Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Ps. Just a brief minute to grumble…
:-)

I still wish they had reissued AA50 instead of creating these 1942 “revisions” of the Revised map, using a vaguely AA50 ruleset but without the same charm and dynamism of AA50. When the AA50 game came out I was able to buy it for less than 80 dollars. Now it’s going for like a grand on ebay.

The chances of newer players getting their hands on a copy now are pretty slim, but it really was the best A&A map to come out since classic. I think it is superior to global, or any of the boards currently in print, refined to a level that you could really appreciate. Even for all my bagging on NOs and China rules on the Larry forums, when it first came out, it was a great map.

Unfortunately someone made the calculation that a re-issue would be unfair or upsetting to “collectors.” I never understood this. I’m a collector, and I would have been perfectly happy to see it reissued. They could easily have altered the packaging, or the sculpts, or the colors of various game materials to distinguish the “collectors” edition, from the re-issue. But this didn’t happen. Instead we got a reissue of Revised with new rules, and then a tweak to that put out as a second edition, and they just don’t have anywhere near the same degree of polish. I think AA50 was highly adaptive and capable of standing the test of time. All my favorite core House Rules, were rules developed for use on that map. It had some kinks sure, but those were easy enough to address. Using a China first turn order for example in the 1941 scenario of AA50, remains one of my favorite A&A games ever. The 1942 scenario there was also solid, albeit less popular. Both were easy to tweak with HRs.

But the print run was too limited for AA50 to serve as the backbone of A&A going forward, (even global has a price point that makes it pretty inaccessible for casual players) so we are left with 1942.2.  Its not a bad game, don’t get me wrong, but it cries out for an official addendum or some new tournament conventions, to shore up the issues present in the boxed game. I think this is possible, but requires some willingness on the part of the players to go beyond the printed manual and errata.

I think a simple fix is more likely to be accepted than one which is overly involved, which is why I hesitate to suggest too much at once. I don’t think you need more VCs to make the A0 concept work. Would it be better with more VCs? Sure! But I know how players are, and I think it will be a tough sell.

I mostly agree with you, Black Elk. The AA50 is perhaps a little too complicated to serve as the “mainstream” edition of A&A – between the national advantages and the China rules and the larger number of territories, there’s just a little too much going on for a “medium-weight game.” It’s a heavyweight game. It’s a great heavyweight game, and it’s well worth the time and effort, but ideally you’d want something a little shorter/smaller/simpler for the flagship product.

That said, the bungling series of blunders that WotC/Avalon Hill actually engaged in – releasing AA50 as collectors-only, and then releasing a Spring 1942 edition that was barely changed from Revised, and then a 1942.2 edition that was barely changed from Spring 1942, and then releasing the Europe & Pacific 1940 editions in two separate $80 boxes that were so inadequately playtested that they needed three sets of semi-official rules patches just to be playable, all within 5 years of each other…well, it’s no wonder that the Axis & Allies brand is now mostly dead as an ongoing commercial concern. You only get so many second chances.

On a practical note, I wonder what it would take to get some house rules for 1942.2 together that would be accepted as official enough to be used in tournaments. What are the major A&A tournaments, besides GenCon and the TripleA ladder? Who runs them? Is Larry Harris available for comment on 1942.2 changes? If not, is there anyone at WotC who serves as the de facto Axis & Allies czar? Is there any combination of players from this forum whose word, collectively, could be taken as official? E.g. if MarineIguana and Baron Munchhausen and BlackElk and HerrRommel and DarthMaximus and CWO Marc and Private Panic and innohub and Young Grasshopper all unanimously agreed on a set of 1942.2 house rules, is there any chance of convincing the GenCon tournament organizers to use them? Or will the GenCon people stubbornly wait for word from Larry Harris even if Mr. Harris were frozen in carbonite?

