Well they would be counters for each nation in a cup that you draw randomly. say 1 inch wooden chits with a decal on it. Icons of say a tank or Battleship if the commander effects those. If you draw a chit and don’t own that piece, you just lost that advantage that turn. The next turn you draw another chit. The used chits stay out of the jar, so the design features will balance in total for both Axis and Allies…or not. Depends on the game played…
Some house rules for A&A 1942.2, would love feedback
-
Hi All
Wanted to share some house rules that we play A&A 1942 second edition with. Would love any feedback. Here it goes.
Special Seazone Restrictions
Gibraltar; Surface naval units may only pass between seazones 13 and 14 if their side controls Gibraltar
Baltic, Sea zone 5: Surface naval units may only pass between seazones 5 and 6 if their side controls Northwestern Europe
Turkish Straits, Seazone 16: Surface naval units may only pass between seazones 15 and 16 if their side controls 4 or more territories bordering neutral Turkey
Facilities
Industrial Complex: No new industrial complexes may be placed on a single seazone island territory.
Naval Units
Cruiser Class AA Capability. Cruiser class naval units have built in defensive AA capability. Cruiser class units have a preemptive roll up to 3 dice @1 to hit against attacking aircraft prior to the start of regular combat.
Destroyer Transport Duty: Destroyers that have not moved during the Combat Phase may transport 1 infantry class unit during the non-combat phase.
Air Units
Probably the biggest changes we’ve made is changing cost and values of default air units and introducing Tac Bombers from Europe/Pacific/Global as well as introduce a new unit, Medium Bomber (got the pieces from Historical Board Gaming) that is a versatile bomber that can perform ground/naval attacks as well as SBR. The changes in price and values was influenced in large part by Baron Munchhausen.
Special abilities are all default so I don’t specifically state below however, Fighter units have a hit priority of other air units when attacking or defending, Med Bomber can SBR and Strategic Bombers get +2 damage against industrial complex during SBR. We use option interception rules for SBR
Fighter: A2 D3 M4 Cost:7 Hit priority Air Units
Tac Bomber: A3 D2 M4 Cost:8
Med. Bomber: A3 D2 M6 Cost:10 Can SBR
Strategic Bomber: A2 D1 M8 Cost:12 +2 SBR damageThe game still leans towards Axis victory. Going to try balancing a little with starting Russia with a Med. Bomber (the Moscow bomber idea that I’ve read about here) as well as try Younggrasshopper’s house rule of ‘Round the Clock Bombing’
Would love feedback, especially on our cost/values of air units.
Thanks for reading.
-
Hi All
Naval Units
Cruiser Class AA Capability. Cruiser class naval units have built in defensive AA capability. Cruiser class units have a preemptive roll up to 3 dice @2 to hit against attacking aircraft prior to the start of regular combat.
Destroyer Transport Duty: Destroyers that have not moved during the Combat Phase may transport 1 infantry class unit during the non-combat phase.
Hi userx, welcome on board.
Is it a typo or are you playing D12 digit?
Do you really give Cruiser up to three rolls @2?It seems very OP. Some Radar Tech allows AAA to rise to three rolls @2, but not Cruiser.
Many discuss on how many roll should Cruiser get.
My line of thinking is to keep the same number as AAA.
However, my AAA usually (in similar low cost planes) are much cheaper cost 3: up to two rolls @1 against up to two planes max, but each combat round.Destroyers moving Infantry in NCM is pretty inspired by a japanese NA: Tokyo Express.
It seems too much considering how Destroyers are already useful.
I rather prefer Black_Elk HR which gives this ability to Battleship unit.That way, it is not abuse because 20 IPCs is high investment. It only makes BB a bit more interesting and versatile while not being OP.
-
Air Units
Probably the biggest changes we’ve made is changing cost and values of default air units and introducing Tac Bombers from Europe/Pacific/Global as well as introduce a new unit, Medium Bomber (got the pieces from Historical Board Gaming) that is a versatile bomber that can perform ground/naval attacks as well as SBR. The changes in price and values was influenced in large part by Baron Munchhausen.
