Axis & Allies Global 1942(An alternative to Larry Harris's Global 1942)

HeinzGuderian

Hey everyone! I was very interested in playing Larry Harris’s Global 1942 Setup, until I actually set it up on my game boards. One problem I(and everyone else who only owns Europe 1940 2nd Edition and Pacific 1940 2nd Edition)have is that Germany doesn’t have enough tanks since only 12 are provided in Europe 1940 2nd Edition. However, my main complaint is that the setup displays a severe lack of historical accuracy. For example why does Russia start with Bryansk when the Germans took the city in 1941? Also why doesn’t the United Kingdom possess Syria and Iraq? These two nations were conquered by the British in 1941. Anyway enough said. I created this Global 1942 Setup for those of you who are dissatisfied with Larry Harris’s setup. I also included some new rules about Research & Development one of which is derived from Young Grasshopper(Research Dice costing 3 IPCs each). Please take a look at my setup and tell me what you think. I am open to suggestions as to how it might be changed.

Axis & Allies Global 1942

This game is intended to be played on the two game boards included in Axis & Allies Europe 1940 and Axis & Allies Pacific 1940.

Rules of Play

**-All powers begin the game at war regardless of their initial diplomatic status in Global 1940. **
-The National Objectives from Global 1940 remain the same in Global 1942.
-The world power of France does not exist when the game begins. However, if Paris is liberated by the Allies, France may take their turn after ANZAC providing that Paris is not under Axis control and/or French units are present on the board.

Turn Order:
Russia
Germany
United States
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
China
ANZAC

Changes to Research and Development

#1 Research dice now cost 3 IPCs each.

#2 Each major world power(Soviet Union, Germany, United States, Japan, and United Kingdom) may choose two weapon developments to start the game with. ANZAC and Italy can each choose one weapon development before the game begins.

Initial Setup:

Soviet Union�28 IPCs
Karelia: 2 Infantry
Novgorod: 9 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Minor IC
Archangel: 4 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Vologda: 3 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery
Urals: 1 Infantry
Timguska: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry
Siberia: 1 Infantry
Amur: 1 Infantry
Russia: 12 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 5 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, 3 AAA, Air Base, Major IC
Tambov: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Rostov: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Volgograd: 3 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAA, Minor IC
Kazakhstan: 2 Infantry
Caucasus: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 AAA
Northwest Persia: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 100: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer

Germany�56 IPCs
Norway: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
Finland: 4 Infantry, Control Marker
Vyborg: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
Denmark: 2 Infantry
Normandy-Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Control Marker
France: 3 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1AAA, Air Base, Minor IC, Control Marker
Holland-Belgium: 2 Infantry
Western Germany: 5 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Germany: 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Tanks, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Major IC
Poland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Tanks, 1 Tactical Bomber
Baltic States: 4 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank, Control Marker
Belarus: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, Control Marker
Smolensk: 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, Control Marker
Greater Southern Germany: 2 Infantry
Slovakia-Hungary: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank
Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, Control Marker
Western Ukraine: 3 Infantry, Control Marker
Bryansk: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Tank, Control Marker
Romania: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks
Bessarabia: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Ukraine: 6 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, Minor IC, Control Marker
Southern France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Naval Base, Minor IC, Control Marker
Yugoslavia: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
Southern Italy: 1 Fighter
Bulgaria: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Greece: 1 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
Crete: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Morocco: 2 Infantry
Algeria: 1 Infantry
Tunisia: 1 Infantry
Libya: 2 Mech. Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Fighter
Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
French West Africa: Control Marker
French Central Africa: Control Marker
French Madagascar: Control Marker
Sea Zone 108: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 113: 2 Submarines, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 93: 1 Transport

United States�50 IPCs
Central United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Major IC
Eastern United States: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Alaska: 2 Infantry
Western United States: 4 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic Bomber, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Midway: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
Hawaiian Islands: 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base
Sea Zone 101: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 26: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier(carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone: 10: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport

