IC in Manchuria

@panther thank you! that’s how I was reading it hence why I allowed it. Just never thought of it. Use to playing other versions.

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.

Yes

An IC in Egypt can work assuming the opponent is bad. I’m not even sure I would take an IC in Egypt if it were free.
An IC in Egypt doesn’t accomplish much, forces allies to defend it, and costs 15 IPC that could be better spent.

The benefit is marginal. Germany already has a difficult time taking Egypt & Africa without additional naval buys. Often, UK can kill the battleship and transport R1 unless Germany makes a buy. It’s also not fantastic for supporting India since Egypt is only two production and a number of spaces from India. UK can make better use by spending 15 IPC towards 2 fighters.

The risk is great. Germany can threaten Egypt with just 1 carrier buy. Even if Germany never attacks Egypt directly, defending Egypt will divert units from defending India. Japan can easily place naval off FIC. This threat would force UK to defend both India and Egypt. Additionally, the sz off FIC is a great position for Japan to defend even if US commits to the Pacific (KJF).

@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

Am I the only one that thinks you shouldn’t be able to reinforce on the same turn as you repair the IC? Seems like a “double move” from a sequencing standpoint…like moving land units then letting them load on transport -or- fighters in combat landing in newly captured territories.

We always play house rule that you have to reinforce the next turn, but also adopt SB interceptor rules, so you can dissuade SB runs.  It also curbs just packing in all your units into VC’s with mindless stacks.

@Hobbes:

@Sean.C:

See I’m not going to DEFEND Borneo.  I’m going to leave my newly built subs in SZ60 and my starting navy of 1BB, 2DD, 1AC, 2FTR, 1CA, and 1SS (assuming SZ37 is mutually destroyed by UK SZ35/39 units) in SZ35 off the coast of India.  Then i wait until US decides where to attack.  Lets say you take Borneo, now i attack with my starting navy, plus 5 subs.  US loses and i still have my entire fleet minus 3-4 subs.

The wonderful thing about this strategy is Japan doesn’t have to defend anything.  I just sit and wait for US to decide where it wants to attack, then i counter and destroy it.

Sean, the US can always block those 5 subs on SZ60 from attacking SZ47 by moving 1 destroyer to SZ48. There’s simply no way for Japan to deal with those destroyer blockers unless Germany brings a fighter/bomber to the Pacific. The US can also skip Borneo and focus on East Indies and then the subs on SZ60 can’t reach the US fleet off East Indies.
Or the US can simply send a single transport with fighter support to take Borneo and then Japan has to react. Lots of ways to skin this cat…

You’re talking about a 25% probability for Allies on round 3.  So i make 5 more subs on J3, you take Borneo on US2, and reinforce on UK3, and we annihilate each other on J3.  I now have 4-5 subs in SZ48 and 4 more in SZ60.  You have maybe 1BB.  US3 you build an IC on Borneo.  J4 buy some ground units and TRN’s and start shucking them to the mainland, and i destroy any leftover US/UK naval vessles and you can keep your worthless Borneo.  All you can do with it at this point is build FTR’s and use them to fortify India/Russia.  You’re US/UK naval presence in the Pacific is now over.

Only way to take Borneo with FTR support is to move an AC into SZ49 which then gets eaten by some subs, or if your entire fleet goes there then we annihilate each other with you having a 40% chance of winning.

Any way you look at it, Germany takes Moscow and Axis wins.