Grasshopper's Alternative R&D

I like this. Very simple. Very elegant. I’m going to have to borrow this for our next game. I’m going to make 8 Blue Allied Victory Tokens, 8 red Axis Victory Tokens and 1 Gold Victory Token.

Allright- here it is.

The Japanese lost without a massive US contribution. The US built a Flying Tiger tactical bomber turn 4, and the Chinese Nationalists managed to keep the Burma Road open for a turn, so it got to Szechwan. The Russian Far East Army was in Novrosibirsik and Samara by turn 5, so the Japanese made the critical mistake of attacking Amur. This enabled the Russians to divert their tactical bomber from Moscow, and fly it to Suiyuan. The Mongolians walked into the Chinese Communist army over the next few turns, and by turn 8, the CCP had:

8 infantry, 2 of which were Mongolian
2 artillery
1 Russian tactical bomber

The Nationalists had traded Yunnan back and forth four times over the course of the game, and had lost Kwiechow, Anhwe, Hopei, and Hunan. Other than that, they were doing OK, as Szechwan was safe.

The game ended with a narrow Allied victory on turn 12. The FEC had attacked the Japanese unprovoked on turn 2, and by turn 5 had French Indo-China bulked up heavily, with

5 infantry
3 artillery
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber
mIC

Over the next three turns, they built 3 tanks a turn (they controlled Siam and Sumatra).

This forced the Japanese to build an IC in Shanghai, and built 3 tanks every turn to keep the Chinese coast safe from either the Nationalists or the FEC. This means that, out of 55 IPCs a turn, they were automatically spending 18 a turn in an arms race where the Chinese were a factor as well. Then, on turn 8, everything cracked. The CCP retook Chahar at the cost of 4 infantry, and received a Russian tank.

The Nationalist Chinese, who had been playing fairly conservatively, hit Yunnan hard with

9 infantry
6 artillery
1 fighter
1 tactical bomber.

They came out of this battle with 3 infantry dead. Finally, the FEC followed up on this with throwing everything they had at Kwangsi. This triple blow wasn’t something the Japanese could immediately counterattack. They started a new line of defence encompassing Jehol, Shantung, Manchuria, and Kiangsu. They also shipped 6 infantry to hold Hong Kong. It wasn’t enough. The Chinese Communists and Japanese wiped each other out in Jehol, while the Nationalists retook Kwiechow, Hunan, and Kiangsi without any difficulties. ANZAC was cooperative enough to eliminate the possible landing spot of Formosa.

While all of this was going on, the US was focussed chiefly in Europe, where they had done Torch and taken Rome (and were putting its IC to good use!) Normandy had been traded back and forth a few times as well. This had the effect of forcing the Germans to keep 6 infantry in Northern Italy, 2 in Albania, 4 in Yugoslavia, and 1 in Greece. They also had to keep a garrison in Paris, including a fighter to help ward of bombing. This had the effect of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, so there was no immediate danger in Europe. Therefore, the US decided that the time was right to hit the Japanese. On turn 9, they built 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 2 strat. bombers. On turn 10, this all sailed out to Hawaii, as 4 loaded transports came out of WUS. On turn 12, the Japanese (who were down to 12 IPCs a turn, thanks to the Chinese mopping up the northeast, and ANZAC clearing the DEI), succumbed to a US invasion fleet. That same turn, the British captured Paris and Northern Italy, causing Germany to surrender.

Not all of this was caused directly by a stronger China, but that did influence it. Since China could do more, the Japanese did not gain easy access to the 12 IPCs of the Chinese interior, and only ever captured 6 Chinese territories over the course of the game. And holding these territories was trickier as well, as the Chinese could hit harder. Attacking Russia was a really stupid move on Japan’s part, as it not only opened up a supply route to the Communists (Mongolia), but diverted troops away from India and China. Since Japan had more on its hands, the US could focus more on Europe, contributing to Italy’s early fall and Germany’s inability to take Moscow (although strong Russian play and die-rolls played a part in the latter). Once both Axis powers were under a lot of pressure, the US could simply take Tokyo, thanks in part to good FEC play, but also because China could reconquer the valuable coast, depriving Japan of income. And once Tokyo fell, the German player knew that there was a 0% chance of taking Moscow, Paris, Rome, and Cairo. The Allied advantage in the Pacific was due partially to good FEC play and die-rolls, and the insane decision to attack Russia, but a stronger China also played a part.