Japan�53 IPCs
Chahar: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
Anhwe: 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, Control Marker
Jehol: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Shantung: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Kiangsu: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber, Naval Base, Control Marker
Okinawa: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
Manchuria: 4 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 AAA, Control Marker
Korea: 2 Infantry
Japan: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Aleutian Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Wake Island: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Air Base, Control Marker
Guam: 1 Infantry, Air Base, Control Marker
Kwangtung: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, Control Marker
Philippines: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base, Control Marker
Palau Island: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base
Gilbert Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Burma: 5 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 2 Artillery, Control Marker
Shan State: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
Malaya: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Control Marker
Sumatra: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
French Indochina: 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter, Control Marker
Java: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
Borneo: Control Marker
Celebes: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Dutch New Guinea: Control Marker
New Guinea: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
New Britain: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Solomon Islands: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Sea Zone 19: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 6: 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carriers (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Battleship, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 31: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Transport
Sea Zone 35: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 33: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber)
Sea Zone 42: 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 2 Fighters), 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 49: 1 Submarine

United Kingdom (Europe)�36 IPCs
Iceland: Air Base
Quebec: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, Minor IC
New Brunswick-Nova Scotia: Naval Base
Scotland: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base
United Kingdom: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber, 3 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Naval Base
Malta: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA
Alexandria: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Egypt: 2 Infantry, Naval Base
Syria: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
Trans-Jordan: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iraq: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
Persia: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
Eastern Persia: Control Marker
French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, Control Marker
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
Ethiopia: 2 Infantry, Control Marker
Italian Somaliland: 1 Infantry, Control Marker
South Africa: 2 Infantry, Naval Base, Minor IC
Sea Zone 106: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 109: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 111: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 99: 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 71: 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport

United Kingdom (Pacific)�6 IPCs
West India: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry
India: 7 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Major IC
Sea Zone 39: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier (carrying 1 Fighter and 1 Tactical Bomber), 1 Transport

Italy�12 IPCs
Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, Major IC
Southern Italy: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, Air Base, Naval Base, Minor IC
Albania: 1 Infantry
Morocco: Control Marker
Algeria: Control Marker
Tunisia: Control Marker
Libya: 1 Infantry, 1 Mech. Infantry, 1 Fighter
Tobruk: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Sea Zone 97: 1 Destroyer, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 96: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

China�12 IPCs
Kansu: 1 Infantry
Suiyuan: 2 Infantry
Tsinghai: 1 Infantry
Shensi: 2 Infantry
Hopei: 3 Infantry
Sikang: 1 Infantry
Szechwan: 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Kweichow: 3 Infantry
Yunnan: 5 Infantry
Hunan: 3 Infantry
Kiangsi: 4 Infantry, Control Marker
Kwangsi: 3 Infantry, Control Marker

ANZAC�10 IPCs
Egypt: 1 Infantry
Western Australia: 1 Infantry
Northern Territory: 1 Infantry
Queensland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, Air Base, Naval Base
New South Wales: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 AAA, Naval Base, Minor IC
New Zealand: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, Air Base, Naval Base
Sea Zone 62: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

HeinzGuderian

Ya, you’ve gotta set it up to get a feel for what it’s like.

Karl7

anything is better than Larry’s 1942 setup. It made NO historical sense whatsoever.

HeinzGuderian

I hear you man!

taamvan

You made china into a beast holy crap! Not much chance of taking it over now. With no diplomacy the UK and Russia should send as much as they can to support it as early as possible, it doesn’t feel like Japan has any more than G42 to attack china with at least. Its like 36-40 Chinese units as opposed to ~15 in the G42. Without a MiC Japan cant really alter the balance in time, also the reshuffle of the navy, air and adding Japan troops to Burma doesn’t alter how much pressure Japan’s china $$ will be under starting C1.

Eliminating france doesn’t change much but having played G42 quite a bit, I would note that having the single blocker that goes after all the other allies has nearly foiled the most critical Japanese attack in the game for me.

Like your research ideas but shouldn’t Russia choose Heavy Bombers to deny it to the axis even though they cant really use it themselves?

Glad to see someone putting fresh ideas out there.

