G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Somewhere I read about a suggestion to allow VCs to produce infantry, even without an industrial complex. I think the limitation was similar to the first bullet point. The others may be realistic considerations:

• non-capital VCs automatically produce 1 (or 2) infantry per turn for the controlling Power.

• non-capital VCs can mobilize up to the territory’s production value in infantry units per turn (must be purchased by controlling power)

• combination of the two above, but complicates things: automatically produce 1 infantry per turn, can mobilize a number up to territory production value if purchased.

In OOB G40, that mostly benefits Germany (Warsaw) and Japan (Shanghai) and the UK in both Cairo and Hong Kong. For the UK that could be significant given the critical nature of both those territories. Other than that, such a rule would hardly affect gameplay as most VCs already have factories on them.

I don’t know if your interested in this scenario, it has to do with inf in the Victory city’s.
For each Victory city in a territory there is a certain amount of inf and even though you capture the territory, you still have to attack the Victory City next turn to control it.

Germany - Berlin = 3 inf in Capital.  So enemy must take German territory and then on next turn attack the Capital. You can declare all or most troops in Germany are now in Berlin. But of course you leave a piece or 2 in Germany so it takes the attacker an extra turn to capture Victory City.

You start the game with so many inf in each City so you don’t lose it on paratroopers if in game. The starting inf in cities can not come out to surrounding territory to defend.

@Black_Elk:

Yeah I think that would be pretty simple. Probably the easiest solution though, is just to create a new unit called army base, that does exactly this (produces infantry and nothing else).

For whatever it’s worth, the concept of an infantry-producing army camp was discussed way back on page 1 of this thread.

@Argothair:

So what about a +2 bonus to all factories that’s limited to infantry production? E.g., a factory in New Zealand can produce one unit of any type (because it is worth 1 IPC) plus 2 infantry (because all factories can do that).

A factory in the Caroline Islands can produce only 2 infantry.

The factory in India can produce three units of any types (because India is worth 3 IPCs), plus, if desired, 2 additional infantry.

Would that get the job done as far as production caps? I think it’s an elegant compromise.

I like this idea because 2 more Infs can be easily Players Enforced and, +2 seems easy to add on Triple A. +2 gives both options for play-tests.

For now, what seems the challenge is to find the simpler way to increase action between Japan vs USA, to make PTO an interesting Theatre.
On background, I would like that all zero IPCs TTy get +1, but it is secondary compared to increase valuable goals for Japan.
Increasing all South PTO TTy make it and, since 1942.2 ICs are capped by TTy value it was the same mechanic.
However, it can be first play-test without adding more values and just placing ICs on Set-up with +2 prods.
If 1942.2 ANZAC ICs need too much UK’s money to be valuable or defendable , then TTys value can be rised.

IC in itself can become an interesting strategical unit in 1942.2 if 1 IPC TTy can produce 3 units  as you suggest Argothair.
I just feel that 15 IPCs is too high in medium economy to buy such.
However, assuming there is only room left on low TTy values, this kind of Infantry base could cost less, maybe 10 ?

@Baron:

For now, what seems the challenge is to find the simpler way to increase action between Japan vs USA, to make PTO an interesting Theatre.
On background, I would like that all zero IPCs TTy get +1, but it is secondary compared to increase valuable goals for Japan.
Increasing all South PTO TTy make it and, since 1942.2 ICs are capped by TTy value it was the same mechanic.
However, it can be first play-test without adding more values and just placing ICs on Set-up with +2 prods.
If 1942.2 ANZAC ICs need too much UK’s money to be valuable or defendable , then TTys value can be rised.

We’ll just have to take into account what effect adding IPCs to starting incomes will have, if any. For example, Japan would be +5, USA +6, UK +4 and ANZAC +3.

That’s just on the Pacific board. UK would be plus an additional 7 IPCs in Europe. That is getting to be a lot. I just don’t know what effect that will have on purchasing. It certainly gives more of a buffer that the UK has against losing territory to Germany/Italy. Italy would also be up +3, which is more significant to them than to larger powers.

USSR would be up +3 Edit: +4 also, not counting the supposed +2 for the currently zero pro-Allies neutrals they could also take. That makes for Allies +13 vs Axis +3 on Europe side. Too much of a swing?

Edit: missed another… add in one more pro-Allies neutral. For a total of +14 IPCs Allies vs +3 IPCs Axis. Breaks down to USSR +6 and UK +8.

@Baron:

IC in itself can become an interesting strategical unit in 1942.2 if 1 IPC TTy can produce 3 units  as you suggest Argothair.
I just feel that 15 IPCs is too high in medium economy to buy such.
However, assuming there us only room left on low TTy values, this kind of Infantry base could cost less, maybe 10 ?

I was thinking this too. The balance is that it is expensive, but you can put it anywhere, regardless of territory value or being an island. However, it is still 15 IPCs only to produce 3 Infantry. I think the initial cost might be too much.

