Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Here’s a kind of scenario you might like. Instead of open bidding you can make a chart of openers that your group creates, and then roll to determine which one is played. For example, say you settle on 18 ipcs as a decent number for Allied bid units, you might do something like the following…
(These examples might not be the strongest possible use of a bid, but intended rather to provide an interesting challenge. A way to put the emphasis on just one of the three Allies per game, providing some randomization, but without too much distortion.)

Flip a coin or Roll 1d6
Odd/Heads = player takes Axis
Even/Tails = player takes Allies

Allied player rolls 1d6 to determine their advantage for that game.

1. Russian bomber in Caucasus, and tank in Volodga.
2. Russian fighter in Archangel, artillery in Caucasus, artillery in Karelia.
3. British sub in sz 35, tank in India, artillery in Burma.
4. British destroyer in sz 10, fighter in Egypt.
5. American destroyer in sz 11, fighter in Szech.
6. American Bomber in Greenland, inf in Szech, inf in Sinkiang.

Or you could do it in a more open way with a Roll 1d6 simply to determine which nation gets the bid pile. (More potent)
1-2 Russia
3-4 Britain
5-6 America

Then go from there, with a set amount. Or if you want a more controlled thing, you could roll 1d6 a with six possible starts for each Nation using some pre-sets. Basically making it a bit like a tech chart process, but where the game’s bid set up itself is subject to initial rolls. Others have proposed specific set up tweaks, so there are definitely multiple ways it could be approached.

The idea is that, instead using an “anything goes” model for Bid placement, you instead work with a series of agreed upon set up changes. The rolling is mainly for variety, to keep some dynamism in the process.

Things like that can help to bring some flavor, and suspense to the start, beyond just balance by sides. There is less flexibility in structure like that than open bidding would allow, but it also gives you a way to control for really one sided or overpowered bids at a given amount. So you can go a bit higher on the total amount than you might otherwise, while still trying to keep things fair for the Axis.

That does sound interesting, Black Elk. I’m envious of anyone who plays often enough to playtest all six variant bids! Another (wacky) option would be to put various small bids on little index cards, and then bid a number of index cards drawn at random. E.g., I’ll play the Allies if you give me 3 index cards. Then you don’t know what each card will give you – maybe it’s a couple of infantry in the Middle East, maybe it’s a destroyer, maybe it’s a fighter, etc. You find out after you win the bidding auction! Or, for a (slightly) more strategic version, deal out 6 index cards or so, and then bid how many cards you’d need to play the Allies – if you win the bidding auction with 2 cards, you get to pick out your 2 favorite cards from the 6 on display.

Taamvan, it sounds like you had some bad luck mixed with a couple of minor mistakes near India, and that you’ve learned your lesson on the Indian front. You probably had a fighter in Egypt, right? If Germany hit Egypt on G1, I don’t see how Germany could have sunk all British ships and all American ships in the Atlantic and still had enough of an airforce left to pressure your fleet.

On the theme of German airforce pressuring the British Atlantic fleet, I do not recommend saving 50% of your budget toward a fleet, because of exactly what happened to you – Germany can afford to build bombers to keep up with your budget, and whenever you do plop the fleet in the water, Germany can sink it at a profit. Instead, I would recommend either saving 70%+ of your budget for a fleet, or saving 0% of your budget for a fleet. On B1, you can build, e.g., 2 artillery in India and save the rest. If Germany wants to buy 3+ bombers on G2, that’s fine – that’s so inefficient that Russia will probably be able to gain ground in eastern Europe. If Germany buys less than 3 bombers, then you can probably safely buy a fleet on B2 with your savings. You can put it to the northwest of Britain if you need to, and you don’t necessarily need to build more than one transport at first – that will protect the fleet from most German fighters, and still give you a chance to put at least some early pressure on Norway / NW Europe / France.

On the other hand, if you feel that you can’t build a useful, safe fleet with 70% of B1 income + 70% of B2 income, the alternative is to build a second factory and then build nothing but air force. For example, a factory in South Africa (or Egypt, if you’ve held it) will give you 5 build slots in the British colonies. If you’ve maintained your starting income of $31, then starting on B3 you can buy something like 2 inf, 1 art for India and 1 inf, 1 tnk for your African factory, and then also buy 1 bomber in London. That neatly spends your $31 each turn without going overboard on planes. The bomber can be sent to Africa or Rome to help with combat, and it can even bomb Berlin along the way.

Finally, if you feel tempted to drop 2 BB off the coast of India, consider going for a quick walk around the block, instead. When I get that urge, it’s a sign that I’m feeling angry and frustrated!

