Sz and Map mod for 1942.2

I was playing around with an alternative 1942.2 map projection and thought I’d explore some modifications in the process.

Ideas so far, a redraft of sz 16 to split the black sea.

More Soviet territory to defend (not sure yet how much to divide up the far east of Russia, the map below is at the heavy division end of the spectrum, but could easily be collapsed into fewer territories) but this would allow them to have  a greater income and might provide a stronger buffer against the tank drives.

China with a stronger choke point

And, probably the most Major, a redesign of the northern Pacific. The idea here is to push shorten the distance between Alaska and W. USA, and from Alaska to the Soviet Far east, and instead pushing the distance onto Japan itself. Basically this way you can springboard across the Northern Pacific, but in the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific (where all the money is) the distances are longer. Basically this is to combat the defense by distance approach that players seem to take towards the pacific. Since Japan cannot effectively mount any real threat on W. USA under the OOB 1942.2 map. Under this division, they could springboard across from the soviet far east, or likewise could be attack along this route by USA. So both Nations must take defense and power projection into account, instead of running away from each other in opposite directions only to meet up again towards the center of the board on the far side of the world. I think this rework of the sea zones would encourage both Japan and the USA to fight for the pacific in earnest, since you can’t afford to drop your guard. (If Japan races to the Med, USA can launch up to support Soviet Far East. Likewise if USA abandons the sea zones around W. USA and Hawaii, Japan can spring across to threaten. Right now its just a theory, on territory and sea zone divisions, but I think I like the potential.

Also 20 total VCs
10 to each side, so that victory can be fixed at some set number. I think the spread and contested cities are fairly well distributed and reflect the war aims.

Italy, just for the novelty of it and to try a 1d6 variable start to the turn order. Though I think it makes sense for game flow if they were positioned in the turn order right after Germany. In the same way that USA/Russia get the 1-2 punch, Italy should be like German’s left jab (knock a hook or a knockout uppercut!)  Basically, they are on the board more as a target, and I think could be comparatively weak.

In AA50 Italy was rather powerful (especially with NOs). I don’t think this is necessary. With just a few starting units even collecting at a mere 7-10 ipcs initially, they could still be potent under such a turn order (with avenues for African expansion.) This would also accelerate the gameplay, as opposed to alternating, or going after UK. I guess it depends on how strong you want to see Italy as a player nation. If weak then I suggest a 1-2 turn order with G, if stronger then they could alternate.

I left the ipcs values blank at present, because I wanted to focus just on the divisions.

Some potential factory locations are layed out here, and also the possibility of a destroyable factory, which I rather like.

Perhaps some other adjustments as well, but basically I just wanted to play with the map. Here’s a jpeggy and very simple outline draft. I was thinking the compass rose turn order wheel on the left, in empty sea area west of South America, and perhaps the unit Key on the right side, in the empty south Pacific space. Here’s a vague idea I what I was thinking…

Any interest?

Yeah I am definitely open to the idea of more industrial complexes. Especially if they were the sort that could be destroyed.

I really do like the idea of giving the Russians some kind of option on a navy. My thought was for a Black Sea mini fleet (so we could give them a shiny red battleship, for like the first time ever!) hehe  :-D

But I have always mused on the possibility of some kind of Russian fleet option for the far east. I mean, it would likely just be destroyed, but fun to have the choice. The logical location for a port of call in the Soviet far east would be Vladivostok with an IC and a value of 2 (danger zone right next to Japan, but could be fun for the same reason.)

The question is how many territories to retain in the far east, and how many to collapse into each other? The map above has more than we need. I think it makes sense to give 2 choke points that can balance against each other (like in China) so for this area perhaps the spaces roughly corresponding to Evenki and Yakut in 1942.2 are the two chokes, with a Siberian space up north to reach across to the far East, Irkutsk, Buryatia etc. I think this might make for a more shapely trade too (since you’d have some reach across the north). This way Russia has a way to launch tanks or push inf out of their Ural factory, but can wall up in Yakut or Evenki if Japan comes heavy with ground along the northern route.

Check the map below, for one way this could be achieved…
Note how it is 5 moves from the coastal Japanese territories to Moscow, (except along the southern path, but that path has India in the way.)

