germany’s odds drop to just 5% (with 5 fighters) or 10% (with 6 fighters). The Russian defender survives with 12/10 units (ie. all soviet fighters and tanks) on average.
Even a single defensive Allied bomber can put this one out of reach for Germany.
So I’d say the main issue here is probably an overly confident Axis player. When your opponent isn’t crunching the numbers you need more fighter cover to deter them. One assumes that what’s going on is perhaps an overcommitment of aircraft to India, or perhaps on carriers? Another possibility is that Russia did not purchase sufficient artillery early on. Even a couple more artillery pieces in the second round, can be the difference between deadzoning the Germans (and buying yourself one more round for the Brits to fly in fighter support) or allowing the Germans to advance with Japanese air support, making them next to impossible to dislodge.
Whatever the case, your general frustration with the Allied balance, would seem to align with the experience of other players. If the bid is the only option for your playgroup, then going high is probably the best you can get. I’d try it at 24+ if that’s the case.
-
Ps. Just a brief minute to grumble…
:-)I still wish they had reissued AA50 instead of creating these 1942 “revisions” of the Revised map, using a vaguely AA50 ruleset but without the same charm and dynamism of AA50. When the AA50 game came out I was able to buy it for less than 80 dollars. Now it’s going for like a grand on ebay.
The chances of newer players getting their hands on a copy now are pretty slim, but it really was the best A&A map to come out since classic. I think it is superior to global, or any of the boards currently in print, refined to a level that you could really appreciate. Even for all my bagging on NOs and China rules on the Larry forums, when it first came out, it was a great map.
Unfortunately someone made the calculation that a re-issue would be unfair or upsetting to “collectors.” I never understood this. I’m a collector, and I would have been perfectly happy to see it reissued. They could easily have altered the packaging, or the sculpts, or the colors of various game materials to distinguish the “collectors” edition, from the re-issue. But this didn’t happen. Instead we got a reissue of Revised with new rules, and then a tweak to that put out as a second edition, and they just don’t have anywhere near the same degree of polish. I think AA50 was highly adaptive and capable of standing the test of time. All my favorite core House Rules, were rules developed for use on that map. It had some kinks sure, but those were easy enough to address. Using a China first turn order for example in the 1941 scenario of AA50, remains one of my favorite A&A games ever. The 1942 scenario there was also solid, albeit less popular. Both were easy to tweak with HRs.
But the print run was too limited for AA50 to serve as the backbone of A&A going forward, (even global has a price point that makes it pretty inaccessible for casual players) so we are left with 1942.2. Its not a bad game, don’t get me wrong, but it cries out for an official addendum or some new tournament conventions, to shore up the issues present in the boxed game. I think this is possible, but requires some willingness on the part of the players to go beyond the printed manual and errata.
I think a simple fix is more likely to be accepted than one which is overly involved, which is why I hesitate to suggest too much at once. I don’t think you need more VCs to make the A0 concept work. Would it be better with more VCs? Sure! But I know how players are, and I think it will be a tough sell.
-
I mostly agree with you, Black Elk. The AA50 is perhaps a little too complicated to serve as the “mainstream” edition of A&A – between the national advantages and the China rules and the larger number of territories, there’s just a little too much going on for a “medium-weight game.” It’s a heavyweight game. It’s a great heavyweight game, and it’s well worth the time and effort, but ideally you’d want something a little shorter/smaller/simpler for the flagship product.
That said, the bungling series of blunders that WotC/Avalon Hill actually engaged in – releasing AA50 as collectors-only, and then releasing a Spring 1942 edition that was barely changed from Revised, and then a 1942.2 edition that was barely changed from Spring 1942, and then releasing the Europe & Pacific 1940 editions in two separate $80 boxes that were so inadequately playtested that they needed three sets of semi-official rules patches just to be playable, all within 5 years of each other…well, it’s no wonder that the Axis & Allies brand is now mostly dead as an ongoing commercial concern. You only get so many second chances.