I find that the biggest challenge is just getting a group to accept set up changes. The bid process is so commonplace that many players see it as the only ‘official’ way to tweak the start. But it’s important to remember that bidding is mentioned nowhere in the rulebook. In that respect, it would be nice if one of the major regional tournament venues tried adopting some alternative methods to help popularize them.

The main problem I find with pre-placement bidding, is that it always favors hitpoints for round 1 battle breakers (i.e. as many of the cheapest available units on land or sea, placed at the most sensitive tiles that your bid rules allow, in order to return a large TUV trade in the first round.) That’s why no serious Allied player would bid for something like a bomber or a factory, even if it might provide a more enjoyably balanced game for both sides.

Just as an example, a free factory in E. Canada would really help the British to develop an Atlantic fleet, with no distortion in the opening round combats, but nobody is going to use a 15 ipc bid that way left to their own devices.

Or similarly, a free British fighter in Eastern Canada, would likewise really help for early carrier purchases to jumpstart an Allied fleet (either in the Atlantic or the Pacific), but nobody is going to put a fighter there.

Both of those bids have more historical justifications and less distortion, than an extra sub in the Pacific to create a naval battle off East Indies that never occurred in 1942. But the later is more popular, because it’s cheaper and more potent and the results are more immediate.

You could probably balance the map, just by focusing on China all by itself. A few more infantry, a couple artillery pieces, another flying tiger, maybe a 1 ipc factory in Szech. This would be more historical than most standard bids, but in raw numbers that’s 5 times as expensive, as just giving the Russians or British a couple units to ice a key round 1 battle and swing it in favor of the Allies.

I think it probably falls to the tournament community to provide alternatives, or to the creators to provide an addendum to the manual that gives some options for set up tweaks, because players are kind of set in their ways absent some outside authority lending alternative approaches some weight.

It would be cool to see some kind of “historical bid” at a higher total value, but with more restrictions on unit type, total bid unit numbers, or location for placement. You could advance a different historical theme for each.

Maybe you have one called Torch, that helps the Allies to lead the fight on sand and sea in Africa and the Med. One called Tankograd, that bolsters the Soviets at the center. Maybe a Pacific themed set up, that helps the Chinese, US or Anzac forces to wage a more effective war on that side of the board etc. If desired, each might be accompanied by a slight tweak to the Axis start as well, so that the other side also gets to try out something different from time to time.

One idea that is less rigid, but also might work, is to give both sides a bid. Axis get some smaller portion of a larger total. Then do a secret bid, where both sides reveal simultaneously. Although this runs a bit counter to the game’s appeal as one that “always has the same basic set up” it would probably increase the shelf life, and the novelty factor. But again, it’s hard to convince people to try things like this, when they’re used to bidding in the familiar way.

Yeah I feel you man! Too true

To go back to the nuts and bolts for a sec, just thought I’d chime in on the British fleet question.
For an Atlantic crossing set up, I enjoy something like the following…

Round 1:
UK buys 2 fighters setting up the transit to W. Russia or Arch (and then India) in the following rounds. 3 hitpoints built for India factory.
US buys 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 2 transports and 1 sub to recover their Atlantic position.

Round 2:
UK repeats first round buy, and basically does the same.
US buys 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 transport, 1 destroyer.

Round 3:
UK builds 3 hitpoints in India, saves the rest for round 4 purchase.
US buys 2 fighters, and as much ground as they can afford. All available Anglo-American naval units should by this time be able to safely, converge off Africa, in range of UK for the following round.

Round 4:
UK drops a double carrier fleet with the second deck to be supported by US fighters. (You can try alternatives depending on whether the sz 35, or pearl carrier is still afloat to converge, but the goal is an Atlantic fleet with at least 4 carriers.) They don’t need to be fully stacked with fighters immediately, as long as you have sufficient defense to deter an airstrike, or room for the full 8 fighters should you need them. It can actually sometimes be advantageous to have a landing spot open for UK fighter flexibility or emergency escapes from Russia.

US from this point focuses primarily on purchasing transports, ground and aircraft. Moves the Atlantic fleet to support the British naval defense, while the transports go to sz 10 (or sz 1, if 10 is threatened by Axis bombers). All north American ground to Eastern Canada, to set up a repeating launch on either Africa or the North. From here on the goal is to build tandem transport fleets, capable of delivering as many ground units as possible across the pond. The ideal is building towards a dozen total transports  (6 to launch, and 6 to return) capable of dropping 12 US ground each round. Basically 12 inf, if you can maintain 36 ipcs on income. As soon as it’s feasible you want the whole fleet up north, first Norway, then Finland every round until you can move on Karelia, with the British backing them up each time. The principle objective is to stack Baltic States or France, with a line on Berlin (and hopefully prevent a premature Moscow collapse by diverting Germany, so the Russian killing role falls to Japan alone.)

