Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Just to theROC’s last point, I do wonder how much the reluctance of many players to SBR (probably based on their experience with previous boards) might factor into the overall balance assesment.

Part of me thinks that this map was really designed with the expectation that the Allies would engage in constant bombing vs Germany. In most previous editions strat bombing was considered optional and risky, and generally unwise, so it’s not surprising if Allied players are reluctant to build their whole strategy around bombing. Facing down German AAAguns round after round, put’s a lot of pressure on the UK/US.

The problem here is that the UK is pretty hard pressed to make bomber purchases, while simultaneously filling the India IC with ground, providing fighter support to Russia, and hopefully building transports of their own at some point.

The US faces similar challenges, torn between building carriers, transports, and ground, often without much left over to make the requisite bomber purchases.

I suggested before that Russia could really use a bomber, but I think it would be hard to justify using it for strategic bombing with any regularity, because it’s just too valuable and impossible to replace. My reason for suggesting it has more to do with allowing Russia to trade territory, and for Soviet gameplay interest over the long haul.

I agree with the assesment that it takes at least a half dozen American bombers to have a meaningful impact in a strat bombing campaign vs G (that’s two full purchases dedicated almost exclusively to bombers). With a replacement bomber at the ready each round after that. But if you lose more than one bomber per run to AAA fire, it’s really hard to maintain this strategy, and to keep justifying the bomber attrition.

Perhaps the Americans should have a second starting bomber?

• 1 Bomber to Moscow
• 1 Bomber to W. US

The Russian bomber provides more dynamism on the Eastern Front and gives the Soviets a stronger opener. The American bomber allows for a stronger run on Berlin in the second round. Then go from there?

I appreciate that this isn’t exactly the most thrilling way for the American player to kick things off, but if it’s just handed to you, it wouldn’t sting quite as hard when the W. US bomber gets shot down.

Building a game on the assumption that the Allies will bomb Germany every round is kind of rough. Conservative players tend to disdain this sort of play since it leaves so much up in the air, making it harder to plan in advance. On the other hand, it was a huge part of the Allied war effort, so trying to design a balance set up that avoids it entirely (or suggests it as purely optional), seems equally problematic.

I guess one point I’m making here, is that when we talk about the Allied “balance” among experts, I think there is an implicit assumption that “experts don’t bomb in A&A” but save their bombers for combat. So if the German economy was designed with constant strat bombing in mind, that’s a real hurdle to overcome. Take two Allied players who ignore the received wisdom of previous editions, and bomb on the regular. If one player gets solid runs with no losses vs Berlin in the midgame, while the other gets shot down time after time, they’re going to return two rather different appraisals of the game’s overall balance.

I think perhaps the best solution, is one that I’m generally reluctant to propose from an ease of use standpoint… Change the cost and abilities of the strategic bomber, so that it’s only viable use in the game is for the bombing of factories exclusively.

Honestly, only the designers could popularize such a key change to the roster, and it would likely require a new edition. I don’t know how practical it is as a fix for 1942.2. People would surely grumble if we took away the bomber as the game’s most effective combat unit. I’m not sure anyone other than Larry could make it happen. This would be a change on par with defenseless transports, or factory damage/repair, ie. a major break with previous editions. Though I think it would probably improve the core game, if ever we had a 3rd edition to this map or global.

[baron Münchhausen]

I don’t think a US bomber worth it.
It will not increase the pace of USA into Europe war or Pacific war.
USA can easily built a flock of StBs which will move next turn in UK, Karelia and Archangel (Eastward) or Soviet Far East and Yakut SSR (Westward).

US needs to have, at least TPs and a few escorting warships to make things more interesting.

As you said Black Elk, “At one point the Russian restricted opening in Classic, also had a somewhat more official status as a balance option, since it was widely adopted at the time. But I think it may be less familiar to players who have come on board since Revised. The suggestion for the American zero turn might be acceptable to some, as providing a similar sort balancing alternative, but it’s hard to say.”

In itself, a restricted R0 means around a total US saving of 60 IPCs : 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Fg, 1 Sub (PTO: 38 IPCs) / 1 DD, 2 TPs (ATO: 22 IPCs)
And an additional 42 IPCs from R0 Collect income.

