I think uou woudk have to cut some of America’s income. They could not have 50 a turn. Got to imagine some of that is spent in the Pacific. Probably start my shaving off 10.
Would be fun to try. If you do, tell us how it goes, please.
Baron Munchhausen's 1941 alternate setup for 1942.2 based on AA50 1941
-
@Baron:
I can’t open the saved game because I don’t have the Philadelphia Experiment map. Can you post a link to download the Philadelphia map?
I might have to built set-up on a bare v5 map to make an easier access.
This time, I made a saved game of this setup for TripleA 1942.2, bare WWII V5 map.
This include an edit on Malaya, which is UK’s owned.
There is 2 ICs in China, it needs to be Player enforced so you can only produce Infantry on it.
This is to simulate Chinese militia build up from AA50. -
AA50 order of play was:
1941 Scenario
1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. Italy
6. United StatesMaybe you can simply start with Germany and finishing with Russia, keeping the same order as OOB:
1941 Scenario for 1942.2, same order
1. Germany
2. United Kingdom
3. Japan
4. United States
5. Soviet UnionOr, if Japan cannot stand is own in Pacific, then use this order:
1941 Scenario same order than AA50
1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. United StatesHave fun,
BaronOne clear issue about UK going before Japan is about money islands.
It allows UK to put blockers into the sea ways of IJN TPs, delaying radically the invasion of Borneo and East Indies.
IMO, if you wish to use exactly the same set up, you have to change the turn order and follow AA50 1941 sequence:
1. Germany
2. Soviet Union
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. United StatesOtherwise, skipping Russia and allowing UK before Japan under Triple A WWII v5, will require a few modifications to just hinder lightly the IJN capture of money islands.
I’m thinking about placing an IJN Sub and DD in FIC-Malaya SZ36 (to make less interesting a UK’s warship in this SZ 75% vs 20%),
to replace India’s DD by a Cruiser unit (more vulnerable to Sub attack/defense but more historically related to Battleship HMS Prince of Whales and Battle Cruiser Repulse) in SZ35.
To be more accurate, it might be fun to add a Battleship unit but TUV swing is quite unpredictable…Probably, it would work better if Australian Destroyer was replaced by Submarine.
A submarine, which cannot block TP amphibious assault in SZ39.
And place UK’s TP in SZ34 to left, at least Borneo empty by the end of UK’s turn.UK’s:
Sea Zone 34: 1 Transport
Sea Zone 35: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39: 1 Submarine, 1 TransportSea Zone 36: 1 Destroyer (Japan), 1 Submarine (Japan)
I would add another Japanese Infantry to be able to capture East Indies, Borneo and New Guinea, Indonesia more easily:
Caroline Islands: 4 InfantryAlso, I would be partisan of giving an Eastern Australian IC on set up because it can not produce 2 units per turn as AA50 2 IPCs Australia could. That way, UK may built an IC on Western Australia and get a 2 units per turn built.
HTH
Baron
Edit: I changed the US Destroyer in Philippines SZ into 2 Submarines. That way, it allows IJN more room to move into Borneo, East Indies.
FIC-Malaya SZ remains empty, so UK’s Battleship (Force Z) may either move into this SZ (as historically the case) to block access to East Indies or try to protect Borneo. (In addition, historically 29 Submarines were stationed at Philippines NB while only 13 Destroyers were present. After the initial assault, surviving Subs started patrolling in South-East Asia to sink Japanese Transport and warships. Subs on set-up allows the possibility, a small one, to survive and fight another day.)Japan received 1 Destroyer and 1 Sub and 1 Infantry in exchange for giving UK 1 Battleship instead of 1 Destroyer and US 2 Subs over 1 Destroyer.
However, UK may defend East Indies SZ with 1 BB and 1 Destroyer, if he wish. But opening India’s SZ to direct attack.
Also US and Japan receive another Submarine, 1 in Okinawa SZ, the other in Hawaii SZ. (This is to better describe the variety of forces implied. Submarines were part of Pearl attack. And a lot of US Submarines were at port during Pearl Harbor raid.)UK’s:
Sea Zone 34: 1 Transport
Sea Zone 35:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport (remain the same as original setup)US:
Sea Zone 48:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport, 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 53: 1 Battleship + 1 SubmarineJapan:
Sea Zone 36: empty
Sea Zone 50: 1 Destroyer, 2 Transports
Caroline Islands:Infantry 34 InfantrySea Zone 51: + 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 60: 1 Transport + 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer -
Trying to keep this order, especially for Triple A:
Start with Germany and finishing with Russia, keeping the same order as OOB:
1941 Scenario for 1942.2, same order
1. Germany
2. United Kingdom
3. Japan
4. United States
5. Soviet UnionI changed the US Destroyer in Philippines SZ into 2 Submarines. That way, it allows IJN more room to move into Borneo, East Indies.
FIC-Malaya SZ remains empty, so UK’s Battleship (Force Z) may either move into this SZ (as historically the case) to block access to East Indies and India. (In addition, historically 29 Submarines were stationed at Philippines NB while only 13 Destroyers were present. After the initial assault, surviving Subs started patrolling in South-East Asia to sink Japanese Transport and warships. Subs on set-up allows the possibility, a small one, to survive and fight another day.)Japan received 1 Destroyer and 1 Sub and 1 Infantry in exchange for giving UK 1 Battleship instead of 1 Destroyer and US 2 Subs over 1 Destroyer.
However, UK may defend East Indies SZ with 1 BB and 1 Destroyer from Australia, if he wish. But it opens India’s SZ to direct attack from IJN fleet on coastal China (1 BB, 1 Cruiser, 1 loaded Carrier, 2 fully loaded TPs).
Also US and Japan receive another Submarine, 1 in Okinawa SZ, the other in Hawaii SZ. (This is to better describe the variety of forces implied. Submarines were part of Pearl attack. And a lot of US Submarines were at port during Pearl Harbor raid.)UK’s:
Sea Zone 34: 1 Transport
Sea Zone 35:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport (remain the same as original setup)US:
Sea Zone 48:1 Destroyer, 1 Transport, 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 53: 1 Battleship + 1 SubmarineJapan:
Sea Zone 36: empty
Sea Zone 50: 1 Destroyer, 2 Transports
Caroline Islands:Infantry 34 InfantrySea Zone 51: + 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 60: 1 Transport + 1 Submarine, 1 DestroyerThe attachment below have many setup charts: 1 original 1941 translate into 1942.2, 1 modified, 1 modified and TcB+DD added.