This is a painfully long and narrowly focused KGF set up for the Allies, which means Japan is almost certainly running the board. With any luck, you got enough ground out of India before abandoning it to make the Moscow battle a bloody affair for Japan, but in the end you’re hoping to trade a Japanese Moscow, for an American Berlin, at which point the balance resets with an insurmountable Allied advantage.

With a 4 carrier Atlantic fleet, it’s very hard for the Axis to build up sufficient bombers to challenge you, as long as you can keep it out of Axis fighter range. For their part, Axis will be hard pressed to retain fighter defense on Karelia and Berlin at the same time, while simultaneously threatening Moscow. At some point Germany will make a bold move on the center or south, or withdraw to protect the fatherland, ceding the North, and that’s when you want to crack Karelia. In the lead up to this I would try to avoid trading too much territory with American units unless you really need to block an Axis air landing. Better to stack the American ground so you can build for a back-to-back drop that will actually make a difference (e.g. 24 hitpoints, using all the transports at once for a key drop, with another dozen or more hitpoints at the ready for an immediate follow up. This is way better than taking France or Northwestern for a one round income boost, losing the dudes, and then back to being 2 turns out of position.) This is particulary true when setting up the final stack drop as a precursor to the amphibious assault on Berlin out of sz 5, since your transports will then be committed and unable to return to North America for more troops.

Whether any of this is achievable short of an early Axis setback somewhere, or a crushing and consistent bombing campaign against G, is where the whole bid discussion comes in, but I think that’s probably the cleanest route to Allied victory on this map. The alternative of stalling Japan and redirecting after, or just gunning for Tokyo is much harder, mainly because it’s so hard to cover the center against a full press by G under those conditions. Even if KJF is always more entertaining, it’s dicey, and doesn’t result in the same kind of overwhelming advantage that a Berlin kill affords.

I’ve been lurking in this thread really hoping someone is going to figure out how to make this game more fun.  One of the big issues, to me, is that Russia and Britain are simply in survival mode hoping America will come to the rescue.  Buying inf/art or inf/arm as Russia, inf/art/fig as Britain every single time is just boring. Russia pretty much has no real fun value.  Sit in the middle and get squeezed while it watches its units and territories disappear.

My friends and I have always wondered why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included as they are never purchased.

Maybe because of the hit point model, there just isn’t much that can be done.  I know submarines have been changed yet how is it that an infantry division can take down a bomber or fighter?  Or a bomber have a 66% chance of taking down a fighter?

I play real time strategy games, like Starcraft, which use a rock/paper/scissors model.  The problem is that the Axis are the rock and Allies are the scissors and just get pounded.

I like the KJF idea however Germany starts out so strong that Britain/Russia have trouble containing it.  One of the issues is that while the two Allied forces can be used to slow the advance, they offer no real combined counter as a stack of 10 Rus inf/5 Bri fig has no attack ability.  A combined attack would sure seem to help.

@craykirk:

My friends and I have always wondered why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included as they are never purchased.

Not true… there’s a post around here somewhere about a guy that is so obsessed with purchasing naval units, that when in frustration, his friends made him play Russia so he’d stop buying naval units, the guy did the unthinkable and started building a Soviet Navy.

So there you have your answer… the reason why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included is precisely because there’s always someone who will buy them.

Also, in the standard “KGF” strategy, where Berlin falls and people are playing a “last man standing” game of conquest, those Soviets might want a shot at Japan… and yeah, they’ll need a navy for that end-game.

I don’t know that there are a whole lot of ways to address your concerns without substantial adjustments to the rules. There are many suggestions in the house rules section, but the issue with any HR is that it’s hard to persuade others to use it.

Map:
Adjusting the territory divisions on the map is the hardest, so I’ve moved away from that as a serious solution, though most issues in 1942.2 probably come down to the map itself.
Adjusting the territory connections on the map is possible (e.g. introducing an impassible border somewhere, or removing the wrap-around effect between the Europe side and the Pacific side) though again pretty hard to get people to adopt.
Adjusting the production/ipc values is possible, but requires some simple universal like +1 ipc production to every space that meets “such-and-such” requirement (e.g. all VCs get +X, or all starting factory territories get +X, or all Russian starting territories get +X.) If you don’t want a universal, but wish to modify each territory individually, then you need some sort of game marker/method of representation that makes all that easy to parse at a glance.
That is pretty tricky, so I’d set it aside as the least feasible way to adjust the game.

Income bonus:
This is in my view the simplest way to go, either through a universal bonus or specific objective bonuses, or simply by adjusting the starting cash of each nation.

