Setup charts and order of play

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

I saw in the Global 1940 section someone asked what the proper turn order/sequence of play was and it made me think of a possible wrinkle in the rules.

(not sure if this has been talked about on the forums before or not)

Maybe have some kind of initiative. By that, I mean a point in the game (either triggered by a game event, or after a certain amount of time/turns) the country turn order can move up and down the scale, representing a country on the initiative/offensive. I’m not exactly sure what the criteria would be to trigger it, or what kind of short term and long term ramifications this might have on the game, or if it would even convey an advantage to the faction on the “offensive” or whatever.

Just curious what your guy’s thoughts might be.

@Baron:

Here is all the main A&A units roster including the new Sub unit A3 D1 C7 (with less radical changes than my previous post on 3-planes Carrier, but the 3-planes carrier and Fg at 6 IPCs is my preferred ones http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545) with a summary of their special abilities (which some are house ruled):

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY A0 D0 NCM1 Cost 3, 1 hit,
1 @1 preemptive against up to 1 plane, able to fire against plane each combat round.

INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery or Heavy Artillery

MECHANIZED INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4,
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery or Heavy Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank

ARTILLERY A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

(ANTI-TANK GUN) A1 D3 M1 Cost 4 added for completeness
Gives +1D to 1 Infantry only, no Mechanized Infantry
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35315.msg1380075#msg1380075

(HEAVY ARTILLERY) A3 D2 M1 Cost 5 added for completeness
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

(MECHANIZED ARTILLERY) (Self-Propelled Artillery / Assault Gun) A2-3 D2-3 M2 Cost 5 added for completeness
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry when paired 1:1 with.
Tank Hunter as a Tank Support capacity: gets +1A/D when paired 1:1 with a Tank.
Both bonus can work at the same time.

TANK A3 D3 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz or allow Mechanized Infantry and Mechanized Artillery to blitz on 1:1 or 1:1:1 basis.
Gives +1A/D to Mechanized Artillery when paired 1:1 with
Gives +1A/D to Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with
One bonus can work at the time.

SUBMARINES A3 D1 M2 Cost 7
Surprise Strike, (blocked when at least 1 Destroyer or Anti-Sub Vessel is present),
Submerge, instead of rolling for a Surprise Strike attack (blocked by ASV on a 1:1 basis for the first combat round only),
Stealth Movement: No Hostile Sea-Zone (except ASV can block Submarine Stealth movement on 1:1 basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Can hit Transports before Warships (even when there is other escorting warships, but it is the owner’s choice to pick or not Transport unit as casualty).
(Added to recreate opportunity for an Atlantic Battle in 1942.2 and also to reduce the effectiveness of Submarine on offense against Destroyer and costlier warships.)
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an Anti-Sub Vessel.
Re: Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1372793#msg1372793

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 7
Anti-Sub Vessel: each ASV blocks Surprise Strike capacity of all enemy’s Submarine units present.
Cancel Sub’s Submerge on 1 DD:1 Sub basis for the first combat round only
(When it occurs, defending Subs rolls a Defense @1 in the first round, and any surviving Subs can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round.)
Cancel Sub’s Stealth Movement on 1 DD: 1 Sub basis for Combat or Non Combat Move, all additional Sub units can perform a Stealth Movement as usual.

TRANSPORT A0 D1 M2 Cost 8, 1 hit, taken as last casualty,
Exception: can be picked as a casualty anytime when an enemy’s submarine hit has to be allocated (owner’s choice, as always, to pick or not transport as casualty).
Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853
@Baron:

Another way to increase a better defense is a compromise for taken last transport A0 D1.
Only Subs hit can be allocated to Transport units before Warships.
This can somehow re-enact sub-warfare against Transport and the Destroyer reactions to attacking Subs.

Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1373212#msg1373212

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
hits enemy’s planes on “1” or “2” roll, or even “3” roll for up to 3 Fg units if an operational Air Base is present.
Gives +1 Attack or +1 Defense to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2, or even defend @3 for up to 3 Fgs if an operational Air Base is present.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

TACTICAL BOMBER A3-4 D3-4 M4 Cost 8
hits enemy’s planes on a “1” roll,
Gets A4 or D4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or when there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Gets A4 or D4 when paired 1:1 to a Tank unit
SBR/TcBR attack @1,
Allowed to do escort mission of StB without doing TcBR on AB or NB,
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

CRUISER A3 D3 M2 Cost 9
Shore bombardment @3
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Carrier: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1359001#msg1359001

(G40 ESCORT CARRIER) A0 D1 M2 Cost 9, 1 hit added for completeness
(1942.2 Escort Carrier) A1 D1 M2 Cost 9, 1 hit
Carry 1 Fighter or 1 Tactical Bomber,
Anti-Sub Vessel, working the same as a Destroyer.
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.

STRATEGIC BOMBER (2-Engines Medium Bomber) A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
hits enemy’s planes on a “1” roll,
Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1
SBR/TBR damage: 1D6 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

(High Altitude Strategic BOMBER) (4-Engines Heavy Bomber) A4 D1 M7 Cost 12 added for completeness
hits enemy’s planes on a “1” roll,
Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1
SBR/TBR damage: 2D6 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
If destroyed by IC’s, AB’s or NB’s AA gun, reduced SBR damage: 1D6-1
No damage if destroyed by Fighter interceptor.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.
Re: Rethinking Air Units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34502.msg1331015#msg1331015

1942.2 CARRIER A1 D2 M2 Cost 12, 1 hit
Carry 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier can still carry 1 plane.
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.

