Evaluated my unit using AndrewAAGamer’s system in his post about Global 1940 principles.
Crazy idea
-
Hi guys, I got a crazy idea :-D:
has anyone tried to add the new unit of 1940 (bases, mech inf, tactical bomber) in 1942SE? might be playable or becomes unplayable?I have readen about 1942.2… what is it??
ADD: is it balanced?? or are there some adjustments as in revised?
Thanks -
I came up with an altered setup that includes tactical bombers and mechanized infantry. Another idea is to go with the setup as is but simply make tacs and mechs available. You would have to use the 1940 battle board though because tacs and mechs aren’t on the 1942 battle board.
However, that would also change the aircraft carrier’s combat ability. In 1940, they have 0 attack, 2 defense and take 2 hits to sink. In 1942, they have 1 attack, 2 defense and only take 1 hit to sink.
As for naval and air bases, since the 1942 map is smaller with less territories and sea zones, you couldn’t use the +1 bonus to movement because that would make units too powerful, especially the ships. I think that would end up making it possible for US ships to get from Eastern US to Europe in one move. However, using the naval bases to repair capital ships and the air bases for the scramble ability would probably work.
Not sure how the ICs would work either since in 1942 their production is determined by the IPC value of the territory they are in. I’m not sure if it would be feasible to try placing Major/Minor ICs on the 1942 board. -
I came up with an altered setup that includes tactical bombers and mechanized infantry. Another idea is to go with the setup as is but simply make tacs and mechs available. You would have to use the 1940 battle board though because tacs and mechs aren’t on the 1942 battle board.
However, that would also change the aircraft carrier’s combat ability. In 1940, they have 0 attack, 2 defense and take 2 hits to sink. In 1942, they have 1 attack, 2 defense and only take 1 hit to sink.
As for naval and air bases, since the 1942 map is smaller with less territories and sea zones, you couldn’t use the +1 bonus to movement because that would make units too powerful, especially the ships. I think that would end up making it possible for US ships to get from Eastern US to Europe in one move. However, using the naval bases to repair capital ships and the air bases for the scramble ability would probably work.
Not sure how the ICs would work either since in 1942 their production is determined by the IPC value of the territory they are in. I’m not sure if it would be feasible to try placing Major/Minor ICs on the 1942 board.POST IT!
-
Okay, here you go. I’ve highlighted my additions:
SOVIET UNION:
Russia = 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Karelia SSR = 3 infantry, 1 fighter
Archangel = 3 infantry, 1 tank
Caucasus = 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Kazakh SSR = 2 infantry
Novosibirsk = 2 infantry
Evenki National Okrug = 2 infantry
Yakut SSR = 2 infantry
Buryatia SSR = 2 infantry
Soviet Far East = 2 infantry
Sea Zone 4 = 1 submarine
GERMANY:
Germany = 3 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Western Europe = 2 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 AA gun
Norway = 3 infantry, 1 fighter
Southern Europe = 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Eastern Europe = 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber
Balkans = 2 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber
Belorussia = 3 infantry
Ukraine SSR = 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter
West Russia = 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 tank
Algeria = 1 infantry, 1 artillery
Libya = 1 infantry, 1 tank
Sea Zone 5 = 1 cruiser, 2 submarines, 1 transport
Sea Zone 8 = 1 submarine
Sea Zone 14 = 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 transport
UNITED KINGDOM:
United Kingdom = 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Eastern Canada = 1 tank
Western Canada = 1 infantry
New Zealand = 1 infantry
Australia = 3 infantry
India = 3 infantry, 1 AA gun
Persia = 1 infantry
Trans-Jordan = 1 infantry
Anglo-Egypt = 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter
Union of South Africa = 1 infantry
Sea Zone 2 = 1 battleship, 1 transport
Sea Zone 1 = 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Sea Zone 40 = 1 submarine, 1 transport
Sea Zone 35 = 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Sea Zone 15 = 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 13 = 1 cruiser
JAPAN:
Japan = 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 bomber, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Manchuria = 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 fighter
Kwangtung = 3 infantry
French Indochina = 2 infantry, 1 fighter
East Indies = 2 infantry
Borneo = 1 infantry
Philippine Islands = 2 infantry
Okinawa = 1 infantry
Wake Island = 1 infantry
Caroline Islands = 1 infantry
New Guinea = 1 infantry
Solomon Islands = 1 infantry
Sea Zone 60 = 1 battleship, 1 transport
Sea Zone 59 = 1 destroyer, 1 transport
Sea Zone 37 = 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 battleship
Sea Zone 50 = 1 fighter, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 cruiser
Sea Zone 45 = 1 submarine
UNITED STATES:
Western US = 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Central US = 2 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry
Eastern US = 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 industrial complex, 1 AA gun
Alaska = 1 infantry
Midway Island = 1 infantry
Hawaiian Islands = 2 infantry, 1 fighter
China = 2 infantry, 1 fighter
Sinkiang = 2 infantry
Sea Zone 55 = 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 transport
Sea Zone 10 = 1 cruiser, 2 transports
Sea Zone 20 = 1 destroyer
Sea Zone 52 = 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 submarineThere you go. Just a few minor changes to the original setup. Since we have mechs and tacs in our games, I can’t stand not using them. Hope this helps.