Unit set up change:
Adjusting the position of starting units. This is basically what we are doing with a bid, but also possible to just make a hard set up alteration as many have discussed (i.e. add a Russian bomber, add an American destroyer, add/remove a factory somewhere etc.)

Unit roster:
Adjusting the costs, attack/defense, or abilities of the units. See Baron’s HR threads for a number of ideas.
I think this approach is particularly challenging getting people to adopt alterations to the roster, but probably has the most potential for a major overhaul.

One-Off rules:
These could be things like the National Advantages from Revised that offer some kind of limited bonus at a specific point in the game, Russian Winter, D-Day etc. Or an HR with narrow applications, like allowing players to destroy factories, or provide lend-lease etc.

Turn Order:
I think this method is particularly promising, though I haven’t seen many people explore it. Like playing AA50/Global where China moves first in the turn order sequence, randomizing the turn order sequence, or things of that nature. For example, playing 1942.2 with the following turn order…
USA > Russia > Germany > UK > Japan.

But it’s just very hard to achieve a critical mass with solutions like these, such that they become popular enough to serve as viable balancing solutions.

As for myself, I enjoy the vanilla map, even if the Allies are rather pigeon holed. I definitely see what you mean though. I still prefer AA50 over pretty much anything else. It was the best A&A game since Classic. I preferred it to Revised, and definitely prefer it to 1941 or 1942.2. Global is a rather different beast, the rules overhead on that one makes for a challenging comparison with the smaller scale maps. As a successor to Revised 1942.2 is passing fair, but I wish there was more to it. At least AA50 had an alternative start date to explore when you got bored, and a tech chart. I think we could have used some optional official rules for 1942.2 beyond just sz 16 and the intercept rules to keep it going, since I don’t know when we’ll see another A&A map at this scale, if ever. For now, if you want to re-balance it, you basically have to get creative on your own, and then find some friends who are willing to come along for the ride.

@Wolfshanze:

@craykirk:

My friends and I have always wondered why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included as they are never purchased.

Not true… there’s a post around here somewhere about a guy that is so obsessed with purchasing naval units, that when in frustration, his friends made him play Russia so he’d stop buying naval units, the guy did the unthinkable and started building a Soviet Navy.

So there you have your answer… the reason why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included is precisely because there’s always someone who will buy them.

Also, in the standard “KGF” strategy, where Berlin falls and people are playing a “last man standing” game of conquest, those Soviets might want a shot at Japan… and yeah, they’ll need a navy for that end-game.

I played an AA50 game with reduced cost structure (SS5-DD6-CA9-CV12-BB16) and Convoy Zones, and a few set-up additions (to protect Convoy Zones), such as a 1 russian DD in Soviet Far East cost (Amur/Buryatia).
German’s Subs were such a nuisance in northern arctic sea that USSR bought 1 DD to get ride of a few (with air support).
In HR game intended to increase naval movement and dynamics, and enough IPCs it is possible to increase russian navy in a more interesting way. But I have to admit that without plaguing Russian Convoy SZ (a HR mechanic which I also use in 1942.2), there was no need for such navy.

The OOB naval cost structure is clearly a time factor on Germany. More allieds ships, means more units to deal with and less ground units for Russia invasion. At a point, Germany cannot afford to play on both sides.
Changing hypothetically to SS8 DD10 CA14 CV20 BB24, would make more room to Germany before dealing with Operation Overlord in Western Europe.

I believe that reducing ship cost (somehow like Advanced Shipyard Tech), is a balancing option (helping 2 allies vs 1 axis, mostly USA, UK and Japan) which should be explored compared to bids, because it have a lasting effect with purchase opportunity and provide pace changing too. Do you agree on that point?

@craykirk:

I’ve been lurking in this thread really hoping someone is going to figure out how to make this game more fun.  One of the big issues, to me, is that Russia and Britain are simply in survival mode hoping America will come to the rescue.  Buying inf/art or inf/arm as Russia, inf/art/fig as Britain every single time is just boring. Russia pretty much has no real fun value.  Sit in the middle and get squeezed while it watches its units and territories disappear.

My friends and I have always wondered why Russia even has AC/DD/BB units included as they are never purchased.

Maybe because of the hit point model, there just isn’t much that can be done.  I know submarines have been changed yet how is it that an infantry division can take down a bomber or fighter?  Or a bomber have a 66% chance of taking down a fighter?

I play real time strategy games, like Starcraft, which use a rock/paper/scissors model.  The problem is that the Axis are the rock and Allies are the scissors and just get pounded.

