Baron Munchhausen's 1941 alternate setup for 1942.2 based on AA50 1941

Thank you! I finally have the map working. :-)

I think all of this is very interesting, and I will continue playing around with it tonight. First I have to cook dinner!

My initial thought, just from reading some of your recent posts, is that you are moving away from “AA50 1941 on the 1942.2 Map” and toward “Baron Munchhausen’s 1941 on the 1942.2 Map.” When you add up the redesigned navies, redesigned Russian starting forces, new unit types, and the new starting factories, you’ve got a whole new game here! This can be a good thing. Take pride in your creation, and drop the AA50 label. You are boldly pioneering a new world of gaming. :-)

Also, I am a little concerned about the extra submarines in the Atlantic theater. I tried a G1 turn just now on “REDESIGN 1”, and I was able to sink the entire British Atlantic fleet on G1 while losing only 3 German planes and still taking Egypt, Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine with minimal German losses (0-1 infantry per territory). Not sure if that was your intention or not.

Finally, I agree with you that Russia in 1941 had some tanks and planes. I think starting Russia with 2 planes is reasonable. For what it’s worth, my understanding of the design decision in AA50 1941 to give Russia pretty much only infantry is that following Stalin’s purges and the defeat in the Finnish Winter War, the Red Army was so disorganized and demoralized that their units were not at anything like full fighting strength. In addition, many of their tanks and planes were initially inferior to their German equivalents, and the Russians were still struggling to adapt to the tactics of blitzkrieg. Russia was not really able to organize any effective counter-attacks against the Nazis until the Nazis were almost at the gates of Moscow – the first months of Barbarossa were just the Germans encircling and capturing one Russian army after another, bagging hundreds of thousands of soldiers at a time. So that is thematically represented by giving the Russians an army of almost all infantry, symbolically reflecting their inability to counter-attack. It’s not that they literally had no tanks or no planes.

That said, I think your design decision is also reasonable, and also makes sense. I will check out the balance later tonight.

Well, you are changing your design much faster than I can playtest it! Maybe I should wait a few days until you settle on a setup you prefer. :-)

My thoughts on a starting German BB in the Baltic Sea are that it’s unnecessary. Thematically, 1 BB token on the 1942 map tends to represent 3 or 4 modern battleships, and the Germans had only 2 somewhat older pocket battleships / battlecruisers in the Baltic. The key feature of a BB in TripleA is that it can be repaired, but one of the German capital ships in the Baltic very famously failed to recover from a torpedo hit and was scuttled without ever being repaired. Strategically, the Germans are doing plenty well enough in the Atlantic naval theater on your map as it is, without piling on still yet more advantages. An American cruiser in the Atlantic is fine – I can take it or leave it. It might be more fun to put that cruiser in the Panama Canal (east or west) instead of in the Atlantic. America doesn’t necessarily have that much to do on turn 1; just a quick attack in China and then figuring out how to position its planes, so making one more decision (which theater to use the cruiser in) wouldn’t hurt. I don’t think you need to relocate German subs to avoid an American cruiser attack, because unless I’ve misunderstood the rules, a sub can safely submerge to avoid a cruiser.

I tried one full round on your second-most-recent version, and I’m attaching the save game file so you can see some of my ideas – you may want to look at the game history if you are very curious. I played very quickly and casually to get a feel for the new rules and new options, so none of this represents my “best work” or my final thoughts on what a balanced strategy would look like. For example, I wanted to see if a Sea Lion was possible with a build of 1 carrier, 5 infantry, 1 artillery while still sending one transport east to take Egypt, and so far that looks like a bad idea – the sea battles are very easy for Germany to win, but UK on land is pretty defensible against only 2 German transports. They do need to place about 3 infantry + 2 planes in the UK for defense, which sucks some cash away that could have been placed in ANZAC on UK1, but there is still enough cash left over to place 3 dudes in India and 1 dude in Sydney, plus Britain can take back Egypt from India and Jordan if Germany only sends 1 transport.