Baron Munchhausen alternate set-up charts for 1942 2ndEd_based on 1941_AA50.doc
-
Hi Baron. I was able to download the Philadelphia Experiment, and the San Francisco Rules v5_1942, and those maps work fine for me as new games, but I am still getting the same error message (Philadelphia 1942 map not found) when I try open your save games with tactical bombers. I think you probably did some re-arranging of the game files inside your own folders. It’s not a huge deal; I am not super-excited about playing Anniversary on the 1942.2 map in any event.
For better or worse, the 1942.2 map is much safer for Russia on the eastern front than the AA50 map. On the AA50 map, Germany can park a stack of tanks in Eastern Poland, and then use Italian can openers against any of Baltic States, Belorussia, East Ukraine, or Ukraine to threaten Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. With a modest Italian force of, e.g., 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr in East Poland, the Russians have to either leave a minimum of 16 infantry garrisoning the eastern front (4 inf * 4 territories), or else guard all of their factories with enough infantry to stand up to the German tank force. Both objectives are very difficult, and so the Western Allies wind up rushing to Moscow’s defense.
By contrast, on the 1942.2 map, a Russian stack in West Russia pretty much secures the entire eastern front. There are no Italians available for can-opening, and the territory structure is much easier to defend – the Germans can’t get infantry to Archangel in any significant quantity as long the Allies promptly sink the German Baltic fleet, and so the only territories that are in any real danger are West Russia and the Caucasus – Russia’s looking at splitting its defenses two ways instead of seven ways.
In the east, on the 1942.2 map with 1941 AA50 setup, there is the problem of India. If India starts with a UK factory and Japan goes first, then Japan can easily conquer it before the British move. If India starts with a UK factory and the UK goes first, then the UK can easily hold the factory, which severely limits Japan’s growth potential.
On the other hand, if India does not start with a UK factory, then Japan has no interesting targets for the first three turns…even if it conquers India, Australia, Hawaii, China, Buryatia, money islands etc., none of this is of any real strategic consequence. Now Japan is collecting 40 IPCs per turn, and it can start to pressure Moscow through China or India, just like in an OOB game of 1942.2. If Japan misses out on Buryatia, or on Hawaii, or on Australia, or on two out of three of those, then Japan is collecting 38 IPCs per turn, and it can start to pressure Moscow through China or India. I guess my point is that with no starting UK factories, the first two or three turns for Japan don’t seem to have much impact on the rest of the game. Japan is definitely going to grow rapidly; it will roughly double in size, and then after that it will stall out and have to start either pushing infantry toward Moscow, or start picking off individual 1-IPC territories like Madagascar or New Zealand.
I like the idea of a starting factory in E. Australia because it might add some punctuation to the map…the Allies want to at least hold the line at Eastern Australia because of its factory; the Japanese want to expand at least as far as Eastern Australia to knock out that factory. IMHO, something similar in the center of the map would also be useful…maybe a starting British factory in South Africa. Merging the Italian and German fleets in the med (total of 2 transports, with 3 bombards) means that Germany can very easily take Egypt on G1 every game, so the British will need a way to meaningfully contest Africa.
In general I really do like your “translation” of the AA50 1941 setup; I just think the concerns I described above are pretty serious, and I myself can’t think of any obvious solutions for them.
All of that said, if you want to playtest either a generic 1942.2 TacB/D5 game or an AA50 1941 setup 1942.2 TacB game, I’d be happy to play a game by forum or e-mail with you.
-
Hi Baron. I was able to download the Philadelphia Experiment, and the San Francisco Rules v5_1942, and those maps work fine for me as new games, but I am still getting the same error message (Philadelphia 1942 map not found) when I try open your save games with tactical bombers. I think you probably did some re-arranging of the game files inside your own folders. It’s not a huge deal; I am not super-excited about playing Anniversary on the 1942.2 map in any event.
For better or worse, the 1942.2 map is much safer for Russia on the eastern front than the AA50 map. On the AA50 map, Germany can park a stack of tanks in Eastern Poland, and then use Italian can openers against any of Baltic States, Belorussia, East Ukraine, or Ukraine to threaten Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. With a modest Italian force of, e.g., 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr in East Poland, the Russians have to either leave a minimum of 16 infantry garrisoning the eastern front (4 inf * 4 territories), or else guard all of their factories with enough infantry to stand up to the German tank force. Both objectives are very difficult, and so the Western Allies wind up rushing to Moscow’s defense.
By contrast, on the 1942.2 map, a Russian stack in West Russia pretty much secures the entire eastern front. There are no Italians available for can-opening, and the territory structure is much easier to defend – the Germans can’t get infantry to Archangel in any significant quantity as long the Allies promptly sink the German Baltic fleet, and so the only territories that are in any real danger are West Russia and the Caucasus – Russia’s looking at splitting its defenses two ways instead of seven ways.
In the east, on the 1942.2 map with 1941 AA50 setup, there is the problem of India. If India starts with a UK factory and Japan goes first, then Japan can easily conquer it before the British move. If India starts with a UK factory and the UK goes first, then the UK can easily hold the factory, which severely limits Japan’s growth potential.
On the other hand, if India does not start with a UK factory, then Japan has no interesting targets for the first three turns…even if it conquers India, Australia, Hawaii, China, Buryatia, money islands etc., none of this is of any real strategic consequence. Now Japan is collecting 40 IPCs per turn, and it can start to pressure Moscow through China or India, just like in an OOB game of 1942.2. If Japan misses out on Buryatia, or on Hawaii, or on Australia, or on two out of three of those, then Japan is collecting 38 IPCs per turn, and it can start to pressure Moscow through China or India. I guess my point is that with no starting UK factories, the first two or three turns for Japan don’t seem to have much impact on the rest of the game. Japan is definitely going to grow rapidly; it will roughly double in size, and then after that it will stall out and have to start either pushing infantry toward Moscow, or start picking off individual 1-IPC territories like Madagascar or New Zealand.