Also what to do for the IPC spread? My thought here would be to try and put the Russians around 30. Since even with a couple spaces collapsed they still have enough territories to distribute it across.

Another question to ponder, how much to make the major IC produce. How much to make Moscow worth? 8 like Revised and 1942.2, or 6 like AA50?

I think 6 ipcs might prove more interesting than 8 ipcs, for Moscow, Rome, and Tokyo. In general if these capitals were worth a bit less, it would likely encourage less turtling and make it a bit easier to make a run on a capital. But I’m not sure I was considering 8 for UK, because of the sea lion threat and the fact that 6 is very narrow for a power that needs to maintain a fleet and produce ground units to threaten G, but then one could make a similar argument about Japan. The difference I think is that Japan can support Tokyo production out of Manchuria or off the islands still in the same basic region, where as London is totally isolated from other regions that can produce (with the exception of Norway or France) both of which start in German hands. To me this is a tough call, as the capitals all have a way of balancing against each other based on how much production they have.

The interest in lower production with higher money, is that players are encouraged to purchase more powerful units because of the production limitation on placement. On the other hand, in a pinch, its always nice to be able to drop 8 units at home instead of just 6.

If W. USA was worth 8 rather than 10, and E. USA was worth 10 rather than 12, it might actually be possible for Japan to cross the Pacific and threaten North America. Not sure yet what numbers I like, but its important I think to have some territories that make factories viable. It might also be advantageous to collapse Thailand, Malaya, and French Indo China into a single territory, to prevent Japan from collecting too heavy. Or at the least making some of these territories worth just 1 ipc, in order to include the islands at 1. I think 35 ipcs for Japan at the start is a good target. About the same for UK. Germany and USA evenly matched somewhere around 45. And Russia at 30. But how to divide the spread is the question, and how to then support it with a unit set up, that doesn’t depart too dramatically from the spirit of the boxed game.

I really like the idea of somehow encourage attack options across the Pacific in both directions, because I think everyone is a bit tired of a Pacific dynamic that only works in one direction (and even then, at great cost to the campaign in Europe.) Instead I like the notion we might set up a Pac game where, if USA does nothing to defend, W. US can fall. Or similarly if Japan bolts south and leaves the home island empty, USA can start launching into the Soviet Far East. I think that would make the cat and mouse game over Navies a lot more exciting. (Especially if there was a mini Soviet Pacific fleet. Perhaps a crusier or destroyer to keep Russian far east hopes alive haha!)

This is another way the Soviet Far east might be worked. To provide a similar choke point but a deeper reach on the Pacific. Under this scheme the main far east territory would be a combination of Siberian Yukutka and Chuckotka. Basically it could represent the industry of the broader Soviet far east (with a value of 2 and an IC it would be worth defending and could reach the Bering Sea for a Pacific fleet option. Realistically this could just be interpreted as the fleet moving around along the whole of the Soviet Far east coast, but the actual dropzone is a bit safer than if the factory is located in Vladivostok Buryatia or Magadan Kamchatka. But basically I would interpret the starting factory here as representing the whole eastern soviet union.

More like that?

The interesting thing about an arangement this, with normal factories (that aren’t destroyed on capture) is that they might serve as a springboard against USA if captured by Japan

I think it might make more sense to just return Australia to a single territory rather than two.

I have tried games before testing the idea of splitting islands across sea zones (basically a reverse definition) it has the effect of making bombardments more significant, and fleets less likely to engage on attack (they tend to camp defend  relying instead on amphibious.) Splitting islands also increases fighter movement in a somewhat overpowered way, so you have to be careful. I think with an interesting starting unit placement you can accomplish a lot. Australia as a single territory would have greater reach for any fighters landed there, and the scale of the territory warrants it a bit more then solomons.

I think the best approach is to tilt Japan slightly counter clockwise at the southern tip of the island to make more room for ships. And then put the alignment for the smaller islands based of the relative distance between Australia Hawaii and the three major island territories (East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines). I will play up the focus on the key islands (though some of those chains were involved Palau and the Marianas and such. On the whole though I think the stepping stones out of W. USA would be the most interesting way to change the Pacific dynamic. Force both players to defend their coastlines instead of drop south so easily with everything.

Will redraft it sometime on Tuesday when I get a break from work.

Have a nice memorial day