Oh, and re: taamvan’s point about changing the opening setup and the middlegame strategies and the endgame winning conditions all at once…I see that as less of a sign that the game is horribly broken, and more of a sign that the game’s phases are appropriately interdependent. If you could change the win conditions without having any effect on what opening strategies people use, or if you could change the opening setup and still have people gun for exactly the same kind of endgame wins, then to me that would be a sign that you have a very rigidly scripted game that doesn’t allow its players enough free will. To me it’s only natural to want to make changes to multiple parts of the game at once, because a change in one part will cause a change to a second part, and so it’s likely that you’ll need to make at least some changes to the second part to help balance out the effects of the first change. That said, I appreciate Black Elk’s point that the fewer changes we can make, the better our odds of getting the changes accepted, and I also appreciate that the A0 start manages to have some good effects at all stages of the game despite being a relatively small and simple change.

I’m not sure what it would take. A big part of me is still holding out hope for a legacy edition of A&A that takes one final crack at a reasonably priced mainstream board. I hesitate to say memorial edition, since that’s a bit grim, but a map clearly designed for the long haul would be nice.

The cool thing about AA50 is that it was possible to strip out the hardcore elements, to “mainstream” it a bit if desired. China rules were problematic, but NOs and Tech were optional, and so could be ignored for a simplified game. Even China could be assigned to the US if one wanted to create a pure 6 nation spread with everyone using the same rules (that was one option I used to address some balance concerns.) It also had a more complete VC spread that brought Australia and Caucasus into the mix.

1942.2 by contrast offers less to work with, and the boxed materials include some misprints. I guess you could make the argument that players might be more amenable to community adjustments if the boxed materials clearly show some printing goofs. I still wish we had a stronger base box to build from, but I guess you have to go with the one that’s still available in print.

I think the closer you can stay to the boxed materials the better. Even having to print out a new set up chart seems onerous to me. I like rules that can be explained in a single line or two of text, rather than block paragraphs or long lists. Easier to get up off the ground. I’m not really sure who might serve as a gatekeeper. The largest tournaments seem to be in the Midwest, and I’ve never been able to attend myself, so never met any of theach organizers personally. An A&A.org set of semi-official HRs has been proposed a few times, but hard to say what kind of traction you can get if it’s not supported by a large face to face tournament crowd.

Maybe some Wizards of the code would create a Balanced Mode for 1942.2?
I don’t know if there is that much interest in TripleA fans to work the case?

A balance mod for 1942.2 would be awesome! 👍

I do have some thoughts on this as well. Probably no surprise  :-D

The first suggestion I would make for any balance mod, is that one try to work with the existing set up charts, rather than creating entirely new charts. Any change to the set up should be purely additive (meaning don’t take away units that already exist OOB.) The player shouldn’t have to learn a whole new starting unit spread, but rather set the board as normal, then add the mod on top. This is mainly practical, takes less time to learn, but also stays truer to the box, on the argument that at least it builds upon the OOB foundation.

Some suggestions off the cuff…

A starting factory in E. Canada
A Russian Bomber

Something for China and the US Pacific campaign?

We might be able to accomplish some interesting things with aaaguns. The unit is unpopular as a purchase, but they can make a good balancing tool with the extra hitpoint and air deterent/randomizer. Bearing in mind of course, that people hate transporting them. I’d have them already in place on the Eurasia-Africa landmass, so they are more likely to be used in the stack push contest, and less likely to cause non-com transport headaches. Factories at 1 ipc territories might also be intriguing (the current 1941 game introduced this as a novelty.) A 1 ipc factory in Australia, or Hawaii, or somewhere in China might be fun.

In addition to whatever is done to Allies for balance purposes, I think Axis should get something to play with as well. For the sake of variety, and so that the Axis player feels invested in the game too. What that should be exactly, depends on how the Allies are modded, but Axis might enjoy a viable German naval option of some kind.

Here is a gamesave (below) that shows the two main changes I suggested, via edit mode.