I like the KJF idea however Germany starts out so strong that Britain/Russia have trouble containing it.  One of the issues is that while the two Allied forces can be used to slow the advance, they offer no real combined counter as a stack of 10 Rus inf/5 Bri fig has no attack ability.  A combined attack would sure seem to help.

@Black_Elk:

Unit roster:
Adjusting the costs, attack/defense, or abilities of the units. See Baron’s HR threads for a number of ideas.
I think this approach is particularly challenging getting people to adopt alterations to the roster, but probably has the most potential for a major overhaul.

On air units and combat interactions I developed two different Fg-TcB-StB dynamics, one of which I’m fond of and is actually tried by SS on G40. He said that Fg seems less the decisive element it was in OOB game. Fgs are hitting planes first each combat round, so StBs needs Fgs fodder or become toasted if too many combat rounds.

I use TcB in my 1942.2 game, it provides more options and with my HR allows russia to start with 1 TcB.

And of course, once you open the game up for HR modifications, there is an additional challenge of how far to push things before you enter the arena of a full redesign. I don’t want to derail the thread with house rules discussions, but since I already brought up bid alternatives, I just want to expand on one that I find fun for 42.2
:-D

I can say this much, I’ve tried a number of different HRs, and the turn order change that I mentioned earlier (with USA going first), is probably my favorite for a hard-and-fast, grab-and-go tweak. The reason I think it’s successful, is that it doesn’t require your players to do much. They don’t have to learn anything new, there are no adjustments to the unit placements or the rules that need to be defended, after the first turn the sequence is exactly the same as OOB.

USA, Russia, Germany, UK, Japan

Keeps the same essential framework, with the exact same unit and income set up out of the box, but provides an entirely new opening round. New strategies and a new overall balance, which I find to be more grounded given the timeline. The only thing different, is that the US starts the turn sequence. Here’s what it does that I like…

Provides the Allies/Americans a very substantial economic boost, with a first round purchase at 42 ipcs and the potential to collect the same (or slightly more) on income in the first round.

Preserves the American fleet at Pearl (more historical), while providing a way to get some early shock operations going against Japan, like a move to Solomon Islands Guadalcanal (again more historical). Also bolsters China, allowing these forces to consolidate for defense, or attempt an early attack, like at Kwang. These two, combined with some focused Russian/UK openers, can set up a viable KJF Pacific game that has the potential to actually pan out.

Saves the American Atlantic transports, and allows the Americans a shot to clear sz 9 of u-boats (using their DD +Bomber) to do the same for the British transports in sz 10.

It addresses two main issues I have with the vanilla game, namely that the Americans are too broke/slow out the gate, and that Allied naval forces are all wiped by Axis air before they have a chance to do anything. Also, by allowing the Americans to move first (esp. in China) it is easier to reinforce the center for a better shot at holding it against an early crush.

Using this turn order, which provides a much stronger Allied opener than any bid I can think of, effectively inverts the game to a more Classic/Revised style of play = Allied advantage.

If further balancing is required, this can be achieved by a more traditional bid for Axis, which harkens back to the original situation in Classic/Revised. Though I find that the Axis position and production spread is still quite strong, and the balance by theater is pretty enjoyable.

For those who think the OOB game is reasonably balanced this may seem overly generous to the Allies, but that is not my view. For me “balance” goes beyond just whether it’s possible for the Allies to carve out a narrow win, (or possible with a large bid), and should also consider whether the resulting gameplay is dynamic and appropriate to the start date. Including whether the game can be resolved in an expeditious and satisfying way for both the Axis and the Allies. If you want the game to play more like World War II, and be more interesting for each side, try it with the USA going first.

This adjustment has the benefit of being very simple to explain and to implement. Probably the best I can offer for a quick fix.

ps. here is a tripleA gamesave below (using edit mode), for anyone who’d like to try it…

1942 sec ed USA starts.tsvg

This sequence seems very interesting: USA Round 0, Russia R1, Germany R1, UK R1, Japan R1, USA R1.

I just believe it is a bit too much a sweep.
Once upon in classic time, when it was Axis broken one tweek was to simply not allow Russia to attack at all. Only purchase,  Non Combat Move and reinforcement with new units.

IMO, USA first Round 0 should receive the same treatment: no combat phase allowed, keeping purchase, non-combat move and place new units.
This keeps Axis units intact and let Japan not to be too early overwhelmed in a KJF strategy, but it reduces a lot of the initial impact of the first game round on US units attrition in China, Hawaiian SZ and East Coast SZ.
And this can still be an acceptable historical “Awakening of the Giant”, before launching the first assault after Japan played.

