As always, I’m playing around with ways to make the 1942.2 board fair, fun, and interesting.
What would happen if you increased the value of South Africa, Eastern Australia, the Urals, Archangel, Hawaii, and Alaska to 3 IPCs each? In addition to new plausible sites for factory construction, you’d be giving the Allies another 10 IPCs per turn in income at the start of the game. The Axis will eventually capture one or two of those territories, but in most games, the increased income will still be providing a small net Allied advantage all through the game.
Is that enough to balance the game, or would you still need a bid?
Would that be enough to sometimes motivate Japan to head east into the Pacific islands, or to head south toward Australia and South Africa? Or would every Japanese player still ignore the islands and blitz straight for Moscow?
Is that enough to balance the game, or would you still need a bid?
Would that be enough to sometimes motivate Japan to head east into the Pacific islands, or to head south toward Australia and South Africa? Or would every Japanese player still ignore the islands and blitz straight for Moscow?
Basically, you are adding a few IPCs to nearest TTs outside mainland Asia in PTO.
It is hard to find if this can be enough to make it a workable strategy for Japan.
As you showed me elsewhere (in 1941 setup for 1942.2), the main issue for Japan is to get higher incomes while investing in naval and amphibious conquest. Meanwhile, mainland Asia is not generous but still take less resources to get the numerous 1 IPC TTs. Also make IJA nearer Moscow for a pincer with Germany.
Balance issue is another question, in theory, this additional money input might help tweak balance toward a no bid game.
I’m more interested to look into incentive for increasing action in PTO.
By itself, older ideas about giving 1 IPC to 0 IPC islands is just a long and difficult road to cash grab and it gives almost same money to Japan and US+UK. But, it still requires more resources from Japan compared to mainland Asia cash grab.
Thinking in the path you opened up, what about increasing these single shot cash grab for Alaska, Hawaii and Eastern or Western Australia?
What if, these TTy can be more attractive like 4 IPCs Caucasus or DEI?
Alaska, Hawaii, Eastern Australia rising to 4 IPCs each.
And New Zealand and Western Australia to 2 IPCs?
Alaska (2) becomes 4 = +2
Hawaii (1) becomes 4 = +3
Eastern Australia (1) becomes 4 = +3
Western Australia (1) becomes 2 = +1
New Zealand (1) becomes 2 = +1
US +5 IPCs
UK +5 IPCs
So this make a similar increase for both UK and US.
Now, add up the special 0 IPC island in PTO now worth 1 IPC when collecting at the end of first round.
Formosa (0) +1
Iwo Jima (0) +1
Okinawa (0) +1
Wake Island (0) +1
Carolines Islands (0) +1
Solomons Island (0) +1
This would increase Japan to +6
USA will get Midway (0) +1
Sum for US +6
UK get +6
If you consider
Union of South Africa (2) becomes 3 = +1
Maybe this can increase Japan interest toward these TTs.
However, on J1, there is usually only 1 TP available for movement and it is in Japan SZ.
It left a lot of room for Allies to capitalize on this new influx of IPCs.
If all Powers only received their new IPCs values for TTs after collecting in round 1, maybe it gives enough time for Japan to challenge a newly built IC.
I’m just pushing further the agenda of making amphibious landing in PTO a more rewarding activity to see if it breaks somehow.
The 0 IPC to 1 IPC islands is just a way to compensate Japan for such Allies increase.
I know it was not part of your initial idea, but without this it appears broken.
In my mind, 1 IPC TT or just way points toward the real deal (4 IPCs).
What would happen if you increased the value of South Africa, Eastern Australia, the Urals, Archangel, Hawaii, and Alaska to 3 IPCs each? In addition to new plausible sites for factory construction, you’d be giving the Allies another 10 IPCs per turn in income at the start of the game.
Is Urals Evenki National Okrug?
Or Vologda?
Or Yakut SSR?
Or Novosibirsk?
To not let UK and US use their 10 IPCs bonus.
I wonder if rising Karelia (2) to 4 and Archangel (1) to 4. (As a way to consider Lend-Lease)
So Russia get +5 IPCs but Germany may reach it easily and fight for them too.
