1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unnecessary for them.
Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.

I like your observation about Cruiser or Battleship to escort Carrier group. It is clearly what was intended about Redesigned rules, to improve the need to purchase these two warship types. A Task force needs naval firepower to protect Carriers and it is not with Destroyer or Subs which bring it.

2 or 3 Destroyers (10-15 IPCs) do not bring same kind of firepower. So, each warship has a better fitting niche.

Talking about China, I saw that all US troops were pretty much erased by Round2. I wonder if instead of adding 1 Infantry into Szechwan, an Artillery could improve the possible reaction against IJA advance. (Set up for Szechwan would then be: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fg.) To improve the aggressive stance, instead of the defensive posture which Infantry incarnates.

In this game, there is no Burma road. So, since Japan get an IC in mainland Asia right away. Maybe making it tougher for round 1 and 2 can make it better than a free ride toward Moscow?

I agree that, without Mechanized Infantry, it is difficult for Germany to bring Infantry on the Russian front, and more often it is German’s tanks which received the blunt of USSR Infantry counter-attack. And, if possible, two TPs in Baltic helps a litttle toward a faster movement of Infantry eastward.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

Here’s a pic after 2 turns.

I also noted that you built an IC into Ukraine SSR. Good idea. I never thought about purchasing IC as a valid investment for Germany. Since Ukraine is now 4 IPCs, it worths something to built and purchase unit for this TT.

[Imperious Leader]

The setup is not LH gen con and what are the adjusted IPC totals per nation ( UKR, West Russia, et al 3 IPC areas)?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious-Leader said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

The setup is not LH gen con and what are the adjusted IPC totals per nation ( UKR, West Russia, et al 3 IPC areas)?

It cannot be exactly the same but it was the initial basis. Of course, after, it evolved in its own direction.

For now, as a work in progress, the IPC total is:
USSR : 25 IPC
UK: 40 IPC
USA: 50 IPC
Allies: 115
Germany: 45 IPC
Japan: 35 IPC
Axis: 80

Map total: 195 IPCs.

Besides many zero IPC TTs which received value, West Russia and Belorussia are 3 IPC, Ukraine SSR is 4 IPC and Caucasus is 5 IPC.
Carolines are 3 IPC. Japan only 4.
West Australia is 2, East 3 and New Zealand 4.
Alaska is 4, Wake 2, Hawaii 4, Mexico 3, East Mexico 1, Central America 3. Central USA is 4.

[General 6 Stars]

IC question. IC in Caucasus worth 5. Has 8 dam. 10 max. How much do I need to pay damage off before I can build units?
Pay 4 to build 1 ? Pay 5 to build 2 ? Pay 6 to build 3. Etc.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN
With 5 IPCs value, it means that when maxed out at 10, you need to repair 6 IPCs to at least being able to built 1 unit.
So each damage point made by a bomber means 1 unit which cannot be built. When you reach the nominal value of the territory, there is no built possible without repair. What is above this level, is additional damage up to double the nominal value.

So 8 damage means repair 4 to be able to built 1 unit.

[General 6 Stars]

@baron-Münchhausen said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

@SS-GEN
With 5 IPCs value, it means that when maxed out at 10, you need to repair 6 IPCs to at least being able to built 1 unit.
So each damage point made by a bomber means 1 unit which cannot be built. When you reach the nominal value of the territory, there is no built possible without repair. What is above this level, is additional damage up to double the nominal value.

Cool. Ya something in my game.

[General 6 Stars]

@baron-Münchhausen said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

@SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unnecessary for them.
Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.

I like your observation about Cruiser or Battleship to escort Carrier group. It is clearly what was intended about Redesigned rules, to improve the need to purchase these two warship types. A Task force needs naval firepower to protect Carriers and it is not with Destroyer or Subs which bring it.

2 or 3 Destroyers (10-15 IPCs) do not bring same kind of firepower. So, each warship has a better fitting niche.

Talking about China, I saw that all US troops were pretty much erased by Round2. I wonder if instead of adding 1 Infantry into Szechwan, an Artillery could improve the possible reaction against IJA advance. (Set up for Szechwan would then be: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fg.) To improve the aggressive stance, instead of the defensive posture which Infantry incarnates.

In this game, there is no Burma road. So, since Japan get an IC in mainland Asia right away. Maybe making it tougher for round 1 and 2 can make it better than a free ride toward Moscow?

I agree that, without Mechanized Infantry, it is difficult for Germany to bring Infantry on the Russian front, and more often it is German’s tanks which received the blunt of USSR Infantry counter-attack. And, if possible, two TPs in Baltic helps a litttle toward a faster movement of Infantry eastward.

Adding an art in China may help if the fig stays. But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense. Then it went to Calcutta for defense and interceptor service and of course it died with no kill. I wouldn’t say it’s frustrating but it’s hard to balance the UK income. Maybe Calcutta needs a fig on setup ? This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory. Tests continue…

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN
Cool to see that your playtest continue today.

A Fighter help against SBR for sure. At first, I was opened to the idea of removing one Inf for 1 Fg in India, but then I realized how such would impact the initial KJF move which brings all Indian and ANZAC fleet against IJN Carrier group in East Indies.

Thinking deeper, I also realized that the additional Indian’s Fg purchase was built into a factory in Cairo… That is the tough call UK have to make.

However, more IJN Fg in mainland means less against USNavy…

About : “But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense.”
It is another reason which inclined me to add an Artillery unit in China. No need to rely only on Fighter for attack punch.
I will adjust that one into TripleA and the word file.

About: “This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory.”

That is a factor on why Fighter dogfight values are Attack 1 but Defense 2. Attacker need to bring a ratio of 2 escort for 1 interceptor to be in par.
As in regular combat, defender get a small advantage over attacker.

[General 6 Stars]

Then basically Cairo should fall everytime then ?
So it’s up to the allies to choose one or the other side to prevent a axis win ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN

Not necessarily. IDK if it can be optimal on this map (in which UK already got 3 IC) to built IC in Cairo (instead of Union of South Africa).

I know that on OOB 1942.2, Cairo’s IC is a valid option for a KGF.

My own playtests had heavily focused in KJF, so I kept minimal and played very defensively Cairo. Sometimes, I exchanged it. On one case, USA landing and Germany’s landing in Gibraltar (in preparation for Sea Lion), Germany was not able to conquer Cairo.

It is mainly UK which decides whether going KGF or KJF and it is all about Indian and Cairo’s fleet, and what you do with Cairo and India. Otherwise, if USA going the other way, might be a bit of an unoptimal strategy if UK invest massively into Asia while USA going Atlantic.

[General 6 Stars]

So that tells me it’s one side or other then
I’ll probably start a new game in a few turns maybe.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN
From my limited experience, I would say USA player is doing 80-20% whether KGF or KJF.

Splitting economy more 60-40%, makes for a longer game. But I played many like that on OOB map.

But now, with ANZAC IC and all the changes in PTO I don’t know if it is possible to do KGF and only invest 20-80.

[General 6 Stars]

So then as the axis the two have to decide at start of game what side is going to go for the win then

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN
I would say that both Powers have a few optimal attacks to do then, according to results, will judge how they can coordinate or not. It was more like Sea Lion or not? Hard Barbarossa or more ressources in Africa., for Germany.

For Japan, it was more always mainland Asia between India or North in USSR, and about reacting to UK and USA.

IDK if we can simply assumed the same on this map. I hope not.
So, what works for OOB might be quite different on PTOIA map.

[General 6 Stars]

So what is the way on oob game ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS-GEN
I mentionned the OOB ways in beginning of my last post.