Maybe it is too much resources, IDK, but it would certainly provide more early actions for US.

Adding a US bid around 42 IPCs mix of mainly warships and a few ground units with no USR0 will provide something similar to a restricted purchase only USAR0.

A bid allows to precisely balance between ATO, PTO and China while keeping standard combat.
Here, I’m thinking about a special placement in West Indies SZ18 of 1 DD and 2TPs (like in East Coast SZ).
Or, instead, to put 2 TPs in SZ10 (with 4 US Infantry in Eastern Canada)
That way, it allows Germans Subs a similar target than OOB set-up but in a different SZ.

But now it is easy to imagine US R1 fleet in East Coast SZ11 like: 1 Carrier, 2 DDs, 2 TPs,  (44 IPCs)

It is just an example, to help understand possibilities hidden behind USA restricted R0

In PTO, it can be possible to let Hawaii fleet as it is, but to increase Panama Cruiser fleet in SZ19 :  1 Carrier, 1 DD, 1 TP, 1 Fg (39 IPCs)

Just my 2 cents to think further this case.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

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 Canal

Ok, here I would increase drastically entry points:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
If it needs an additional unit, this should be an AAA in Soviet Far East
Such IC allows Russia to put a DD blocker in SZ!!! :-D

Germans: +1 Factory Norway, + 1 Factory NW Europe +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
If needed to increase Kriegsmarine: I would put U-boat around Norway/Iceland SZ3 or Greenland SZ2
2 ICs makes for more Allies SBR targets but allows reinforcement of Norway and it will not be possible to block Germans’ U-boat into Baltic Sea.
Also, it allows to put up to 4 ships into SZ6 between Norway and NW Europe.
UK needs to watch such events.
Also, if any Sea Lion is tried, at least, such ICs can provide more units immediately for a second chance wave.

British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in South Africa, +1 Factory in New Zealand, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada, +1 Artillery India
I would try to increase entry points over the Empire corresponding to various Commonwealth Dominion.
This changing dynamics is limited by a 30 IPCs or below income. What is at stake is UK doesn’t have enough IPCS to fill all of them at once.
Too much investment or too low investment in UK is a key factor. (Too low can make UK early, mid-game Sea Lion target.)
Africa can still be fight, warships can be built in North Atlantic out of range of Luftwaffe.
Australia and Anzac can slowly built together to oppose Japan.
But it provides two opportunity targets which brings 3 ICs within 2 SZs from Hawaii.
Even more, New Zealand is 3 SZs from SZ22 (Brazil) and 4 SZs from Central America.

Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 Artillery & +1 Infantry in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ50
To provide units to make J1 options for amphibious war in South East Pacific.

Japanese IC in New Guinea is a game input for Rabaul Base in New Britain.
Any unit built there can be considered as a ‘Tokyo Express’ to make pressure on surrounding Islands.

Americans: +1 Factory in Alaska +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan,
+1 DD in Panama Canal SZ19 or to wait about Restricted USA0 (or any appropriate US bid).

Many ICs outside center can bring something more and provide back up TTy to keep up Allies IPCs income on acceptable level mid-game.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I kind of did a turn around with US Bombers midpost there. Something tells me if we gave the Americans a second, it would just end up somewhere in Russia as a defensive pip hehe.

I do really enjoy the factory unit, and the fact that it can go anywhere with an ipc value according to the rules of this map. I think the 1 ipc factory has potential, if players can be persuaded to try it.

Just wanted to highlight this post from the previous page, because I kind of skipped over it in the midst of other thoughts, but I think it does capture a lot of my feelings.

@taamvan:

G42 is kind of nice because you start with very little, as if every G40 battle has already been fought and attrition is complete.   Then, you rebuild your armies from there and play 7 turns where what you build is as important as what your opener was.

It is maybe an example in 42.2 where instead of any canned setups or historical accuracy, what we really want is a kind of 4X Axis and Allies where you build up the empire, facilities, possessions and armies you want through the course of the game.   One part of that is more flexible placement (as your factories idea), another example would be YG’s VC system of that you are winning some kind of “points” for hitting various milestones/combos/victories rather than a flat “do you possess XYZ”.   Plenty of cool ideas, but many depart from AxA’s core.