I’m not satisfy but it gives you an idea where I’m going.
And maybe Ukraine (2) rising to 4?
So, both North road and South Road, worth same value for Germany.
Interesting ideas, some of which I explore in my Summer 1942 map. An important part of my vision for this thread is to propose a minimum set of changes that are easy to remember. That’s why all the territories listed increase to exactly 3 IPCs, and why there are only six such territories. I don’t really expect these minor changes to result in people fighting over the islands themselves, but if Japan winds up attacking Australia or Hawaii from time to time, I’ll count that as a win for the design.
I guess I had Evenki National Okrug in mind as the Urals.
Karelia, Archangel, and Ukraine are also all reasonable choices for a boost.
4 IPCs per territory is also interesting, but I think the number of territories would have to be more limited, or otherwise the cash advantage to the Allies becomes quickly overwhelming.
Interesting ideas, some of which I explore in my Summer 1942 map. An important part of my vision for this thread is to propose a minimum set of changes that are easy to remember. That’s why all the territories listed increase to exactly 3 IPCs, and why there are only six such territories. I don’t really expect these minor changes to result in people fighting over the islands themselves, but if Japan winds up attacking Australia or Hawaii from time to time, I’ll count that as a win for the design.
I guess I had Evenki National Okrug in mind as the Urals.
Karelia, Archangel, and Ukraine are also all reasonable choices for a boost.
4 IPCs per territory is also interesting, but I think the number of territories would have to be more limited, or otherwise the cash advantage to the Allies becomes quickly overwhelming.
I guessed that you prefer 3 IPCs for this reason.
I just believe that 3 IPCs is just a small change that it is not enough for Japan to commit into conquest of far away Australia.
Australia is so out of position that it mainly means an increase of 2 IPCs to UK’s income.
Japan has so few TPs on J1 and you will get a 2 TPs amphibious not before J3, if not J4.
Maybe, it is better to increase only Alaska (1 turn move from Japan) and Hawaii (2 turns move from Japan).
So, only US get the starting IPCs increase and Japan can plan an invasion from Alaska to Hawaii which are easier to reinforce.
Same idea for Germany, South Africa is so out of position. I don’t know what to do about it.
Africa is more a diversion from mainland Europe and Moscow.
To increase action, giving Anglo-Egypt-Soudan 1 IPC and 1 more IPC to Italian East Africa (as you have done in Summer 1942 set up), provides more reason to call a German invasion in the South and once then captured. South Africa is within range of a Tank unit. South Africa at 3 IPCs then gain more attract because Germany get a pathway with 2 Egypt+1 AES+2 IEA+1 Rhodesia+3 South Africa for 9 IPCs, instead of 6 IPCs.
But, if you increase Soviet TTs, you will lost the attractiveness gained by adding more easy IPCs in Africa.
I really wonder why they made AE-Soudan a 0 IPC TT.
So UK would get a 3 IPCs boost and US too.
To reach 4 IPCs each, you may give +1 to Midway and +1 to Gibraltar.
To still sweeten the pot, Transjordany (1) may rise to 2 for +1 and boost Alaska to 4 IPCs.
So, Allies would get 10 IPCs more than OOB.
This brings 3 options: 6, 8 or 10 IPCs increase.
And increase Germany against UK actions and Japan against US too.
Wanting to keep 3 IPCs TTs, then Egypt, South Africa might rise while Alaska and Hawaii too.
This would be +3 for US and +2 for UK, = +5 for Allies.
Some territories should get AA fire against targets and carry two planes :roll:
:-o :-o :-o :-o
@Imperious:
Some territories should get AA fire against targets and carry two planes�  :roll:
Horrible sarcasm and highly lacking in good humor.
IL, you ever play 42.2? It’s even more lopsided in favor of the Axis than G40.
Do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion post?
As always, I’m playing around with ways to make the 1942.2 board fair, fun, and interesting.
What would happen if you increased the value of South Africa, Eastern Australia, the Urals, Archangel, Hawaii, and Alaska to 3 IPCs each? In addition to new plausible sites for factory construction, you’d be giving the Allies another 10 IPCs per turn in income at the start of the game. The Axis will eventually capture one or two of those territories, but in most games, the increased income will still be providing a small net Allied advantage all through the game.
