What would happen if the costs changed to…....

I agree on 2nd version - very doubtful.  As to the tourney rules, I have found the 2 movement factor rule to greatly change how the game is played - not a fan.

Hi Tolstoj,

I’ve never played 1st Ed., so I have no insight upon the differences between the two editions. But in one of our games ‘Seelöwe’ was successful on G2 due to the errors of the British player in UK1.

There are several players who opt for a attack by Japan on J1. The sinking of the British BB is one argument. Personally I like to attack on J2 or J3 after my invasion forces are in position, so I’m able to capture the ‘treasure islands’ and Malaya in one single turn. (And in most cases one or two British and/or ANZAC transports can be sunk in addition.)

As Germany I prefer to launch ‘Barbarossa’ on my second turn. On G1 capture France, sink as many British ships as possible and weaken Yugoslavia by attacking it for one round of combat and then retreat to Romania (so Italy can finish her off).

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

@Baron:

About a 5 IPCs Tank, Russia could get a small advantage with it:

@Baron:

Since many talked about the Axis clear advantage.
Did anyone dare to change the cost of Russian Tank in 1942.2 game to fix the unbalance and gives a more historical feel?

Instead of a bid, here is the fix:
Russian Tank T-34
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 5
Blitz

Only Russia have this lower cost of Tank.
This cost reduction worth for the massive Russian Tank production during WWII.

We can give a small compensation to Germany:
German’s U-boat
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 5
Surprise Strike,
Submerge,
Stealth Move,
Cannot hit airplanes,
Cannot be hit by planes, unless Destroyer is present.
This cost reduction is for the increase of German’s Submarine production after 1941.

It will also gives to this two land Powers a substantial unit at 5 IPCs.

For those which understand french, a doc on T-34/76 and T-34/85

Le Char T-34, la force de frappe de l’armee russe - Documentaire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC4siPTFsziTDRlla7XQ_-E8UiLhbxr-M&v=uHc15JT59Ug

That’s an interesting idea.  In a fashion that is basically a limited ‘Improved production Factory’ for Russia and a limited ‘Improved Shipyard’ for Germany a.k.a. Research and Development.  So that could be HR’d into a game, whether or not it uses R&D, as a limited development for these two nations.  Perhaps as an alternative option, Russia could have, instead of the 5 IPC tank, the Advanced Artillery.

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

And how is game balance threatened when both sides can do the same thing? It may upset game tradition, but I don’t see how it hurts game balance. The Brits put a large capacity IC in South africa. Hmmm…the Germans put a large capacity IC in North Africa. Now you’re both fighting somewhere else. Where’s the imbalance?

IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP.

Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn.

Roll your diplo dice.

Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase.

Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice).

Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact.

As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply.

*As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.

yep