Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

I don’t think you’re hijacking at all, ROCmonster. Figuring out why the map is unbalanced and why bids aren’t quite fixing the problem is very much part of the point of this thread.

I also prefer to keep this thread on the 1942.2 forum rather than the House Rules forum, for three reasons. First, we’re in the middle of a productive discussion, and if we move the thread, then we’re likely to lose some participants. Second, this thread is more about how to fix the core problems in the 1942.2 map than it is about how to add on some funky new optional features. Third, the House Rules forum tends to attract a bunch of commenters who either don’t know or don’t care that we’re not talking about Global 1940, and they sometimes hijack the thread. Of course, people who mostly play Global 40 and who want to contribute their insights/analogies about how their Global 40 experience can help improve the 1942.2 map are totally welcome here, but I do get tired of having to constantly remind people what game I’m talking about!

Black_Elk, if you’ve had enough of this thread for now (I thought I sensed some weariness in your last post), then by all means, take a break! You’ve made some amazing contributions, and I don’t think anyone could fairly demand any more of you.

The +1 to IPC value of all territories idea is intriguing, and I would be happy to try it sometime in a face-to-face game to see how it plays out, but that really creates so many changes to the game that I am not bold enough to venture any strong predictions about how it would play out. Africa and Siberia would become somewhat more important, the Pacific island-hopping game would become slightly more rewarding, and factories in Egypt, Alaska, French Indochina, and Norway start looking somewhat more attractive, since they can now pump out 3 units per turn. Japan will no longer need to build a second factory in most games; if they put, e.g., one factory in French Indochina, then they have 12 build slots for their 46 starting income. I can’t tell if the +1 IPC/territory thing would actually help move the battle toward the periphery, although it certainly doesn’t seem like it’s likely to make the center crush worse. I’m a little skeptical of having quite so much cash in the game – it would lead people to buy more units, which typically makes them slow down and think about each turn for a longer period of time. I prefer 1942.2 games that run 4 to 8 hours; I like that they aren’t typically an all-day-and-all-evening kind of marathon affair.

I would agree that the USA is sort of painfully and arbitrarily far from the front lines in the 1942.2 OOB map, especially in the Atlantic. I don’t understand why the USA is not allowed to shuck from Eastern US to London. It doesn’t make sense thematically, because that trip took 1 week by boat during WW2, and it doesn’t seem to add anything to the gameplay – on the contrary, it leaves the USA sitting around and helplessly passive for the first few turns of a game that’s supposed to start in 1942, i.e., after the USA already joined the war. That said, the practical solution for OOB gamers is to put your fleet in Eastern Canada, which, after a one-turn delay, lets you shuck directly to Norway, France, NW Europe, Morocco, or French West Africa. Maybe the map designer was a Quebecois patriot?

The A0 D0.5 M2 C7 transport might be the answer to the USA’s shucking problems, although personally I think the problem is more that the USA is just so bloody far away from the action than that the USA can’t afford to buy defensive warships. I am not super-concerned about giving Germany a chance to pull off Sea Lion unless UK spends 3+ turns without getting around to rebuilding the Atlantic navy, because the game starts in 1942, two full years after Germany tried and failed to clear a path to invade England. I think the OOB game setup is supposed to represent the world where Germany gave up on its offensive surface naval ambitions and focused on land/air/submarine power. If somebody wants to propose a 1940 setup for the 1942.2 map and pieces on the House Rules thread, that might be fun.

What is a .5 defense transport? What does that mean exactly? Would that mean if you have 6 transports defending you would roll 3 dice @1 and after all the surface ships are killed the transports automatically die or something?

The only way I found this map remotely balanced was playing full LL on AA, battles, and bombing raids. This opened up the US to build bombers early on and bomb Germany with 6 bombers hitting Berlin and 1 hitting Italy. US would consistently build a bomber a turn, after it had 7 bombers total, and the rest transports/fleet/ground. The bombers served a multi purpose being able to bomb or attack a land target with US’s fleet/ground, and when Japans fleet eventually made it’s way to Africa they had to worry about being hit with 7 bombers plus 4 fighters. With a 7 bid for allies, playing against myself, the games felt very even. With dice the bombing strat is way to risky because of the times that you loose 2 or 3 bombers on a run would be game over for allies.