I like the idea of a starting factory in E. Australia because it might add some punctuation to the map…the Allies want to at least hold the line at Eastern Australia because of its factory; the Japanese want to expand at least as far as Eastern Australia to knock out that factory. IMHO, something similar in the center of the map would also be useful…maybe a starting British factory in South Africa. Merging the Italian and German fleets in the med (total of 2 transports, with 3 bombards) means that Germany can very easily take Egypt on G1 every game, so the British will need a way to meaningfully contest Africa.
In general I really do like your “translation” of the AA50 1941 setup; I just think the concerns I described above are pretty serious, and I myself can’t think of any obvious solutions for them.
All of that said, if you want to playtest either a generic 1942.2 TacB/D5 game or an AA50 1941 setup 1942.2 TacB game, I’d be happy to play a game by forum or e-mail with you.
I believe it is because you don’t have the right map.
The name is San Francisco Experiment v5 1942.
It is part of a zip file which have both Global and 1942.2 map.
In your maps, do you have all these four elements: C5 StB A0, DD A1 D1 C5, TcB C10, Cruiser and TP M3?Because you really have to try this one.
I might be interested to try a play-by-forum. I’m a complete rookie on that one however.I don’t have your in depth comparative analysis capacity. It seems correct.
I still have the intent of making a different earlier starting set-up than 1942 OOB.
I found a few interesting things to boost a bit the 1941 set-up.
I saw that it can be possible to had two UK Carriers to start.
One is the Ark Royal (which is in 1941 game near Gibraltar SZ.) (1 Carrier, 1 TcB, 1 DD)
And I would put the other near South Africa in SZ 27. (1 Carrier, 1 Fg, 1 DD)
There was another Carrier at Capetown HMS Hermes, which was slower and the HMS Indomitable was near East Indies after Prince of Whales was sunk in december 1941.The following month, in January 1942, Indomitable joined the Eastern Fleet based at Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). At the end of January, she ferried 48 Royal Air Force Hawker Hurricanes to airfields in Sumatra in the Dutch East Indies, to reinforce the air defenses of Singapore, but a large proportion of the Hurricanes were destroyed on the ground by Japanese air raids. The British commanders in Singapore surrendered to the Japanese on 15 February.
After the fall of Britain’s Far Eastern colonies (Hong Kong and Burma also fell) Indomitable was redeployed. A new Eastern Fleet was established under the command of Admiral Sir James Somerville. Indomitable, and her sister ship Formidable were the only modern aircraft carriers of the Fleet, and were a vital asset to the Allies in the Far East; the only other carrier, Hermes, was obsolete.
Do you think it is possible to use 1942 map into a correct set-up for 1941?
-
The name is San Francisco Experiment v5 1942.
I don’t have that map. I have “San Francisco Experiment” and I have “San Francisco v5 1942”, but not “San Francisco Experiment v5 1942.” My version of “San Francisco v5 1942” has the C5 bomber and M3 cruiser, but not the C5 Destroyer or the TacB unit. The “Philadelphia Experiment” zip that I downloaded had two different xml files, one of which was the “San Francisco Experiment,” but it was for Global, not for 1942.2. There was nothing in the Philadelphia Experiment zip that had San Francisco Experiment v5 1942.
Honestly, I am done searching for your map file. I have already spent half an hour trying to follow your various links and saved games, and so on. If you want to send me one more link, please test it first to make sure that the link actually works on other people’s computers, and then I will give it a try.
I might be interested to try a play-by-forum. I’m a complete rookie on that one however.
Me too, but I bet we could figure it out.
And I would put the other near South Africa in SZ 27. (1 Carrier, 1 Fg, 1 DD)
I like that idea a lot. In addition to being historically accurate, it helps give Britain some interesting choices – fight for control of the Indian Ocean? Fight to defend Australia? Fight for control of the Western Med? Or just run home with your tail between your legs and try to build up the Home Fleet for attacks on Norway/France?
Do you think it is possible to use 1942 map into a correct set-up for 1941?
Depending on how high your standards are, you may already be there! For me, a “correct” translation is one that’s (a) reasonably balanced, (b) offers interesting choices for all countries, and © reminds players of some of their favorite features of the original version.
In terms of balance, I think the map is probably already balanced if you use the following details:
-
Turn order is Germany -> Russia -> Japan -> UK -> US
-
No starting factory in India
-
Germany gets a total of two transports in the Med for a G1 Egypt attack
-
UK gets extra carrier, airplane, and destroyer near South Africa
-
UK gets starting factory in Eastern Australia
In terms of interest, I think the game will interest some types of players and not others. It will be a long game. Germany does not have a viable blitz option on Moscow that I can see, so Germany is forced to attack Africa and wait until German tanks built with African income can start heading east. Japan probably has to spend its first turn taking the money islands, and the second turn reinforcing the Chinese theater. Barring an Allied mistake or terrible dice, it’s not until turn 3 that Japan can really start making a drive toward objectives like India, Australia, or Hawaii, and even those are only intermediate objectives. A decisive attack on South Africa (if UK chooses to build factory there), Caucasus, San Francisco, etc. would not come until round 5 or 6.
In terms of nostalgia, I think the game definitely captures many of the exciting features of AA50 1941 – you’ve got the scramble for the money islands, the strong Axis fleet in the Mediterranean being hunted by Allied air power, the strong Russian army in Leningrad being slowly driven back by Barbarossa, and so on. Some people will miss the national objectives, and the Chinese front is obviously a bit thin, but I think the value you’re offering is very reasonable for people who don’t want to go print their own map at FedEx – assuming you post a link that actually has your map on it.
-
-
And I would put the other near South Africa in SZ 27. (1 Carrier, 1 Fg, 1 DD)
I like that idea a lot. In addition to being historically accurate, it helps give Britain some interesting choices – fight for control of the Indian Ocean? Fight to defend Australia? Fight for control of the Western Med? Or just run home with your tail between your legs and try to build up the Home Fleet for attacks on Norway/France?
Do you think it is possible to use 1942 map into a correct set-up for 1941?
Depending on how high your standards are, you may already be there! For me, a “correct” translation is one that’s (a) reasonably balanced, (b) offers interesting choices for all countries, and © reminds players of some of their favorite features of the original version.