Preserves the American fleet at Pearl (more historical), while providing a way to get some early shock operations going against Japan, like a move to Solomon Islands Guadalcanal (again more historical). Also bolsters China, allowing these forces to consolidate for defense, or attempt an early attack, like at Kwang. These two, combined with some focused Russian/UK openers, can set up a viable KJF Pacific game that has the potential to actually pan out.

USA first Combat Move on Round 1 still allows these historical moves and can even launch 1 Fg (from Hawaiian SZ) and 1 StB in Soviet Far East (from Eastern Coast) on USA Round 0 to be use in China to counter Japan with remaining US (Chinese) Infantry units and the lone Flying Tiger.

Interesting twist?

That could also work really well, Baron! I think if your primary concern is making sure that the US / UK boats don’t get blown up uselessly on turn 1, then letting the USA take a noncombat/purchase turn before the usual start of the game is an elegant and effective solution. It also reduces taamvan’s “juggling plates” problem; the Flying Tigers are safe, and so that frees up the troops that would otherwise have been sent to guard Szechuan, which gives the Allies more options and more breathing room. I’m not sure China will have any viable attacks in most games – even attacking Kwangtung with 6 inf, 1 ftr on round 0 is not that profitable, because Manchuria can counter attack on J1 with 4 inf from Kiangsu and 4 fighters or so, even without using a transport – so you’re trading 6 Chinese infantry for something like 3 inf, 1 art from Japan and 2 IPCs of American income. Still, I suppose if you consolidate the Chinese forces on A0, and then Japan ignores the Chinese front on J1, then on A1 or A2 you might have a decent attack somewhere.

I had an idea for how to give the Russians a navy:
(1) Open the Dardenelles
(2) Move the Karelia factory to Archangel
(3) Add a factory in the Soviet Far East
(4) Put 3 Soviet fleets on the board at setup. Each fleet is a cruiser, a transport, and a sub. The fleets go in SZ 4 (Archangel), SZ 16 (Caucasus), and SZ 60 (Soviet Far East).

The reason why I suggest moving the factories and opening the Turkish straits is that the key benefit of a navy is that it gives you extra mobility, i.e, more mobility than you could get with infantry alone. It compels your opponent to defend more territories than they would otherwise have to worry about, especially if they know that you’re not in a position to use brute force to break through your front lines. The problem with the OOB 1942.2 map for Russian navies is that the Russians have nowhere to go – Karelia is right next to Finland anyway, and it’s not worth building (or protecting) a navy just to get from Karelia to Norway. So if you move the factory back one space, now the navy is forcing Germany to protect Norway, Finland, and Karelia against a White Sea fleet shipping infantry out of Archangel. It might also incentivize the Germans to reinforce their Baltic navy! When the Germans can rely on capturing the Karelia factory, the Karelia factory becomes the main source of infantry fodder for the Germans’ eastern front – but with no Karelia factory, the Germans need a transport in the Baltic to ship over cheap infantry to die on the front lines, so that they aren’t losing tanks on every battle.

The Russian Black Sea fleet will probably be sunk on G1 most games, but it gives Germany some hard choices – do you use the BB to help sink the Russian fleet or the British fleet? You’ll be exposed to fighter casualties somewhere, and you’ll have fewer fighters to attack on the land in eastern europe for G1 and possibly G2. Besides, the Russian Black Sea sub will survive, giving Russia the option to attack and kill the German BB on R2 if Russia parks its fighters in the Caucasus or even in Egypt.

The Russian Pacific fleet has the option of sinking the Japanese transport (freeing up the British Indian fleet for other operations), of turtling to protect the Soviet Far East factory/stack against bombardments, to give the Japanese a headache when invading Siberia, or even of heading east to Canada for a turn so that it can link up with the American fleet on R2, helping the Americans to get more value out of a counter-attack after Pearl Harbor (because the Japanese counter-counter-attack will be much less profitable thanks to the extra Russian boats!

@Black_Elk:

It addresses two main issues I have with the vanilla game, namely that the Americans are too broke/slow out the gate, and that Allied naval forces are all wiped by Axis air before they have a chance to do anything. Also, by allowing the Americans to move first (esp. in China) it is easier to reinforce the center for a better shot at holding it against an early crush.

For those who think the OOB game is reasonably balanced this may seem overly generous to the Allies, but that is not my view. For me “balance” goes beyond just whether it’s possible for the Allies to carve out a narrow win, (or possible with a large bid), and should also consider whether the resulting gameplay is dynamic and appropriate to the start date. Including whether the game can be resolved in an expeditious and satisfying way for both the Axis and the Allies. If you want the game to play more like World War II, and be more interesting for each side, try it with the USA going first.