HeinzGuderian

Ya China is a lot stronger but the Japanese can still over power them quite quickly since the Chinese units are pretty spread out. I’ve done a little play-testing of this set up and I find that it’s pretty balanced. For Russia I would choose the Advanced Artillery cuz you can really boost your offensive capabilities.

Ozymandiac

You should probably state your goal: do you want to be able to enjoy a balanced game among friends, or do you want to spread this setup to the entire community?

Because people will only start playing this setup if it’s had a lot of feedback. If you want more (in depth) feedback on the setup you should think about setting up the pieces in TripleA, and post the setup as a savegame on the forums. No promises, but it will be easier for people to see what the board looks like and maybe try playing a couple of turns.

Guymyer

@Karl7:

anything is better than Larry’s 1942 setup. It made NO historical sense whatsoever.

What’s wrong with Larry’s 1942 setup? My group tried it last weekend and had fun.

Kreuzfeld

The limiting of the techs to one nation makes it too gamy.

If I where russia, I would then take rockets, to prevent germany from taking rockets and killing me.
If I where germany, I would take Improved Shipyards, because, NO WAY i am letting usa have 15% discounts on ships, that would just end the game right there.
US is then either taking super subs, long range aircraft or, increased factory production, just to prevent japan from producing 4 units in each of the main land factories of japan.
japan will then take the one US didn’t take
and UK takes Warbond.

The long version is: US, UK and Japan gets something good, USSR gets something decent, and germany screwes over US.

Improved shipyardes for US from round 1 is just insane.

If you wanted to balance it, you could have each side get three techs, and they would get to chose which power would get them. but, the clinch is, the least important powers would chose first. Important is determined according to the scenario. What way, you can chose between getting a good tech, or getting it with an important nation. Improved shipyards is great with US or japan, not that good with USSR, italy or anzak.

as a suggestion:
Anzac(/china?) chose first
Italy chose second
USSR Chose third
Japan chose fourth
UK chose fifth
Germany choose sixth
US choose seventh.

Different suggestion:
Anzac(/china?) chose first
Italy chose second
UK chose third
Japan chose fourth
USSR Chose fifth
Germany choose sixth
US choose seventh.

HeinzGuderian

Here’s the issue with not limiting the techs to one nation. If I’m the US and I did get the Improved Shipyards tech I don’t want Japan to be able to pick it up as well and just cancel out my tech. However I do kind of agree with you I’ll consider making changes.

HeinzGuderian

I should mention that I have a group of friends who are going to try playing this set up with me on the 11th of November so we’ll see how it goes.

HeinzGuderian

@Kreuzfeld:

The limiting of the techs to one nation makes it too gamy.

If I where russia, I would then take rockets, to prevent germany from taking rockets and killing me.
If I where germany, I would take Improved Shipyards, because, NO WAY i am letting usa have 15% discounts on ships, that would just end the game right there.
US is then either taking super subs, long range aircraft or, increased factory production, just to prevent japan from producing 4 units in each of the main land factories of japan.
japan will then take the one US didn’t take
and UK takes Warbond.

The long version is: US, UK and Japan gets something good, USSR gets something decent, and germany screwes over US.

Improved shipyardes for US from round 1 is just insane.

If you wanted to balance it, you could have each side get three techs, and they would get to chose which power would get them. but, the clinch is, the least important powers would chose first. Important is determined according to the scenario. What way, you can chose between getting a good tech, or getting it with an important nation. Improved shipyards is great with US or japan, not that good with USSR, italy or anzak.

as a suggestion:
Anzac(/china?) chose first
Italy chose second
USSR Chose third
Japan chose fourth
UK chose fifth
Germany choose sixth
US choose seventh.

Different suggestion:
Anzac(/china?) chose first
Italy chose second
UK chose third
Japan chose fourth
USSR Chose fifth
Germany choose sixth
US choose seventh.

Okay Kreuzfeld I’ve made a few changes to the Research and Development Rules. Please tell me what you think!

WILD BILL

Instead of giving a couple weapons development to each power from the start that would greatly effect the opening round, would you consider giving them a free break-thru on turn 2 and turn 3 according to the turn order to bring weapons in as the game goes on (Italy and Anz only get it on turn 2). So on R2 Russia gets a free break-thru and can either choose its weapon like you said, or you could have them roll a dice, then choose the weapon that corresponds to the roll from either chart (get two to pick from). You could eliminate weapon’s as they get taken, or allow overlap (up to you). ï¿½

You could still allow each power to buy development dice starting on the first turn and try to get a break-thru for 3 IPCs each.