I think there is a kind of tension because the designers and players know the game is so long (even though in some ways it seems simpler than a ‘modern’ wargame), that they are trying to put in plenty of fights and takes at the beginning, that lead to a more canned playout.   G40 contemplates, but does not realize (except with the US) this prospect of having a kind of “building up” phase (akin to U0) of a couple of hours followed by some truly climatic battles.   Again, all this does occur;  but it happens according to a seemingly very static plan (eg. build up and get to Moscow).

I’m sure it happens with your group too, but once we have a consensus on who has won, we still play out the big stack battles that no-one would commit to during the running game.   What kind of game would it be if you simply build up a bunch of arms-race stacks only to see them defeat your enemy in a kind of Cold War “I beat you by stacking up the actual battle is a foregone conclusion”.   The Cold War is exactly the kind of war that makes for an awful wargame;  no open combat, constant building up, the resolution is that your enemies economy collapses not because you bombed out his factories but because he ran out of toilet paper…

Definitely, my group always runs the final battles regardless of the odds. The whole game builds to that climax, so it’s key to the experience. Depending on time constraints or whether we are playing a multi, these battles serve to close out the night, even if the actual battles might result in a game that could play on. But my favorite experience is when I’m playing 1v1 with a truly committed opponent, who doesn’t care so much about total victory, but instead examining the deep endgame, after Moscow falls. These matches are less frequent, but always more satisfying, and I think what makes them fun is this sort of reset of the production spread.

That’s why I think increasing the entry points as Baron just suggested once more, has real potential, because it does something rather similar to what happens in the deep endgame with the production realignment, but doesn’t require one to keep playing well after the point when it should be over, just to get there. Also the production spread suggested here, is more in line with the historical conflict itself, rather than a “what if” or “man in the high castle” sort of post-WW2 scenario.

[baron Münchhausen]

Another thing about ICs spam is that no one would built a 1 IPC IC, but if there is one in set-up it gives a different picture.
:-)

[baron Münchhausen]

Carolines Island an d SZ: 2 Infs+1 Art, TP, CA, CV
+1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in New Zealand vs 1 Factory in New Guinea
These 3 ICs make for an interesting strategic situation according to number of UK’s IPCs investment.

First option, Australian 2 Infs + 1 Cruiser attack NewG Inf.
ANZAC ICs built EasternA +1 Inf +NZ 1 Inf (2) to defend against IJN.
Carolines fleet can attack one of 3 ICs : New Guinea or Eastern Australia or New Zealand

If Allies doesn’t invade NewG, Australia can reinforce both Eastern Australia and New Zealand +1 Infantry, New Guinea is safe  and can be reinforced. EAustralia or NZ can be target.

[Black_Elk]

While still thinking about 1 ipc factories, Algeria might be an interesting candidate. Slightly less vulnerable than Morocco or Libya, but activates North Africa and sz 14 with a single production point for Axis. It would give the Afrika korps a toehold and something to work with vs the Suez/India, but also presents a nice American target territory for early an Allied torch operation. I think it might make the med more attractive, with a stronger option against the Rome VC.

[Argothair]

If you want a North African starting factory, Algeria is definitely the place to put it! When I try to take Rome, my main problem has been that Germany could easily retake it, not that I was one unit short of a credible threat. I’m not sure an American factory in Algeria would threaten Rome very much. Have you all been able to capture Rome before France? How did you do it?

[Black_Elk]

I guess only in the sense that 1 unit in the area, is better than none, for those rogue cases when it might come in handy to have an extra artillery piece or whatever.
:-D

This might be a little bit much, but I think you can create a pretty interesting contest if you gave every nation 5 additional production points (concentrated mainly in 1 ipc or 2 ipc territories.)

Russia: Soviet Far East, Arch, Evenki, Kazakh
Germany: Finland, Algeria, Libya, Norway
UK: W. Australia, E. Australia, New Zealand, W. Canada, Trans-Jordan
Japan: Malaya, New Guinea, Manchuria
USA: Alaska, Hawaii, Szech, Sinkiang

10 production for Axis vs 15 for Allies. Including the OOB starting factories, this would give exactly 30 total entry points distributed across the map.