On a practical note, I wonder what it would take to get some house rules for 1942.2 together that would be accepted as official enough to be used in tournaments. What are the major A&A tournaments, besides GenCon and the TripleA ladder? Who runs them? Is Larry Harris available for comment on 1942.2 changes? If not, is there anyone at WotC who serves as the de facto Axis & Allies czar? Is there any combination of players from this forum whose word, collectively, could be taken as official? E.g. if MarineIguana and Baron Munchhausen and BlackElk and HerrRommel and DarthMaximus and CWO Marc and Private Panic and innohub and Young Grasshopper all unanimously agreed on a set of 1942.2 house rules, is there any chance of convincing the GenCon tournament organizers to use them? Or will the GenCon people stubbornly wait for word from Larry Harris even if Mr. Harris were frozen in carbonite?
Oh, and re: taamvan’s point about changing the opening setup and the middlegame strategies and the endgame winning conditions all at once…I see that as less of a sign that the game is horribly broken, and more of a sign that the game’s phases are appropriately interdependent. If you could change the win conditions without having any effect on what opening strategies people use, or if you could change the opening setup and still have people gun for exactly the same kind of endgame wins, then to me that would be a sign that you have a very rigidly scripted game that doesn’t allow its players enough free will. To me it’s only natural to want to make changes to multiple parts of the game at once, because a change in one part will cause a change to a second part, and so it’s likely that you’ll need to make at least some changes to the second part to help balance out the effects of the first change. That said, I appreciate Black Elk’s point that the fewer changes we can make, the better our odds of getting the changes accepted, and I also appreciate that the A0 start manages to have some good effects at all stages of the game despite being a relatively small and simple change.
-
I’m not sure what it would take. A big part of me is still holding out hope for a legacy edition of A&A that takes one final crack at a reasonably priced mainstream board. I hesitate to say memorial edition, since that’s a bit grim, but a map clearly designed for the long haul would be nice.
The cool thing about AA50 is that it was possible to strip out the hardcore elements, to “mainstream” it a bit if desired. China rules were problematic, but NOs and Tech were optional, and so could be ignored for a simplified game. Even China could be assigned to the US if one wanted to create a pure 6 nation spread with everyone using the same rules (that was one option I used to address some balance concerns.) It also had a more complete VC spread that brought Australia and Caucasus into the mix.
1942.2 by contrast offers less to work with, and the boxed materials include some misprints. I guess you could make the argument that players might be more amenable to community adjustments if the boxed materials clearly show some printing goofs. I still wish we had a stronger base box to build from, but I guess you have to go with the one that’s still available in print.
I think the closer you can stay to the boxed materials the better. Even having to print out a new set up chart seems onerous to me. I like rules that can be explained in a single line or two of text, rather than block paragraphs or long lists. Easier to get up off the ground. I’m not really sure who might serve as a gatekeeper. The largest tournaments seem to be in the Midwest, and I’ve never been able to attend myself, so never met any of theach organizers personally. An A&A.org set of semi-official HRs has been proposed a few times, but hard to say what kind of traction you can get if it’s not supported by a large face to face tournament crowd.
-
Maybe some Wizards of the code would create a Balanced Mode for 1942.2?
I don’t know if there is that much interest in TripleA fans to work the case? -
A balance mod for 1942.2 would be awesome! 👍
-
I do have some thoughts on this as well. Probably no surprise :-D
The first suggestion I would make for any balance mod, is that one try to work with the existing set up charts, rather than creating entirely new charts. Any change to the set up should be purely additive (meaning don’t take away units that already exist OOB.) The player shouldn’t have to learn a whole new starting unit spread, but rather set the board as normal, then add the mod on top. This is mainly practical, takes less time to learn, but also stays truer to the box, on the argument that at least it builds upon the OOB foundation.
Some suggestions off the cuff…
A starting factory in E. Canada
A Russian BomberSomething for China and the US Pacific campaign?
We might be able to accomplish some interesting things with aaaguns. The unit is unpopular as a purchase, but they can make a good balancing tool with the extra hitpoint and air deterent/randomizer. Bearing in mind of course, that people hate transporting them. I’d have them already in place on the Eurasia-Africa landmass, so they are more likely to be used in the stack push contest, and less likely to cause non-com transport headaches. Factories at 1 ipc territories might also be intriguing (the current 1941 game introduced this as a novelty.) A 1 ipc factory in Australia, or Hawaii, or somewhere in China might be fun.
In addition to whatever is done to Allies for balance purposes, I think Axis should get something to play with as well. For the sake of variety, and so that the Axis player feels invested in the game too. What that should be exactly, depends on how the Allies are modded, but Axis might enjoy a viable German naval option of some kind.