I really agree that USA is far too slow entering the game. That’s why usually on a 4 players game, US and Russia are played by the same player. One stuck in close combat with only limited Infantry/Artillery/Tank purchase and another wide open purchase strategies but a lot of patience before taking real action.
A Round 0 built allows to gain a critical mass in Naval units, at least, if everything is purchase on one side to launch a substantial Naval Task Force US Round 1 or 2.

What about the German navy? In the OOB 1942.2 game, German naval purchases are already a marginal tactic, since the Allies can afford to heavily dominate the Atlantic on 90%+ games. Letting the USA go first would further increase that domination, making German naval tactics even less viable.

Relatedly, I only see 2 ways for the USA to protect British boats on A0: send the starting Atlantic destroyer to Canada, and land an extra fighter on the British carrier in the Indian Ocean. That almost forces Germany into a scripted attack on the British BB and the 2 British boats in the Med, with remaining air power going to hit the Russians on land or to Egypt. So there are really only 2 viable tactics for Germany on the new G1, and by G2 Germany probably has zero boats in the water  in 97%+ of games. America builds an Atlantic carrier on A0, moves it to Morocco on A1, and hits any Italian boats with fighters on A2. Britain builds an Atlantic fleet on B1 with help from the Canadian DD + transport (which will always survive thanks to the extra American DD), and sinks anything in the Baltic on B1 or B2. Am I missing a German naval option? Or are we ok with a Germany that is restricted to land and air forces?

@Argothair:

That could also work really well, Baron! I think if your primary concern is making sure that the US / UK boats don’t get blown up uselessly on turn 1, then letting the USA take a noncombat/purchase turn before the usual start of the game is an elegant and effective solution. It also reduces taamvan’s “juggling plates” problem; the Flying Tigers are safe, and so that frees up the troops that would otherwise have been sent to guard Szechuan, which gives the Allies more options and more breathing room. I’m not sure China will have any viable attacks in most games – even attacking Kwangtung with 6 inf, 1 ftr on round 0 is not that profitable, because Manchuria can counter attack on J1 with 4 inf from Kiangsu and 4 fighters or so, even without using a transport – so you’re trading 6 Chinese infantry for something like 3 inf, 1 art from Japan and 2 IPCs of American income. Still, I suppose if you consolidate the Chinese forces on A0, and then Japan ignores the Chinese front on J1, then on A1 or A2 you might have a decent attack somewhere.

I had an idea for how to give the Russians a navy:
(1) Open the Dardenelles
(2) Move the Karelia factory to Archangel
(3) Add a factory in the Soviet Far East
(4) Put 3 Soviet fleets on the board at setup. Each fleet is a cruiser, a transport, and a sub. The fleets go in SZ 4 (Archangel), SZ 16 (Caucasus), and SZ 60 (Soviet Far East).

The reason why I suggest moving the factories and opening the Turkish straits is that the key benefit of a navy is that it gives you extra mobility, i.e, more mobility than you could get with infantry alone. It compels your opponent to defend more territories than they would otherwise have to worry about, especially if they know that you’re not in a position to use brute force to break through your front lines. The problem with the OOB 1942.2 map for Russian navies is that the Russians have nowhere to go – Karelia is right next to Finland anyway, and it’s not worth building (or protecting) a navy just to get from Karelia to Norway. So if you move the factory back one space, now the navy is forcing Germany to protect Norway, Finland, and Karelia against a White Sea fleet shipping infantry out of Archangel. It might also incentivize the Germans to reinforce their Baltic navy! When the Germans can rely on capturing the Karelia factory, the Karelia factory becomes the main source of infantry fodder for the Germans’ eastern front – but with no Karelia factory, the Germans need a transport in the Baltic to ship over cheap infantry to die on the front lines, so that they aren’t losing tanks on every battle.

The Russian Black Sea fleet will probably be sunk on G1 most games, but it gives Germany some hard choices – do you use the BB to help sink the Russian fleet or the British fleet? You’ll be exposed to fighter casualties somewhere, and you’ll have fewer fighters to attack on the land in eastern europe for G1 and possibly G2. Besides, the Russian Black Sea sub will survive, giving Russia the option to attack and kill the German BB on R2 if Russia parks its fighters in the Caucasus or even in Egypt.

The Russian Pacific fleet has the option of sinking the Japanese transport (freeing up the British Indian fleet for other operations), of turtling to protect the Soviet Far East factory/stack against bombardments, to give the Japanese a headache when invading Siberia, or even of heading east to Canada for a turn so that it can link up with the American fleet on R2, helping the Americans to get more value out of a counter-attack after Pearl Harbor (because the Japanese counter-counter-attack will be much less profitable thanks to the extra Russian boats!

