Thanks for posting this here. Discord is miserable for actually maintaining/archiving information to the point where I have no idea how it’s become top dog over the years.
Production Mod for 1942.2
-
With all the money in China and Russia, I’m not sure a Japanese will want to go India or in Pacific…
The main objective will be to get the easy money first.Maybe the easy pray such as Soviet Far East and Buryatia should be a little lower???
To provide an incentive to go elsewhere at the beginning?
-
Well if you go lower than 3, then you end up with the situation where Russia pulls back and just gives the territory to Japan. The money is there to encourage Russia to trade, because we have all seen what happens when the value is low. Japan takes low value territory regardless, because it is on the eventual path towards Moscow and keeps fighters from landing. With a higher value (3=the replacement cost of 1 inf) then Russia and USA are both encouraged to fight here. Also, at 6 total production potentially on sz 63 (if they buy factories), Japan finally has a way in to North America, that can actually work! Remember if Japan goes north, then it is harder for them to cover south, and center, and there is money to be traded there as well. But basically the money in the East is a draw for Russia more than Japan.
The whole crux of my argument, is that the Russian money needs to be contested, or else you end up with the Moscow Turtle, and Japan walks all over the east. -
I’m wondering if you should not increase to 3 IPCs the other chinese territories near Russian border.
SO, if a US player want to put an IC there, he gets at least a round to put some new units on the board.
Maybe with all this precious US territories all around Japan: Alaska, Midway, Hawaii, China, it will become a more urgent matter to USA to get in Pacific vs Japan. Before it grows a monster eating a lot of resources against them.Japan finally has a way in to North America, that can actually work! Remember if Japan goes north, then it is harder for them to cover south, and center, and there is money to be traded there as well.
Like it.
-
The thought was that szech at 3 can be used this way, backed up with additional factories at 2 if desired. It also makes the Japanese center push harder with those at 2. Consider also that if you added a starting factory to certain locations, you can balance without having to alter the numbers. An option to think about, but so far I have had fun with both china and the far east like this.
-
The thought was that szech at 3 can be used this way, backed up with additional factories at 2 if desired. It also makes the Japanese center push harder with those at 2. Consider also that if you added a starting factory to certain locations, you can balance without having to alter the numbers. An option to think about, but so far I have had fun with both china and the far east like this.
I’m not just sure it can stand a chance if USA didn’t have it on the initial board…
Usually, on the second turn, I push all Japanese ground units to finish off USA units.
Unless, it is better to just build one IC at 2 near the Russian border (Russia can easily reinforce it.) and later recapture the lost Szechwan territory. -
Yep, but you are also playing in a situation where Russia collects less than 30 ipcs in the first round. Now they collect above 40. Let me describe the situation as it has played out so far in games with the Far East and China adjustments.
Russia generally stacks Yakut to cover the far east, leaving 6 ipcs in contention. And reinforces Szech, which it is possible to hold into the third round with tank, fighter, or infantry support (recall that tanks can blitz from Moscow or Caucasus to reinforce Szech, and they could also bring the 2 inf in evenki to Szech by the second round if it is critical to the Allied plan). If a factory is bought in the first round, America can drop 3 tanks in the second round. UK can also help to reinforce so the eastern wall develops around these two spaces, Yakut and Szech. What happens from there depends on the choices Japan makes. If Japan goes full north, the Allies can push center south. If Japan goes center south, then Allies can reinforce north. If Japan splits, Allies can split defense and hold the Wall. If Japan focuses totally on the mainland, USA can start pushing a Pac navy to peel income away. Into the second round Japan’s income is still increasing, along with Germany. Allies will begin to drop, so there is the initiative factor in the Axis game. If you get a chance to try it, you may see similar patterns emerge. But yeah, definitely give it a shot, let me know what you think.
Russia is collecting near 40 into the second and third round, which gives them a lot more to work with on a defense against Japan. If anything an additional Russian factory in Evenki, rather than an American one in China could be used to balance the situation, but as of now, it seems to work pretty well just with the production values adjusted.