Soviets: + 1 Bomber to Caucasus
British: +1 Factory to E. Canada

I think these two would be very helpful. The Russians get another strong attack unit for trading territories, and the British get a way to make secure naval purchases for the Atlantic, which is probably the main thing holding them back on this board.

Not really sure right now what to suggest for the Americans. It seems to me that what they could really use most is a Pacific carrier. But perhaps just something more in Panama might be interesting, since it could go either direction on non com. China also seems problematic to me. What are your thoughts about the US?

Axis?

1942 mod 1 Rus bomber 1 Brit factory.tsvg

All interesting ideas.
I wish for a changing balanced dynamics. Makes some VCs more meaningful.

I would like to add these three ICs: A 1 ipc factory in Australia,  Hawaii and in China: Sinkiang?
These three would put some reason for Japan to try to expand in a more historical fashion.
Or make China a bit more resistant with US money…

I would like more Naval dynamics. Giving another U-boat to Germany, to keep this menace into the next round. And an IC in France (Paris VC), to launch Subs into Atlantic or Med, near Gibraltar.
And provide something to fight against Canada?

I’d like that Japan get an IC in Kiangsu (VC) would be able to use TP to fight further away on Islands (like Australia).

US gets 2 ICs
UK gets 2 ICs
Russia 1 bomber
Japan: 1 IC
Germany: 1 IC+1 u-boat

If TripleA was able to do true 1942.2 SBR, I would rise damage to 1D6+2, and Fighter escort and intercept A2 D2 while keeping StB A1 first strike (per OOB).

Balance 1942.2 with no changes other than adding units to the starting position? Challenge accepted!

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

Here’s my reasoning: the German factory in Norway actually pulls the Germans to the northwest by quite a bit – it ties them up defending (or at least trading) the factory. The British and the Americans would very much like to take the Norwegian factory and use it themselves, so the Germans will be less willing to abandon Norway and Finland without a fight just for the sake of seizing Karelia on G1 or G2. Meanwhile, the extra German destroyer in the Baltic gives the Germans two new options for naval builds. First, they can put a carrier in the Baltic – with SS, DD, CA, CV w/ 2 ftr, and 1 trans in the Baltic, it’s going to be a long time before the Allies can sink the Baltic fleet, and a $14 naval buy on G1 won’t break the German offensive against Russia. Two, they can spend $15 to put a transport and a DD in the Baltic, for a fleet of something like SS, DD * 2, CA, 2 trans. If the British want to sink it, they have to send their entire starting London air force (2 ftr + 1 bmr), which means there’s nothing left to sink any German subs in the North Atlantic, and the British still might lose. Even if the British win the battle and sink the Baltic fleet, they could easily be left without any surviving fighters, making a B1 carrier buy extremely dicey – the Germans might be able to retaliate by sinking the new British fleet on G2, or the British might be forced to avoid a B1 fleet buy altogether. The British might even have to wait until B3 to get a fleet in the water if they lose their starting fighters. As another plus for the Germans, if they hold the Norway factory and the British decide to put 100% into the Pacific, then the Germans have the ability to drop transports into the Norwegian Sea (SZ 3), which is only one turn’s move from Eastern Canada.

Meanwhile, the Russian factory in the Soviet Far East gives Japan a lot to think about – if you build a tank in the Soviet Far East factory on R1, then you can afford to stack 4 inf, 1 tnk there (leaving 1 inf in Buryatia to block the new Manchurian tank), which is pretty defensible against the maximum Japanese attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 1 bmr – the Japanese can take the factory if they really want to, but not without heavy losses (2+ hits) in the air, and not without leaving themselves vulnerable to an R2 retake, with, e.g., the 2 Russian infantry that start in Evenki and the new starting Russian bomber. If the Japanese do eventually secure the SFE factory, then it’s useful for a campaign against Alaska and Western Canada (although not especially useful for a tank drive to Moscow). If they don’t secure the SFE factory, then they have to leave a garrison in Manchuria and let the Allies keep most of the Russians’ Siberian income – it’s very hard to take Siberia with that factory sitting on your back door!

