@barnee said in G40 House Rules Expansion TripleA Games Archive:
It’s so we can upvote when we can’t anymore. An upvote is often used simply as a easy way to acknowledge a post without having to type
See my PM, please.
Also @VictoryFirst , please.
1942.2 House Rules
-
Lately we played a few games of 1942 second edition after a long while.
We were not so happy with the very scripted decisions players are bound to, to do the perfect opening. Games always are played very similar. Not enough variety.We did some thinking, discussed a lot, and finally wrote down this set of rules that we hope improves our gaming experience. We played it once since then, and it was quite fun. Now, as we are far from being pros, we thought it would help to improve balancing, if we ask others about their opinion. Maybe they even like our ideas. And if not, they could at least tell us their opinion about the balance, and how we could improve it.
Three groups of changes: Victory City, Setup, Units
We are curious for your opinion. We enjoyed it a lot and will definitevely keep playing and improving it.
1942.2_House_Rules_rev1.0.pdf -
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 IPCNational Setup Chart � Soviet Union 24 IPC
Russia: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Major Industrial Complex
Karelia S.S.R.: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Minor Industrial Complex
Archangel: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Novosibirsk: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber
Caucasus: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, Minor Industrial Complex
Kazakh S.S.R.: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Vologda: 1 Infantry
Evenki National Okrug: 3 Infantry, 1 Tank
Yakut S.S.R.: 1 Infantry
Burytia S.S.R.: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Soviet Far East: 1 InfantrySea Zone 4: 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 16: 1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63: 1 DestroyerNational Setup Chart � United Kingdom 31 IPC
United Kingdom: 3 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, Major Industrial Complex
Eastern Canada: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Egypt: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
French West Africa: 1 Infantry
French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry
Union of South Africa: 1 Infantry
Trans Jordan: 1 Infantry
Persia: 1 Infantry
India: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Burma: 1 Infantry
Eastern Australia: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Western Australia: 1 Infantry
New Zealand: 1 InfantrySea Zone 1: 1 Transport
Sea Zone 7: 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 10: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 14: 1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 17: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 25: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 28: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 35: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 39: 1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 40: 1 DestroyerNational Setup Chart � United States 42 IPC
Eastern United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Major Industrial Complex
Central United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Bomber
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Major Industrial Complex
Central America: 1 Infantry
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Yunnan: 2 Infantry
Szechwan: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Anhwei: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Sinkiang: 1 InfantrySea Zone 11: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 53: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 56: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 65: 1 CruiserNational Setup Chart � Germany 41 IPC
Germany: 4 Infantry, 1 AAA, 2 Tanks, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Major Industrial Complex
France: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 1 Bomber, Minor Industrial Complex
Northwestern Europe: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Norway: 2 Infantry
Finland: 3 Infantry
Baltic States: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
Poland: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Bulgaria Romania: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, Minor Industrial Complex
Southern Europe: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Ukraine S.S.R.: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Belorussia: 3 Infantry
West Russia: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Marocco: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Algeria: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Lybia: 1 Infantry, 1 TankSea Zone 5: 2 Cruiser, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 8: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 9: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 12: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 13: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 15: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 TransportNational Setup Chart � Japan 30 IPC
Japan: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, Major Industrial Complex
Manchuria: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu: 3 Infantry, 1 Tank
Kwangtung: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
French Indo-China Thailand: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Malaya: 1 Infantry
East Indies: 2 Infantry
Borneo: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
New Guinea: 1 Infantry
Philippine Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 ArtillerySea Zone 37: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 2 Fighters, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 44: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 50: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 60: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 61: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 62: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport -
Very cool! I would happily play with these rules. I think you did a great job with the victory city point spread – I can immediately see how it would be both richly thematic and strategically interesting.