In terms of balance, I think the map is probably already balanced if you use the following details:
-
Turn order is Germany -> Russia -> Japan -> UK -> US
-
No starting factory in India
-
Germany gets a total of two transports in the Med for a G1 Egypt attack
-
UK gets extra carrier, airplane, and destroyer near South Africa
-
UK gets starting factory in Eastern Australia
In terms of interest, I think the game will interest some types of players and not others. It will be a long game. Germany does not have a viable blitz option on Moscow that I can see, so Germany is forced to attack Africa and wait until German tanks built with African income can start heading east. Japan probably has to spend its first turn taking the money islands, and the second turn reinforcing the Chinese theater. Barring an Allied mistake or terrible dice, it’s not until turn 3 that Japan can really start making a drive toward objectives like India, Australia, or Hawaii, and even those are only intermediate objectives. A decisive attack on South Africa (if UK chooses to build factory there), Caucasus, San Francisco, etc. would not come until round 5 or 6.
In terms of nostalgia, I think the game definitely captures many of the exciting features of AA50 1941 – you’ve got the scramble for the money islands, the strong Axis fleet in the Mediterranean being hunted by Allied air power, the strong Russian army in Leningrad being slowly driven back by Barbarossa, and so on. Some people will miss the national objectives, and the Chinese front is obviously a bit thin, but I think the value you’re offering is very reasonable for people who don’t want to go print their own map at FedEx – assuming you post a link that actually has your map on it.
I acknowledge what your see.
I past this day trying a few modified things to create 1941 Redesign setup for this 1942.2 second edition map.
There is a lot of promising things.
In my first try, there wasn’t enough ICs in PTO on setup. IJN was growing too fast and US Navy was sacrificed too early.
The next one, the additional UK full Carrier and a better purchase of US Subs make for a total destruction of all warships both IJN and UK and US in PTO.I put ICs in Hawaii, New Zealand, Eastern and Western Australia and even India.
As well as 1 in Sinkiang and 1 in Szechwan, but I destroy them upon capture.
I also made impassable by land Western China (Western frontiers of both Sinkiang and Szechwan).The order of play is still Triple A limited: R1 Russian is all freezed up, Germany opens purchase and combat, UK, Japan and US, then R2 Russia can finally purchase and move.
The general dynamic is oriented by the 4 ICs in PTOs.
Maybe I’m too happy to play in PTO instead of ATO but I must admit that such UK’s IC drags all IPCs.Maybe it is the dilemma for UK, built units near Britain or split a lot of money against Japan and hold Africa to keep a good income basis. On both occasions, the African IC was enough to repel German’s forces.
That things make me clear to me that there should be no South African IC on set-up.India’s IC is on the razor hedge at start. Delaying any built up unit seems unhistorical and probably necessary on start because of the SZs cutting. India is only three SZs from Japan on this map (this is very different from AA50).
South Africa’s IC has to be built by UK. -
-
1941 Redesign setup for A&A 1942.2
based loosely on AA50 1941This Redesign set-up includes more warships, to be more historically accurate or giving more challenge in China, and add a few Destroyers for Russia.
Also, considered Western Chinese border is impassable for land units from both sides.Set up includes from San Francisco Experiment V5 1942.2:
TcBs A3-4 D3 M4 C10 SBR A1 D6 damage, preemptive Anti-Sub Attack 1, Anti-Sub Defense 1
StBs A0 D0 M6 C5 D6 damage
Destroyer A1 D1 M2 C5, preemptive Anti-Sub Attack 1, Anti-Sub Defense 1
1 Additionnal TcB is given for each StB.
1 TcB replace 1 Fg for each 2 Fgs.
2 ICs are given to China, to produce only Infantry (Player’s enforced).
On tabletop, you may decide to simply built 1 Infantry for each 2 IPCs from Chinese TTy (rounding up).Soviet Union
Starting income: 32 (24+ 8 ) IPCsRussia: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Industrial Complex
Karelia S.S.R.: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, Industrial Complex
Archangel: 2 Infantry
Novosibirsk: 2 Infantry
Caucasus: 4 Infantry, 1 AAA, Industrial Complex
Kazakh S.S.R.: 2 Infantry
Evenki National Okrug: 1 Infantry
Yakut S.S.R.: 3 Infantry
Buryatia S.S.R.: 3 Infantry
Soviet Far East: 2 Infantry
Baltic States: 3 Infantry (Russian)
Ukraine S.S.R.: 3 Infantry (Russian)
Belorussia: 2 Infantry (Russian)
West Russia: 2 Infantry (Russian)Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 4: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 16: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 63: 1 Submarine, 1 DestroyerUnited Kingdom
Starting income: 43 (31+ 12) IPCs
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 1 TacBomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, Industrial Complex
Eastern Canada: 1 Tank
Egypt: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Union of South Africa: 2 Infantry
Trans Jordan: 2 Infantry
India: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA
Burma: 1 Infantry
Eastern Australia: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Industrial Complex
Western Australia: 1 Infantry, 1 Industrial Complex
Western Canada: 1 Infantry
New Zealand: 1 Infantry, 1 Industrial Complex
Persia: 1 Infantry
Kwangtung: 1 Infantry (United Kingdom)
Malaya: (United Kingdom)
East Indies: (United Kingdom)
Borneo: (United Kingdom)
New Guinea: (United Kingdom)
Solomon Islands: (United Kingdom)Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 6: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 7: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 10: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 13: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 TacBomber, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 27: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter & 1 TacBomber, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 34: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 35: 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39: 1 Cruiser, 1 TransportUnited States
Starting income: 45 (42+ 3) IPCsEastern United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 TacBomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, Industrial Complex
Central United States: 1 Infantry
Alaska: 1 Infantry
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Fighter, 1 TacBomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, IC
Midway: 1 Infantry
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Industrial Complex
Yunnan: 2 Infantry
Szechwan: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Fighter
(IC for chinese purpose only, destroyed once captured: built Infantry or Artillery only)
Anhwei: 2 Infantry
Sinkiang: (IC for chinese purpose only, destroyed once captured: built Infantry or Artillery only)
Wake Island: 1 Infantry (United States)
Philippine Islands: 2 Infantry (United States)Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 11: 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 42: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1FighterTacBomber, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 48: 2 Submarines, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 53: 1 Battleship, 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 56: 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 TransportGermany
Starting income: 33 (41- 8 ) IPCsGermany: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 AAA, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 TacBomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, IC
France: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Tank
Northwestern Europe: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 TacBomber, 1 Industrial Complex
Norway: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Finland: 3 Infantry
Poland: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Tanks,1 Fighter1 TacBomber
Bulgaria Romania: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Tanks
Italy: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, IC
Southern Europe: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Morocco: 1 Infantry
Libya: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Algeria: 1 InfantryNaval Setup:
Sea Zone 5: 1 Cruiser, 2 Submarines, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 8: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 9: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 14: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 15: 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 1 TransportJapan
Starting income: 15 (30 - 15) IPCsJapan: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Tactical Bomber, IC
Manchuria: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu: 4 Infantry
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 4 Infantry
Formosa: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
French Indo-China Thailand: 2 Infantry, 1 ArtilleryNaval Setup:
Sea Zone 57: 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Submarine, 2 Fighters, 2 TacBombers
Sea Zone 50: 2 Destroyers, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 60: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 61: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter & 1 TacBomber, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport with 1 Infantry & 1 Artillery, 1 Transport with 2 Infantry -
I saw you download the saved set-up.