Adding that much units in set-up is a huge Allies bid.
Talking. I would keep the Karelian IC (for Germany, too needy) but adding Archangelsk IC 15$ with a TP 7$ and a Destroyer 8$, for  30$.
Adding Soviet Far East IC 15$ with a SS 6$ and CA 12$ seems enough, for 33$
Black Sea fleet would be funny, SS 6$, TP 7$ and CA 12$, for 25$
88 Russian additional IPCs on board would need some more Axis units in Med and Japanese SZ 60, at least.
A single additional Destroyer for Italy and Japan can be just enough.
And maybe one additional u-boat somewhere in North Atlantic SZ2 or SZ3 to deal with russian DD+TP+Sub in SZ 4 (or allows Russia to make a R1 anti-sub sweep against Germany, a rare opportunity!!!).

Also, to address:
@Argothair:

What about the German navy? In the OOB 1942.2 game, German naval purchases are already a marginal tactic, since the Allies can afford to heavily dominate the Atlantic on 90%+ games. Letting the USA go first would further increase that domination, making German naval tactics even less viable.
Relatedly, I only see 2 ways for the USA to protect British boats on A0: send the starting Atlantic destroyer to Canada, and land an extra fighter on the British carrier in the Indian Ocean. That almost forces Germany into a scripted attack on the British BB and the 2 British boats in the Med, with remaining air power going to hit the Russians on land or to Egypt. So there are really only 2 viable tactics for Germany on the new G1, and by G2 Germany probably has zero boats in the water  in 97%+ of games. America builds an Atlantic carrier on A0, moves it to Morocco on A1, and hits any Italian boats with fighters on A2. Britain builds an Atlantic fleet on B1 with help from the Canadian DD + transport (which will always survive thanks to the extra American DD), and sinks anything in the Baltic on B1 or B2. Am I missing a German naval option? Or are we ok with a Germany that is restricted to land and air forces?

I like to add another U-boat in SZ9 (with 2 other already there).
It makes for a more entertaining Battle of the Atlantic.

In a certain way, Russian 3 points naval set-up can be combined with USA R0 if a few Axis warships bids are added too.
The idea is to increase opening battle variability.
For instance, 1 German Destroyer in Baltic Sea, 2 U-boats: 1 in SZ2 and 1 in SZ9, 1 DD in Med SZ15 (combined to TP & BB).
Can incentive Germany to buy a few last u-boats to delay Allies.
Assuming that the ability to fire first with Submarines requires to keep a steady flow of U-boats (1 or 2) coming out of Baltic and sometimes from Med.

A restricted opening for the US (following the same formula as Russia in Classic) seems entirely reasonable to me.

For those who played a lot of Classic, this solution should be familiar. A USA start in 42.2 would likely be improved (with less distortion or need for an Axis bid), if the US 0 turn skipped the combat phase.

Good call there.

This would give players at least some of what they want (a way to accelerate the pace of US entry in their chosen theater of focus, and a more realistic shot at an Allied win) without being too disruptive to the Axis in the process. It doesn’t really mess with the Russian opener, although it does give the Allies a way to put up another wall at the center (courtesy of the Chinese). It gives the UK a slight leg up (the flying tiger can reach Egypt for example, or the American Atlantic destroyer could help cover the British transport in sz10) but without giving the British a major bid breaking exploit vs the Germans in the Med or vs the Japanese in sz 35.

I think the main thing it does, from an historical satisfaction standpoint, is that it creates a bit more drama in the Pacific. Allowing for a potential dual front war as well, depending on how the US elects to use its starting forces, and what they choose to build. Instead of running around all over the place, expanding uncontested, Japan has to pay a bit more attention to the Americans and the Chinese (as seems appropriate for the history). This in turn alleviates some of the immediate pressure faced by Russia, which should help the overall balance in both theaters.

As to Germany’s naval ambitions, these are not really viable in the vanilla game as is, and the G1 script is more or less set OOB, so I don’t see this as all that different. Though again, for balance purposes, you can always return it to an Axis bid (which I suspect would be more reasonable, probably at the 6-10 Revised level.)

To me the best solution is generally the simplest. I think this one works, without too much overhead.
The question, as always, is can you get your friends to actually try it?
 :-D

Ps. More on the point about the German navy… Given that the start date occurs roughly two years after the Battle of Britain concluded, I don’t see a need to make early German naval expansion or the Sea Lion threat a huge priority. A beefed up Kreigsmarine in the Baltic, or Regia Marina in the Med, doesn’t really fit the timeline. So I think a German focus on ground + air is fine. Even if the dream of a massive German navy is everyone’s favorite Axis aspiration, I think its cool to leave that for the endgame.