Production Caps
The minor factory idea is also very interesting, and something I’ve been playing around with in my head for a while. How does your 10 IPC cap work? Is that for the cost of the 2 units combined, or for each unit? E.g., can I build 2 fighters per turn at a minor factory? It sounds like I can; I just wanted to check. Also, can I upgrade a minor factory the same turn that I’m using it to produce 2 units? Finally, are capital factories restricted to 5 units per turn? I could see that being a real problem for the UK, e.g., if they are trying to ship units from London into France or even to NW Europe, that gets really challenging when you can only fill 2.5 transports per turn, especially with the Axis minor IC in France. I wonder if transports become less useful under your house rules, because if you’re shipping troops more than one sea zone, then you need a $14 pair of transports to deliver 2 units per turn, vs. only a $10 minor factory to deliver 2 units per turn.India
I notice that you got rid of the starting India factory, as well as its AA gun, and that you gave Japan a third starting transport near the East Indies. Doesn’t this make it impossible for Britain to stage a defense in India? It looks like Britain can have at most 8 ground units in India (plus maybe a couple of fighters?) at the end of B2, even if Britain builds a minor factory there on B1, and I would imagine Japan could defeat those units on J2 without any trouble. Where is Britain supposed to build factories in your setup? South Africa? Eastern Australia? Norway? Just curious.Baltic Sea
Also, I see Germany has a second starting transport in the Baltic, so presumably they can take Karelia on G1 and likely hold it for several turns, regardless of what Russia does. How is that working out for you? Where does Russia usually wind up stacking its units? West Russia as usual?Siberia
It looks like you thinned out the overall unit count in Siberia, while also giving the Russians a bit more offensive punch there. I can see where that would discourage the Russians from just retreating all of those units to Moscow, since a few offensive units aren’t as useful for turtling as a large stack of infantry. Have you seen the Russians actually go on the offense in the east and take (and hold?) Manchuria? Do they ever build a minor factory in Siberia, and, if not, how do the Russians resupply the Siberian front?Sub-Saharan Africa
I love that you’ve given the British some units in Africa that aren’t just Egypt and South Africa. I wonder if you’ve gone overboard, and filled British Africa so chock full of infantry that there’s never any point in shipping American troops into French West Africa. Have you seen any games under these rules where the Axis actually overran Africa? Are the Japanese shipping a lot of troops to east Africa? Do they ever take and hold South Africa? -
Minor Indistrical Complex can build 2 units. Price of each unit can be up to 10. So 2 Fighters Jets are possible, or 2 Cruisers.
The 5 unit limit is hard for Major Complex, especially for UK. They must either invest much in Airforce or navy, or get a lot of Minors somewhere.I can not tell about any systematics in this setup. We played it only once, and it was fun. Germany invaded London, Russia and Australia killed Japan, finally US took back Africa and won the game.
The general intention was to get rid of well known standard stategy. We want to give the players a variety of different options (Russian Offensive in the East, Japan invading Australia, Germany invading UK, heck even Japan invading Western US etc). I am very sure this first try is far far away from perfect, even far away from good. There are sure a lot of tactics better than others. Unfortunately only with your help, we will be able to find them and even them up with the weaker ones.
I hate these standard maneuvers, sinking this navy in G1, stacking up there in R1 etc … We want fresh and new games, with uncertain outcome. And we want navy. Thats why we added all those additional ships to the board. We had quite a long time to balance the UK indian ocean navy. But we suck, our game experience is small, we play all those other games as well.Nevertheless, we would be happy if some of you pros would try this set of house rules, and tell us the opinion, and things to make better.
-
Did you read that thread?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39198.msg1621241#msg1621241
It provides changes to game dynamics.
Not as much than yours but can help thinking about yours. -
Lately we played a few games of 1942 second edition after a long while.
We were not so happy with the very scripted decisions players are bound to, to do the perfect opening. Games always are played very similar. Not enough variety.We did some thinking, discussed a lot, and finally wrote down this set of rules that we hope improves our gaming experience. We played it once since then, and it was quite fun. Now, as we are far from being pros, we thought it would help to improve balancing, if we ask others about their opinion. Maybe they even like our ideas. And if not, they could at least tell us their opinion about the balance, and how we could improve it.
