1942.2 : case for Zero IPC Territory

@barnee looks interesting, we’ll give that a try, albeit only the Europen side of things

I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

I took another look at the house rules I’m considering, and hopefully will get a chance to test it out over the coming Christmas holidays. This mod is definitely intended for games with 4+ active players so that multiple people can be “active” at once and encourage a quicker, less downtime game.

If you only have 2 players, then of course use the the standard turn order.

My 2nd pass of writing it up has resulted with this. Rules/changes in bold, with discussion following.

-Start of game, the “one weird turn”: Russia and Britain take one simultaneous turn. Russia acts as normal. Britain only starts with 12 IPCs and can only move pieces from or into territories east of and including Persia. UK can only buy/place units on the pacific side of the board during this turn

-After this turn finishes, the turn order becomes: All axis powers followed by all allied powers

-The above change allows simultaneous turns while preserving the general flow of each theater and keeps the usual critical opening strikes intact.

Consequences and clarifications: A couple situations will pop up due to the changes.

1)Multinational attacks:
Still not allowed, instead if more than one nation attack a single territory, battles will be resolved one attacker at a time.

IE: If Russia, Britan and US all combat move to a single axis territory, the attacks happen one at a time. Russians fight untill they win/lose/retreat, followed by UK, followed by US. The allied player 2nd/3rd in line may decide to immediately retreat before dice are rolled if they don’t like the results of the previous players attack.

Can opening: No longer possible. Losing this “trick” is an acceptable loss IMO.(Personal taste: It’s very “gamey”)

Loss of landing planes/strait use. IE: US cant land planes on territory UK just conquered. In practicality, this is a minor nerf to allied KGF play.(landing planes in west europe. If there is an example of strait use that happens in a “typical” game I’m unaware). Is this a big enough deal to warrant additional changes? We will see. Easiest solution for balancing may be modifying the British “bid” introduced for first turn pacific spending.

Anything I missed?

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

Does anyone knows why the more expensive units (i.e. cruiser 12$ and battleship 20$) are not able to bombard a only one shot on the coast once they win a sea battle offshore?

For me, it seems many times you cannot use their only special capability.
For all other cheaper units their is no such thing.

In what way does this rule is necessary to keep the balance?

In game terms, since a turn is three months long why a cruiser or a BB cannot fight the enemy ships, then help the amphibious assault since you cannot make any debarkment if you are not able to destroy the enemy naval unit?

I’m pretty sure that, during WWII, many cruisers and battleships were able to destroy others defending surface vessels and, some hours later, support with their heavy guns the marines launching an assault on a beach.

If both battles have been simultaneous (like Leyte Gulf Battle) that would be OK, but, in the game, if you loose or retreat no transport can unload their troops.

Anyway, I wish to suggest a different rule to simulate that cruiser and BB can do many things during a three month turn. Or can make a more intensive bombardment if their is no other assignment.

1- Always allow one coastal bombardment per surviving cruiser or battleship after a naval battle and before the amphibious assault (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports). If the BB was damaged during the previous battle, halfed the attack: 1@2 instead of 1@4.
Or we can logically say that a damaged BB have to repair and is unable to support a debarkment. This would make sens.

2- When their is no naval battle, allows 2 rolls of dice per cruiser and BB present (limited by the number of ground unit coming out of transports) but take only the better result for each one (like LHTR for heavy bomber) .

Example: 3 inf are part of an amphibious combat, so 3 cruisers (A, B, C) out of 4 (D) cruisers offshore can roll dices @3:
A 1,2 / B 3,3 / C 4,5,/ D not allowed
thus making 2 hits even though four dices make 3 and under.

In this way, the expensive units can always be use at their full potential.

Option B: we can instead halfed the attack value of cruiser and BB that made naval battle before a debarkment: cruiser get 1@1/ BB get 1@2.
And a damaged BB have to be repaired and is unable to support a debarkment.

What do you think? Do you have some answers for my previous questions?
Thanks.

Ok we played this today and it turned out to be pretty balanced.

Allies won

I’m still a little iffy about the 2 German subs that start SZ 2 (Germany subs were in total control of the Atlantic for the entire game)

The other rule changes I made was to make Borneo and East Indies (DEI) basically neutral until attacked by Axis or US enters the war, then they join FEC/UK seemed to work out nicely.