I am still getting used to the 3-move cruisers and transports – they give you a lot to think about! I am a big fan already; I like the way Germany cannot safely empty France on G1 even if they sink the whole British fleet (oops), I like the way the Australian fleet can reach India or Thailand or Hawaii on UK1, I like the way the South African fleet can create naval power in the West Indian Ocean, and I like the way the Caroline transports can reach all plausible targets.

The need to garrison France requires the Germans to be more careful about their attacks on the eastern front, which can affect the balance there. I think the Russian move I show in the saved game (abandon Karelia immediately and split forces between West Russia and Caucasus) is more or less correct. I think the Germans will be very hard-pressed to gain a strong advantage in eastern Europe, especially if they want to buy any boats or planes. The front line will probably stabilize somewhere in Germany’s favor – maybe 40 IPCs to 25 IPCs or so – but it does take a long time to march troops from Berlin to Moscow. As it should, perhaps.

One thing to watch out for is a Japanese flight from carriers on the China Sea to Stalingrad – possible in one move of four spaces, even if “land movement” through Western China is banned. This was a problem in the OOB AA50 1942 scenario, and I think if Germany ever does manage to take the Caucasus, it might be a problem on this map as well. The idea is that normally Germany wouldn’t be able to hold the Caucasus, but if Japanese fighters can secure it even for one turn, then Germany can start making use of the factory there.

I have mixed feelings about the Allied ability to hunt down lone submarines. 1 DD + 1 ftr + 1 tacB vs. 1 SS means a 50% chance that the sub escapes, and there is no way at all to stop a sub from moving around, and a sub can profitably attack a destroyer, a transport, a cruiser, or a carrier if you leave it unattended. So the subs are very powerful. My instinct with M3 cruisers & transports is to try to responsibly lock down the ocean, e.g., USA wants to stick destroyers across the Atlantic, Japan wants to string a picket line of destroyers across the Pacific, and so on. But the picket lines won’t stop the submarines, and in fact the picket lines make the destroyers very vulnerable to submarine attack, so if your enemy has both cruisers, transports, and subs, then you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you spread out, the subs will get you, and if you concentrate, then the cruisers and transports will sneak past you. So you are kind of forced to do some infantry build up, I guess, which is not the end of the world.

Bottom line is that I am very excited about the possibilities here for more realistically modeling the historical 1941 setup, and for unlocking new strategies and tactics, but precisely because there are so many new options and interactions, I am unable to determine whether the game is balanced. There is an enormous amount to think about here. Thanks for designing, thanks for sharing, and good luck settling on a setup chart that makes you happy!

1941REDESIGNRussia2 Argo test G2.tsvg

I think an M3 transport can be made to work just fine on the 1942.2 map with 1941 setup. If you don’t like the US1 attack on France, you can start the US transports in the Caribbean – that way they will still have a direct shuck to France starting on turn 2 and after, but you won’t get an ahistorically early invasion of Europe.

Likewise, if UK goes first and gets a starting Indian factroy, then a J1 attack on India is not such a big deal – UK can and should build 3 infantry at Indian factory and reinforce from Persia, so there are 8 units in India…not so easy for Japan to take, especially if Japan wants to claim any of the money islands or even to reinforce China. If it is still too powerful for Japan, you can always add a starting DD for the UK in the Burma sea zone, representing the small Singapore garrison fleet.

I think zero infantry in Malaya for UK start is hilarious, given how quickly the British surrendered there. One infantry would also be fine, but then, yes, Thailand needs +1 infantry to compensate.

As far as subs, I think my ideal preference would be that they are allowed to pass through destroyers, but they will suffer one round of anti-sub fire as they go, similar to a fighter flying over an AA gun. That way the destroyers at least have some tendency to control submarine movement – they’re out on patrol – but there’s no such thing as a foolproof sub detection system. :-)

Well, you can always just add more starting infantry to Norway, especially in a 1941 or 1942 setup. Historically, Hitler left 400,000+ soldiers garrisoning Norway. The reason to attack Morocco before Norway could be that USA doesn’t start with enough troop build up to successfully capture Norway! Even 5 infantry + AA gun in Norway would probably be enough to stop a US1 attack.