@theROCmonster:

What is a .5 defense transport? What does that mean exactly? Would that mean if you have 6 transports defending you would roll 3 dice @1 and after all the surface ships are killed the transports automatically die or something?

The only way I found this map remotely balanced was playing full LL on AA, battles, and bombing raids. This opened up the US to build bombers early on and bomb Germany with 6 bombers hitting Berlin and 1 hitting Italy. US would consistently build a bomber a turn, after it had 7 bombers total, and the rest transports/fleet/ground. The bombers served a multi purpose being able to bomb or attack a land target with US’s fleet/ground, and when Japans fleet eventually made it’s way to Africa they had to worry about being hit with 7 bombers plus 4 fighters. With a 7 bid for allies, playing against myself, the games felt very even. With dice the bombing strat is way to risky because of the times that you loose 2 or 3 bombers on a run would be game over for allies.

Probably something to do with this TP idea first express by me then refined by Black Elk, in Der Kuentsler Defenseless Transport thread:

@Baron:

One old idea I suggested to better compensate for some 1942.2/AA50 players wanting to have Classic Transport A0 D1 M2 C8, 1 hit:
Makes the sweet 5 IPCs spot in cost structure for defenseless transport: A0 D0 M2 C5, taken as last casualty.

Another idea mostly develop with Black Elk’s help: TP A0 D0-1 M2 C7, 1 hit, taken as last casualty, get +1 if paired 1:1 with another TP.

IDK if this TP can finally make possible a Sea Lion in 1942.2

Would be amazing if USA0 restricted combined with 5 IPCs TP make the case even between Axis vs Allies.

Each pair of Transports would roll @1 each combat round, and when there is only TP, then each TP worth 1 hit. And, if you lose one TP of the last pair then, next round there is no defense roll and 1 TP is auto-killed.

@ROCmonster
Do you mean that Japan goes into Africa before conquering India?
Or just land units into Egypt passing UK’s India?

I’m not weary  :-D

I wouldn’t sweat the move, since the people who frequent the HR section are more likely to actually try some of these ideas, or be familiar with variations that have been proposed in the past, to make valuable contributions. Though threads of this sort do tend to follow a similar trajectory, so I feel a bit for Taamvan, who started this one, since I think it has gone quite a bit beyond the conversation he was looking for initially.

It’s tough for balance discussions, because “bidding” is a house rule too, but it has the support of the tournament community which lends it a more official status than other alternatives.

At one point the Russian restricted opening in Classic, also had a somewhat more official status as a balance option, since it was widely adopted at the time. But I think it may be less familiar to players who have come on board since Revised. The suggestion for the American zero turn might be acceptable to some, as providing a similar sort balancing alternative, but it’s hard to say.

I think adjustments to the starting cash alone, might be another reasonable alternative to the pre-placement bid, with some grounding going back to the original Classic game.

Discussions of stuff along those lines might have a place in the official section. Other more dramatic proposals, such as a specific redesign of the starting unit set up or new income collection ideas, are more appropriate to this section.

Ps. Just to theROC’s last point, I do wonder how much the reluctance of many players to SBR (probably based on their experience with previous boards) might factor into the overall balance assesment.

Part of me thinks that this map was really designed with the expectation that the Allies would engage in constant bombing vs Germany. In most previous editions strat bombing was considered optional and risky, and generally unwise, so it’s not surprising if Allied players are reluctant to build their whole strategy around bombing. Facing down German AAAguns round after round, put’s a lot of pressure on the UK/US.

The problem here is that the UK is pretty hard pressed to make bomber purchases, while simultaneously filling the India IC with ground, providing fighter support to Russia, and hopefully building transports of their own at some point.

The US faces similar challenges, torn between building carriers, transports, and ground, often without much left over to make the requisite bomber purchases.

I suggested before that Russia could really use a bomber, but I think it would be hard to justify using it for strategic bombing with any regularity, because it’s just too valuable and impossible to replace. My reason for suggesting it has more to do with allowing Russia to trade territory, and for Soviet gameplay interest over the long haul.

I agree with the assesment that it takes at least a half dozen American bombers to have a meaningful impact in a strat bombing campaign vs G (that’s two full purchases dedicated almost exclusively to bombers). With a replacement bomber at the ready each round after that. But if you lose more than one bomber per run to AAA fire, it’s really hard to maintain this strategy, and to keep justifying the bomber attrition.