Soviet Far East is more for novelty, but plays off the Alaska and W. Canada factories as well as Manchuria, to create a somewhat more interesting production dynamic in the North Pacific, going either direction. Manchuria seems entertaining to me, mainly because its possible to target along the northern route. So basically trying to have some kind of Russian support backdoor for the Allies, vs a possible option on N. America for Japan.

Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea production try to get something similar going in the South Pacific. Malaya is also interesting as a target for this, because it gives the Allies a way to make a production push off the money islands should they manage to take them (the idea being that you get an entry point for a transport in sz 36, where you’ll want your fleet to be, for shucks out of Borneo or East Indies into Burma.)

China and Kazakh are the counterweights to Manchuria along the center route. Kazakh is basically the one territory that the Russians might have a realistic chance of holding. China while weak, also provides a blocker option, and a way for the US to get units into Asia early on, provided they get a little cover from the Russians out of Kazakh or Evenki.

Evenki and Arch are probably Axis baits, but they can be used for an extra hit point here or there, give a little more reach for newly purchased armor, and also provide a nice temporary blocker option if Russia has to fall back.

Finally the Scandinavian and African facilities are there to pull Germany in two directions at once, both on their periphery. Each provides a somewhat more compelling German naval incentive early on, but also serve as Allied baits in the midgame. I think Trans-Jordan has some interesting potential when coupled with the Algeria and Libya factories. Basically you have 3 new production points around the Med, for both sides to fret over, and then 3 new production points up north with Norway and Finland.

With maybe one or two exceptions, most of these factories would never be purchased in a normal game, so there are still plenty of viable locations to buy yet more factories if one wanted, in places like Egypt, South Africa, French-Indo or Coastal China, France, the Money Islands etc. But these additional starting factories at the low production values would I think make the game pretty interesting, even if no one ended up buying any others.
:-D

[Argothair]

All those factories certainly sound like fun. Do you think it winds up helping the Allies, on balance? I would guess that Germany will nearly always wind up in control of the new Mediterranean factories unless USA drops 60+ IPCs on Operation Torch. On G1, Germany can sink the American transports, conquer Trans-Jordan before the British get to use it, stack in Libya, and build 2 new units directly in North Africa – they will wind up with about 8 land units in the region that can hit Egypt on G2. I don’t think the British can afford to stack Egypt on B1 without abandoning India to Japan – but if the British evacuate Egypt on B1, then the German forces are available for a deadly G3 counter-attack against any American troops that land in Morocco on A2 or A3.

In Japan, the starting Manchuria factory radically accelerates the Japanese tank drive to Moscow in a way that I don’t think the American Chinese factories can really shut down – Japan can still cheaply eliminate the American forces in Anhwei and Yunnan on J1, and then punch the remaining two American Chinese territories on J2 with a force of something like 10 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk, 4 ftr, 1 bmr. Even if America buys 2 fighters, the Brits send in their Indian Ocean fighter, and the Russians send over 4 inf, 1 tnk in reinforcements, that still only leaves a max Allied stack of something like 6 inf, 1 tnk, 4 ftr, which will get crushed on J2. After J2, those two Chinese factories mean that Japan can now drop 5 tanks a turn into central Asia, all without spending a penny on factories or transports. You might even see some J1 builds of, e.g., 3 tnk + 1 bmr, or 3 tnk + 2 sub, just because Japan can get away with it.

The Finland-Karelia-Archangel arc (4 slots total) is also great for pumping out German infantry close to Moscow.

I’m not really seeing what advantages the Allies get to compensate. The Soviet Far East factory helps hold Siberia, and the Alaska factory is convenient for the USA, but neither is really a game-changer. I guess the 3 build slots in ANZAC could help the British take back the money islands – but with Germany in solid control of the Mediterranean, if Britain spends money in both India and ANZAC, then Germany is going to be a monster.

[Black_Elk]

Well if the OOB sequence doesn’t pass muster, an A0 opener would likely do the trick. The Americans would have some very interesting options here. I’ll admit, I think the opener under A0 conditions would be a lot more entertaining, with play patterns closer to the history.