Kreuzfeld

@HeinzGuderian:

Okay Kreuzfeld I’ve made a few changes to the Research and Development Rules. Please tell me what you think!

Hi!

I like it.

I liked the idea behind the original idea too, it was just a little bit too exploitable. I like the decrease in cost from 5 to 3 ipc for the die. As wild bill have suggested, there are many ways of making the techrules, but it is important that the rules are not too complicated.

Great job in making a new scenario, I hope it works out into a well balanced game.

WILD BILL

I agree with Shadow about tech being a possible game breaker. The big thing about oob tech is you can invest heavily, but come out with nothing, or a lucky roll gives you the game (oob really sucks IMO). If you are going to mandate tech into the game though, then I would integrate it into the game over a couple turns, not from the start.

I think that if you give each power a break-thru to then roll for a tech, it levels the playing field some, because every power would get something (most get two), instead of one power gets the key to victory because of a lucky break-thru roll. With most powers getting two techs they should get something useful to their cause.

I also think that the entire tech chart should be open for each power, I’m just not too sure that they should be allowed to pick because that might be too much of an advantage. Considering that the allies will be getting more tech because they simply have more powers should also be looked at.

CWO Marc

The following would be too complicated for actual use in a game (because you’d need to differentiate and track too many things), but tech upgrades would be more realistic if they worked differently from the OOB rules in two ways. On the plus side, they’d be more or less automatic for everyone: as the game progresses over the span representing 1939-1945 (a span during which technology progressed enormously), technology would evolve upward automatically (though not in identical areas for the various powers), without any need for research investments or dice rolls. On the minus side, tech upgrades would only apply to the units bought after the upgrade, not to every unit already on the board. It’s that minus factor which would make this idea too complicated for general use.

On the other hand, a managable variant (whch would make use of any special extra sculpts that players own from HBG or othere sources) would be to allow every power to automatically introduce at one or two pre-defined rounds of the game one or two special units with special abilities. These units would not necessarily be the same for each power. The use of different sculpts would solve the visual differentiation problem, and limiting the concept to just one or two special units per power (rather than, say, half-a-dozen tech upgrades) would prevent things from getting too complicated. Players would have the option of buying these special units, but would not be obliged to do so.

HeinzGuderian

@CWO:

The following would be too complicated for actual use in a game (because you’d need to differentiate and track too many things), but tech upgrades would be more realistic if they worked differently from the OOB rules in two ways. On the plus side, they’d be more or less automatic for everyone: as the game progresses over the span representing 1939-1945 (a span during which technology progressed enormously), technology would evolve upward automatically (though not in identical areas for the various powers), without any need for research investments or dice rolls. On the minus side, tech upgrades would only apply to the units bought after the upgrade, not to every unit already on the board. It’s that minus factor which would make this idea too complicated for general use.

On the other hand, a managable variant (whch would make use of any special extra sculpts that players own from HBG or othere sources) would be to allow every power to automatically introduce at one or two pre-defined rounds of the game one or two special units with special abilities. These units would not necessarily be the same for each power. The use of different sculpts would solve the visual differentiation problem, and limiting the concept to just one or two special units per power (rather than, say, half-a-dozen tech upgrades) would prevent things from getting too complicated. Players would have the option of buying these special units, but would not be obliged to do so.

I really like your idea of ‘special units’. Which special units would be most beneficial to Axis & Allies Global 1942, in your opinion?

CWO Marc

@HeinzGuderian:

I really like your idea of ‘special units’. Which special units would be most beneficial to Axis & Allies Global 1942, in your opinion?