Hello all,

Let me know what you think of this writeup for the 1942.2 reboot! If this looks even close to right, then I’ll post it in a Word and PDF format tonight or tomorrow. I’ve tried to focus on the narrowest set of changes that would balance the game between Axis & Allies, distribute the action more evenly across the map, make Russia fun to play in the endgame, make America fun to play in the opening, and balance the respective strength of fleets, tactical air forces, and strategic bombing. Did I succeed? You decide. Constructive criticism is extremely welcome, but please try to explain (a) what specific changes you would make to the document, and (b) why your changes will help us get an adequate 1942.2 reboot for playtesting purposes.

Cheers,
Argo

Setup Changes:
+1 Russian Bomber in Moscow
+1 Russian Infantry Base in Yakut S.S.R.
+1 German Destroyer in Baltic Sea
+1 German Infantry Base in Finland
+1 British Infantry Base in Eastern Canada
+1 British Infantry Base in South Africa
+1 British Infantry Base in Eastern Australia
+1 Japanese Infantry Base in French Indochina Thailand
+1 American Infantry Base in Szechuan

A0 Non-Combat Turn

Before the game begins, the American player gets to spend exactly 20 IPCs on purchasing units, followed by an American non-combat move, followed by American unit placement. National objectives, victory cities, and lend-lease are not triggered on the A0 turn.

New Unit Roster:

| $3 | Infantry | A1* D2 M1 | |
| $4 | Artillery | A2 D2 M1 | (boosts one infantry’s attack by 1) |
| $5 | AAA Gun | A0* D0* M1 | (up to two preemptive shots vs. planes @ 1; can move in combat |
| $5 | Strategic Bomber | A0* D0 M6 | (can inflict 1d6 points of industrial damage, last casualty) |
| $5 | Submarine | A2 D1 M2 | (can submerge, sneak attack, inflicts 1 point of industrial damage at end of owner’s turn on an adjacent factory or base) |
| $6 | Tank | A3* D3 M2 | |
| $6 | Transport | A0 D0 M2* | (can carry 1 infantry + 1 land unit, move 3 on non-combat, last casualty) |
| $7 | Destroyer | A2 D3 M2 | (blocks submerge/sneak attack for up to two subs) |
| $8 | Fighter | A2 D3 M4 | (can intercept Strategic Bombers @ 2 or escort Strategic Bombers @ 1) |
| $8 | Infantry Base | [building] | (can buy up to 2 infantry here each turn; destroyed if captured; accepts a maximum of 4 industrial damage) |
| $10 | Tactical Bomber | A3 D2 M5 | (boosts one tank’s attack by 1, can intercept @ 1) |
| $10 | Cruiser | A3 D3 M3 | |
| $12 | Carrier | A1 D2 M2 | (carries 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, or 1 strategic bomber) |
| $15 | Factory | [building] | (can buy units here equal to territory’s IPC value; destroyed if captured) |
| $16 | Battleship | A4 D4* M2 | (2 hits to kill, one preemptive shot vs. planes @ 1) |

Map Changes:

1. North Sea <-> Baltic Sea is now a canal; must control either Norway or Northwest Europe in order to pass through this canal.
2. Eastern Atlantic <-> Western Med is now a canal; must control either Gibraltar or Morocco in order to pass through this canal.
3. The western border of China is now impassible during combat moves; no player can make a combat move between Szechuan and Kazakh, Szechuan and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Kazakh, Sinkiang and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Evenki, or vice versa. This restriction applies even if the destination territory is undefended. Non-combat moves across China’s western border are still allowed.

Lend-Lease / Endgame Bonus:
At the end of each American turn, each team collects IPCs equal to the number of Victory Cities it controls. If your team controls at least 8 Victory Cities, then the IPC bonus is doubled. If your team controls at least 10 Victory Cities, then the IPC bonus is quadrupled instead. You may distribute the cash received from your victory cities among any or all of the players on your team however you see fit.

National Objectives:

In addition to the lend-lease bonus created by victory cities, each nation can collect extra cash during its Collect Income phase if that nation controls certain territories. The National Objective cash is specific to the nation that achieves it, and cannot be transferred.

+5 IPCs for Russia if Allies control at least 3 of Archangel, Vologda, Novosibirsk, and Evenki at end of Russian turn
+5 IPCs for Germany if Axis control at least 3 of Norway, Finland, Morocco, and Algeria at end of German turn
+5 IPCs for Britain if Allies control at least 3 of S. Africa, Madagascar, W. Australia, and E. Australia at end of British turn
+5 IPCs for Japan if Axis control at least 3 of Caroline Islands, Wake Island, Midway, and Hawaii at end of Japanese turn
+5 IPCs for America if Allies control at least 3 of Eastern Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and Solomon Islands at end of American turn (does not trigger on A0 turn)

Co-Location Restrictions:

US/UK land units may not make a non-combat move that ends with the US/UK land unit in a Russian-controlled land territory. No more than 3 US/UK airplanes (combined, all types) may end their non-combat moves in Russian-controlled land territories. As each non-combat turn ends, if the Anglos have more than 3 airplanes in Russian-controlled land territories, the Anglos must choose and destroy airplanes until this is no longer the case.