More people buy ships in this mod, has also been my experience, which is interesting. I have not seen an appreciable increase in overall game length, larger battles in the midgame though, which is fun.
-
I would like to try it somehow but cannot download the file???
First time I do it, but I receive the error message about time. :? -
The way I did it was to copy the 1942 map file, (you can extract the zip), and then put the xml in there in the games folder. There might be an easier way, but that’s how I did it to test.
-
The way I did it was to copy the 1942 map file, (you can extract the zip), and then put the xml in there in the games folder. There might be an easier way, but that’s how I did it to test.
I cannot see where is the zip on that page?
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/file/n7585507/WW2v5_1942_2nd_Edition_High_Production_Mod.xml
-
If you like you can just use this gamesave… You can put it in the savegame folder and then launch in a bot or locally from the saved games.
or come to the lobby and I’ll launch it
The xml above has to be “saved as” and then put into a map folder to launch. But the gamesave can be used without needing to do anything else, since it uses all the same mapfiles as regular 1942.2, only the production numbers are different.
-
I don’t have the 1.8.0.3 version of Triple A
What/where is the lobby? -
Well that would be step one. The latest stable lobby launches automatically when you click the “play online” button from the initial screen. Once you are at that stage, anyone can launch a gamesave in a bot with the gamesave. Or you can do it locally, you just put the gamesave attached above into your saved games folder, and then click “load saved game.”
I expect Imperious will move this to the House Rules section eventually, which is cool. I just started it here since it advances some of my production thoughts relating to the 1942.2 board and because this is where the interest was likely to be.
-
Thanks.
I will have to find a way download the latest version.
Still an issue… -
No problem dude. I would say that so far, the battle for the far east is fairly tight. Russia is collecting more, but they also face a more potent threat. I would say Evenki is the ideal territory if another starting factory is used to balance the situation here because it covers the routes into Arch, Yakut and China, but is one space off Yakut (so it can’t be stacked immediately.) Tanks purchased here could reach into the far east, but also cover Karelia through Arch. It is the prime candidate I think, if anything is needed because (unlike USA) Russia is still more cash strapped. If all the rest of the Allies must purchase factories to activate the production power of their starting territories, Evenki alone might be enough. But I’m not sure if even that is necessary. It is possible for Russia to purchase a factory in the opening round to cover and still get up to 9 ground. Or push to support a Szech factory. Or just concentrate on G. They have a lot more options at 40, but they are also under threat in much the same way as before. If they send fighters to cover Suez, or the far east, then they are somewhat out of position against G. So something still has to give somewhere. Overall though, I find this set up has a certain charm. Factories in the first round can be used to establish the lines, and then players wheel around each other based on who is concentrating where. I find this sort of playstyle entertaining, perhaps you will too :)
The factory unit at 12 is much more adaptive. It is possible to concentrate production closer to the front, but the upper limit on the money is such that Nations cannot afford to max place everywhere at once. They still have to make choices, if you buy new production, it is the investment cost, and less units you are stacking in other territories (like the home capital regions) so it is still a trade off. After you make a few buys at the higher scale economy you start to see where the ceiling hits, which sorts of builds are actually viable.
Also after deliberation, I can see your point about a 3 in E. Australia, but I think this would require dropping W. Canada back to one, to push the ipc out. The thought behind Western Canada at 2, is a draw for Japan, if they cross into N. America. But as it is a necessary transit space for US (or possibly Japan), it would not have huge swing effect if dropped back down. Thus far we have not seen W. Canada make a huge impact at 2, so perhaps the ipc could be shifted, if a strong need was demonstrated. I still kind of enjoy the current Australia set up. Its just big enough to potentially make a difference, but just low enough that Japan doesn’t make an all out press immediately, but’s valuable enough to go out of position for a round, if the area is left undefended. Another possibility is to drop India back down to 4, but I have found it pretty entertaining at 4, so I’m not sure pulling from that location is ideal either.