I started with AA50 as baseline.
I added a few Submarines to get more early actions between Allies and Axis, mostly PTO.
I added UK’s Carrier to better balance PTO and for historical realism.
Then I started to compare with basic OOB 1942 setup to get more working interactions.
Now, I wonder if Russia should not start with at least 2 planes: 1 Fg and 1 TcB.
And I would substract 3 Infantry: 1 in Khazak, 1 Novosibirsk and 1 Buryatia.
First because Russia has a lot of planes, even early Barbarossa battles.
And for fun, it increase operational capacity for Russian player.
Germany has already 4 Fgs and 3 TcBs, and 1 StB.Here is a few changes I would make to give a better feel of variety of USSR armies and of what was accomplished during the first months of Barbarossa. It better corresponds to the kind of casualties done on Russian’s armies. It increases the defense points near the border, but I erased a few Infantry in USSR backyard TTs, that way giving 7 flying attack points (Fg and TcB) cannot be used with too much effect with less Infantry in the secondary defense line counter-attack (Archangel, Caucasus):
Soviet Union
Starting income: 32 (24+ 8 ) IPCsRussia: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, Industrial Complex
Karelia S.S.R.: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, Industrial Complex
Archangel:2 Infantry1 Infantry
Novosibirsk:2 Infantry1 Infantry
Caucasus:4 Infantry, 1 AAA, Industrial Complex 3 Infantry
Kazakh S.S.R.:2 Infantry1 Infantry
Evenki National Okrug: 1 Infantry
Yakut S.S.R.: 3 Infantry
Buryatia S.S.R.:3 Infantry2 Infantry
Soviet Far East: 2 Infantry
Baltic States:3 Infantry(Russian) 2 Infantry, 1 Tank
Ukraine S.S.R.:3 Infantry(Russian) 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter
Belorussia:2 Infantry(Russian) 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
West Russia: 2 Infantry (Russian)Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 4: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 16: 1 Destroyer 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 63: 1 Submarine, 1 DestroyerThat way, the results will not change that much in opening G1 but it gives a more dramatic feel of what is lost by Red Army.
I also added 1 Submarine in Black Sea SZ 16 to be more accurate.
With 5 IPCs Destroyers it is less a big deal, and with a much larger Italian fleet in Med, I don’t think it is such an issue. -
Thank you! I finally have the map working. :-)
I think all of this is very interesting, and I will continue playing around with it tonight. First I have to cook dinner!
My initial thought, just from reading some of your recent posts, is that you are moving away from “AA50 1941 on the 1942.2 Map” and toward “Baron Munchhausen’s 1941 on the 1942.2 Map.” When you add up the redesigned navies, redesigned Russian starting forces, new unit types, and the new starting factories, you’ve got a whole new game here! This can be a good thing. Take pride in your creation, and drop the AA50 label. You are boldly pioneering a new world of gaming. :-)
Also, I am a little concerned about the extra submarines in the Atlantic theater. I tried a G1 turn just now on “REDESIGN 1”, and I was able to sink the entire British Atlantic fleet on G1 while losing only 3 German planes and still taking Egypt, Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine with minimal German losses (0-1 infantry per territory). Not sure if that was your intention or not.
Finally, I agree with you that Russia in 1941 had some tanks and planes. I think starting Russia with 2 planes is reasonable. For what it’s worth, my understanding of the design decision in AA50 1941 to give Russia pretty much only infantry is that following Stalin’s purges and the defeat in the Finnish Winter War, the Red Army was so disorganized and demoralized that their units were not at anything like full fighting strength. In addition, many of their tanks and planes were initially inferior to their German equivalents, and the Russians were still struggling to adapt to the tactics of blitzkrieg. Russia was not really able to organize any effective counter-attacks against the Nazis until the Nazis were almost at the gates of Moscow – the first months of Barbarossa were just the Germans encircling and capturing one Russian army after another, bagging hundreds of thousands of soldiers at a time. So that is thematically represented by giving the Russians an army of almost all infantry, symbolically reflecting their inability to counter-attack. It’s not that they literally had no tanks or no planes.
That said, I think your design decision is also reasonable, and also makes sense. I will check out the balance later tonight.
-
Thank you! I finally have the map working. :-)
I think all of this is very interesting, and I will continue playing around with it tonight. First I have to cook dinner!
My initial thought, just from reading some of your recent posts, is that you are moving away from “AA50 1941 on the 1942.2 Map” and toward “Baron Munchhausen’s 1941 on the 1942.2 Map.” When you add up the redesigned navies, redesigned Russian starting forces, new unit types, and the new starting factories, you’ve got a whole new game here! This can be a good thing. Take pride in your creation, and drop the AA50 label. You are boldly pioneering a new world of gaming. :-)
Also, I am a little concerned about the extra submarines in the Atlantic theater. I tried a G1 turn just now on “REDESIGN 1”, and I was able to sink the entire British Atlantic fleet on G1 while losing only 3 German planes and still taking Egypt, Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine with minimal German losses (0-1 infantry per territory). Not sure if that was your intention or not.