Here is a gamesave (below) that shows the two main changes I suggested, via edit mode.
Soviets: + 1 Bomber to Caucasus
British: +1 Factory to E. CanadaI think these two would be very helpful. The Russians get another strong attack unit for trading territories, and the British get a way to make secure naval purchases for the Atlantic, which is probably the main thing holding them back on this board.
Not really sure right now what to suggest for the Americans. It seems to me that what they could really use most is a Pacific carrier. But perhaps just something more in Panama might be interesting, since it could go either direction on non com. China also seems problematic to me. What are your thoughts about the US?
Axis?
-
All interesting ideas.
I wish for a changing balanced dynamics. Makes some VCs more meaningful.I would like to add these three ICs: A 1 ipc factory in Australia, Hawaii and in China: Sinkiang?
These three would put some reason for Japan to try to expand in a more historical fashion.
Or make China a bit more resistant with US money…I would like more Naval dynamics. Giving another U-boat to Germany, to keep this menace into the next round. And an IC in France (Paris VC), to launch Subs into Atlantic or Med, near Gibraltar.
And provide something to fight against Canada?I’d like that Japan get an IC in Kiangsu (VC) would be able to use TP to fight further away on Islands (like Australia).
US gets 2 ICs
UK gets 2 ICs
Russia 1 bomber
Japan: 1 IC
Germany: 1 IC+1 u-boatIf TripleA was able to do true 1942.2 SBR, I would rise damage to 1D6+2, and Fighter escort and intercept A2 D2 while keeping StB A1 first strike (per OOB).
-
Balance 1942.2 with no changes other than adding units to the starting position? Challenge accepted!
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Norway, +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 tank Manchuria
Americans: +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama CanalHere’s my reasoning: the German factory in Norway actually pulls the Germans to the northwest by quite a bit – it ties them up defending (or at least trading) the factory. The British and the Americans would very much like to take the Norwegian factory and use it themselves, so the Germans will be less willing to abandon Norway and Finland without a fight just for the sake of seizing Karelia on G1 or G2. Meanwhile, the extra German destroyer in the Baltic gives the Germans two new options for naval builds. First, they can put a carrier in the Baltic – with SS, DD, CA, CV w/ 2 ftr, and 1 trans in the Baltic, it’s going to be a long time before the Allies can sink the Baltic fleet, and a $14 naval buy on G1 won’t break the German offensive against Russia. Two, they can spend $15 to put a transport and a DD in the Baltic, for a fleet of something like SS, DD * 2, CA, 2 trans. If the British want to sink it, they have to send their entire starting London air force (2 ftr + 1 bmr), which means there’s nothing left to sink any German subs in the North Atlantic, and the British still might lose. Even if the British win the battle and sink the Baltic fleet, they could easily be left without any surviving fighters, making a B1 carrier buy extremely dicey – the Germans might be able to retaliate by sinking the new British fleet on G2, or the British might be forced to avoid a B1 fleet buy altogether. The British might even have to wait until B3 to get a fleet in the water if they lose their starting fighters. As another plus for the Germans, if they hold the Norway factory and the British decide to put 100% into the Pacific, then the Germans have the ability to drop transports into the Norwegian Sea (SZ 3), which is only one turn’s move from Eastern Canada.
Meanwhile, the Russian factory in the Soviet Far East gives Japan a lot to think about – if you build a tank in the Soviet Far East factory on R1, then you can afford to stack 4 inf, 1 tnk there (leaving 1 inf in Buryatia to block the new Manchurian tank), which is pretty defensible against the maximum Japanese attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 1 bmr – the Japanese can take the factory if they really want to, but not without heavy losses (2+ hits) in the air, and not without leaving themselves vulnerable to an R2 retake, with, e.g., the 2 Russian infantry that start in Evenki and the new starting Russian bomber. If the Japanese do eventually secure the SFE factory, then it’s useful for a campaign against Alaska and Western Canada (although not especially useful for a tank drive to Moscow). If they don’t secure the SFE factory, then they have to leave a garrison in Manchuria and let the Allies keep most of the Russians’ Siberian income – it’s very hard to take Siberia with that factory sitting on your back door!