Special abilities are all default so I don’t specifically state below however, Fighter units have a hit priority of other air units when attacking or defending, Med Bomber can SBR and Strategic Bombers get +2 damage against industrial complex during SBR. We use option interception rules for SBR
Fighter: A2 D3 M4 Cost:7 Hit priority Air Units
Tac Bomber: A3 D2 M4 Cost:8
Med. Bomber: A3 D2 M6 Cost:10 Can SBR
Strategic Bomber: A2 D1 M8 Cost:12 +2 SBR damageThe game still leans towards Axis victory. Going to try balancing a little with starting Russia with a Med. Bomber (the Moscow bomber idea that I’ve read about here) as well as try Younggrasshopper’s house rule of ‘Round the Clock Bombing’
Would love feedback, especially on our cost/values of air units.
Thanks for reading.
To provide a few feedback on this numbers (and you know how much air units is my tea cup) it might help understanding what you looking for in your 1942.2 game
The first thing I can see is your going to open the way to a very dramatic unbalancing Dark Sky Strategy, if German player knows enough if this game and forum.
Increasing StB range, reducing defense point of Fg but not increasing room on Carrier is going to make USA invasion fleet an hard task.One thing I ask myself is why bothering to buy TcBs. On the same IPCs basis, you get similar results but on defense D3 Fg at 7 IPCs are way better.
In addition Fg have a special airstrike capacity while TcB have nothing and is costlier. An optimized purchaser will buy TcB in desperate situations only.I just wrote this post about a similar issue with Fg defending at 3, or 6 in a D12 game.
The main conclusion for a G40 2 hits Carrier is:
Buying A0 D2 C16 Carrier for 2 Fgs D4 was difficult to manage.
36 IPCs: 3 StBs A12, 3 hits vs 1 full Carrier D10, 4 hits is quite enough to survived: 20% vs 75%, but you don’t bring any other units.
Nonetheless you have a few room for TPs.If you drop to 3 StBs A12 vs D8 (2 Fg D3 + CV D2): 46% vs 48%, you cannot buy any TPs.
Any invasion force would be weaker than StBs on the same IPCs basis.
If we assume 3 StBs A3 D2 vs 1 full CV A0 D2 C14 + 2 Fgs A2 D3 C7, is about same IPCs basis
A9 D6 C30, 3 hits vs A0 D8 C28, 3 hits
AACalc gives: A. survives: 68.4% D. survives: 19.9% No one survives: 11.7%Adding 1 TP+ 1 Inf and 1 Art = 14 IPCs + 28 IPCs = 42 IPCs
4 StBs A3 C40 IPCs vs 1 Full Carrier with 1 TP C42 IPCs:
A. survives: 95.2% D. survives: 2.6% No one survives: 2.2%So, if Germany invest in its Black Medium Bomber it is able to sink USA fleet.
What balances things a bit is Strategic Bomber only A2 D1 C12.@Baron:
Where do you start do give your combat values for planes?
I simply make an assumption that OOB G40 was the reference.
But I feel Global War is different.You say you don’t have TcB in initial set-up.
Where is the basic set-up for your map?If you make a conversion from 2 planes to get a third but don’t change Fighter combat values, I doubt you will get a more balanced game.
When I developed my idea for Fg making hit directly on aircraft, I first try to divide the combat power in half because of increased casualties:
(D12) Fg A3 D4 C7. And it was possible to add 3 Fgs on a Carrier to get almost same combat factor for same cost than 2 Fg A6 D8 C10
3 Fgs A9 D12 C21, 3 hits vs 2 Fgs A12 D16 C20, 2 hitsAt least on defense, 10 D4 vs 7 D8 gives odds of survival around: 50% vs 48%.
On a AACalc, you get similar odds of survival between them.So, 10 divided by 7 gives 1.43 which is near 1.5 so for 2 OOB Fgs I add a third one (2*1.5=3).
But it is not the same if you use higher combat values for Fighter.
You will not preserve the initial set-up balance if adding Fg.For TcB, I used this scale down 2 pts for each IPC (using 10 IPCs Fg as basis):
10 IPCs A6 D8
9 IPCs A6 D6
8 IPCs A6 D4 or A4 D6
TcB will be better on offense compared to Fg, so I chose A6 D4.Assuming attack is costlier than defense, it makes sense if Fg A4 D4 C7 to get TcB A6 D4 C8
So, when Fg A4 is attacking TcB D4, it is same values (but since Fg cheaper, it remains better unit)
TcB A6 attacking Fg D4, TcB is better but because I use Fg hit directly aircraft there was no issue about it.However, with StBs it is another case:
StB A8 C12 vs Fg D4 C7 was quite an issue.
I partly solved it knowing that 7A8 worth same in Calc as 10D4.
