I tried doing the math by hand but I’m very bad with statistics, can someone who is good with statistics proof this strategy? Say you have even odds in a fight your thinking of taking, you win ~50% and you lose ~same IPC overall as opponent. Should you take the fight because attacker can choose to stay or flea vs defense doesn’t? If there are 2 scenarios A) the dice of first round go in your favor or B) the dice go against you and you now have sub 50% and bad IPC then couldn’t you just retreat if B happens and push if A happens? The computer calculating expected losses is doing so under the impression that you stay regardless of outcome so it’s the sum of all negative outcomes + sum of all positives. But if you leave when it goes against you you reduce the sum of negative outcomes partially while I believe reducing the sum of all positive outcomes by less. So you can achieve positive trades from equal fights by having the ability to choose if your going for their full stack or not.
1942 SE Adding Italy and China
-
Longtime A&A player and reader, but a first-time poster.
I see two structural problems with 1942 SE. First, Africa is often uncontested. Second, China can be overrun pretty quickly. This leads to often predictable gameplay.
Couldn’t the 1942 SE 3.0 setup be retrofitted to play more like Anniversary (or G40) by adding Italy and China as minor players?
The mod would look something like:
Italy controls Italy, Southern Europe, Libya, Algeria, and Italian East Africa. (8 IPCs)
Add Italian inf to Italian East Africa.
Move fighter from Bulgaria/Romania to Southern Europe and make it Italian.
Add an Italian destroyer to sz 15.Move the UK destroyer from sz 17 to sz 6.
Move UK fighter from Egypt to South Africa
Add IC to South Africa
Add inf and art to South Africa
Add art to BurmaNo access from sz 17 to sz 16.
China can place inf at 2 IPC/inf anywhere in China. Chinese forces can only venture into Manchuria and Kiangsu. For Chinese territories that start under Japan’s control, the UK and the US get the IPCs if they take these territories.
The turn order would go: China, Italy, Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, US. This way, China can immediately place 2 inf and Italy can immediately put pressure on Egypt.
It seems like this would significantly open up the board. Italy makes life more difficult for Britain in the West, but having China makes their job easier in the East. Germany getting less money also helps Russia, which may give them more opportunity to counterattack.
What do you all think of this kind of modification?
-
@SMichael23 good day and welcome to the forum.
Have you tried this out a few times ? Sounds like a fun idea.
Japan is the monster in 1942 (and Anniversary), so trying to slow it down with a more meaningful China makes sense here. Having 2 more Inf to start would be useful , therefore.
And everyone lives playing with Italy!
Hope to see you here more. -
Thanks for your response @Witt!
So I have played this a few times, and China can really stunt Japan’s growth, especially early. I think the mod has real legs, especially since it allows Russia to stand up to Germany a bit more since Germany’s IPC total is at least 7 IPCs lower.
The turns seem to go:
- Italy takes Egypt
- China places two inf in either Szechwan or Yunnan.
- Russia does the typical 9/12 and moves inf from Evenki, Novosibirsk, and Kazakh into Sinkiang. China is now pretty strong defensively.
- Germany loses its Ukraine plane(s) and also gave up a fighter to Italy so it can’t threaten the UK navy nearly as well.
The UK has options, esp. in the East where China is pretty safe. I’ve played it where the cruiser and CA kill the boats in sz61. The UK trans stops in 36 and drops off two inf from India, which is combined with an attack from Burma (incl. the additional art) and the fighter from the CA.
This puts Japan immediately on its heels. It can take out the UK fleet easily and will take Anhwei, but China can drop another 2 inf in Szechwan next turn, and the Russian inf from the far east can pour into Sinkiang. Very fun to see Russia buy a tank and move it to China, as has happened.
Russia can afford the inf and money because Germany has 6-8 fewer IPCs a turn and doesn’t have the fighter from Romania.
I think the mod makes the gameboard more fun, frankly. China and Africa are contested and Russia is much more flexible. The one problem is that Germany might be a touch weak, but that’s made up for by the strength of Italy, which can become a real player at 12-14 IPCs by turn 3 if some battles go their way.
-
@SMichael23 I dig your ideas, this all sounds really fun. I would only be worried that the Allies would benefit too much from this. Does Germany fall more quickly in the games you’ve tried with this setup? Or do the allies usually go KJF? Thanks
-
I think you’re right that this mod may tilt the game more towards the Allies. If that became a problem, I think the solution would be to move the Ukraine bomber from the LH 3.0 patch back to Germany.
But I don’t think the Allies have a real advantage. The problem for the Allies mostly shifts from keeping Russia alive to keeping the UK active.
Yes, Russia starts at 24 and Germany starts at 34, so Russia has a real shot of pushing back against Germany. The Russian Front is much more contested.
BUT! Italy is a problem for the UK real fast.
- Egypt falls turn 1.
- UK’s India fleet can’t attack Italy through the Suez and those boats are needed against Japan anyway.
- Italy can take Trans-Jordan on round 2 fairly easily so that’s -4 IPCs for the UK (Egypt, Italian East Africa, and T-J). The UK really has to build in S. Africa to prevent a total loss of all of Africa (9-10 total IPCs). All of this means Germany can be less concerned about losing Norway/N. Europe/France.
