Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Yes Dorowar my token system works really well. It adds a mission based element to the game that probably can’t be duplicated with any other type of house rule. It is such a game changer that you don’t need to put in a bunch of other house rules. Rolling the D6 first and then choosing the chart takes more chance out of WD than you might think and everyone should give that a try no matter how they play R&D. My guess is your play group will want to adopt that for sure.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played the 1914 Tournament Rules, but they have something there that is a specified threshold for each nation that puts them in economic collapse. Perhaps an idea for you might be to determine an IPC level for each nation that must be met in order to develop weapons in lieu of NO’s. That is kind of the same thing as what I do - force a nation to be worthy of developing a weapon. That combined with your research token and some cash and you start rolling for a weapon.

Whatever you decide to do let us know how it works. Some of the best ideas are the ones we get from others here.

Yup! Scale was perfect for the map…the infantry are too large to fit comfortably in Belorussia or West Russia, but they fit great in France, Italy, Africa, and China! Quality is 3.5/5 stars. Some of the infantry didn’t detach cleanly from the sprue, and the modeling is slightly chunky, but overall the pieces are durable, handsome, and clearly distinguishable.

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.

Based on your feedback, I’ve made a couple of tweaks to the variant. The most recent version is attached for play testing.

Changes from the original version are indicated by underscoring:

Revised Russian National Objectives

1. Spread of Communism: Bonus for Russian control of originally Axis/Pro-Axis territories is confined to mainland Europe (excluding Africa, Iraq, mid-east Islands, etc.).

2. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:

a. Archangel, sz 125
b. Persia, sz 80
c. Siberia, sz 5

As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.

(Hat tip to calvinhobbesliker and ItIsILeClercs for this change. I enjoyed reading up on the subject)

Other Allied National Objectives

1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.

(Hat tip to The Hessian for this change)

2. Southern Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives UK + 5 PUs: Southern France, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas, Marshall Islands.

(Hat tip to Gencre for this change)

Air Raids

Fighters attack and defend at 2 during air raids. Strategic and tac bombers attack at 1.

Play-Testing

Over the last week, I had the chance to play test the variant a half-dozen times times, both as Allies and Axis. Some observations:

1. Axis players generally were more proactive in defending Western Europe against small-sale allied incursions.

2. In two games, Italy used its surving transport (after Taranto) to move defensive units to sicily and sardinia.

3. In all but one of the games, the changes to the Lend Lease objective effectively extended Russia’s +5 PU bonus until entry of allied units into Russia (usually by round 6 or 7). Mostly, no serious effort was made to contest the objective. However, in one game I was able to defeat it by getting a sub to sz 80 by round 4.

4. The 2 attack/defense value of fighters during air raids significantly reduced the frequency of unescorted bombing raids. Dark skies was not attempted in any of the games I played (whether due to the changes, or a coincidence, I don’t know).

5. The “Vital Forward Bases” objective encouraged “island-hopping,” as well as early naval engagement in the central-pacific, which was fun.

Thanks again for ur feedback guys. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the changes. Shoot me a message if you’d like to arrange a play test.

RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv5.tsvg

@Black_Elk:

What if you just moved the carrier fleet from Pearl to San Diego?
Instead of introducing new TUV onto the board, you just shift it out of harms way. This would give the US a strong Pacific option, but also preserves these units to go either way if desired.

Admiral James O. Richardson would have approved of this concept.  In fact it’s pretty much what he said to President Roosevelt in 1940.  It didn’t turn out to be a good move career-wise in the short term (he was dismissed as CinCUS), but this wasn’t altogether a bad thing for him in the long run in view of what happened to his successor, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.

Can anyone think of a balanced way to make Canada its own power without connecting it with Anzac?

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.