So, a 12 IPCs bomber is not better than defending Fg.
And not at all on offence considering that 12 Fg A4 are better than 7 StB A8.OOB StB A8 C12 vs Fg D8 C10 is on par in absolute value, but since Fg is cheaper we still view it as better on defense.
However, I was not totally happy of my number.
I rather like something which clearly show how Fg are superior on defense against bombers.Something like bomber C5 totally solved it.
If it have no regular combat value. Problem solved.
You keep it for SBR dogfight.A StB A1 or A2 C5 (is the lowest combat number) against Fg D4 C7 it makes a very good match, if not perfect.
TcB A2 C8 (is the same lowest combat number but higher cost) showed it is not better than StB against Fg in air combat.
But TcB A6 D4 C8 can be part of regular combat and pick ground unit upon hit, which is pretty descriptive on what can be done from air.
All units can fight air vs air.IDK if these cost are really slowing things down because 7+8+5 gives 20 IPCs or 7+8 gives 15.
Also 7 and 8 are usual numbers for TPs and DDs.IMO it solved all symbolic issues with combat values.
Now if I look at Fg A6 D6 or D7 C10 it is weaker on defense against StB A8 D2 C11.
And your game is safe because German player don’t play Dark Sky to make abusive Heavys power projection.
But your weaker Fg D7 being on 2 planes Carrier cannot compete against a flock of StBs A8 M7-8 C12.
Using correctly such Superweapon, your US fleet wouldn’t dare to land in North Africa.
Running a few simulations even with Fg D8, it requires 3 scrambling Fgs and even best 6 Fgs to get a good cover.
Buying A0 D4 C16 Carrier for 2 Fgs D8 was difficult to manage.
36 IPCs: 3 StBs A24, 3 hits vs 1 full Carrier D20, 4 hits is quite enough to survived: 20% vs 75%, but you don’t bring any other units.
Nonetheless you have a few room for TPs.If you drop to 3 StBs A24 vs D16 (2 Fg D6 + CV D4): 46% vs 48%, you cannot buy any TPs.
Any invasion force would be weaker than StBs on the same IPCs basis.
Number below makes for 6 StBs vs 2 Full Carrier with Fg A6 D6.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=6&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=2&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=4&dCar=2&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Tra-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=If you add 2 StBs for 2 TPs+4 Infs you gets 95% vs 5% odds of survival. So you are completely toasted.
So Germany may repel any US invasion if Fg are A6 D6.
And you only bring 2 TPs! A single TP for each fully loaded Carrier.
It is the best I can do to show the issue of a too low defense factor for Fighters
-
@Baron:
Hi All
Naval Units
Cruiser Class AA Capability. Cruiser class naval units have built in defensive AA capability. Cruiser class units have a preemptive roll up to 3 dice @2 to hit against attacking aircraft prior to the start of regular combat.
Destroyer Transport Duty: Destroyers that have not moved during the Combat Phase may transport 1 infantry class unit during the non-combat phase.
Hi userx, welcome on board.
Is it a typo or are you playing D12 digit?
Do you really give Cruiser up to three rolls @2?It seems very OP. Some Radar Tech allows AAA to rise to three rolls @2, but not Cruiser.
Many discuss on how many roll should Cruiser get.
My line of thinking is to keep the same number as AAA.
However, my AAA usually (in similar low cost planes) are much cheaper cost 3: up to two rolls @1 against up to two planes max, but each combat round.Destroyers moving Infantry in NCM is pretty inspired by a japanese NA: Tokyo Express.
It seems too much considering how Destroyers are already useful.
I rather prefer Black_Elk HR which gives this ability to Battleship unit.That way, it is not abuse because 20 IPCs is high investment. It only makes BB a bit more interesting and versatile while not being OP.
Thanks for the feedback Baron, yes, the " @2 " is a typo. Maybe a little wishful thinking :) Intention is to keep same abilities as AAA gun. I will edit the post.
As for DD transport ability, yes Tokyo Express as well as the German invasion of Norway. BB eh?
Re your reply below on our air unit changes. Let me comment separately once I’ve fully read/understood in detail.
-
As for DD transport ability, yes Tokyo Express as well as the German invasion of Norway. BB eh?
Exactly. I didn’t think about it but you can translate this historical exceptions as using BBs in 1942.2
Unfortunately, Bismarck is already destroyed but if playing earlier in 1941 set-up, it works.