The Japanese factory in New Guinea, like the German factory in Moscow, is at least as much of a liability as it is an asset – if the Japanese can hold it, then it can help re-fill transports that are heading to Hawaii, Australia, Mexico, or Brazil, but it’s just as likely that the Americans (or the British) will be able to take back New Guinea, forcing the Japanese to defend a fixed point or cede an asset to the Allies that will help with a KJF campaign. Together with the starting factory in Eastern Australia, which helps give the Australian continent some thematic and strategic importance, this should help push the focus of Japanese attention out away from Egypt and back toward Guadalcanal, where the battle for the Pacific was historically fought and won.

The British artillery in India helps shore up India against a Japanese blitz, and, more importantly, gives Britain some modest but important offensive options in the Pacific theater on B1 and B2. They can use the Indian transport to ferry 1 inf, 1 art to Egypt (combined with the 1 inf in Trans-Jordan and the fighter on the Indian carrier, that makes 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr for a counter-attack on Egypt, which is likely to overwhelm anything that the Germans can manage to leave standing in Egypt on G1). They can use the transport to carry 1 inf, 1 art and attack Borneo with good odds. They can stack up in Burma with 4 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, or they can immediately use the Indian transport to attack French Indochina with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr, 1 CA (50-50 odds).

The American destroyer in the Panama canal can be used to successfully counter-attack German submarines on A1 if the subs hit the American Atlantic fleet on G1. In my opinion, the problem with the OOB German attack on the US transports isn’t just that the Americans are forced to lose a lot of expensive ships – it’s also that the position of the German subs makes it extremely awkward to remove them! You really don’t want to send the British Canadian destroyer south to clean up subs; that destroyer is needed as the nucleus of a new British Atlantic fleet. But if you don’t send the Canadian DD, and the only American DD in range is dead, then the fastest the Americans can hope to progress is to build a new DD on A1, attack the German subs on A2, and then finally start Operation Torch (attacking North Africa) on A3. With an extra DD waiting in Panama (plus the usual CA, plus the American air force), the Americans can trivially kill off the German subs on A1, build new transports on A1, and start Operation Torch on A2 – a full turn earlier, and therefore early enough to “catch up” with the Germans in Africa before they plunder all of Africa. Of course, if the Germans don’t attack the American fleet on G1, or if you prefer a KJF strategy, the destroyer and cruiser in Panama can also reach the San Francisco sea zone on A1 to help bulk up your fleet there, so that you can drop a fleet in the San Francisco sea zone on A1 that’s likely to be able to move to the Solomon Islands on A2 – again, a full turn ahead of the typical OOB schedule.

Finally, the American AAA gun in Szechuan means you can get 50-50 odds against the maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 art, 2 ftr, 1 bmr just by adding the 1 Russian infantry from Kazakh – no need to send a Russian tank or fighter. The factory in Sinkiang means that if Japan passes up the attack on Szechuan, you can withdraw in good order to Sinkiang on A1, build a tank in the Chinese factory, and wind up with something like 4 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 AAA, depending on how many Russian infantry you want to use as reinforcements on R2. If Japan really wants to attack that stack on J2, then Japan is going to have to sacrifice something important: either multiple fighter casualties, or let Russia keep its factory in Vladivostok, or ease up on India to the point where Britain can start going on the offensive, or let the Americans have the New Guinea factory. The point is that now it’s not just the Allies who have impossibly many targets to secure on the first couple of turns – now the Axis do too!

Technically, the overall “bid value” is 74 IPCs for the Allies and 42 IPCs for the Axis, meaning a net bid of $32 for the Allies, but all of these bids are so sub-optimal compared to what a traditional bidder would choose that I hardly think it’s worth the effort of counting it up.