-
Thanks! I’ll have to try this out.
-
I think a neat idea would be to make a 42 board setup with italy, and china with some 50th anniversary rules.
Also a rule for the UK that " the UK may never place more than half of it’s purchased units at a factory outside of the United Kingdom. (Measured by ipcs)
So if the UK had 12 ipcs and bought 4 guys, it can only place 2 at IIndia.Or some kind of split economy rule.
-
Hi guys, I got a crazy idea  :-D:
has anyone tried to add the new unit of 1940 (bases, mech inf, tactical bomber) in 1942SE? might be playable or becomes unplayable?I have readen about 1942.2… what is it??
ADD: is it balanced?? or are there some adjustments as in revised?
ThanksI introduce this “1942.2” instead 1942 Second Edition, when I used it it is the same.
I played it with mech inf and TcB.
I used the OOB set-up and anyone can buy those units in first turn.BTW, I like what Knp7765 posted. I would probably introduced it to my fellow players next time.
I have a question for you Knp, you said “additions”, I hadn’t time to compare with OOB.
Do you mean these are additionnal units?
If the case, how did you keep balance?
There is more TcB given to Axis than Allies, and 1 more Mech Inf also. :? -
Well, when I was trying to figure out where to put tacs and mechs, I basically just tried to place them where I thought those units would normally be. I might have gone a little heavy on the mechs for Germany.
The tac bombers on the US and UK carriers were additions. Both only had 1 fighter on them. The tac on the Japanese carrier in SZ 37 was actually exchanged for a fighter.
I wasn’t really thinking of balance one way or the other. It was basically me looking at the original setup and thinking “If they had tacs or mechs, where would they most likely be?”
Perhaps I should have removed a regular infantry where ever I put a mech infantry and maybe even taken a fighter away from Germany in place of a tac, but I just didn’t think of that.
Do you think my setup unbalances it too far for the Axis? -
Personally I wouldn’t want mech or bases on the small board.
Just so much fewer spaces than G40, the range of aircraft would be too much.You could intregrate naval bases purely as Battleship repair stations. But this only hurts BBs.
-
Good work Knp.
Playing with Tacs and Mech, now we have them, seems a great idea for 42.2.
Must be careful not to make the Axis more powerful than they already are, of course.
I will try and set it up this week and tell you if I think it further unbalances the Axis. Maybe the Axis bias could be readdressed using these two units.I think the whole Mech transported by sea could be changed to allow then to go as Inf.
This would reflect the US’s industrial capacity(lacking in this game), simply changing all its Inf to Mech, yet allowing a TT to bring them over as Inf. -
@Uncrustable:
Personally I wouldn’t want mech or bases on the small board.
Just so much fewer spaces than G40, the range of aircraft would be too much.You could intregrate naval bases purely as Battleship repair stations. But this only hurts BBs.
I agree with you on the bases. Giving the movement bonus would be too much for planes and ships. The air bases would be nice for providing the scramble option. I also agree on the naval bases being used to repair battleships. I like that they are automatically repaired if they survive the battle.
-
Knp: I have just looked and agree with your additions.
For balance, however, I suggest making the 2 Far East Inf into 2 Mech and adding a Mech to Central US, if you are not in favour of changing all the continental US Inf into Mech and allowing them to be transported as Inf.