And Japan have enough Battleship to simulate the Tokyo Express.
So, Destroyers won’t be spammed to travel Infantry at low cost with a high defense number on cost basis.
Actually, it cost 15 IPCs to get A2 D2 1 hit for 1 DD+1 TP.
8 IPCs to travel 1 Infantry into A2 D2 1 hit warship becomes a bargain. -
These mostly look like fun. Three AAA shots for a cruiser is a bit strong, especially against 7 IPC fighters with only A2. If I attack your fleet of 1 DD + 1 CA (cost: 20 ipcs) with a fully loaded carrier deck (cost: 28 ipcs), then you roll 7 pips of defense against my 5 pips of offense, and some of your pips are preemptive. It just seems a bit off. The weaker you make each individual plane, the more powerful each AAA shot gets, because I have to bring more planes (and trigger more AAA rolls) to get the same amount of punch.
I agree that BB is better for carrying marines than DD. I think your TacB should either cost 7 IPCs or get to choose it’s casualties when attacking sea units or when it rolls a 1.
I like your canal rules, and I like having four airplane types.
I am not sure what the purpose is of banning island factories. Are you finding that the USA is able to kill Japanese first too quickly? Are you getting crushed by a Japanese blitz powered by an East Indies factory?
-
Baron, really good point about lower value Ftr actually weakening the ability for Allies (US) to bring combat points into combat against Germany. We overlooked this. Your suggestion of countering this by increasing the carrier carrying capacity is good. I also think your idea of med. bomber with a 2A rather than 3A + Cruiser AAA capability should correct this imbalance?
What we are trying to achieve with multiple air unit types was largely to provide some flavour and variety to the game and a touch of what we experienced playing Hearts of Iron back in the day.
Fighters being more the air superiority air unit while tac bombers being the ground/naval attack. Note that while I didn’t mention specifically above, Tac bombers maintain their combined arms bonuses hence are the best ground attack when paired up.
As for two other bomber type, wanted to depict the multi-purpose med. bomber (think 2 engine German bombers) as well as a more dedicated 4 engined heavy strategic bomber for SBR but weak at ground/naval attack.
Argothair, thanks for the feedback. Re Island restriction for industry, yes, Japan in the early game and US in the mid game. I typically play the Axis and everytime I built a Japanese factory in the East Indies it felt like cheating. India never has a chance.
I’ve got a game coming up in a couple weeks, we’ll try some of these new ideas. Thanks guys.
-
Baron, really good point about lower value Ftr actually weakening the ability for Allies (US) to bring combat points into combat against Germany. We overlooked this. Your suggestion of countering this by increasing the carrier carrying capacity is good. I also think your idea of med. bomber with a 2A rather than 3A + Cruiser AAA capability should correct this imbalance?
What we are trying to achieve with multiple air unit types was largely to provide some flavour and variety to the game and a touch of what we experienced playing Hearts of Iron back in the day.
Fighters being more the air superiority air unit while tac bombers being the ground/naval attack. Note that while I didn’t mention specifically above, Tac bombers maintain their combined arms bonuses hence are the best ground attack when paired up.
As for two other bomber type, wanted to depict the multi-purpose med. bomber (think 2 engine German bombers) as well as a more dedicated 4 engined heavy strategic bomber for SBR but weak at ground/naval attack.
Argothair, thanks for the feedback. Re Island restriction for industry, yes, Japan in the early game and US in the mid game. I typically play the Axis and everytime I built a Japanese factory in the East Indies it felt like cheating. India never has a chance.
I’ve got a game coming up in a couple weeks, we’ll try some of these new ideas. Thanks guys.
OK, IDK which of my threads you actually read or not.
But here is my basic suggestion from some recent play-tests on Triple A and considering what your aiming at:Fighter: A2 D3 M4 Cost:7 Hit priority Air Units, then AAA, then select casualty as usual, SBR A2 D3
Tac Bomber: A3 D2 M4 Cost:8, Pick any ground casualty of your choice (AAA included) SBR A2
Med. Bomber: A4 D1 M6 Cost:10 Can SBR A1 1D6 damage
Strategic Bomber: A0 D0 M8 Cost:5 Can SBR A1, 1D6 damageAAA A0 D0 NCM1 C4, hit @1 up to three plane, 1 roll per plane max, each combat round (as a Fg unit)
Because your Fighter is so much better in combat and mobility and versatility, no one will ever buy AAA if not cheaper.Carrier is A1 D2 M2 C14, carry up to three Fg or TcB.