A defensless bomber might also be enough to make that spread viable all by itself. If trying to carry some of my more recent suggestions to their logical conclusion hehe.

OOB I think the J1 pearl attack is probably the most problematic for the opening. I really do wonder if the play was considered when the script was first written, or if that one just gave the designers the slip. It’s a pretty gamey maneuver, but without being expressly prohibited, I can’t see any reason for Japan not to make that attack. And of course, once they do, it more or less sinks the Pacific campaign for the Allies. The Americans really need their Pacific carrier to get anything going on that side of the board.

Kinda makes you wonder if a set up change in sz53 itself isn’t necessary.
What would be the minimum required to deter that attack completely, without just handing a standard KJF to the Allies?

Maybe a British fighter in range that can fill out the American carrier deck?
A fighter in W. Canada, and a ship in sz 65 might be more interesting than using American units.

[Argothair]

What a great question! I think the minimum change is to move the Caroline Islands carrier one space west, to the Philippines. With no carrier that can move into Hawaii, the max Japanese attack is 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, 1 bomber – plausible if you insist on a gambit, but not a huge TUV swing.

However. My heart longs for a 1942 setup featuring the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of Delayed Pearl Harbor. Can we move enough American ships to midway to keep things interesting?

A Pacific Canadian fleet is a neat idea – where else might it sail to other than reinforcing the Americans?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

What a great question! I think the minimum change is to move the Caroline Islands carrier one space west, to the Philippines. With no carrier that can move into Hawaii, the max Japanese attack is 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, 1 bomber – plausible if you insist on a gambit, but not a huge TUV swing.

However. My heart longs for a 1942 setup featuring the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of Delayed Pearl Harbor. Can we move enough American ships to midway to keep things interesting?

A Pacific Canadian fleet is a neat idea – where else might it sail to other than reinforcing the Americans?

To remake Midway, I believe you move all DD, Sub, Carrier, 1 Fg from Hawiian SZ and add 1 US Fg (bid).
Both IJN and USA fleet will be obliterate with only a US BB and a Bomber if lucky.

Both Powers will have to rebuilt, but Japan cannot built as fast as US.

[Argothair]

Well, I do like the idea of having the fleets (optionally) annihilate each other near Midway – if they do, then as you say, the USA could rebuild faster afterward, just like in real life! It would be very thematic.

The problem is that if you move the US Pacific fleet to Midway, then it’s in range of the Japanese home fleet in addition to some of the Japanese forward-deployed warships. By my count, Japan can bring 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB, 3 ftr, 1 bmr to Midway on J1 – a truly mammoth fleet for this map. Even if you take every US Pacific warship from Hawaii and San Francisco and add 1 more American fighter, that’s still only 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CV, 1 BB, 2 ftr.

When I run that battle on the AA calculator, I’m seeing an average outcome where Japan wipes out all USA units (87% chance) and still has 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB, 1 ftr to hold the sea zone (average; sometimes better, sometimes worse). With only 2 ftr, 1 bmr available for an A1 counter-attack, American is powerless to counter-attack the Japanese survivors, and Japan eventually reunites its fleet at a large profit. I think this would actually make it harder for the Allies to do a KJF opening than a standard OOB game – the Allies would probably rather leave the boats in Hawaii and San Francisco, and just bid the fighter on the Pearl Harbor carrier!

Am I understanding your scenario correctly?

[baron Münchhausen]

Not exactly.
1- move all in Midway SZ: US 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 1 Fg from Hawiian SZ and add 1 US Fg (bid).
2- Japan on Midway SZ bring 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser, 1 BB, 1 bomber, 1 Fg.
3- Use 1 TP, 1Art, 1 Inf, 1 Fg to take Midway
4- US can attack 2 Fgs, 1 Bomber, 1 BB, 1 DD on remaining IJN fleet.
(1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 or 2 Fg, 1 TP, 1 bomber returning Japan)  and Midway is taken.
Both IJN and USA fleet will be obliterate with only a US BB and a Bomber if lucky.
If you feel AAcalc is not enough generous, add a US Cruiser in addition to other Fg (bid) to Midway.