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

I like many of them, US pretty interesting. ! 👍! 👍! 👍
Instead of New Guinea, I rather prefer VC Shanghai but add 1 Art+1 TP troops in Carolines Islands to help for Invasion of Australia or Hawaii.
IC freed a TP for longer expeditionary amphibious, and allows some IJN shuck shuck in PTO.
If only Melbourne Australia could become a VC!!!

Germany IC in Norway can replace my IC in Paris.
I like the possibility to launch u-boat in Northern Arctic sea.
But still, I would be curious of naval warfare impact of this vulnerable IC in Paris VC for Allies to take.

Soviet Far East IC can easily recreate some kind of trans-siberian railroad theme. It pours a single unit far away from Moscow.

He understands the editions, and has set out “tournament VCs” for each one, if necessary, such as economic victory.   Mr. Harris has occasionally commented through Krieghund and his other friends, who lurk and sometimes comment here.

I would like to know which ones VCs are in Tournament rules.

Like the “everyone gets a factory” idea, but both the American and USSR factories you propose seem pretty easy for Japan to press and take, which saves them the necessity of building their own IC.

I believe that Japan cannot go in all directions while defending Homeland SZs against a major US fleet stranglehold.
And IPCs invest/rewards is not the same, for sure.
North (3-4 IPCs, Soviet Far East), West (5 IPCs, Sinkiang, then Moscow), South West (5 IPCs, Calcutta, then Caucasus), South (3 IPCs, Australia) and East (1 IPC, Honolulu), North East? (2 IPCs, Alaska).

The question remains, does adding IC in PTO decrease the Center Crush occurrence or increase this Crush? IDK
Is there any way to win for Axis without it?

Getting back to our general discussion, one of the other commenters laid out the problem;  The US gets wiped off the board by the first turn, and it never recovers.  In other editions, this is overcome by giving the US scads of money, so why Germany has 48 and the US 38 income during the main part of the game is pretty abusive.   You can change the middle all you want, by adding 6 Russian artillery;  this may scare Germany for a turn or two from stacking against Moscow, but it won’t affect the crush around the rest of the world.

Still, I wonder if US would get a restricted USA R0 with the last ICs on many TTys. USA saved warships (more historical) but would not have much money, but Sinkiang IC would get 1 Infantry and

These ideas sound interesting. I’ll admit my crystal ball feels a little cloudy. With certain tweaks it’s easier for me to picture how the game might develop than it is with others.  For example, with an A0 round, I have a pretty good sense of what the initial priorities would look like for each side. Going with unit additions for each nation instead and it’s somewhat harder for me to see. I always felt Germany would be fun with another anchor IC, but it’s hard to know how that is offset by the British. UK is really poor on income, and lacks a way to develop the royal navy. Russia is likewise really poor and barely able to withstand Germany, even when the UK is sending every available ipc to their defense. Basically the Allies are playing a game of pass the buck. Russia is entirely dependant on UK fighter support for survival. The UK is in turn dependant on the USN to get anything going on the Atlantic side of the map, while the US itself is stalled by 3 rounds.

If you want to preserve this dynamic, but shift the balance in favor of Allies, then the focus should be on the US, since an accelerated entry by the Americans cascades down the line (which was the main idea behind my A0 suggestion). If you want to break with this dynamic, and shift the balance in favor of Allies, then I think the focus should be on Russia, because this would remove the chain of dependency, allowing the UK to spend it’s money for something other than propping up Russia.

Beyond that, I think the real balance disparity is twofold, involving both production and income. The production issue seems a lot easier to solve than the income one (just adding factories where needed). I would worry though, that without a way to trade territory sooner and maintain income parity, the UK/US would end up with more responsibilities but without the cash necessary to manage them. With Russia the income issue is even more intractable, since there is an upward ceiling at around 30 ipcs that you’re not going to get beyond, regardless of how many extra units you give them.