Perhaps the Americans should have a second starting bomber?

• 1 Bomber to Moscow
• 1 Bomber to W. US

The Russian bomber provides more dynamism on the Eastern Front and gives the Soviets a stronger opener. The American bomber allows for a stronger run on Berlin in the second round. Then go from there?

I appreciate that this isn’t exactly the most thrilling way for the American player to kick things off, but if it’s just handed to you, it wouldn’t sting quite as hard when the W. US bomber gets shot down.

Building a game on the assumption that the Allies will bomb Germany every round is kind of rough. Conservative players tend to disdain this sort of play since it leaves so much up in the air, making it harder to plan in advance. On the other hand, it was a huge part of the Allied war effort, so trying to design a balance set up that avoids it entirely (or suggests it as purely optional), seems equally problematic.

I guess one point I’m making here, is that when we talk about the Allied “balance” among experts, I think there is an implicit assumption that “experts don’t bomb in A&A” but save their bombers for combat. So if the German economy was designed with constant strat bombing in mind, that’s a real hurdle to overcome. Take two Allied players who ignore the received wisdom of previous editions, and bomb on the regular. If one player gets solid runs with no losses vs Berlin in the midgame, while the other gets shot down time after time, they’re going to return two rather different appraisals of the game’s overall balance.

I think perhaps the best solution, is one that I’m generally reluctant to propose from an ease of use standpoint… Change the cost and abilities of the strategic bomber, so that it’s only viable use in the game is for the bombing of factories exclusively.

Honestly, only the designers could popularize such a key change to the roster, and it would likely require a new edition. I don’t know how practical it is as a fix for 1942.2. People would surely grumble if we took away the bomber as the game’s most effective combat unit. I’m not sure anyone other than Larry could make it happen. This would be a change on par with defenseless transports, or factory damage/repair, ie. a major break with previous editions. Though I think it would probably improve the core game, if ever we had a 3rd edition to this map or global.

I don’t think a US bomber worth it.
It will not increase the pace of USA into Europe war or Pacific war.
USA can easily built a flock of StBs which will move next turn in UK, Karelia and Archangel (Eastward) or Soviet Far East and Yakut SSR (Westward).

US needs to have, at least TPs and a few escorting warships to make things more interesting.

As you said Black Elk, “At one point the Russian restricted opening in Classic, also had a somewhat more official status as a balance option, since it was widely adopted at the time. But I think it may be less familiar to players who have come on board since Revised. The suggestion for the American zero turn might be acceptable to some, as providing a similar sort balancing alternative, but it’s hard to say.”

In itself, a restricted R0 means around a total US saving of 60 IPCs : 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Fg, 1 Sub (PTO: 38 IPCs) / 1 DD, 2 TPs (ATO: 22 IPCs)
And an additional 42 IPCs from R0 Collect income.

Maybe it is too much resources, IDK, but it would certainly provide more early actions for US.

Adding a US bid around 42 IPCs mix of mainly warships and a few ground units with no USR0 will provide something similar to a restricted purchase only USAR0.

A bid allows to precisely balance between ATO, PTO and China while keeping standard combat.
Here, I’m thinking about a special placement in West Indies SZ18 of 1 DD and 2TPs (like in East Coast SZ).
Or, instead, to put 2 TPs in SZ10 (with 4 US Infantry in Eastern Canada)
That way, it allows Germans Subs a similar target than OOB set-up but in a different SZ.

But now it is easy to imagine US R1 fleet in East Coast SZ11 like: 1 Carrier, 2 DDs, 2 TPs,  (44 IPCs)

It is just an example, to help understand possibilities hidden behind USA restricted R0

In PTO, it can be possible to let Hawaii fleet as it is, but to increase Panama Cruiser fleet in SZ19 :  1 Carrier, 1 DD, 1 TP, 1 Fg (39 IPCs)

Just my 2 cents to think further this case.