I’ve got mixed feelings.

On the “pro” side, I do support the addition of extra starting factories in 1-IPC and 2-IPC territories. They wind up filling the niche of “minor factories” from G40, and they help spread out the conflict over a wider area of the map, which I find more interesting.

On the minus side, I usually try to avoid “scripted” game events, like French colonies going Vichy or factories popping up for free when you conquer a territory. Scripted events are one more rule that players have to remember that isn’t shown anywhere on the map. They also limit Japan’s flexibility. Suppose Japan didn’t want to capture New Guinea, or didn’t want to build a naval base at Rabaul? Suppose they wanted to build a base in Perth, or Auckland, or Okinawa, or Midway?

You could add a starting factory in New Guinea, but your setup already has starting factories for India, Western Australia, Eastern Australia, Hawaii, and New Zealand. That is already seven production slots per turn in the southeast corner of the map, which is a lot for 1942.2. There’s also a certain amount of “factory fatigue.” If you add factories all over the same region, then no one factory is particularly important.

If you really want a starting factory in New Guinea, you might consider moving the factory over from Western Australia, so you have factories in E. Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, Hawaii, and India.

Another option is to play with “minor factories.” They would cost 8 IPCs, can be placed anywhere (even on otherwise worthless islands), and can produce up to 2 units per turn. They can be strategically bombed just like a major factory on a 2-IPC territory. That way, if and when Japan wants a base at Rabaul, they can afford to build one. You could have a minor factory in Sydney and no factory in W. Australia. It is easy enough to get the graphics for these guys on tripleA, and for face-to-face play you could just knock the factory on its side or put a special color chip under it.

I don’t like the Tirpitz setup as much as the one immediately before Tirpitz. I tried one full round on your latest setup, and maybe I just played poorly as the Axis, but I think the Allies simply start with too many boats on the map for a balanced 1941 setup. In the south Pacific, British have 35% chance to win with 1 CA vs. 2 DD, 2 transport in Caroline Islands – this is very swingy if the British win, because in addition to killing 2 transports, it prevents the Japanese from deploying the 4 infantry from the Carolines to Borneo, East Indies, or ANZAC. Even if British lose that battle, they can put the Australian DD in New Guinea, the Indian BB in Singapore, and the Indian DD in Philippines. No matter how well Japan does in combat, this means they cannot capture Borneo or East Indies on J1, plus India is quite safe. Even the Philippines are not easy to take vs. 4 Allied infantry and 3 Allied boats.

Japan needs to build boats (or maybe planes) to deal with all of the Allies ships in the Pacific, but with only 15 IPCs at start, this does not leave enough income for purchasing reinforcements. It is too easy/risky for Japan to stall out in the land war in Asia simply by running out of infantry and income. The M3 transport bringing troops from Jordan and India to Thailand on UK1 together with the “blockade line” of British ships in Singapore / Philippines / New Guinea is very powerful and can shut down the Japanese economy before it gets started. Africa can be safely abandoned to Germany because UK is guaranteed to collect Indonesian income three times: at start, at end of UK1, and again at end of UK2. By the time Britain starts to run low on income, Japan will be crippled and USA will be closing in for the kill on Tokyo.

Meanwhile, the Russian ships in the Baltic Sea mean that Germany can not make any combat move with amphibious troops, so the infantry in Norway and Finland wind up just sitting around doing nothing on G1. With Gibraltar blocking the exit to the Western Med, Germany cannot afford to attack all of the British boats, so the Canadian navy lives, so Germany really wants to garrison both France (for IPCs) and NW Europe (b/c of the starting factory). This is very expensive in terms of Germany’s starting units, and so Germany cannot reliably take and hold even 2 out of 3 of the Eastern Front territories (Belorussia, Baltic States, Ukraine) even by committing the entire tank corps. This means that the Russian counter-attack will often pump Russia back up to 30 IPCs at end of R1, which is too high for the Germans to make any progress.