Is that enough to balance the game, or would you still need a bid?
Would that be enough to sometimes motivate Japan to head east into the Pacific islands, or to head south toward Australia and South Africa? Or would every Japanese player still ignore the islands and blitz straight for Moscow?
I think you’re on to a concept that might have some validity to create more balance.
I think no easily captured territories should be given a higher IPC value. Otherwise the Axis would work towards capturing key economic areas.
I suggest just the capital territories for the UK and Russia be given an economic boost of maybe 5 IPCs, while the US could get 2 IPCs per territory (6 IPCs total). The reason of a capital territory is of course because when captured it usually means the end of the game.
Then play test and refine.
Interesting ideas, some of which I explore in my Summer 1942 map. An important part of my vision for this thread is to propose a minimum set of changes that are easy to remember. That’s why all the territories listed increase to exactly 3 IPCs, and why there are only six such territories. I don’t really expect these minor changes to result in people fighting over the islands themselves, but if Japan winds up attacking Australia or Hawaii from time to time, I’ll count that as a win for the design.
I guess I had Evenki National Okrug in mind as the Urals.
Karelia, Archangel, and Ukraine are also all reasonable choices for a boost.
4 IPCs per territory is also interesting, but I think the number of territories would have to be more limited, or otherwise the cash advantage to the Allies becomes quickly overwhelming.
If playing Germany, I’d be happy to get this kind of an economic boost. I’d work on capturing them as soon as possible.
Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.
I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.
As always, I’m playing around with ways to make the 1942.2 board fair, fun, and interesting.
What would happen if you increased the value of South Africa, Eastern Australia, the Urals, Archangel, Hawaii, and Alaska to 3 IPCs each? In addition to new plausible sites for factory construction, you’d be giving the Allies another 10 IPCs per turn in income at the start of the game. The Axis will eventually capture one or two of those territories, but in most games, the increased income will still be providing a small net Allied advantage all through the game.
Is that enough to balance the game, or would you still need a bid?
Would that be enough to sometimes motivate Japan to head east into the Pacific islands, or to head south toward Australia and South Africa? Or would every Japanese player still ignore the islands and blitz straight for Moscow?
I think you’re on to a concept that might have some validity to create more balance.
I think no easily captured territories should be given a higher IPC value. Otherwise the Axis would work towards capturing key economic areas.
I suggest just the capital territories for the UK and Russia be given an economic boost of maybe 5 IPCs, while the US could get 2 IPCs per territory (6 IPCs total). The reason of a capital territory is of course because when captured it usually means the end of the game.Then play test and refine.
How do you consider Egypt?
Still thinking about the general idea of placing a few 3 IPCs TTs, to increase battle over Africa I wonder about boosting both Egypt and South Africa to 3 IPCs, this would give +2 to UK and as Argo suggested, East Australia can be risen to 3 IPCs, giving a +2
For UK +4 bonus.
And US keeping +1 from Alaska and +2 from Hawaii, giving +3 bonus
Do you think that rising Western Canada to 3 IPCs can be an incentive for Japan to launch a real invasion on North America, assuming Alaska is 3 IPCs too?
Is it too hard to contest with USA?
I just want to say this sounds like a terrific idea. With all the talk of bids to give the Allies extra units or cash to begin the game with, I never thought of changing the IPC value of certain territories.
For one thing, it gives the Allies a boost at the start but it is possible for the Axis to get these territories, which makes it more fair I think.
Also, like Argothair mentioned, it could make for more battles in what would be considered up to now odd territories.
I know you are still working on this, but I am curious to try it out myself.
Changing a few territories’ income, would be my answer to playing without a bid.
I worry, and think, that making any territory, which can be easily captured by the Axis, is not the answer.
I would rather see E US get 5 more a turn and Moscow another 3.
Great idea though. Nothing wrong, with trying to find a system that works without a bid.
Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.
I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.
I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).
Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.
I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.
Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.
I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.
I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).
Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.
I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.
Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.
I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.