Just for the record, the players were divided up into US/Nat China/France, USSR/CCP, UK/FEC/ANZAC, Japan, and Germany/Italy.

@WILD:

@Imperious:

Well if you allow BB and CV to take 2 turns to build and pay half each turn, it makes alot of sense to buy cruisers. The 3 move is great, but not sure to give it a 4 MOVE if from a naval port.

I’m also experimenting with many more convoy zones (UK convoy routes) mostly in the Atlantic, around Africa, and the Med. I’m hoping that giving the cruiser 3 moves (4 from nb) allows the axis to use it as a convoy raider at times because it can out run (or keep pace) with the allies ships. Adding more convoy zones is also making German subs more viable as commerce raiders.

To Baron Munchhausen, yea escort or light carrier would probably be a better terms then support carrier. I’ve been using A0, D1, M2-3, C12-carries 1 plane.  You bring up a good point about many of these light carriers were built on cruiser hulls though. Being this is a new ship for me at a relatively low cost (12 IPCs) I think I will keep it with the standard move of 2-3 for now (to warrant the cruiser at 12 IPC as the only fast ship), but will probably take a 3-4 move light carrier for a spin at some point.

PS: I’m really liking the 2 turn capital ship builds, and it is making ship building pretty interesting.

I’m also thinking about limiting 2 turn capital ship builds to major ICs (exception of USA who’s minors will be majors at some point). You can drop a capital ship at one of your minor ICs, but it takes an extra turn for delivery (3 turns to build). This is basically to stop the US or Japan from building capital ships in remote places. I would allow the UK Pac, Anz, Canada etc to build capital ships at their minor ICs, but theoretically they pay for the ship, it is built in England and delivered to the minor IC over 3 turns (same concept for the other powers building at their minor ICs). I realize that you could make a point that any ship built at a minor IC should be +1 turn because most ship yards would be at in the home territory where the major IC is (looking at that too lol).

Adding CVL to Cruiser, both at M3-4, makes a way to depict the historical US Fast Task Force fleet in PTO.
I made a house rule for Convoy Raid. It works well with 1942.2 and AA50.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1467061#msg1467061

@Wolfshanze:

Have you ever done or thought about doing something about the lack of Neutral Nation rules in 1942 SE?

I feel like introducing neutral rules would make things far too gamey in some areas, like Mongolia, Sahara, and Turkey. Plus what’s the incentive to attack these regions? No IPCs, the only appeal is strategically positioning yourself, and the Soviets would be screwed because of this. Honestly I would much rather make my own board than add any extra rules for this one, at least I could then place IPC values or redesign territorial positions.

Naval mines can hit transports. You call out mines on ships one by one. (to distinguish transport w/2 INF vs transport with INF+Tank)

So yea, amphibious invasions are risky, but if you have naval superiority why march through France as the US when you can land and Greece and be super annoying.

yeah its the intentional
the strategic situation is different between 39 and 42
China was isolated from help due to losing coastal areas

Thats not too hard to model.
Just let fighters defend SBRs.

We’ll already made production capacity more realistic but limiting IPCs spent at an IC rather than no. of units.
So maybe SBR should destroy IPCs as well as reduce production capacitiy.

Actually, what if we purchase at the END of your turn, and pick which ICs to build them with. At the beginning of your turn some of the units may be destroyed while building and you never got to use them.  :-D Thats pretty cool on the timeline.

It’s very good, except … I think the US scenarios
are a wee bit OVER THE TOP!