G40 CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 14, 2 hits
Carry 2 planes (Fg or TcB)
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.

BATTLESHIP A4 D4 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Cruiser and 1 Carrier: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1359001#msg1359001

If you want to increase battle between planes, allows 1 single Fg or TcB to land in a just conquered territory, as long as it have another extra movement point for landing.

For my part, I would allow 3 types of defensive maneuvers for aircraft:

aerial retreat for attacking planes (all can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle), this is similar to air retreat from amphibious assault

a limited aerial withdrawal of 1 space anytime after first combat round for 1 defending plane 1 StB or 1 TcB or 1 Fg and

a limited landing in a just conquered territory: 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as it can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

Maybe this can be an interesting variation which provides a better incentive to put at risk some costlier Aircrafts against ground and other defending planes:

TANK A3-4 D3-4 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz or allow Mechanized Infantry and Mechanized Artillery to blitz on 1:1 or 1:1:1 basis.
Gives +1A/D to Mechanized Artillery when paired 1:1 with
Gets A4 or D4 from Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with
Both bonus can work at the time.

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
hits enemy’s planes on “1” or “2” roll, or even “3” roll for up to 3 Fg units if an operational Air Base is present.
Gives +1 Attack or +1 Defense to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2, or even defend @3 for up to 3 Fgs if an operational Air Base is present.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

TACTICAL BOMBER A3-4 D3-4 M4 Cost 9
hits enemy’s planes on a “1” roll,
Gets A4 or D4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or when there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Gives +1 Attack/defense to any Tank unit paired 1:1
Both bonus can work at the time.

SBR/TcBR attack @1,
Allowed to do escorting mission for StBs without doing TcBR on AB or NB,
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without ASV.

This make for 8-9-10 IPCs Aircrafts.

The main advantage for overall game balance in AA50 1942 (Allies v Axis) under these rules (with the non-com opening), is that the US gets to keep their Pacific carrier deck. This is fairly major in encouraging the dual theater war, and is one of the things we like most about the set up. The bonus structure also encourages a more effective Russian tank purchase under most set ups, which leads to a dramatic Kursk style scenerio on the eastern front under most openings. Japan alternatively has a much greater incentive to build air and naval, because the Allied position on the sea is stronger, requiring a more substantial counter.

Also, and this is just an aside, but having played quite a few alternative starts now, it has become much clearer to me why the gameplay on this mapboard is so centered around Moscow and Europe. It is a consequence of the basic map territory connections. 7 territories border Moscow which mean 7 ways in, a split 7 defense of the capital. Berlin is 5 territories and a sea zone, 6 ways in, 6 split defense. UK is 5 all from the sea. Compared to Eastern USA and Japan which can both be defended from a single sea zone, it is fairly clear to me why the board would favor KGF, regardless of the unit set up, or the starting income conditions. And why Moscow is the clear choice over London, for a conservative Axis warplan.

Still, that said, I do find that the bonus scheme outlined above helps to moderate the built-into-the-board drivers on Moscow and Berlin (and to a lesser extent London), and pushes it instead into a somewhat more “world” wide conflict. Plus the idea of a board which features 6 possible starts rather than just 1 seems to me a worthwhile thing to pursue. At least 6 times the replay, but much more in actuality, since the bonuses allow for so many potentially different purchasing strats.

here is a 2009 post from me at HGD: ( note this applies to when AA50 came out)

All you have to do to extrapolate these GDP numbers is to divide the GDP by 15

using 1941 numbers:
Axis: 911 divided by 15= 60.73

Allies: 1798 divided by 15= 119.86

IN AA50 the axis are at 60 total

IN AA50 the allies are at 112 total

This is why the game is somewhat accurate, and the balancing is all force projection with the advantage going to the axis, and the US and UK player facing the commitment of their forces all over the map.

For 1940 you have to make additional considerations because the game will have say 50% more territories than AA50, so the number you divide will be smaller and the total will be greater in the game so that you don’t have too many worthless territories.

So lets do June 4th, 1940:

Germany: 387, plus Poland 76.6, Czecho-Slovakia 30.3, Netherlands 44.5, Belgium 39.6, Norway 11.6, Denmark 20.9, Austria 27=637.5

42.5 IPC

Italy:147 = 9.8 IPC

Japan: 192= 12.8 IPC

Allies:
USA: 943
US colonies: 23.9
Total: 966.9= 64.4 IPC

UK: 316
UK colonies 14.4
Total 330.4= 22 IPC

France 82
French colonies 10.9
Total 92.9= 6.2 IPC

USSR 417
Baltic states 12.9
Total 429.9= 28.6 IPC

Now you have to account for peace time status vs. total war mobilization for both USA and USSR. The amount of GDP used for wartime purposes was at least twice as great for the current belligerents than neutrals. So i would put USA and USSR at 50% rate with the difference going to domestic purposes.

So problem solved. Game balanced unless your trying to make the game unhistorical with notions that the axis had ZERO chance to win, which is a bogus argument even by economics.

Its at Harris Game Design, Larry Harris’ website.
It’s also on here somewhere, but I didn’t want to repost it.

Japanese destroyers can carry one infantry.

typo.

7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.