Finally, I agree with you that Russia in 1941 had some tanks and planes. I think starting Russia with 2 planes is reasonable. For what it’s worth, my understanding of the design decision in AA50 1941 to give Russia pretty much only infantry is that following Stalin’s purges and the defeat in the Finnish Winter War, the Red Army was so disorganized and demoralized that their units were not at anything like full fighting strength. In addition, many of their tanks and planes were initially inferior to their German equivalents, and the Russians were still struggling to adapt to the tactics of blitzkrieg. Russia was not really able to organize any effective counter-attacks against the Nazis until the Nazis were almost at the gates of Moscow – the first months of Barbarossa were just the Germans encircling and capturing one Russian army after another, bagging hundreds of thousands of soldiers at a time. So that is thematically represented by giving the Russians an army of almost all infantry, symbolically reflecting their inability to counter-attack. It’s not that they literally had no tanks or no planes.
That said, I think your design decision is also reasonable, and also makes sense. I will check out the balance later tonight.
I’m really happy you get it. I know how you like 1942.2 game.
If you loose 3 Germany’s planes to UK, you are already in a bad start IMO.
It is supposed to be a dramatic capture of all 3 TTs on Eastern Front with little losses.Usually, the UK’s Carrier near Gibraltar will be sunk by 2 Subs and a few planes.
I lost 1 plane in UK3 due to a TcB bombing with Fighter on Western Europe.
Both UK’s went down and 1 Me109 too.Don’t forget, TcB and Fg can sink Sub on a “1”, it happens also that 1 U-boat was sunk that way.
-
I go deeper into giving similar units to history:
Battleship Tirpitz and 5 Cruisers are now in Baltic and fewer Sub but with 1 Soviet Sub and Cruiser.In September 1941 Germany formed the provisional Baltenflotte, which consisted of the battleship Tirpitz, cruisers Admiral Scheer, Emden, Koln, Leipzig and Nurnberg, destroyers Z25, Z26, Z27 and the 2nd torpedo boat squadron. It had been tasked with destroying the Soviet Baltic Fleet should it try to escape to neutral Sweden.
So, on G1 there will be a fight with Russia, for sure.
I added 1 US Cruiser by US East Coast to compensate for Tirpitz.
I moved 1 German’s Sub (SZ9) out of reach of US coast (SZ3) so it won’t be a likely target.Germany’s fleet:
Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 3: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 5:1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 8: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 9:1 Submarine
Sea Zone 14: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 15: 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 1 TransportSoviet’s fleet:
Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 4: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 5: 1 Cruiser, 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 16: 1 Destroyer 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 63: 1 Submarine, 1 DestroyerUK’s North Atlantic Fleet:
Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 6: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 7: 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 10: 2 Destroyers, 1 TransportUSA Atlantic fleet:
Naval Setup:
Sea Zone 11: 1 Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 42: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 TacBomber, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 48: 2 Submarines, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 53: 1 Battleship, 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 56: 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport -
Well, you are changing your design much faster than I can playtest it! Maybe I should wait a few days until you settle on a setup you prefer. :-)
My thoughts on a starting German BB in the Baltic Sea are that it’s unnecessary. Thematically, 1 BB token on the 1942 map tends to represent 3 or 4 modern battleships, and the Germans had only 2 somewhat older pocket battleships / battlecruisers in the Baltic. The key feature of a BB in TripleA is that it can be repaired, but one of the German capital ships in the Baltic very famously failed to recover from a torpedo hit and was scuttled without ever being repaired. Strategically, the Germans are doing plenty well enough in the Atlantic naval theater on your map as it is, without piling on still yet more advantages. An American cruiser in the Atlantic is fine – I can take it or leave it. It might be more fun to put that cruiser in the Panama Canal (east or west) instead of in the Atlantic. America doesn’t necessarily have that much to do on turn 1; just a quick attack in China and then figuring out how to position its planes, so making one more decision (which theater to use the cruiser in) wouldn’t hurt. I don’t think you need to relocate German subs to avoid an American cruiser attack, because unless I’ve misunderstood the rules, a sub can safely submerge to avoid a cruiser.
I tried one full round on your second-most-recent version, and I’m attaching the save game file so you can see some of my ideas – you may want to look at the game history if you are very curious. I played very quickly and casually to get a feel for the new rules and new options, so none of this represents my “best work” or my final thoughts on what a balanced strategy would look like. For example, I wanted to see if a Sea Lion was possible with a build of 1 carrier, 5 infantry, 1 artillery while still sending one transport east to take Egypt, and so far that looks like a bad idea – the sea battles are very easy for Germany to win, but UK on land is pretty defensible against only 2 German transports. They do need to place about 3 infantry + 2 planes in the UK for defense, which sucks some cash away that could have been placed in ANZAC on UK1, but there is still enough cash left over to place 3 dudes in India and 1 dude in Sydney, plus Britain can take back Egypt from India and Jordan if Germany only sends 1 transport.
I am still getting used to the 3-move cruisers and transports – they give you a lot to think about! I am a big fan already; I like the way Germany cannot safely empty France on G1 even if they sink the whole British fleet (oops), I like the way the Australian fleet can reach India or Thailand or Hawaii on UK1, I like the way the South African fleet can create naval power in the West Indian Ocean, and I like the way the Caroline transports can reach all plausible targets.
The need to garrison France requires the Germans to be more careful about their attacks on the eastern front, which can affect the balance there. I think the Russian move I show in the saved game (abandon Karelia immediately and split forces between West Russia and Caucasus) is more or less correct. I think the Germans will be very hard-pressed to gain a strong advantage in eastern Europe, especially if they want to buy any boats or planes. The front line will probably stabilize somewhere in Germany’s favor – maybe 40 IPCs to 25 IPCs or so – but it does take a long time to march troops from Berlin to Moscow. As it should, perhaps.