@Baron:

Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Norway, +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 tank Manchuria
Americans: +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal

Ok, here I would increase drastically entry points:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
If it needs an additional unit, this should be an AAA in Soviet Far East
Such IC allows Russia to put a DD blocker in SZ!!! :-D

Germans: +1 Factory Norway, + 1 Factory NW Europe +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
If needed to increase Kriegsmarine: I would put U-boat around Norway/Iceland SZ3 or Greenland SZ2
2 ICs makes for more Allies SBR targets but allows reinforcement of Norway and it will not be possible to block Germans’ U-boat into Baltic Sea.
Also, it allows to put up to 4 ships into SZ6 between Norway and NW Europe.
UK needs to watch such events.
Also, if any Sea Lion is tried, at least, such ICs can provide more units immediately for a second chance wave.

British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in South Africa, +1 Factory in New Zealand, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada, +1 Artillery India
I would try to increase entry points over the Empire corresponding to various Commonwealth Dominion.
This changing dynamics is limited by a 30 IPCs or below income. What is at stake is UK doesn’t have enough IPCS to fill all of them at once.
Too much investment or too low investment in UK is a key factor. (Too low can make UK early, mid-game Sea Lion target.)
Africa can still be fight, warships can be built in North Atlantic out of range of Luftwaffe.
Australia and Anzac can slowly built together to oppose Japan.
But it provides two opportunity targets which brings 3 ICs within 2 SZs from Hawaii.
Even more, New Zealand is 3 SZs from SZ22 (Brazil) and 4 SZs from Central America.

Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 Artillery & +1 Infantry in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ50
To provide units to make J1 options for amphibious war in South East Pacific.

Japanese IC in New Guinea is a game input for Rabaul Base in New Britain.
Any unit built there can be considered as a ‘Tokyo Express’ to make pressure on surrounding Islands.

Americans: +1 Factory in Alaska +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan,
+1 DD in Panama Canal SZ19 or to wait about Restricted USA0 (or any appropriate US bid).

Many ICs outside center can bring something more and provide back up TTy to keep up Allies IPCs income on acceptable level mid-game.

Yeah I kind of did a turn around with US Bombers midpost there. Something tells me if we gave the Americans a second, it would just end up somewhere in Russia as a defensive pip hehe.

I do really enjoy the factory unit, and the fact that it can go anywhere with an ipc value according to the rules of this map. I think the 1 ipc factory has potential, if players can be persuaded to try it.

Just wanted to highlight this post from the previous page, because I kind of skipped over it in the midst of other thoughts, but I think it does capture a lot of my feelings.

@taamvan:

G42 is kind of nice because you start with very little, as if every G40 battle has already been fought and attrition is complete.   Then, you rebuild your armies from there and play 7 turns where what you build is as important as what your opener was.

It is maybe an example in 42.2 where instead of any canned setups or historical accuracy, what we really want is a kind of 4X Axis and Allies where you build up the empire, facilities, possessions and armies you want through the course of the game.   One part of that is more flexible placement (as your factories idea), another example would be YG’s VC system of that you are winning some kind of “points” for hitting various milestones/combos/victories rather than a flat “do you possess XYZ”.   Plenty of cool ideas, but many depart from AxA’s core.

I think there is a kind of tension because the designers and players know the game is so long (even though in some ways it seems simpler than a ‘modern’ wargame), that they are trying to put in plenty of fights and takes at the beginning, that lead to a more canned playout.   G40 contemplates, but does not realize (except with the US) this prospect of having a kind of “building up” phase (akin to U0) of a couple of hours followed by some truly climatic battles.   Again, all this does occur;  but it happens according to a seemingly very static plan (eg. build up and get to Moscow).

I’m sure it happens with your group too, but once we have a consensus on who has won, we still play out the big stack battles that no-one would commit to during the running game.   What kind of game would it be if you simply build up a bunch of arms-race stacks only to see them defeat your enemy in a kind of Cold War “I beat you by stacking up the actual battle is a foregone conclusion”.   The Cold War is exactly the kind of war that makes for an awful wargame;  no open combat, constant building up, the resolution is that your enemies economy collapses not because you bombed out his factories but because he ran out of toilet paper…

Definitely, my group always runs the final battles regardless of the odds. The whole game builds to that climax, so it’s key to the experience. Depending on time constraints or whether we are playing a multi, these battles serve to close out the night, even if the actual battles might result in a game that could play on. But my favorite experience is when I’m playing 1v1 with a truly committed opponent, who doesn’t care so much about total victory, but instead examining the deep endgame, after Moscow falls. These matches are less frequent, but always more satisfying, and I think what makes them fun is this sort of reset of the production spread.