- If things get too bad for Germany, Italy can always help defend Germany as well
Regarding KJF, I think the mod shows its value in really allowing for a KJF strategy. In my experience, even with the LH patch, it’s just too easy for Germany to overrun Russia, forcing the US to go KGF. Letting China place inf makes it worthwhile for Russia and the UK to defend China, and Russia can afford to redirect the Far East inf because it isn’t verging on total collapse at virtually every turn.
Would love to hear if you have any first impressions on whether the bomber in Ukraine should be moved back to Germany to give Ger more early-round flexibility.
-
@SMichael23 I have always disliked the fact that the German bomber dies on R1. I find it really lame. Same with the flying tiger in China that just gets blown up instantly - like how is it not more fun to be able to use them?! I would expect that might even things out, since Germany could use that bomber to sink UK boats and the UK will be fighting tooth and nail for Africa. Also, that Italian navy would be pretty annoying for the UK.
Allowing a KJF sounds great, I have literally tried it like twice and I much prefer KGF as Allies.
When my friends and I play, we give each nation a free factory at the start of the game but it must be placed on a territory worth exactly 1 ipc. Germany usually chooses Libya and UK will pick Belgian Congo, and this drastically elongates the Africa game.
We also allow the German player to move the bomber out of Ukraine on the condition that Russia gets a free bomber. This is probably more helpful to the Germans than it is to the Russians but I think it is more fun. Every country starts with a bomber, so why shouldn’t Russia get one? I don’t think it is gamebreaking or anything because the bomber isn’t going to help out when it comes time for the battle of Moscow.
-
I agree that moving the German bomber would be nice, but Britain needs its North Sea navy to survive since rebuilding it while fighting in Africa and India would be too expensive. Moving the UK destroyer from sz17 to sz6 helps keep the UK navy alive, which I found is really important.
There’s no good territory to put the German bomber where it will survive, but it can’t hit sz7.
If the bomber was moved to Germany, I think giving Russia a bomber and moving the British cruiser in sz13 to sz7 might be required to ensure some of the UK navy survives Germany’s first turn.
FWIW, Russia has more room to adopt an offensive stance since the difference between it and Germany is only 10 IPCs rather than the typical 15-20. If the dice rolls go well, Russia could save a few IPCs and buy a bomber around Round 3-4. I’ll have to try this, but I imagine it would be possible!
-
@SMichael23 I love getting to play offense with Russia.
What if the German bomber started in Libya?Also, I have some more questions. This idea has got me very intrigued.
Do you change the IPC value of Italy? or can they only place 3 units per turn?
Does Italy become a problem for Russia by canopening for Germany in your games?
How many turns does China usually last before they’re gone? -
Great questions - I’m glad you’re intrigued! I prefer house rules that leave the board as-is, so I haven’t played it with any changes to Italy’s IPC count. This means Italy can only place 3 units a turn. I think this lines up historically and prevents Italy from spamming inf against Russia.
In fact, Italy hasn’t become a huge player on the Russian front. In my mod, you can’t move through neutral Turkey (sz16 to sz 17). This means Italy has to go through Ukraine or Persia to directly attack Russia.
Italy can help defend Germany in France, Morocco, and Ukraine, but I’ve found Italy mostly attacks in Africa and the Middle East. As an aside, this makes a US landing in Morroco much more sensible than in the OOB version since hitting North Africa alleviates the pressure on the UK. In general, Africa is just so much more engaged.
China has lasted until turn 3 every time I’ve played because Russia sends help. Russia sends infantry over to protect Sinkiang, and China is guaranteed to place 2 inf in Round 1 & 2. Most of the time, Russia has sent 3-4 inf to Sinkiang Round 1, and China can build in Szechwan. In one KJF game, China lasted almost the entire game.
Without Soviet help, China would fall faster obviously, but Russia needs to support China so Japan can’t open up a second Russian front.
-
Also, I guess I didn’t even think about having the German bomber in Libya.
That might be a good compromise. I’ll have to play with it that way, but it would help Germany retain offensive firepower without putting Britain’s northern navy in too much harm’s way right at the beginning!
-
Yeah the US would for sure have to do a Torch. Does the US player often go for Italy? I would imagine the ipc boost would be pretty nice from capping Rome. My US strategy is generally to dump as many infantry as possible into Finland but I would definitely consider going after Italy first since they are the weakest power.
-
The U.S. is in an interesting position with this mod. Sometimes a KJF strategy makes more sense when China and the UK get good rolls.
Going KGF, though, I typically see the U.S. fleet in sz10 to setup a convoy into France. In our games with this mod, the UK fleet sits in sz8 (the UK drops an empty CA, which the US then supplies with fighters), and the US/UK hit France and N.W. Europe. We use the LH 3.0 setup, so Germany has lost its bomber and doesn’t have the fighter it lost to Italy in Romania.
Operation Torch has made sense in our KGF games if Italy starts putting too much pressure on the IC in S. Africa. In that game, the US landed 4 units in Morocco, which took a lot of the pressure off.
As a side note, this is why I think it’s useful to limit Italy to 3 units of production! With just two transports, the US can “outproduce” Italy, which can be super helpful in balancing the African theater.
-
@SMichael23 I wonder how it would go if Italy focused all its income on building an epic navy- just try to shut the Allies out of the Med entirely. Like you said, that 3 production limit makes it so tough to crank out infantry.
Does the German player ever complain about having to give up the income from converted Italian territories? I know the guy who always plays Germany in my group hates Italy in g1940 and always wishes he had that income as Germany haha.
Suggested Topics