One thing to watch out for is a Japanese flight from carriers on the China Sea to Stalingrad – possible in one move of four spaces, even if “land movement” through Western China is banned. This was a problem in the OOB AA50 1942 scenario, and I think if Germany ever does manage to take the Caucasus, it might be a problem on this map as well. The idea is that normally Germany wouldn’t be able to hold the Caucasus, but if Japanese fighters can secure it even for one turn, then Germany can start making use of the factory there.
I have mixed feelings about the Allied ability to hunt down lone submarines. 1 DD + 1 ftr + 1 tacB vs. 1 SS means a 50% chance that the sub escapes, and there is no way at all to stop a sub from moving around, and a sub can profitably attack a destroyer, a transport, a cruiser, or a carrier if you leave it unattended. So the subs are very powerful. My instinct with M3 cruisers & transports is to try to responsibly lock down the ocean, e.g., USA wants to stick destroyers across the Atlantic, Japan wants to string a picket line of destroyers across the Pacific, and so on. But the picket lines won’t stop the submarines, and in fact the picket lines make the destroyers very vulnerable to submarine attack, so if your enemy has both cruisers, transports, and subs, then you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you spread out, the subs will get you, and if you concentrate, then the cruisers and transports will sneak past you. So you are kind of forced to do some infantry build up, I guess, which is not the end of the world.
Bottom line is that I am very excited about the possibilities here for more realistically modeling the historical 1941 setup, and for unlocking new strategies and tactics, but precisely because there are so many new options and interactions, I am unable to determine whether the game is balanced. There is an enormous amount to think about here. Thanks for designing, thanks for sharing, and good luck settling on a setup chart that makes you happy!
-
Thanks for all the comments.
In fact, you give me the impulse to go beyond AA50 set-up and try to make a more adapted 1941 setup for Redesign and this 1942.2 map considering history too.For example, I tried to delay any u-boats attack on US until Japan has made its Pearl Harbor attack.
That way, US is driven into war at an “appropriate time”. Keeping U-boats in Med, North Atlantic SZ, near coastal France SZ and Baltic. That way, all u-boats are beyond 2 SZs from East Coast SZ. So, any attack on US will be on G2 at least.I saw that Malaya was empty on my set-up (because it was a new TT on 1942.2), but there was an historical battle there, up to Singapor, so I added 1 UK Infantry (and wonder about giving 1 more Infantry to FIC).
I voluntarily not use the M3 for Transport (mainly simply because I was working on a AA50 1941 adapted setup at first). It is a difficult matter with Japan being 3 SZs from India.
But, who knows? maybe you can find some good things about.For now enjoy all the new options you get with it.
You will see that Subs are powerful but Destroyers and Fgs and TcBs can still make them a hard time.
The anti-sub patrol works preemptively and after, any unsubmerged subs can be hit by planes anytime.
In fact, on G40, we exclusively gave it to TcB, not both planes.Tell me more about your experience when you feel ready.
I looked into your saved game.
Very interesting exploration.
You made an interesting purchase for Northwestern IC: a carrier!Being able to do a Sea Lion or to prevent it is something which needs to be analyzed. Too much on one side or the other can make for an unbalanced setup. (Building a good air fleet is probably a must to deter a Sea Lion…)
I didn’t check for this in my earlier tests, I always built up a South African IC.
But, you clearly announced where you were going with Italian Fleet.Do you know what can be done to increase Gibraltar value?
Something like, only Subs can travel via Strait if Gibraltar is not taken?I noticed a kind of premature move for Australian Cruiser trying to protect Hawaiian Battleship.
US was not technically at war, so why bother transferring Infantry to Hawaii?M3 TPs and Cruiser give quite a blast on your first round: capturing France and both money islands!
In all my simulations, I always sacrificed the Battleship to delay East Indies capture.
My Australian Cruiser deliver 2 Infantry on it.
My US and UK subs were able to blast both IJN TP in Borneo and New Guinea.Subs are quite kind of wild cards when able to submerge and wait for attacking…
With M3, I would probably move Cruiser and Battleship near Borneo, it makes for a harder target.
But you can also wait for African Carrier to join the Australian Cruiser…
So many options, hope you will have as much fun as I have while I tried it when Barney had posted this file.
-
have mixed feelings about the Allied ability to hunt down lone submarines. 1 DD + 1 ftr + 1 tacB vs. 1 SS means a 50% chance that the sub escapes, and there is no way at all to stop a sub from moving around, and a sub can profitably attack a destroyer, a transport, a cruiser, or a carrier if you leave it unattended. So the subs are very powerful**. My instinct with M3 cruisers & transports is to try to responsibly lock down the ocean, e.g., USA wants to stick destroyers across the Atlantic, Japan wants to string a picket line of destroyers across the Pacific, and so on. But the picket lines won’t stop the submarines, and in fact the picket lines make the destroyers very vulnerable to submarine attack, so if your enemy has both cruisers, transports, and subs, then you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you spread out, the subs will get you, and if you concentrate, then the cruisers and transports will sneak past you**. So you are kind of forced to do some infantry build up, I guess, which is not the end of the world.
It will be a question to answer: does the 1942.2 can work with M3 transport? Or does it speed things too much that India or France are too easily toasted?
The unblocked Sub feature is also to ponder, maybe it is too much?
And maybe these 2 features creates more issues for a good strategic game, it may imply that it should be for Global game only.
At least, with this experimental setup, there is no big deal to move a few units to get a more appropriate opening round result. For example, if a blocker is need at start to not allow some UK M3 TP move, no problem. It is also possible to move UK TP 1 SZ away to not make it achievable on opening round (as I have done for German’s Sub in ATO.) -
I think an M3 transport can be made to work just fine on the 1942.2 map with 1941 setup. If you don’t like the US1 attack on France, you can start the US transports in the Caribbean – that way they will still have a direct shuck to France starting on turn 2 and after, but you won’t get an ahistorically early invasion of Europe.
Likewise, if UK goes first and gets a starting Indian factroy, then a J1 attack on India is not such a big deal – UK can and should build 3 infantry at Indian factory and reinforce from Persia, so there are 8 units in India…not so easy for Japan to take, especially if Japan wants to claim any of the money islands or even to reinforce China. If it is still too powerful for Japan, you can always add a starting DD for the UK in the Burma sea zone, representing the small Singapore garrison fleet.