That’s why I think increasing the entry points as Baron just suggested once more, has real potential, because it does something rather similar to what happens in the deep endgame with the production realignment, but doesn’t require one to keep playing well after the point when it should be over, just to get there. Also the production spread suggested here, is more in line with the historical conflict itself, rather than a “what if” or “man in the high castle” sort of post-WW2 scenario.

Another thing about ICs spam is that no one would built a 1 IPC IC, but if there is one in set-up it gives a different picture.
:-)

Carolines Island an d SZ: 2 Infs+1 Art, TP, CA, CV
+1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in New Zealand vs 1 Factory in New Guinea
These 3 ICs make for an interesting strategic situation according to number of UK’s IPCs investment.

First option, Australian 2 Infs + 1 Cruiser attack NewG Inf.
ANZAC ICs built EasternA +1 Inf +NZ 1 Inf (2) to defend against IJN.
Carolines fleet can attack one of 3 ICs : New Guinea or Eastern Australia or New Zealand

If Allies doesn’t invade NewG, Australia can reinforce both Eastern Australia and New Zealand +1 Infantry, New Guinea is safe  and can be reinforced. EAustralia or NZ can be target.

While still thinking about 1 ipc factories, Algeria might be an interesting candidate. Slightly less vulnerable than Morocco or Libya, but activates North Africa and sz 14 with a single production point for Axis. It would give the Afrika korps a toehold and something to work with vs the Suez/India, but also presents a nice American target territory for early an Allied torch operation. I think it might make the med more attractive, with a stronger option against the Rome VC.

If you want a North African starting factory, Algeria is definitely the place to put it! When I try to take Rome, my main problem has been that Germany could easily retake it, not that I was one unit short of a credible threat. I’m not sure an American factory in Algeria would threaten Rome very much. Have you all been able to capture Rome before France? How did you do it?

I guess only in the sense that 1 unit in the area, is better than none, for those rogue cases when it might come in handy to have an extra artillery piece or whatever.
:-D

This might be a little bit much, but I think you can create a pretty interesting contest if you gave every nation 5 additional production points (concentrated mainly in 1 ipc or 2 ipc territories.)

Russia: Soviet Far East, Arch, Evenki, Kazakh
Germany: Finland, Algeria, Libya, Norway
UK: W. Australia, E. Australia, New Zealand, W. Canada, Trans-Jordan
Japan: Malaya, New Guinea, Manchuria
USA: Alaska, Hawaii, Szech, Sinkiang

10 production for Axis vs 15 for Allies. Including the OOB starting factories, this would give exactly 30 total entry points distributed across the map.

Soviet Far East is more for novelty, but plays off the Alaska and W. Canada factories as well as Manchuria, to create a somewhat more interesting production dynamic in the North Pacific, going either direction. Manchuria seems entertaining to me, mainly because its possible to target along the northern route. So basically trying to have some kind of Russian support backdoor for the Allies, vs a possible option on N. America for Japan.

Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea production try to get something similar going in the South Pacific. Malaya is also interesting as a target for this, because it gives the Allies a way to make a production push off the money islands should they manage to take them (the idea being that you get an entry point for a transport in sz 36, where you’ll want your fleet to be, for shucks out of Borneo or East Indies into Burma.)

China and Kazakh are the counterweights to Manchuria along the center route. Kazakh is basically the one territory that the Russians might have a realistic chance of holding. China while weak, also provides a blocker option, and a way for the US to get units into Asia early on, provided they get a little cover from the Russians out of Kazakh or Evenki.

Evenki and Arch are probably Axis baits, but they can be used for an extra hit point here or there, give a little more reach for newly purchased armor, and also provide a nice temporary blocker option if Russia has to fall back.

Finally the Scandinavian and African facilities are there to pull Germany in two directions at once, both on their periphery. Each provides a somewhat more compelling German naval incentive early on, but also serve as Allied baits in the midgame. I think Trans-Jordan has some interesting potential when coupled with the Algeria and Libya factories. Basically you have 3 new production points around the Med, for both sides to fret over, and then 3 new production points up north with Norway and Finland.