Three groups of changes: Victory City, Setup, Units
We are curious for your opinion. We enjoyed it a lot and will definitevely keep playing and improving it.
I really like the cost reduced of Cruiser and Battleship. I was amongst the first to promote such cost redux to balance Cruiser.
Why bother to increase the cost of Carrier? Is it that important for balance?
What cases made your mind to give +1 IPC to an already weak 1942.2 Carrier A1 D2 M2 C14 compared to G40 Carrier A0 D2 M2 C16 2 hits?Do you believe it can be balanced to use OOB set-up with your 1,2,3 pts VCs?
-
I believe Washington DC and LA should be worth 5 points, not 3 and my justification for this is regardless of which Axis and Allies version you play, USA being invaded is going to be the most unlikely situation to happen even if the US plays “bad” so you should increase the value of controlling US cities for victory condition. With it remaining 3 on par with Moscow, I would rather invade Moscow.
-
Hey Baron,
I just finished a game with your set up. It played really nice and it was a close game. The allies eventually won due to some amazing rolls by the Russians at the battle of Moscow. Anyways great job! -
Not mine.
It is arwaker set-up.
:-D -
Doh! lol. Great set up arwaker! It was really fun :)
-
Wow. Just notice this. Would be great if this is available on TripleA so I can find some buddy to play test more.
-
Wow. Just notice this. Would be great if this is available on TripleA so I can find some buddy to play test more.
You can edit your set-up via EDIT mode. Then save this game with a specific name.
For a few modified units, you have to wait we are on this project of creating a whole lot of options to select according to your taste for G40, then 1942.2.
-
I’m thinking about putting these 42 Victory Point conditions in my 40 game. But not change any setup.
I like how Germany doesn’t have to take London or Moscow to win. I may have to tweak it if its to easy for the Axis.
Thanks
-
I don’t like the idea of allowing a factory producing 2 units on a 1IPC territory. I don’t think Axis have much chance with these changes. I don’t see the need for change?
However, I do like downgrading the SZ37 BB to a Cruiser. I’ve argued for that before.
-
After a year break we played a game according to these rules yesterday.
Japan heavy navy focused getting Honolulu, Sydney, Rio de Janero and even San Francisco! Leading to a land war on the American continent.
Meanwhile Russia and Britain heavy focusing Germany, with conquering the whole of northern and eastern Europe (Oslo, Kiev).
But then, Germany seized an opportunity of taking London after Britain player overcomitted and did some bad rolls.
Axis win the game.It was very confusing, and we did a lot of bad mistakes. But it was fun, and we really had a game with battles at totally new battlefields.
- After Russia and Britain both starting very defensive, Germany and Japan player decided to play an altrenative strategy, attacking US. It worked at least partially.
- Germany forced to play defensive on land, losing total whole of east and north Europe (but defensive Russia took quite a while).
- Japan using heavy Navy and invading Australia, South America and finally even US west coast.
- Land war on the American continent between Japan West coast and US East coast (and Canada a bit).
- Few action in China at all…all players were turteling after the initial clashes. Money was needed elsewhere and infantry could hardly attack alone.
- Tank war in Africa between German Egypt and British South Africa. Both players had minor factories in africa, pumping tanks.
- Great navy clash in the northern Atlantic between US+Royal Navy and the German navy.
- To some bad rolls, British and US player losing atlantic fleet. Germany lost as well nearly whole fleet, but was able to invade exposed London and win the game.
- Maybe one turn later, the Russian steamroller would have taken Berlin.
The changes in Navy Balance (increase offensive power by chaper Battleship and Cruiser) as well as the alternative start setup allows for totally new strategies like “Kill US”. We are still not sure if this setup is balanced, we did only 3 games with this so far. I’d be happy about any feedback.
Suggested Topics