I can picture a lot of ways to get around these income problems with additional rules, but I’m assuming these wouldn’t be of much interest to most players who simply want a game that tries to balance the map using extra units alone. So the challenge is how to strike a good balance (with enough variety to be both entertaining and historically grounded), while using no new rules and relatively few additions to the starting units (since we don’t want a giant list, or something that takes too long to set up). Also, creating a balanced mod that required a bid, would be self defeating, so you’d want a pretty good sense of how the script for the opening pans out, and what the viable incomes/purchases are for each nation during the first two rounds.

I think something that pulls Germany West rather than East has potential. An anchor IC could be used in this way. A German navy might also work in a similar fashion (where they are encouraged to pull units off the Russian front to maintain a navy). Or simply more Allied ships or amphibious threats that Germany has to manage right off the bat.

Likewise something that pulls Japan East instead of West, seems like it would be advisable. Whether this can be achieved with 1 ipc factories in the PTO is tough to say, but I’m inclined to think it might help.

Keeping with the 9/10 split on VCS, I would like to see a game that is decided by Paris/Rome/Shanghai/Manila vs Leningrad/Honolulu/Calcutta being at least as viable as one that hinges on Moscow alone. Would be nice if San Francisco could be contested, though this seems particularly far fetched (even with additional 1 ipc starting factories nearby.) Japan really only has one route in, via the northern push, but it’s hard to see how they ever match American production doing that, at least while Russia is still alive. I think this is a map issue, where you’d need more tiles in North America, impassable Rockies or something along those lines, to make it work. That’s not an option here. But even if you can’t give Japan a realistic option vs W.US, at least we could give them a more intense defensive campaign for the South Pacific. I think the US might need a bit more to pull that off consistently, otherwise I imagine they’d probably still go KGF exclusive, pulling ships out of the Pacific, using whatever they have in China to bolster Russia.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more interesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone US battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

This could provide a historical theme for the mod. Suggests a timeline for the end of the first round that is roughly six months after Pearl Harbor, ie. the second round kicks off in June 1942.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more intetesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

I thought that Hawaii US Carrier was a kind of Midway replay, just a few miles South.
There was only USA Cruisers, DDs, CVs in Midway (USS Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise).

@Black_Elk:

Keeping with the 9/10 split on VCS, I would like to see a game that is decided by Paris/Rome/Shanghai/Manila vs Leningrad/Honolulu/Calcutta being at least as viable as one that hinges on Moscow alone. Would be nice if San Francisco could be contested, though this seems particularly far fetched (even with additional 1 ipc starting factories nearby.) Japan really only has one route in, via the northern push, but it’s hard to see how they ever match American production doing that, at least while Russia is still alive. I think this is a map issue, where you’d need more tiles in North America, impassable Rockies or something along those lines, to make it work. That’s not an option here. But even if you can’t give Japan a realistic option vs W.US, at least we could give them a more intense defensive campaign for the South Pacific. I think the US might need a bit more to pull that off consistently, otherwise I imagine they’d probably still go KGF exclusive, pulling ships out of the Pacific, using whatever they have in China to bolster Russia.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more interesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone US battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

This could provide a historical theme for the mod. Suggests a timeline for the end of the first round that is roughly six months after Pearl Harbor, ie. the second round kicks off in June 1942.

Increasing Hawaii to 3 IPCs and Midway to 2 IPCs and Alaska to 4 IPCs would make for a +6 IPCs USA IPCs to reach 48 IPCs.
And increasing the opportunity target for Japan within 2 SZs from Japan (6 IPCs) and 3 SZs (3 IPCs).
And another reason to not let this additional income into USA hands, to reduced their means against Germany in KGF.
So, that way, Alaska can receive a Japanese IC and at 4 IPCs can built a substantial forces to fight against San Francisco from North (Alaska) and South (Hawaii), for a different ‘WHAT IF’ scenario.
If China is 4 US IPCs, and Alaska, Midway and Hawaii is 9 US IPCs, this means 13 IPCs to grasp for Japan.
That way, this make US the main enemy of Japan economic interest. So USA can start at 48 and going down to 35 and Japan from 30 to 43 IPCs.
(This was possible in old A&A game Classic : World War II The expansion, Pacific extension II.)
What do you think?