With maybe one or two exceptions, most of these factories would never be purchased in a normal game, so there are still plenty of viable locations to buy yet more factories if one wanted, in places like Egypt, South Africa, French-Indo or Coastal China, France, the Money Islands etc. But these additional starting factories at the low production values would I think make the game pretty interesting, even if no one ended up buying any others.
:-D

All those factories certainly sound like fun. Do you think it winds up helping the Allies, on balance? I would guess that Germany will nearly always wind up in control of the new Mediterranean factories unless USA drops 60+ IPCs on Operation Torch. On G1, Germany can sink the American transports, conquer Trans-Jordan before the British get to use it, stack in Libya, and build 2 new units directly in North Africa – they will wind up with about 8 land units in the region that can hit Egypt on G2. I don’t think the British can afford to stack Egypt on B1 without abandoning India to Japan – but if the British evacuate Egypt on B1, then the German forces are available for a deadly G3 counter-attack against any American troops that land in Morocco on A2 or A3.

In Japan, the starting Manchuria factory radically accelerates the Japanese tank drive to Moscow in a way that I don’t think the American Chinese factories can really shut down – Japan can still cheaply eliminate the American forces in Anhwei and Yunnan on J1, and then punch the remaining two American Chinese territories on J2 with a force of something like 10 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk, 4 ftr, 1 bmr. Even if America buys 2 fighters, the Brits send in their Indian Ocean fighter, and the Russians send over 4 inf, 1 tnk in reinforcements, that still only leaves a max Allied stack of something like 6 inf, 1 tnk, 4 ftr, which will get crushed on J2. After J2, those two Chinese factories mean that Japan can now drop 5 tanks a turn into central Asia, all without spending a penny on factories or transports. You might even see some J1 builds of, e.g., 3 tnk + 1 bmr, or 3 tnk + 2 sub, just because Japan can get away with it.

The Finland-Karelia-Archangel arc (4 slots total) is also great for pumping out German infantry close to Moscow.

I’m not really seeing what advantages the Allies get to compensate. The Soviet Far East factory helps hold Siberia, and the Alaska factory is convenient for the USA, but neither is really a game-changer. I guess the 3 build slots in ANZAC could help the British take back the money islands – but with Germany in solid control of the Mediterranean, if Britain spends money in both India and ANZAC, then Germany is going to be a monster.

Well if the OOB sequence doesn’t pass muster, an A0 opener would likely do the trick. The Americans would have some very interesting options here. I’ll admit, I think the opener under A0 conditions would be a lot more entertaining, with play patterns closer to the history.

A defensless bomber might also be enough to make that spread viable all by itself. If trying to carry some of my more recent suggestions to their logical conclusion hehe.

OOB I think the J1 pearl attack is probably the most problematic for the opening. I really do wonder if the play was considered when the script was first written, or if that one just gave the designers the slip. It’s a pretty gamey maneuver, but without being expressly prohibited, I can’t see any reason for Japan not to make that attack. And of course, once they do, it more or less sinks the Pacific campaign for the Allies. The Americans really need their Pacific carrier to get anything going on that side of the board.

Kinda makes you wonder if a set up change in sz53 itself isn’t necessary.
What would be the minimum required to deter that attack completely, without just handing a standard KJF to the Allies?

Maybe a British fighter in range that can fill out the American carrier deck?
A fighter in W. Canada, and a ship in sz 65 might be more interesting than using American units.

What a great question! I think the minimum change is to move the Caroline Islands carrier one space west, to the Philippines. With no carrier that can move into Hawaii, the max Japanese attack is 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, 1 bomber – plausible if you insist on a gambit, but not a huge TUV swing.

However. My heart longs for a 1942 setup featuring the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of Delayed Pearl Harbor. Can we move enough American ships to midway to keep things interesting?

A Pacific Canadian fleet is a neat idea – where else might it sail to other than reinforcing the Americans?

@Argothair:

What a great question! I think the minimum change is to move the Caroline Islands carrier one space west, to the Philippines. With no carrier that can move into Hawaii, the max Japanese attack is 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, 1 bomber – plausible if you insist on a gambit, but not a huge TUV swing.