The Japanese factory in New Guinea, like the German factory in Moscow, is at least as much of a liability as it is an asset – if the Japanese can hold it, then it can help re-fill transports that are heading to Hawaii, Australia, Mexico, or Brazil, but it’s just as likely that the Americans (or the British) will be able to take back New Guinea, forcing the Japanese to defend a fixed point or cede an asset to the Allies that will help with a KJF campaign. Together with the starting factory in Eastern Australia, which helps give the Australian continent some thematic and strategic importance, this should help push the focus of Japanese attention out away from Egypt and back toward Guadalcanal, where the battle for the Pacific was historically fought and won.
The British artillery in India helps shore up India against a Japanese blitz, and, more importantly, gives Britain some modest but important offensive options in the Pacific theater on B1 and B2. They can use the Indian transport to ferry 1 inf, 1 art to Egypt (combined with the 1 inf in Trans-Jordan and the fighter on the Indian carrier, that makes 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr for a counter-attack on Egypt, which is likely to overwhelm anything that the Germans can manage to leave standing in Egypt on G1). They can use the transport to carry 1 inf, 1 art and attack Borneo with good odds. They can stack up in Burma with 4 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, or they can immediately use the Indian transport to attack French Indochina with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 CA (50-50 odds).
The American destroyer in the Panama canal can be used to successfully counter-attack German submarines on A1 if the subs hit the American Atlantic fleet on G1. In my opinion, the problem with the OOB German attack on the US transports isn’t just that the Americans are forced to lose a lot of expensive ships – it’s also that the position of the German subs makes it extremely awkward to remove them! You really don’t want to send the British Canadian destroyer south to clean up subs; that destroyer is needed as the nucleus of a new British Atlantic fleet. But if you don’t send the Canadian DD, and the only American DD in range is dead, then the fastest the Americans can hope to progress is to build a new DD on A1, attack the German subs on A2, and then finally start Operation Torch (attacking North Africa) on A3. With an extra DD waiting in Panama (plus the usual CA, plus the American air force), the Americans can trivially kill off the German subs on A1, build new transports on A1, and start Operation Torch on A2 – a full turn earlier, and therefore early enough to “catch up” with the Germans in Africa before they plunder all of Africa. Of course, if the Germans don’t attack the American fleet on G1, or if you prefer a KJF strategy, the destroyer and cruiser in Panama can also reach the San Francisco sea zone on A1 to help bulk up your fleet there, so that you can drop a fleet in the San Francisco sea zone on A1 that’s likely to be able to move to the Solomon Islands on A2 – again, a full turn ahead of the typical OOB schedule.
Finally, the American AAA gun in Szechuan means you can get 50-50 odds against the maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 art, 2 ftr, 1 bmr just by adding the 1 Russian infantry from Kazakh – no need to send a Russian tank or fighter. The factory in Sinkiang means that if Japan passes up the attack on Szechuan, you can withdraw in good order to Sinkiang on A1, build a tank in the Chinese factory, and wind up with something like 4 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, depending on how many Russian infantry you want to use as reinforcements on R2. If Japan really wants to attack that stack on J2, then Japan is going to have to sacrifice something important: either multiple fighter casualties, or let Russia keep its factory in Vladivostok, or ease up on India to the point where Britain can start going on the offensive, or let the Americans have the New Guinea factory. The point is that now it’s not just the Allies who have impossibly many targets to secure on the first couple of turns – now the Axis do too!
Technically, the overall “bid value” is 74 IPCs for the Allies and 42 IPCs for the Axis, meaning a net bid of $32 for the Allies, but all of these bids are so sub-optimal compared to what a traditional bidder would choose that I hardly think it’s worth the effort of counting it up.
-
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Norway, +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 tank Manchuria
Americans: +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama CanalI like many of them, US pretty interesting. ! 👍! 👍! 👍
Instead of New Guinea, I rather prefer VC Shanghai but add 1 Art+1 TP troops in Carolines Islands to help for Invasion of Australia or Hawaii.
IC freed a TP for longer expeditionary amphibious, and allows some IJN shuck shuck in PTO.
If only Melbourne Australia could become a VC!!!Germany IC in Norway can replace my IC in Paris.
I like the possibility to launch u-boat in Northern Arctic sea.
But still, I would be curious of naval warfare impact of this vulnerable IC in Paris VC for Allies to take.Soviet Far East IC can easily recreate some kind of trans-siberian railroad theme. It pours a single unit far away from Moscow.
Suggested Topics