I’m just talking inspired somehow by the Vichy rules from Balanced Mode project.

Just adding a few US warships in Midway will make for a scripted battle but which let dice decides the future R2 and others in PTO.

Yeah, I was thinking more about how the battleship unit could serve as a target of oppertunity. Players always have a strong incentive to attack lone battleships, since they are so much more vulnerable at that point than when they converge with other ships. But if the battleship seems a stretch then perhaps a pair of cruisers would work just as well. Like you I had assumed that the carrier fleet in sz53 OOB was meant as a nod to the Midway battle, but that connection would be strengthened if there were actually some ships at Midway to start.

As for the production spread, I would be in complete agreement with your proposed suggestions for the PTO (increasing the value of those territories) if the goal here was a map redesign. But I think this goes beyond what many would accept. Adjusting printed IPC values goes a lot farther than simply adding units, and would require more overhead in the set up (including a way to represent those changes at a glance.) This is easy to achieve in tripleA, but much harder face to face. Even if I wish the map looked that way myself, it would violate the idea set forth earlier, that any balanced mod be achieved purely through the addition of starting units.

Yeah. I was day dreaming, I know.  :lol:

@Black_Elk:

Yeah, I was thinking more about how the battleship unit could serve as a target of oppertunity. Players always have a strong incentive to attack lone battleships, since they are so much more vulnerable at that point than when they converge with other ships. But if the battleship seems a stretch then perhaps a pair of cruisers would work just as well. Like you I had assumed that the carrier fleet in sz53 OOB was meant as a nod to the Midway battle, but that connection would be strengthened if there were actually some ships at Midway to start.

As for the production spread, I would be in complete agreement with your proposed suggestions for the PTO (increasing the value of those territories) if the goal here was a map redesign. But I think this goes beyond what many would accept**. Adjusting printed IPC values goes a lot farther than simply adding units, and would require more overhead in the set up (including a way to represent those changes at a glance.) This is easy to achieve in tripleA, but much harder face to face. Even if I wish the map looked that way myself, it would violate the idea set forth earlier, that any balanced mod be achieved purely through the addition of starting units.**

I still had these US/Japan IPCs points tokens.

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

Here is my own synthesis from your ideas (BlackElk and Argothair) to get more opening options:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory France: Paris VC +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada +1 Artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea +1 Infantry, +1 Artillery in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ
Americans: +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal
I prefer to increase naval actions as much as possible. That’s why many IC outside center can bring something more.

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.

No problem with pipe dreaming.  :-D

It’s possible that I’m not the best one to offer suggestions for a balance mod. I can imagine a whole host of interesting options for additional units, but have a tough time envisioning myself actually playing the mod enough to fully stand behind those options. I’ve done the mod thing a couple times in the past on various boards with mixed results. It takes a lot of time and dedication, with a core playgroup of testers willing to play it to death, and even when successful it still takes a back seat to the official game, so it can be hard to find willing opponents.

Usually, if I’m going to alter the base game, I like to do so in a way that is extremely simple, or narrowly focused. It’s just easier to persuade my friends to try something new that way. I’m not sure how convincing I can be with assurances that a whole series of unit adjustments are all going to balance off each other in a satisfying way. Usually the best I can offer is that it will be a new start, or at least enough of a reset that the overall balance is not yet clear. But like most people who take that approach, it’s hard to find something that sticks, and I’m often sent back to the drawing board.

At this point the only set up change I’ve been able to convince myself about (and a few others in my group) is that Russia could really use a bomber in 1942.2. Here I think I can make a strong case that the red bomber is less distorting, more dyanmic and entertaining overall, than a comparable bid for Russian ground. I also think it’s better for balance than ground or a 3rd Russian fighter. But beyond the Red Bomber I have a harder time pinning this board down.

