AARHE: Phase 2: National victory conditions

I like all the special sea zone restrictions. Gibraltar and Danish straights. Any thoughts on Suez going through Egypt.

Also like the inclusion of aaafire and some limited transportation capability. Anything that makes for more attractive ship builds always seems good to me.
:-D

On the air, the main impediment to ready testing FtF is the requirement to buy more stuff than comes in the boxed game. With a G40 expansion you still only have 3 sculpts.

I was thinking about this issue for the C5 strategic bomber concept in 1942.2.

One thought I had about Tacs in 1942.2 for the Defenseless Strat B idea I had, was that some aircraft might be represented on the map by a scult that always has a green chip under it (saving all green chips for this use). So with that idea, I was thinking you could represent 3 air units with only 2 sculpts. For example

Strat B = C5 SBR only
Green Chip Fighter = Tactical Bomber
Fighter (red or gray chip) = Fighter

Or you could use a roundel, or paint a tail, but the green chip seemed pretty easy to work with.
Fighter can still fit on a deck that way.

Perhaps if its a game designed to use G40 sculpts for 1942.2 you could just do the same thing with the bomber sculpts? Like
Medium bomber = normal sculpt
Strat bomber = green chip sculpt.

Just an idea to make it easy to test, without a big commitment in painting or purchasing new stuff.

For the factories, I do worry that it takes any series threat to Tokyo from the Americans pretty much off the table. It’s very hard to get onto the mainland in an effective way with US, without expanding production on the money islands. Is this what you are trying to avoid? Or are you trying to prevent Japan from using one on India/Africa/Australia?

For my part I enjoy the factory unit, so rules that restrict where it can go aren’t as appealing to me. Basically the 3 islands affected, Philippines, East Indies and especially Borneo, are pretty much the only interesting territories in whole the Pacific, by virtue of their production potential, so it seems a shame to lose them.

I played another game with India at 5, but I played against myself instead of the AI (first time doing that!).

Russia got absolutely diced in the heavy Ukraine strafe, and so West Russia was abandoned R2 and with no fighter support (Iceland gone G1, no other good routes) Germany rolled over them on turn G5.

Once the fighter route was gone I went heavy tanks in India, hoping to swing out against the Japanese and provide defence for Moscow.  I did have 8 UK tanks about to rush in to Moscow for defence (on UK6), but that would have exposed India on J6 AND Japanese tanks were closing in on Moscow as well, so it would have been a 1 or 2 turn delay at most.  Japan had the luxury of building a factory in Manchuria for north route tanks and just stacking Yunnan with art and inf (with their fleet in the adjacent SZ) and deadzone Burma, so the UK troop buildup in India couldn’t really pivot out of India as much as I thought.  Any foray out of India, and the 5 IPC factory would be gone, so the two armies stayed in the gravitational pull of one another.

I’ve never really done a KJF, but I think that might work a lot better with 5 IPC India.  I might read some KJF strategies and try it out.  So far, 5 IPC India is a failure, haha.

About Pacific islands NO.
Why not require 3 amongst 4 or 4 amongst 5 Island TTs?
That way this can be an incentive to fight for one more to get some buffer TT before loosing the NO.

I like the idea to create a new unit class that behaves in a unique way, and the AAgun does seem to be pretty good to denote it (since they’re rarely purchased). But of course, creating a new unit class does create some barriers to entry and diminishes the ease of adoption.

Basically the Bazooka concept as described (whatever you end up calling the unit, for me that’s not as important) will require an update to the battleboard, and the unit cost/abilities lists of the maps/book. Its one more thing that players have to learn, in addition to the new set up, so in that respect it will be harder to gather testers than if you just stick with the regular unit roster. Sure it’s a different balance then, but at least everyone has the info memorized already.

I think the easiest approach for a mod to adopt is to keep everything else the same, and just a offer reprint of the unit set up cards for each nation.

Those are typically separate materials anyway, and even the OOB cards have misprints (for the starting IPC value of UK and Germany) and printing out a few new cards is pretty easy. Placing starting units for a new set up takes about the same amount of time as it does to set the OOB game. So that’s pretty easy too.

I like a lot of the concepts here, especially the 1 ipc factory, which I think could be a major benefit to the play patterns on the board. But the Bazooka concept might overshadow them.

Perhaps test the Bazooka concept first in the OOB game to see how if it gathers interest? But I kind of like this set up, with the placements, even if they’re just normal AAguns. You can always use a bid, or further tweaks to rebalanced the situation (sans bazooka concept, if that’s needed.) I like pretty much all the other ideas. Though I’d still pull for a Pearl Factory hehe
:-D

Again man, nice concepts

With the political exile option for the UK, our group has decided to give Germany a 10 IPC NO for control of London.

Larrys new NOs for US look exellent and look like they will balance game better becouse they will scale down US income if conditions are not met

@axis_roll:

Would your Victory city points be the only way to win or another way to win (meaning 10 VC’s is a win regardless of how many points I’ve achieved) ?

I haven’t thought about that.  I guess victory points would be just one way to win… I guess I’d have to test it.

Ok that explaination makes more sence. Can you reword it in such a manner that it captures both the examples and the language of your description?