If instead Germany abandons France or NW Europe in order to stack troops further east, much of the G1 build and some of the air force will have to be sent west on G2 to deal with the Allied attacks on France or NW Europe, which gives Russia a chance to stabilize. Germany is only slightly better off on the eastern front, and the Western Allies get extra cash from trading German territories. Because Germany is trading at least one Atlantic Wall territory, Germany cannot land fighters to protect that territory, and Allies can continue to re-invade into that gap throughout the game.

There are still some fun decisions to make, and I like the way the Pearl Harbor battles played out (I split forces between Hawaii & San Francisco; America was able to sink the main Japanese battle fleet, but only by diverting so many aircraft that the Operation Torch attack failed.) Gibraltar is interesting as a fortified canal, and it does tend to discourage an ahistorical 1941 Sea Lion, because you need at least one transport to take Gibraltar, but any transports you leave in the Western Med on G1 can be trapped in the med by an American destroyer on US1 so that they can’t participate in a G2 Sea Lion.

In addition to favoring the Allies in this version, I think maybe you have started to err in the direction of too many changes and too many starting units. I’d encourage you to dial things back a little bit, aim for something a bit simpler. You’ve got some good ideas in here; keep working on it! :-)

1941REDESIGNRussia2 Argo test G2.tsvg

P.S. You sent me the old saved game with Cruiser in Baltic Sea…

Sorry! I have attached the correct saved game to this comment.

it seems Australian M3 Cruiser is too mobile and DOW on Japan before Japan DOW.

I don’t agree; I think the problem is that the Caroline Islands need to start with slightly more Japanese ships. If instead of 2 DD, 2 transports you give the Carolines 1 CA, 1 DD, 2 transports, then the chance that Britain sinks the transports is only 9% instead of 35%, and so the early British DOW becomes stupid.

Baltic TP was not intended to be unhistorically use as a way to amphibious assault Karelia or Baltic States on G1

Fair enough; part of why Germany couldn’t do that was because Russia did have some small boats sitting in Leningrad’s harbors. I still think that the best match up in the Baltic would be Russia’s 1 DD vs. Germany’s 1 CA, 2 SS, 1 DD, 1 transport. A German Baltic BB overrates the German Baltic Fleet, and a Russian Baltic CA overrates the Russian Baltic Fleet.

I will move 1 Canadian DD with the other lonely DD in Northern Sea.
The kill on Canadian TP will be easier.

I would prefer to simply give Germany 1-2 more starting infantry to use as garrisons – I like that at least one British Atlantic fleet ought to survive the G1 attacks! It would have been very strange historically if the entire British Home Fleet and the Canadian Navy were both wiped out in mid-1941, especially with the Home Fleet still parked safely in Scapa Flow, Scotland instead of coming down to the more-vulnerable English Channel.

The file name is still the same than previous ones.

I would appreciate it if you would change the file names, even if only by giving them new numbers, so that it’s easier for me to keep track of them.

Here is below an adjusted setup based on your comments.

Thanks! I’ll try it tonight. After that I may send you my own suggestion for a 1941 San Francisco setup, if you have any interest in that sort of thing.

Tirpitz Test Argo G2.tsvg

I saw that it was based on AA50. Much as I dig that game, I wish that the 41 opener had a more high stakes Barbarossa script, where the Luftwaffe is used there primarily instead of for destroying the British on the water or in Egypt or wherever.

Just for example, in the OOB set up for AA50, all the round 1 battles on the Eastern front have Germany facing off against Russian infantry. In reality like half the red airforce was destroyed on the ground in the opening hours of the war.

This could easily be modelled by having some fighters (lightly defended) parked on the front lines, or even a naked fighter or two one tile back from the front lines. Like something that could be airblitzed by German aircraft and destroyed in the opening round. (The game doesn’t really teach players how to airblitz, which is unfortunate since it’s kind of an important move to learn.)

