Repairing damaged ICs and placing new units there

@panther Thanks, will need to be more careful with my transports then.

@InViriconium:

My standard buy on J1 (assuming all transports are alive) is 1 Transport coupled with some air, usually a fighter or two and remaining IPC on ground units to make sure transports are filled. Fighters just seems like the most flexible unit since it can both work in an all out Asian invasion but also help protect your navy if need be. Having 3 transports in total just seems like the maximum to me. Even with 3 I struggle to maintain all transports fully loaded each turn and also building enough navy to keep a US player who invests heavily into a pacific fleet. Buying more transports and sending them on far away missions like Australia or Africa on early rounds doesn’t seem to be worth it in my opinion. But somehow with this build I struggle to keep enough pressure on north eastern Russia and India if US pressures my navy. Anyone has any bright ideas?

this is precisely why i like the complex on first turn in manchuria.  you no longer need a navy to produce 3 tanks a turn to start harrassing russia and uk (preferably you’d be attacking India first turn and taking it, otherwise ASAP)

you need your navy playing chess in the pacific with the US.  meanwhile any transports would be easy targets for stray allied fighters, so why not remove the risk or need for more navy just to defend them.

japan’s navy WILL die at some point, you can’t afford to replace it, so you have to put pressure on Russia.

Sure, as a matter of combat value, the planes are better. The issue is that America tends to literally run out of combat units in China by round 2 or 3 – all their infantry are dead, so they have nothing to take or trade territories with. Since the point of even a successful Chinese campaign is to delay Japan’s progress west rather than to actually defeat the Japanese army, not being able to capture territories is a huge problem – you can bomb a stack of Japanese tanks to hell, but the tanks will still move an average of 2 spaces per turn. If you can capture a territory, sometimes you can reduce the movement rate back down to 1 space per turn or even 1 space every other turn.

good to hear, thanks for the response

@Black_Elk:

Tactical Bombers, or Mech inf units could maybe be accommodated, but I would think that introducing the G40 factory mechanics into 1942.2 would probably break the game. Just a few things to consider…

Major factory in UK allowing for a 10 unit drop on KGF, or in Japan a 10 + drop to defeat any real chance of KJF taking Tokyo.

Major factory purchase in Manchuria, allowing Japan to push wildly across Asia.

India, Caucasus, or Italy upgraded to Major dropping 10+ units a round.

Eastern US restricted to 10, preventing an effective Atlantic crossing.

I suppose its possible some of these might balance out against each other, but at a glance I think it would bust the set up. I’ve never tried though, so this is just conjecture not the result of any experiments. Could be I’m in the minority, but I find the G40 rules concerning factories unnecessarily confusing. The prohibition of factories on islands, when starting factories are on islands (UK, Japan), while at the same time basically shutting down any chance of a pacific minor factory, which would probably have been the most interesting use for them anyway. The necessity to build new factories in “original” territories, when these don’t necessarily correspond to the “starting” territories. The fact that minors only require a territory at 2 ipcs to drop, but can produce 3 units, while majors only need a territory at 3 but can drop 10 units.

To me the execution just complicates an aspect of the game that should be relatively straight forward. It took a cool idea (that you might separate unit deployment from an attachment to the printed ipc values on the map, or build minor factories in territories without a restriction on IPC value cap) and then watered it down to something that just seems annoying. I see the whole Major/Minor factory dynamic in G40 as yet another example of stubbornness and inflexibility regarding the games overall production distribution. The desire to maintain territories at zero or 1 ipc is so strong, that rather than adjusting IPC values up directly, you split the factory unit class in two? Introducing confusion into a part of the game that used to be easy to explain and teach. And then nerf it such that it is basically useless in the one area of the map where it might prove interesting (valueless pacific islands!) hehe. Its the sort of thing that makes me knock my head on the wall.  :-D

I think there is something elegant and intuitive about capping production at the printed ipc value 1:1 the way it is handled under normal 1942.2 rules. Its easier to keep track of, since the numbers are written directly on the board. I’d rather have more territories just raised to a value of 2 ipcs directly on the board (so they are viable for normal factories) rather than creating a whole new mechanic for factories, or multiple different factory unit types. Another paragraph of rules, another thing to keep track of in an already complex game. Alas

Here is an idea about how to use those same Major and Minor Factory units in 1942.2…
Ditch the global rules about them altogether, and then use the pieces in some new way! :)

For example, retain the Majors as your normal factory unit, and use the Minors as some kind of forward deployment base that has nothing to do with the printed IPC values. As a side note, the most interesting rules I have found for 1942.2 regarding factories, is to allow ICs to be destroyed… whether optionally, by the withdrawing defender, or automatically as soon as it is captured by the opponent.

Well said Black Elk. I like the concept of lowering the cost of the factory unit. Allow them to be built anywhere. Limit their production to a set amount of units produced per turn. The caveat is that they can be destroyed just like any other unit. The stats would obviously need to be factored, but allowing factories to simply be destroyed or built as needed would make the game a lot better IMO.

An IC is damaged until repaired, regardless of ownership

Afternoon Malachi. Hope you have been well and had a good weekend.
Remember we can play any time soon now!

Yes, twice the IPC value is correct. The other sentence is trying to say although an IC can’t be destroyed, it can be rendered useless by taking as many hits or more as the IPC value or the territory.