Luck should swing both battles so at the end of it, either US or IJN had 1 or 2 units survived.
If IJN remained.
Next turn, there is 1 Art and maybe 1 Inf with BB to invade Hawaii, VC.
Historically, one intent of Admiral Yamamoto was to destroy US fleet and take Hawaii so US will sign peace or need time to be able to act in PTO.
This scenario is possible.
US player in such case may decide to go KGF and not invest a lot into West Coast fleet (1 TP) remaining plus Panama Cruiser, maybe.

[Black_Elk]

I think a Midway opener would be fun. One issue I see is that Midway island itself is pretty useless for either side. It has no ipc value and only a single infantry unit. With so little at stake, Japan has no reason to peel forces away from the naval engagement to actually take the island. Perhaps a high value but weakly defended target would help, such as a bomber on the island?

The trick with trying to script Midway into a single combat turn, is that it’s hard to create a carrier trade that allows for somewhat historical results  (this mainly owing to how carriers are typically used in combat by players.) I think you’d have to approach the “battle” as taking place over 2 turns. First the Japanese attack, and then the American counter attack.

The goal there would be that Japan has to expose one of their carriers to an immediate counter by US, in order to make a profitable attack in the first place. And for their part the US should have a way to come out ahead in the carrier trade, with at least 1 deck still at the ready following the initial attack.

I think this might recommend not changing the sz53 situation, but instead concentrating on how to set up a Midway battle just with additional units for both Japan and the US. (Instead of moving already existing units.) I imagine the situation in sz53 as representing an extension of the Midway fight under those conditions. Japan should have a strong reason to attack Midway, but not enough to hit both Midway and Pearl at the same time. This would free up the Pearl units to be used in a US counter.

It all seems a little tricky to set up, but at least it would have the advantage of being a dramatic close to the first round.
:-D

[Argothair]

OK, Baron, so it sounds like you’re only proposing to move the Hawaii battle group to Midway (and add 1 ftr), without moving the San Francisco BB. I still say that the battle you’re proposing sounds like a lot of fun and very thematic, but it seems to me that any serious Japan player would choose to send the full fleet of 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB, 3 ftr, 1 bmr – not just the more limited fleet you propose of 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 BB, 1 ftr, 1 bmr. Japan has no special need to take the island of Midway on J1.

Can we block off the Japanese BB + CV so that they can’t reach the Midway battle on J1? Maybe that Canadian Pacific fleet you mentioned could be in position to move to Wake Island or something, so they have a choice of either screening the US fleet or reinforcing the US fleet. I worry that the Canadians would have to block two separate sea zones, though, which is rarely cost-effective.

What if we…
(1) Move entire Hawaii naval group to Midway
(2) Add 1 British fighter (bid) in Western Canada
(3) Move the San Francisco battleship to Midway (max total Midway fleet: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CV, 1 BB, 2 ftr)
(4) Move Caroline Islands carrier group back to Philippines, and
(5) Add 1 Russian bomber to Moscow.

That would allow a max Japanese attack of 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 BB, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, which is pretty much a 50-50 battle! If the UK does not reinforce with the bid fighter, then Japan has 85% odds to win the Battle of Midway, but not much is likely to survive past the bomber and battleship, and the USA can counter-attack with 1 DD, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, which will easily kill off the surviving Japanese BB at a profit. If you build a Pacific carrier on A1, you could probably also use the San Francisco transport to attack the surviving Japanese bomber after it lands – you’d have, e.g., 2 inf + 1 ftr vs. 1 inf, 1 bmr on Wake Island, and 1 DD, 1 ftr, 1 bmr vs. 1 BB in the Midway sea zone.

Other options for the W. Canada fighter, if it doesn’t land on the American carrier, include helping to pick off surviving German subs off the coast of the Eastern US, or flying to the Scotland sea zone to land on a new British carrier in the Atlantic. It gives the Canadians a bit more involvement in the war, and helps the Allies choose whether to establish parity in the Pacific on round 1, or whether to start at a small deficit in the Pacific in order to get a faster start in the Atlantic.