German units may not end their non-combat movement on a Japanese-controlled land territory.
Japanese units may not end their non-combat movement on a German-controlled land territory.

Looking at what is MB, actually I would be cautious to not introduce this in 1942.2. Bases are G40 units,  I think ICs and a few tweaks on IPCs income and production can be enough. I prefer to test with less and grow progressively. G40 is different, hard core players are used to NOs and complex rules and bases and DOW. I tend to say take the best of G40 and place it into 1942.2, but too much will compromise the scale of this game.

In G40 economy, I would be fine with 15 IPCs.
In 1942.2, I would merge all production capabilities into IC somehow.

Thanks, Black Elk. I strongly agree with your policy that face-to-face rules and tripleA rules should match up as much as possible, so that we can draw on both pools of playtesters, but I’m in a bit of a tough spot here – altering many territory IPC values is hard to do on a face-to-face board (but easy on TripleA), and adding national objectives to 1942.2 is easy to do on a face-to-face board (but hard on tripleA).

I am happy to help Barney write the game files, if that would be of any use. I know some of the tripleA markup language.

Otherwise, I think I’ll produce two Word versions of the house rules for 1942.2, one optimized for easy use in TripleA, and one optimized for easy use in face-to-face play. I’ll try to keep the two rulesets overlapping as much as possible.

Also, I’m going to use a single sheet of legal-size (8.5" x 14") paper, rather than A4 paper (8.25" x 11.5"). I assumed A4 would be at least somewhat oversized, but to me it looks basically the same as letter-size paper! What are you, European or something? :-)

In the meantime, if you have any specific corrections to the unit roster, I’m happy to fix them! I’m not wedded to the exact values.

OK, as promised, here are the Microsoft Word write-ups of the two versions of the 1942.2 reboot, on one side of one sheet of legal-size paper. I am calling it “1942 Redesign Alpha” per Baron Munchhausen’s suggestion. Once we run some playtests and agree on a more or less final format, I’m tempted to rename it “1942 Third Edition!”

If I get any specific constructive criticism on these writeups (including on their graphic design!), then I’m happy to revise the documents accordingly. If anyone wants to playtest either version of these with me, just let me know!

PDF versions to follow in the next comment.

1942 Redesign Alpha - Face to Face.doc
1942 Redesign Alpha - TripleA.doc

PDF versions here.

1942 Redesign Alpha - Face to Face.pdf
1942 Redesign Alpha - TripleA.pdf

I suggest that 1942.2 Redesign should be main title.
If a game file is loaded from a third source, he may think it is actually a third official version.
Also, a secondary should be added to see which step of achievement it is actually. To easy recognize older and newer draft.
Something as simple as 1942.2 Redesign draft 1, or 1942.2 Redesign.d1, etc.

Larry develop up to three alpha before second edition mint.
The play-test and discussion will take time and some idea might reveal less interesting for complexity added, etc.

I prefer baby steps, to let the bird fly off the nest.

Fair enough! 1942 Redesign Alpha it is. I will label the two variants “TripleA” and “Face to Face,” and we can use version numbers as needed as each variant evolves.

I mostly like these new liberation rules, and I agree that they’ll eliminate lots of gaminess vis-a-vis the French without any real downsides.

However, I’m confused about how Russia is supposed to generate new ground units with which to re-take its capital, and why it’s necessary for Russian units to become pro-Allied neutral after Moscow falls. Is the idea that in order to get the Russian army up and moving again, the Allies have to move American/British units into Moscow, then wait a full turn for Russian income to reboot, then place a couple of Russian infantry in Moscow, then march those Russian infantry back into core Russian territories like Karelia and Kazakh? That seems unnecessarily slow.

What if the territory becomes effectively pro-Allied neutral upon the fall of Moscow (or Paris), but the Russian (or French) armies carry on fighting and moving as normal? If the rump Russian armies capture a German territory, that territory also becomes pro-Allied neutral, which represents partisans denying the area’s resources to Berlin without being organized enough to industrially exploit those resources themselves.

I have never played triple A but have been following the posts as far as adjusting triple A. I know I saw some where in these posts where you are putting SBR from a sub next to a factory. There any way you can put the Kami symbol inside a convoy box or put a convoy box next to the Kami symbol so you can damage it somehow ?

That way you have some way of damaging the Kami base symbol. Don’t know if it can be done in Triple A so this idea may be way out there.