-
Note this map mod has also been Sea Lion balanced. Russian can shut it down one of two ways, either by destroying the German fighter in Ukraine, or by landing a fighter in Arch. If this doesn’t occur, then Germany does have the option. If they throw everything into transports they can get 5 and a carrier with 1 ipc remaining. But this is counterbalanced by the fact that UK can drop 3 inf and 5 tanks in the first round. Which means in order for it to be successful in the second round, Germany must kill both Atlantic destroyers and survive with the med transport in 14. Even then, the number of units involved in the attack ensures that it will be a swing, rather than a definite for the Attacker, even under these optimal but rather unlikely circumstances. This does not rule out a multi round sea lion, but to make that kind of investment, G allows Russia to throw their full wait against Japan. US can go Szech factory with Russian coverage, and still press pretty effectively in the Atlantic. So the play has built in risk.
-
Here’s a thought… move the Russian factory from Karelia to Evenki!
-
OK so backtracking for a minute to explain the logic.
*note the “upload folder is full”, so I can’t attach this map? I can’t seem to attach anything, no matter how small I make the filesize? I will try to describe it in words.
On the OOB board, you can see that…
Japan leads in valueless territories, for a total of 6 spaces at zero ipcs. Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Wake, Caroline Islands, Solomon Islands and Formosa (why Formosa is its own territory instead of attached to Kwangtung, the way N. Ireland is attached to UK, I’m not really sure. But since it is listed as its own territory that brings us to +6 ipcs total)
UK is next with 3 spaces at zero: Iceland, Gibraltar and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan for +3 ipcs total.
USA has 3 spaces at zero: Midway, Eastern Mexico and Greenland for +3 ipcs total.
So without altering anything else you are looking at overall Axis +6 ipcs, Allies +6 ipcs to bring all valueless territories into play at least 1 ipc. This is described in the first map attached below. To keep with the minimums you would have the following starting income…
Russia 24
Germany 41
UK 34
Japan 36
USA 45This spread is not particularly desirable though, as it does nothing to increase the strength of Russia (which is what game balance would seem to require!) I would suggest that since Japan’s increase for their valueless territories is already offset by UK/US increase for their valueless territories (and by the fact that Japan can use their extra 6 against Russia), that Russia must be increased by at least 6, probably closer to 10, to maintain overall parity. This is without even touching the numbers for Germany, just to give them enough to face the +6 Japan will receive.
Now Russia has a total of 6 starting territories at a value of 1 ipc, increasing each of these by 1 ipcs would put them at 30 to start.
Russia 30
Germany 41
UK 34
Japan 36
USA 45This is the bare minimum required I think, in order to change all zero ipc territories into 1 ipc territories, without totally busting the game set up. However, this minimum doesn’t change the basic gameplay in any appreciable way. Basically all the same strategies apply with the same drawbacks and constraints. So I would say, if you take the map below as the starting point, then the question is, what else to change (and how to offset it so the game remains balanced.)
If you give UK 1 more ipc somewhere (India?), and Germany 3 ipcs somewhere (eastern front or Scandinavian), that would bring the total to… 80 Axis vs 110 Allies (up from 71 to 97 OOB.) So basically a 30 ipc swing instead of 26.
It is possible to knock Japan’s total down from 36, if you drop East Indies or Borneo from 4 ipcs to 3 ipcs. You could give the IPC to Germany somewhere contested. This would make Japan and UK (given the adjustments above) both the same at 35 ipcs and USA and Germany likewise both the same at 45.
Also, USA has extra IPCs in Central USA that can be pushed out to contested territories, like China, Midway, Hawaii, Alaska etc, so they could raise individual territories without altering the total, just stealing it from Central USA and moving it to more interesting locations. So that is where I would start, when thinking about how to mod production without busting the set up.
