Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Panzer Grenadiers: 3-2-2 costing 5 ipc. Germany can have no more than 6 of these at any time.

Super Battleships: 5-4-2 costing 24 ipc and takes 3 hits to sink. They fire preemptively each round (losses are applied and do not get a chance to return fire) Cannot be built until turn 3.

Heavy Carriers: 2-3-2 costing 18 ipc and takes 2 hits to sink. Three planes can be carried, and while damaged they cannot launch planes. Cannot be built until turn 3.

Q-ships: 1-1-2 costing 10, these are armed transports and can be used to take combat losses like any other warship. They carry the same cargo as regular Transports.

Optional starting Technologies: UK gets Radar, Germany and USSR gets Self Propelled Artillery, Germany starts with Mobile Warfare Doctrine, USA gets Naval Radar on turn 3.

@Witt

Thank you for your comment. I guess we think the same way.

Lowering the tanks‘ attack value for two Axis powers and one of the Allies has already changed a lot, because especially Japan has to rely heavily on tanks when marching though Asia. Attacking with „2“ instead of „3“ takes 33% of their power away. The UK usually is less aggressive and needs less tanks. The US can provide that element while establishing in North Africa, Norway or France.

But the idea is still in my mind to enhance UK’s firepower for the later stages.

@Narvik:

@simon33:

If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.

That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.

Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.

About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.

IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.

Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

Please, I need everyone opinion.
And more specifically, I’m asking people which have a lot of experience with G40 games.

Because I’m still trying to keep the OOB Carrier and develop a real Fighter unit (able to hit directly planes) within the OOB combat values of G40 Full Carrier (A6 D10 / A7 D9 / A6 D8), I’m locked within some borders. Here they are.

Do you think this can still be a viable Fighter unit?
Or is this already and ultimately doomed because it remains too powerful with a Defense @3 which hit directly enemy’s planes?

Does a reduced cost for planes, such as minus 2 IPCs, (ex.: Fg at 8 IPCs, TcB at 9 IPCs, StB at 10 IPCs) can change something about balancing this Fighter unit?
(Here, I thought about a reduced cost as a way to compensate for high attrition rates amongst planes.)

This also rise the issue about such high SBR values, does an increased risk to loose valuable 12 IPCs Strategic Bombers still worth doing SBR? Or such revamped Fighter unit imply to revised SBR, anyway?

Details below are provided to understand what I’m talking about.
I’m not really trying to promote this new unit but rather asking people about obvious flaws which can be seen from experienced players POV get used to play with a lot of units and IPCs coming along with any G40 games.

Down below are the three aircraft units combat values and cost:

FIGHTER
Attack 2 can rise to 3
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.
This last point is an entirely new feature:
it is provided to ensure that Fighters on Carrier can still have a high defense against any Strategic Bombers Spam, such as Darkened Skies strategy.

Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack / Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

SBR escort mission: Attack @2
Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 11
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
+1 Attack / +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

No Carrier Operation

Now in SBR situations, aircrafts will be fighting each others with more logical values:
Fighters: Attack 2 Defense 3
Tactical Bombers: Attack 2 Defense 0
Strategic Bombers: Attack 1 Defense 0

Do you play it that Italy does nothing while neutral, i.e. Italy cannot buy new units or move what they already have?

In my view this is essential for a workable neutral Italy; as far as the powers of the day were concerned mobilization was the equivalent of a declaration of war, so as soon as a power starts moving and building it should be considered at war for all purposes.

Also, it’s rather unfair that Italy can build, yet Austria cannot attack it. Therefore, if Italy can build/move R1/2 then Austria has no reason not to attack Venice R1 to prevent an Italian buildup, which of course renders the rule obsolete.

If you’re going to make Italy neutral for two turns, then Turkey should be neutral at least until the beginning of its first turn.

sounds very promising!