I’m not even sure if I like this better than the A0 turn, or if starting setup changes are “lighter” edits than changing where in the turn order to start the game. I do think this would get you an interesting Midway battle, and that it would be relatively balanced in terms of Axis vs. Allies and Atlantic vs. Pacific.

Black Elk, I agree with your thoughts about how the island of Midway itself is pretty useless, and I agree that it’s desirable to setup an A1 counter-attack on a carrier that’s necessarily exposed as the result of a J1 attack. However, I’m not sure that even an undefended bomber would be enough of an incentive for Japan to alter its J1 naval battle plan – there are about 80 IPCs of expensive hardware at stake for each side in the opening naval battle, so taking out a 12 IPC bomber is not a good reason to accept a risk of losing the naval battle. I guess if that bomber turned out to be crucial to the A1 counterattack, then killing the new Midway bomber could be part of a solid Japanese strategy, but Japan really needs its sole surviving transport to operate in Asia – I’d hate to force them to use that transport in Midway; it kind of narrows the range of the available Japanese openings. You could give the Japanese a second surviving transport, but then that changes the Asian land war, and pretty soon you’ve got an entirely new starting position, not just a Pacific naval fix.

I’m also concerned (Gosh, when am I not concerned?) that giving America an entire second task force in the Pacific is too powerful for the Allies. If you want to give the Japanese an interesting choice between hitting Hawaii and hitting Midway, and you also want to trap a Japanese carrier near Iwo Jima, then you need a fleet in each sea zone that can stand up to an attack by, e.g., 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 BB, 3 ftr, 1 bmr. The defending fleet needs to inflict enough casualties that, on average, the attacking fleet will be vulnerable to a profitable counter-attack. So a lone carrier, even fully loaded, isn’t going to stand a chance; it needs some serious support ships. Let’s say you have 1 British fighter as the ‘swing’ unit that can land in either the Hawaii Sea Zone or the Midway Sea Zone. So now the Americans need something like 1 CV, 1 ftr, 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CA in Hawaii and in Midway, so the Allies start with a total of 2 SS, 5 DD, 2 CA, 2 CV, 1 BB, 3 ftr in the water in the Pacific, plus the Midway bomber (if desired) and (presumably) the Hawaii fighter and the 2 ftr, 1 bmr that start on the US mainland. That’s just an insanely high level of total unit value. Maybe it could work if the Japanese are able to reliably sink enough of it (but not all of it) on J1, but it makes me anxious. What if the British fight and win the battle in SZ 37, sinking a Japanese BB and CV and denying the Sumatran fighters access to a J1 Midway battle? I feel like just a couple of dice going the wrong way could bury Japan under a ton of Allied naval firepower starting on round 1, without any chance for Japan do get a better outcome through skillful play – you might see Japan get helplessly crushed in as many as 1 out of 3 games.

[baron Münchhausen]

My intent was to be as close as possible to Midway battle history to launch J1.
It needs a J1 and a US1 counter attack.

There was no US BB in this Battle. Hence had a US Cruiser (bid) and keep West Coast in SZ.
There was IJN BB and Carrier, we need it to get historical accuracy theme.
Japan throw pretty much all they got in this battle to destroy the remaining US Carriers (Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown)

I like the 1 StB addition on Midway. Pretty historical.
It rise stake and interest to conquer this 0 IPC island.
But no thanks for UK Fg in this SZ. Gamey.
Better add another US Fg on  Hawaii to be part of US counter attack.

My intent is to provide a safe landing spot to conquer Hawaii next.
It is true that a TP is needed on Japan SZ, then add 1 TP and 1 Artillery in Carolines SZ.
So, a direct landing into Hawaii (unoccupied SZ) will be destroy US1 counter-attack.
Midway is a detour and give TP escorting fleet.
The next step, if luck is on Japan side is Hawaii.

The OOB set-up is pretty near Midway theme but without any amphibious landing, sad.

Otherwise, why bother to add a different battle instead of keeping OOB and fix the balance.
It will be hard to sell to other if it is not as accurate as possible from Midway battle and fleet involved.