Russia 30
Germany 45
UK 35
Japan 35
USA 45From this position, it is fairly easy to raise Russia still further if needed. I suggest increasing in increments of 5 ipcs as the cleanest. Basically take 5 of their lowest value territories (now 2 ipcs) and increase them by 1 more ipc. And you get 35. Lets call this a low-medium production adjustment, as compared to the one in the original post, which we be a decidely high production adjustment.
Any thoughts?
-
OK I have updated the link per request, to provide a Low/Medium scale production mod for 1942.2 as well, using ideas outlined in this thread.
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/High-production-mod-for-1942-second-edition-tp7585507.html
Any thoughts?
I believe Russia at 30 is definitely workable. As a starting income it is much better than 24. A solid 30 ipcs allows for a purchase of 10 inf, or 4 inf 3 tanks, or 4 inf 2 art 1 fighter, or 6 inf 1 bomber etc. To get Russia up to 30, you don’t have to mod the start values nearly as much. Though I do suggest, if trying this out, that we just bring the values of the valueless territories to 1, since this activates the Pacific and gets away from the idea of even needing spaces at zero for this game to still work fine. :)
I propose the following, for all Axis and Allies games going forward: If a territory is not worth 1 ipc, then don’t put it on the map! If it is important enough to be on the map, then it is important enough for a single ipc. If not, it should simply be collapsed into another territory.
-
I’ll try to confine my discussions about industrial production capacity/certificates to this thread, to avoid spamming the forum, but I just wanted to point out that…
The GDP for Japan and the Soviet Union in 1942, was basically the exact reverse of what it is in A&A.
If anything Russia should have the starting income of 30, and Japan’s should be 24!But I’m beyond feigning any appeals to historical analogy for the OOB IPC distribution. I just don’t think the numbers are analogous to anything in the real world, or at least I don’t see it. So once again I will argue in favor of more flexibility for these numbers. From a design standpoint I don’t see the logic in getting cornered by the idea that territory X needs to be worth such and such, just because it was that way in Classic or the current game.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
I mean, if you grant that the overall disparity between Japan and Russia in this instance is purely for gameplay purposes (because the game wouldn’t work otherwise), then why hold back in other areas? To me this just reinforces the already abstracted idea I have about IPCs.
I think production is the most interesting aspect of Axis and Allies, it and the map (which it is part of) influence everything else in the game. I wish we could revisit the foundation of IPCs in detail. If changes to production were given the same (or even half) the consideration that units get, as alterations to the OOB set up for game balance, I think it’d be easier to change the dynamics.
Bidding to break battles, or break whatever OOB first round set up comes written on the card, is just not a particularly satisfactory solution to game balance. If a preplacement bid is the only solution to game balance, then people will always use it to break whatever battle has the greatest potential swing. Find the place on the board where the margins are the narrowest and then swing it one way or the other with an extra unit. To me this gets way ahead of the problem. I see the problem more in the direct starting income/production numbers displayed on the mapboard, rather than in the starting total unit value. Total Unit Value seems to exist in a kind of happy flux state where the numbers can be changed and tweaked out from version to version, whereas for the most part the IPC values (or relative values) remain static across every board.
This comes from the fact that Production is supposed to hold to something “real” somehow and constant, whereas units are admitted to be variable in what they represent depending on the circumstance. With units you can create your own narrative, and introduce a degree of flexibility with certain units relative to other other individual units. I wish we could treat territories and ipc values with this same attitude of creative flexibility.
So what, for example, if Hawaii is worth 2 ipcs or 3 ipcs instead of 1? Or if Kwangtung gets dropped from 3 to 2 or to 1? I mean does anyone care about internal consistency with ipcs in this range (e.g. Territories at or below a value of 3 ipcs the replacement cost of a single infantry unit)? If it lead to more dynamic gameplay when changed, would you care? I would suggest that production bids, or outright mods to production on the OOB map might be more interesting than pre-placement bids or unit adjustments, as a game balance mechanism.
-
This mod is great :-D helps with the balance issue for the most part been playing this at home think it’s great
Suggested Topics