You should apply a Shipyard Tech like HR because you Fg is cheap and very efficient on defense.
Subs cannot compete nor Destroyer.Subs should be C5
DDs should be C6
Cruiser C9
Carrier C12
Battleship C15If that case, the TcB can also pick any warship casualty because warships are now cheaper and Fg on Carrier is able to easily kill such TcB.
You will have more money to buy air combat unit and still invest in a fleet.
Strategic bomber will act like StB and much better than Medium bomber.
Same A1 D6 damage but cost 5 IPCs lower than Medium bomber.
Also medium bomber can make efficient regular bombing attack, no more for StBs.
StBs is solely for Strategic bombing.There is many changes but it is based around your basic Fg and your hope all your planes gives what you expect.
TcB need no more pairing with bonus. It will happen by itself if some player hope it can survive against a three Fgs @3 rolls vs planes first.
Any sound attacker needs Fgs to be casualty while TcB target bigger ships.For convenience, let attacker planes make all rolls first, then allocate hits. Then follow with
After, all defending planes make all rolls, then allocate hits. Then others follow.I just noticed your Fg was A2 D3 C7, it is too near Tank A3 D3 C6.
That’s why it should rise to C8.I tried as much as possible to keep A2 D3 Fg.
But it seems I returned to my own suggested Fg A2 D2 C7, hit air first.
To have less impact compared to Tank.Tell me what you like and dislike from above suggestions and we can try to find what is a correct value to not outbalanced the whole.
Now I had done more playtests with Triple A HRs on 1942.2, with TcBs and C5 bombers.
I can better forsee, at least, a few game near breaker… to keep the challenge for both sides.Fg A2 D2 C7 works well with TcBs and bombers med and stb.
CV is then increase to A0 D3 2 hits C16. -
As I’ve written in other threads, I think a Japanese factory in the East Indies is extremely powerful if the British both fail to sink a Japanese transport on B1 and fail to sink the Japanese capital ships in SZ37 on B1.
If the British accomplish either of those objectives, then the East Indies factory is a trap for the Japanese – it looks exciting at first to be able to crank out four units a turn right near India, but the need to build extra transports to service that factory means that you’re losing money on the deal relative to a standard shuck-shuck from Tokyo to Yunnan. On any reasonable set of dice rolls, either India will stabilize (if the Brits sunk a transport), or you will lose the rest of your fleet to an American attack (if the Brits sunk your BB + carrier) and then the Americans will take the Philippines and Borneo as compensation.
Enjoy your playtest, though – I hope it goes well!
-
I like all the special sea zone restrictions. Gibraltar and Danish straights. Any thoughts on Suez going through Egypt.
Also like the inclusion of aaafire and some limited transportation capability. Anything that makes for more attractive ship builds always seems good to me.
:-DOn the air, the main impediment to ready testing FtF is the requirement to buy more stuff than comes in the boxed game. With a G40 expansion you still only have 3 sculpts.
I was thinking about this issue for the C5 strategic bomber concept in 1942.2.
One thought I had about Tacs in 1942.2 for the Defenseless Strat B idea I had, was that some aircraft might be represented on the map by a scult that always has a green chip under it (saving all green chips for this use). So with that idea, I was thinking you could represent 3 air units with only 2 sculpts. For example
Strat B = C5 SBR only
Green Chip Fighter = Tactical Bomber
Fighter (red or gray chip) = FighterOr you could use a roundel, or paint a tail, but the green chip seemed pretty easy to work with.
Fighter can still fit on a deck that way.Perhaps if its a game designed to use G40 sculpts for 1942.2 you could just do the same thing with the bomber sculpts? Like
Medium bomber = normal sculpt
Strat bomber = green chip sculpt.Just an idea to make it easy to test, without a big commitment in painting or purchasing new stuff.
For the factories, I do worry that it takes any series threat to Tokyo from the Americans pretty much off the table. It’s very hard to get onto the mainland in an effective way with US, without expanding production on the money islands. Is this what you are trying to avoid? Or are you trying to prevent Japan from using one on India/Africa/Australia?
For my part I enjoy the factory unit, so rules that restrict where it can go aren’t as appealing to me. Basically the 3 islands affected, Philippines, East Indies and especially Borneo, are pretty much the only interesting territories in whole the Pacific, by virtue of their production potential, so it seems a shame to lose them.
Suggested Topics