It still need fine tuning to get a 60 IJN -40%US success at the end.
But ultimately, there will be not much of the initial units.
So, Japan makes the move or don’t.
While US must try counter attack, unless all IJN fleet has survived and it means suicide counter attack.

Third IJN Fg in Manchuria and Japan StB are two units which should shift the J1 Midway above 90%, but this is detrimental to land combat in China.

I agree that a second US fleet is not helping. It demands Japan to commit units to destroy it, otherwise it is the end. I prefer a single US fleet which left Japan decide or not operation MI.

[Argothair]

My intent was to be as close as possible to Midway battle history to launch J1.

Yes, that’s coming through loud and clear! I applaud your efforts to recreate the historic battle of Midway, but please remember that the battle has to be voluntarily recreated by players on opposite teams. If the in-game incentives are not right, then players will not follow the “script” just for the sake of historical realism!

There was no US BB in this Battle. Hence had a US Cruiser (bid) and keep West Coast in SZ. I like the 1 StB addition on Midway. Pretty historical. Better add another US Fg on  Hawaii to be part of US counter attack.

So your suggested bid is 1 CA (with the carrier), 2 ftr (1 extra on Hawaii and 1 extra on the carrier), 1 bmr (on Midway)? Partially balanced by 1 trans, 1 art in the Caroline Islands for Japan? That’s 44 IPCs for America and 12 IPCs for Japan. Are there any other bid units in your proposal?

So, a direct landing into Hawaii (unoccupied SZ) will be destroy US1 counter-attack.
Midway is a detour and give TP escorting fleet.
The next step, if luck is on Japan side is Hawaii.

Again, this feels deeply unrealistic to me as a matter of Japanese tactics. Remember, there is no “National Advantage” for either Japan or the USA anywhere in this region, so the only income swing for occupying Hawaii and Midway is 1 IPC per turn. I don’t understand why Japan would dedicate 100 IPCs worth of hardware over two turns to conquering Hawaii. Honolulu is a victory city, but it’s just one victory city, and there’s no obvious path from Honolulu to any other victory city. Even if totally defeated in the Pacific Ocean, USA can always just make a one-time purchase of 10 infantry in Western US, and then the game will be over before Japan can conquer a second victory city in San Francisco. An attack on Honolulu sometimes makes sense as the third Axis victory city, after conquering Leningrad and Calcutta, but it’s really not a reasonable strategy to make Honolulu your first target as the Axis. It’s not worth any money, it doesn’t have a factory, and it’s not on the way to anywhere interesting.

I don’t mean to rain on your parade – I’m pointing out these problems because I think you have good ideas, and I would very much like to see what you come up with if you decide to focus on building an alternate setup where it is optimal or nearly-optimal play for both sides to voluntarily recreate the Battle of Midway.

[baron Münchhausen]

IDK if my proposed set-up is well tune-up balanced.
It needs to be AACalc to see if the average results is as suited.

I was providing some reasons to land from Midway to Hawaii.
I agree that historical script is not enough.
The idea is that if MI invasion is working, it blast US Navy out of Pacific and 1 IPC VC is free to take.
That was the main goal with MI, a larger defense perimeter and an outright fleet Supremacy PTO.

Japan can then grow monster if US go KGF, and see no more interest in PTO.
And the only moment it worth to get Hawaii VC is on beginning.
Later, India and Center crush and Money Islands defense become priority.

If no Midway, US core fleet should get stronger enough to beat IJN by US3-4 and stranglehold Japan.

So, I believe if US fleet can be destroyed and the counter-attack is not efficient (bad rolls), there should be at least 1 BB and 1 TP 50% of time to invade Hawaii with remaining Troops in MI and Wake.
Maybe East Indies fleet Carrier can reinforced Hawaiian invasion BB and TP J2.
The scenario should provides more room to see US building on West Coast and coming.

So, the japanese choice should be to attack or to be overwhelmed by US set-up fleet and fleet building capacity too soon. The second option would rely upon grabbing land Strategy taking so much IPCs in main Asia (30 rising to 38 IPCs) to get on par with US by building Carriers, planes and Subs to match US 42-38 IPCs per turn.

Maybe it is also the idea to make US built 10 ground units in Western US, it gives time to Germany.