The great thing about making the Russian Inf into Mech is that they can more speedily go West to save Moscow( as we do not have railroads). Maybe make two more of them Mech.
Historically, this makes sense as Moscow was saved by the superior Siberian Divisions.
I have worked on the fact that you added 3M and 3 Tacs to the Allies and 4M and 3 Tacs to the Axis. I hope I have not misread your additions.
Thanks again for the thought and work you have put into this. -
I played with 1942.2 using TcB and Mech.
I can just suggest to not add more units.
Just changing some Inf into Mech and some Fg into TcB.For example: you add UK TcB in SZ 35, there is already a Fg. Just change it for a TcB so the Carrier still only have 1 plane on board.
Adding a second one is very unbalancing against Japan Carrier in SZ 37, since it is on of UK’s opening attack (granting an additional unit will make Japanese carrier a piece of cake).
Just upgrade 1 Fg in SZ35 and SZ37.For UK, I will upgrade one Fg to a TcB on England. So it will be a +2 IPCs change.
For JAPAN, upgrade the Fg on Japan to TcB. So it will be a +2 IPCs change.For USA, I will prefer to change the Hawaiian Fg for a TcB instead of the one on board Carrier since Japan can directly destroy the carrier in SZ 52, Fg is better on defense let’s make it pay Japan if they attack Pearl Harbour and keep the TcB on the island for counter-attack with the Fg from US West Coast. +1 IPCs change
For GERMANY, upgrade either Balkans Fg or Eastern Europe Fg (don’t add any) Germany has enough planes. And put another one on the Northern West coast of Europe or Norway, ready to attack Atlantic SZs. +2 IPCs change.
For RUSSIA, I wouldn’t add a TcB in Russia, just change the Fg for a TcB. A +1 IPC change.
So to summarize up grade Fg to TcB:
Russia convert 1 Fg in TcB,
Germany, get 2 TcB from 2 Fg,
UK get 2 TcB,
Japan get 2 TcB,
USA get 1 TcB.
So Allies had 4 TcBs and Axis had also 4 TcBs.
Just some 8 minor changes.For Mech, I would only change 4 Inf into 4 Mech for each side.
Germany get 3 Mechs and Japan 1 Mech.
Russia get 2 Mech, Uk get 1 and USA get 1.
I think UK should also get 1 Mech, maybe in South Africa (it could be useful, if not plausible).In this way, Axis gain + 8 IPCs and Allies also.
-
@Uncrustable:
Personally I wouldn’t want mech or bases on the small board.
Just so much fewer spaces than G40, the range of aircraft would be too much.You could intregrate naval bases purely as Battleship repair stations. But this only hurts BBs.
We put on start-up board AB in Pacific only: for USA, Hawaiian Island and, for Japan, 1 AB in Caroline Islands.
The ocean is smaller than G40, but the +1 bonus move allow Hawaiian fighter to reach Soviet Far East or Buriatya!AB wasn’t a game changer at all.
-
Baron, I admit your suggestion is more akin to my idea and thoughts. However, for those who are happier with a few more units on the board, Knp’s idea works too.
I will not test the idea, as you have, as I have played a little too much 42 of late and miss playing 40.
I am not in favour of using AB and NB in this game. -
@wittmann:
Baron, I admit your suggestion is more akin to my idea and thoughts. However, for those who are happier with a few more units on the board, Knp’s idea works too.
I will not test the idea, as you have, as I have played a little too much 42 of late and miss playing 40.
I am not in favour of using AB and NB in this game.I forgot to say that our AB was able to scramble only 1 Fg or TcB.
No one see the usefulness of buying others (even at 10 IPCs), since we allowed 1 Fg scramble on each Victory City also.
So the two initials AB (US and Japan) stay put and haven’t a great role in the PAC. They only add an historical flavour.
Don’t know if it can play a bigger role in PTO.
No problem with adding a fair number of units but not that UK’s TcB in SZ35, unless you add a Japanese cruiser with the carrier and Fg+TcB.
This one TcB put on UK’s carrier create a bias toward Allies and it is even more the case in a Kill Japan First strategy.
-
I understand about the India/Borneo sea battle, but the Allies usually need help(a bid), so if the Japanese fleet gets sunk more times than not, tht might just tilt things back to them.
I do believe for those of us who have many games and like tinkering with things, this mod could be a lot of fun.
Suggested Topics