Personally I think the Americans took the biggest hit, compared to previous editions. All their shucks are gone, transports are harder to defend, and America lacks sufficient starting units/income to make an impact on the early game.

For something hard and fast, my inclination would be to give the Russians a bomber by default, and then let players bid for the Allies. But I suspect the bid would typically be allocated to Russia/UK rather than the US, which is a little unfortunate, since the US is rather boring to play.
This leads me to suggest a Russian Bomber and a US Atlantic Destroyer by default, which is still considerably less distorting than an open bid of 20. At least gives the US something to do in the opening round if the transports survive, but still doesn’t solve the issue with Japan going all monster, and it’s hard to say whether even this would be enough to produce the desired balance by sides.

+1 Russian Bomber, + 1 US Atlantic Destroyer
and then bid for Allies?

This would be a much narrower bid, probably in the 3-9 range, likely going to Russia in Caucasus for ground, or to the Brits in Egypt/India for ground, or perhaps to the UK for an additional sub somewhere.

I’ll admit it is a lot simpler for me to imagine a full redesign of the game map and production spread, than it is to fix the existing map just using units haha.

@taamvan:

“UK is really poor on income, and lacks a way to develop the royal navy. Russia is likewise really poor and barely able to withstand Germany, even when the UK is sending every available ipc to their defense. Basically the Allies are playing a game of pass the buck. Russia is entirely dependent on UK fighter support for survival. The UK is in turn dependant on the USN to get anything going on the Atlantic side of the map, while the US itself is stalled by 3 rounds”

its just a 4 line indictment of the playtest here–forget balance as an abstract;� why it is fun to run uphill for 3 turns in a game that only lasts 4 turns as a result?� Why attempt any other moves than a drive on Moscow?� Even after Germany attacked me, assuming I lived with Russia, Japan was ready to hit me again with 3 tanks and 3 planes, this all on turn 4.� �Moreover, like in Global40, they owned my USSR land and income and once Russia has to turtle hard you cant even make attacks that recover adjacent money.

However, just as with the U0 idea, it simply shifts the balance AGAINST the Axis, because while they can still break thru to Moscow and threaten the spice, they cant hold it as in G40.� � That I suppose is what we want;� it seems like if the game began with 1) a US fleet off NYC that can either cross on U1 or go to the pacific 2) enough Russian pieces to prevent a G1 stack/take 3) anything in india at all such that you have choices other than to turtle it 4) a less favorable geometry of squares that make Japan invincible but UK/US helpless.� Its probably too much to fix.

IDK, but I believe if with restricted USR0 and EastCoast Naval units and everything below, this can easily lift UK burden to built a strong Royal Navy.
That way, Germany need to dealt partly against this threat in ATO. But, with 1 more DD can keep his Baltic TP (to back up Norway, or fast track Germany Infantry toward Karelia).
So Russia is partially relieved and can built a few units (Tank, Art, Inf) in Far East to hold is few TTys IPCs against Japan. And better fight back and forth with StB (and 2 Fgs) supporting ground attack.
USA will need to balance between his 3 entry points: ATO, China and PTO according to what Japan does.
Not enough money to make a 3 fronts war, at least a surviving Carrier in PTO provides a Naval core.

@Baron:

Here is my own synthesis from your ideas (BlackElk and Argothair) to get more opening options:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory France: Paris VC +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada +1 Artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea +1 Infantry, +1 Artillery in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ
Americans: +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal
I prefer to increase naval actions as much as possible. That’s why many IC outside center can bring something more.

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.

‘What if’
USA R0 restricted and 1 Red StB in Moscow to increase russian dynamics.

What can be added to Axis, Japan and/or Germany, to balance?

The minimum number of units to open up a maximum of options?