It would depend on individual player preferences, and on the availability of special sculpts, so I don’t have any specific recommendations to make. Just to give an example: my A&A OOB sculpt collection includes (in Germany’s current black colour) some older-model Panther tanks (the pre-Battle of the Bulge type), some older-model small Stukas (dating back to when they were serving incorrectly as German fighters) and some older-model small 88mm AAA guns (dating back to when they were serving incorrectly as German field artillery). If I were planning to use them as special units, I’d designate them respectively as the Jagdpanther tank destroyer, as the cannon-armed anti-tank version of the Stuka, and as the antitank gun (PAK) version of the 88mm AAA gun (FLAK). This illustrates the concept of taking an existing sculpt and working backwards to invent a plausible special unit function for it. But players could instead work in the other direction: think of a special unit function they’d like to use in the game, then try to find a sculpt on the market (such as at HBG) or in their collections that looks roughly right for the part.

One point to note is that, unlike the basic units that every power has access to under the OOB rules, the special units could be power-specific. This could lead to some interesting battle dynamics. For instance: while I would have prefered every nation in A&A 1941 to have its own sculpt models, I’m happy that the game designers choose the German Tiger and Russian IS-2 as the tank units for the Axis and Allies respectively. The black Tiger and marroon IS-2 sculpts would work very nicely in 1942 or 1940 as special heavy tank units for the Germans and for the Soviets, since both the colours and the designs are appropriate for those countries. Only Germany and the USSR would have special heavy tank unit available to them, which is more or less accurate historically because such tanks were rare or nonexistent for the other powers. (Personally, I’d feel very strange using an American-green Soviet heavy tank or a Japanese-orange German heavy tank.)

On a related point, a way to combine practicality with diversity would be to develop quite a few of these special units for each power (assuming the right sculpts could be found), but to have the associated house rule state that each power can only use a maximum of two types in any given game. Each player could choose which ones to use, but would have to limit himself to those ones. This would save the players from having to keep track of too many combat performance statistics in any given game, while at the same time creating variety between games as different choices get made in each one.

taamvan

Here are some fun, not too playtested ideas I’ve been brainstorming. Doesn’t add a ton of flexibility/flavor to the game (the existing unit set is pretty solid), but neither do cruisers, tac bombers etc,

Marines Cost 5 (US Japan? only)

1/2 Attack during amphibious invasions at 2, with artillery 3

Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun (SPATG) Cost 5

2/3 move 2, fires first strike on defense (one unit only), hitting armor first if it exists

Self Propelled Artillery Gun (SPAG) Cost 5

2/2 move 2, combos with mechs/inf as artillery

Escort Carrier Cost 11

0/2 move 2 takes only 1 hit carries only 1 plane

Attack Transports (naval unit) Costs 10

1/1 move 2 carries 3 infantry blocks movement

Strategic Bomber Cost 13 (undercosted)

Cruiser Cost 11 (overcosted)

3/3 move 2 bombards at 3

Banzai Trooper Japan only Cost 4

1/2 move 1 sacrifice during the defense to make them first striking

Cossack Trooper USSR Japan Mongolia only Cost 3

1/1 move 2 can only be produced 1 per controlled “horseman” territory (eg Mongolia, Caucasus, Soviet Far East), place without factories directly on “horseman” territories

Armed Merchant (naval unit) Cost 6

1/1 move 2 carries 1 unit can amphib

Destroyer Cost 8 (Japan UK only?)

2/2 move 2 can carry 1 infantry cannot amphib

HeinzGuderian

Thanks for the input! I like the suggestions that you and CWO Marc are putting forward, however, I think that they would make the game just a bit too complicated. It would probably be feasible to give each world power a single special unit but not multiples. Any suggestions as to the placement/number of units in my setup?

Axis & Allies Global 1942(An alternative to Larry Harris's Global 1942)

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Global 1942 Scenario Larry Harris - Strategy Discussion for both sides

Axis and Allies Global 1940 Cold War Variant

Rocky Mountain Axis & Allies Meetup game groups table # 1

NEW- Official Global 1942 version of the game- by Larry Harris

Game of A&A Global 1940 in Christchurch, New Zealand

Whew! 19 rounds & 22 hours later, Axis wins.

Question : Japan's starting territories

BIG GLOBAL GAME!(tomorrow) I NEED simple ADVICE OF ALLIES OR AXIS

191

17.3k

39.9k

1.7m