The German opening could be scripted in such a way that instead of using British warships to “tie down the luftwaffe” you could use Soviet aircraft for this purpose instead. It would create I think a more interesting flavor to the Barbarossa opening, with German fighters squaring off against Russian fighters (and destroying most of them) instead of just pretending that the Red airforce wasn’t the largest on earth at the time, and giving the Russians only a couple “safe” fighters way behind the lines.

You could even do something similar with armor, where the opening script has German panzers destroying a bunch of red tanks in frontline territories during the first round. These could represent the T 26s that just got smoked. Then leave the second round  (with Russian armor deeper behind the lines) representing the introduction of superior T 34s and KV1s. You don’t need a bunch of different sculpts to depict this stuff, but just using starting position and strength to showcase German superiority in the outset, by allowing them to destroy heavier hitting Russian units in the first round.

That would be a much more interesting way to draw down German aircraft than using British ships. It needs to happen somewhere for gameplay (for game balance), because the Axis need to start with lots of air units in A&A. They need high value targets to keep them preoccupied on the first turn, I just think why not do this on the eastern front instead vs UK? Put more of the soviet front line hitpoints as tanks and fighters, so G has to really commit to an epic opening invasion. One that befits the largest invasion in human history. Where they have to make deep coordinated attacks across a wide front and even punch behind the lines to pick off exposed red fighters or tanks using the airblitz move.

It would also give the Soviets a chance to perhaps see an extra fighter or a couple tanks survive the opening, instead of just stack trades that are easy to calculate at overwhelming advantage.

The airblitz is an inherently more dynamic play than a stack trade or even a strafe. It would be cool if the opener had one scripted in.

Imagine for example that the Russian starting set up showed like just a single Red fighter parked naked in Belo, and another in E. Ukraine. (In 1942.2 you could do it in Arch/W. Russia). Say Germany has 5-6 aircraft in range. The advantage of destroying Russian air whenever possible is clear, so G calculates that it’s a smart play to airblitz in this first turn. Now you have an interesting decision. Do they split the Luftwaffe and go 3 v 1 or 2 v 1 to attack naked Russian fighters. Or go with just 2v1 in each tile and hold a fighter or two in reserve to support other more conservative attacks. Or do they go all in with their airforce to airblitz a single tile and truly ice it in the first round of combat, make sure to kill at least one of the two red fighters behind the lines.

Stuff like that would be cooler I think than having them dedicated to sinking a British battleship.

Thoughts?

ps. here is a quick drafting of what I mean. Using the OOB AA50 1941 situation as a point of departure.

You can see from the edit history where I switched out Russian front line infantry for more powerful units. Its basically the same number of hitpoints, but with more TUV at stake, and a more epic feel to the German invasion. Something that looked more like this would be cool.

It wouldn’t take any longer to set up than the OOB starting units (since it is using pretty much the same number of sculpts), but it would make for a German opener where they really have to hit Russia hard. You know, like its the largest ground invasion in world history.
:-D

For the German fighters, you could reorient more of these to be in Poland (instead of the OOB position shown in the image below, where they’re all positioned west), so they’re within striking distance of the Soviets… In other words have the Luftwaffe positioned to airblitz the Russians instead of for air attacks against the Royal Navy, and design a script that encourages this.

Or at the very least, make it a tough opening decision. Destroy the Red Airforce on the ground? Or destroy the British Atlantic fleet at anchor? With not enough air to do both at the same time. That way there is at least a built in balance for either play.

AA50 Barbarossa set up.tsvg

Yup, this is fantastic reasoning! Something has always bothered me about the 1941 openings, and I think you’ve just articulated it perfectly.

I favor giving Germany the choice to sink the British Atlantic fleet or to take out the Soviet air force on the ground, but not both. It just leads to more interesting strategic variety. I will work on that design tonight for 1942.2.

For clarity, an “airblitz” is just when you send a bunch of fighters and bombers to attack a territory even when your land units can’t reach, right?