I think zero infantry in Malaya for UK start is hilarious, given how quickly the British surrendered there. One infantry would also be fine, but then, yes, Thailand needs +1 infantry to compensate.
As far as subs, I think my ideal preference would be that they are allowed to pass through destroyers, but they will suffer one round of anti-sub fire as they go, similar to a fighter flying over an AA gun. That way the destroyers at least have some tendency to control submarine movement – they’re out on patrol – but there’s no such thing as a foolproof sub detection system. :-)
-
All good ideas. :-)
Ok for adding 1 Japanese Infantry, then.
Malaya was defended. They fight fiercely but were surprise how fast the invading army reaches Singapor (bicycles…).
I saw they use engineering soldiers to lift logs on their shoulder so other soldiers walk on them crossing small rivers was faster than building a bridge.My set-up was made on the assumption of M2 for TP.
A few more blockers would be required in such case. I will look into it.
Garrison DD fleet might be the thing to do.Opportunity attack by DDs and TcBs patrolling is an idea worthy of Redesign thread.
I’m almost sure it will works like Always on AAgun at sea. (For now, this option is not available on V5, it was still possible in WWII V3 1941 (AA50)). Probably a feature of old AA gun.It is easy to recreate by yourself using the “roll dice” features, then edit if a Sub is sunk.
Might gives a better feel of crossing Destroyer Patrol and blocker.However, crossing larger fleet might prove a real challenge, not worthy of risk taken.
M3 TP is quite interesting and funny to use.
It lifts the burden of long range sea-faring as a kind of XVII century sail ship trip across the world.On Cons, it brings a general tendency to invade Norway right away.
No more Operation Torch in North Africa… -
Well, you can always just add more starting infantry to Norway, especially in a 1941 or 1942 setup. Historically, Hitler left 400,000+ soldiers garrisoning Norway. The reason to attack Morocco before Norway could be that USA doesn’t start with enough troop build up to successfully capture Norway! Even 5 infantry + AA gun in Norway would probably be enough to stop a US1 attack.
-
Well, you can always just add more starting infantry to Norway, especially in a 1941 or 1942 setup. Historically, Hitler left 400,000+ soldiers garrisoning Norway. The reason to attack Morocco before Norway could be that USA doesn’t start with enough troop build up to successfully capture Norway! Even 5 infantry + AA gun in Norway would probably be enough to stop a US1 attack.
I did not go that far but now there is 4 Infantry in Norway.
I made up a few changes to make for M3 TP and Cruiser in PTO.
If you want to protect East Indies from direct invasion J1, you will have to commit all 3 amongst 4 warships: BB, Cruiser and 2 DDs. Indian Battleship (now in Persia SZ), or Cruiser in New Zealand have to be commit as sacrificial lamb to keep East Indies unreachable from all IJN TPs.Germany’s set up is low on Infantry but high in Tank (same number as 1942.2)…
To considered the Allies time ticking bomb faster pace.
There is a Russian Cruiser to deal with on G1.You should considered Gibraltar impassable by surface warships, unless captured by Germany.
Gibraltar has been enforced with 1 Infantry and 1 AAA.
There is a Canadian Bomber in West Canada (out of position), it will be of use UK1 as a patrol aircraft in ATO.
And can reach UK on UK2 (to help deal with Tirpitz UK3). Or if you prefer to keep it in Western Canada to deal with any Japanese Invasion of Alaska…On Royal Canadian Airforce and British Commonwealth training center:
The outbreak of the Second World War saw the RCAF fielding eight of its eleven permanent operational squadrons, but by October 1939 15 squadrons were available (12 for homeland defence, three for overseas service). Twenty types of aircraft were in service at this point, over half being for training or transport, and the RCAF started the war with only 29 front-line fighter and bomber aircraft. The RCAF reached peak strength of 215,000 (all ranks) in January 1944. By the end of the war the RCAF would be the fourth largest Allied air force. Approximately 13,000 RCAF personnel were killed while on operations or died as prisoners of war. Another 4000 died during training or from other causes.
[…]
Home defence was overseen by two commands of the Home War Establishment: Western Air Command and Eastern Air Command. Located on the west and east coasts of Canada, these commands grew to 37 squadrons, and were responsible for protecting Canada’s coasts from enemy attack and for protecting allied shipping. Threats included German U-boats along the east coast and in Atlantic shipping lanes and the potential of attack by Japanese forces. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, more squadrons were deployed to the west. Canadian units were sent to Alaska to assist the Americans in Alaska’s defence during the Aleutian Islands Campaign.I kept Tirpitz for 2 reasons: M3 TP and Cruiser will bring more rapidly Allies near UK and invasion will be earlier.
Also, this Battleship was a pain in the… for UK and they try many times to get rid of it along the course of WWII.
Only if it reveals OP, I will consider to downsize. After all, it makes a real change from all last editions of A&A.Sooner or later, I will start a specific thread for this setup with Redesign in title name…
-
Argothair,
what do you think about giving Japanese an Industrial Complex in 1 IPC New Guinea once captured?
Usually, it will be done by J1.
So, by the end of J2, 1 unit will be built down there.
This would figure for Rabaul and (Carolina’s Truk shipping lines).
I would have put an IC in Carolina’s instead but Triple A will not produce anything out of it.That way, Solomons’ Islands will be a US staging ground for invasion of New Guinea, Rabaul and fight over Port Moresby…
Waiting for introducing VCs in play patterns, at least it provides an incentive to fight around it and give a general ideas of what kind of strategies can be develop around them.
Maybe should be played as Chinese’s IC: to be destroyed once captured.
But I prefer not to, to keep things similar to all other ICs.
Also, with M3 TP you may also try to invade Hawaii from Japan as an alternate historical event.
Anyway, it is deadzoned by all planes in USA because of US Carrier position.While sinking Pearl Harbor Battleship, you may also planed a less risky Midway invasion as a staging ground for later attacks on Hawaii. East coast planes cannot reach Midway SZ57.
That way, this J1 assault might includes both Hawaii and Midway battle.
IJN Carrier will be at risk.Then, maybe IJN Sub and Destroyer in Japan SZ60 should not be part of this invasion force to give a chance to US to make massive damage on BB, 2 Carriers and 4 planes of Midway SZ57.
Suggested Topics