However. My heart longs for a 1942 setup featuring the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of Delayed Pearl Harbor. Can we move enough American ships to midway to keep things interesting?

A Pacific Canadian fleet is a neat idea – where else might it sail to other than reinforcing the Americans?

To remake Midway, I believe you move all DD, Sub, Carrier, 1 Fg from Hawiian SZ and add 1 US Fg (bid).
Both IJN and USA fleet will be obliterate with only a US BB and a Bomber if lucky.

Both Powers will have to rebuilt, but Japan cannot built as fast as US.

Well, I do like the idea of having the fleets (optionally) annihilate each other near Midway – if they do, then as you say, the USA could rebuild faster afterward, just like in real life! It would be very thematic.

The problem is that if you move the US Pacific fleet to Midway, then it’s in range of the Japanese home fleet in addition to some of the Japanese forward-deployed warships. By my count, Japan can bring 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB, 3 ftr, 1 bmr to Midway on J1 – a truly mammoth fleet for this map. Even if you take every US Pacific warship from Hawaii and San Francisco and add 1 more American fighter, that’s still only 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CV, 1 BB, 2 ftr.

When I run that battle on the AA calculator, I’m seeing an average outcome where Japan wipes out all USA units (87% chance) and still has 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB, 1 ftr to hold the sea zone (average; sometimes better, sometimes worse). With only 2 ftr, 1 bmr available for an A1 counter-attack, American is powerless to counter-attack the Japanese survivors, and Japan eventually reunites its fleet at a large profit. I think this would actually make it harder for the Allies to do a KJF opening than a standard OOB game – the Allies would probably rather leave the boats in Hawaii and San Francisco, and just bid the fighter on the Pearl Harbor carrier!

Am I understanding your scenario correctly?

Not exactly.
1- move all in Midway SZ: US 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 1 Fg from Hawiian SZ and add 1 US Fg (bid).
2- Japan on Midway SZ bring 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser, 1 BB, 1 bomber, 1 Fg.
3- Use 1 TP, 1Art, 1 Inf, 1 Fg to take Midway
4- US can attack 2 Fgs, 1 Bomber, 1 BB, 1 DD on remaining IJN fleet.
(1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 or 2 Fg, 1 TP, 1 bomber returning Japan)  and Midway is taken.
Both IJN and USA fleet will be obliterate with only a US BB and a Bomber if lucky.
If you feel AAcalc is not enough generous, add a US Cruiser in addition to other Fg (bid) to Midway.

Luck should swing both battles so at the end of it, either US or IJN had 1 or 2 units survived.
If IJN remained.
Next turn, there is 1 Art and maybe 1 Inf with BB to invade Hawaii, VC.
Historically, one intent of Admiral Yamamoto was to destroy US fleet and take Hawaii so US will sign peace or need time to be able to act in PTO.
This scenario is possible.
US player in such case may decide to go KGF and not invest a lot into West Coast fleet (1 TP) remaining plus Panama Cruiser, maybe.

I think a Midway opener would be fun. One issue I see is that Midway island itself is pretty useless for either side. It has no ipc value and only a single infantry unit. With so little at stake, Japan has no reason to peel forces away from the naval engagement to actually take the island. Perhaps a high value but weakly defended target would help, such as a bomber on the island?

The trick with trying to script Midway into a single combat turn, is that it’s hard to create a carrier trade that allows for somewhat historical results  (this mainly owing to how carriers are typically used in combat by players.) I think you’d have to approach the “battle” as taking place over 2 turns. First the Japanese attack, and then the American counter attack.

The goal there would be that Japan has to expose one of their carriers to an immediate counter by US, in order to make a profitable attack in the first place. And for their part the US should have a way to come out ahead in the carrier trade, with at least 1 deck still at the ready following the initial attack.

I think this might recommend not changing the sz53 situation, but instead concentrating on how to set up a Midway battle just with additional units for both Japan and the US. (Instead of moving already existing units.) I imagine the situation in sz53 as representing an extension of the Midway fight under those conditions. Japan should have a strong reason to attack Midway, but not enough to hit both Midway and Pearl at the same time. This would free up the Pearl units to be used in a US counter.

It all seems a little tricky to set up, but at least it would have the advantage of being a dramatic close to the first round.
:-D