Spring 1942: 1941 scenario

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

Lone transports only. Enemy has to kill them. If they are not killed get a escape roll @2 each.
My game transports defend @2 against planes only too. So if a plane kills them they get a AA shot and if a sub or ship kills them no defense shot at them.

That’s for d12 die. For d6 then @1. Even better odds.

1942.2 is a very neat and faster pace game than other versions of AA, nevertheless the china rules of AA50 and paratrooper tech are both aspects bring in more historical realism, fun and tactical depth to the game in overall. I have tried to incorporat both rules as houserules into 42.2 and would like to have your comments on it if these break the balance . My group are not very sophisticated AA fans therefore a 6:4 balance would not significant impact to our overall result i believe.but of course i want to make the variant as balance as i can

China variants
As i know the original setup is more favour Axis side. And SU in general has a less resources other than her two alliances. So my rules set as below
a.) China power is controlled by SU player
b.) Except the initial IPC, China’s controlled territory IPC are reduced from US productivity.
c.) China can occupy and control only the 8 territories including Formosa/kwangTung/Manchuria .
d.) China only can produce infantry according to AA50 rules except 1 infantry/1 allies controlled territory in China.

The reason for this is enhancing China defence against Jpy in early rounds as it can deploy before Jpy invades. Also the cheaper cost of infantry (1 IPC= 1 inf) is offset by less IPC for US player. Thirdly SU player will has more fun when compared to us and uk.

Paratroopers variant

Generally , players tends to push all their ground force all to the most front line and leave its central territory very empty without any threat. Introduce of para hope can solve this unrealism. I modify the AA 50 rule of para and allow in the beginning of the game.

In combat move , 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry to the target hostile territory Moving and landing rule are as same as normal except the bomber can fly through hostile territories as long as it has legitimate landing route. When the bomber fly through and at the target territory with Aaa gun (during combat move only), do the aaa gun chking as usual combat.

We play tested once with both rules , we found the China rule brought a little upclimb difficulty for JPN player, but in long run , as US has fewer resources and get more balance and has a bit less impact to Axis

With paratrooper variants. We tends to build up more aaa gun and deploy inland or islands , also we will leave some def forces at some strategic territories which the overall deployment tactics looks more reasonable on the map.

Since we did not heavily play test enough,feel free to comment if you sight any potential problem to these variants

I was hoping you’d post these!

taamvan,

Excellent analysis on the differences between G40/G42 vs Oztea’s 41. I think in some ways, the 41 setup has “almost” fully realized the potential of the Global board. I like how it initially looks. It makes think of coming into a high level situation brief on in-progress ops. I imagine a table top board would seem very busy at first (I’ve only seen it on triplea, even there it’s cluttered). But like all axis and allies board games, they clean up real quick along the frontiers. Â

I did notice how this setup forces the Axis to stick to realistic solid objectives; but dangles out some “mirages” like Cairo.  I’m of the opposite opinion. I think I’d even evacuate the german tank and 1 infantry on turn 1. Rarely I see people really invest in Cairo and going for the middle east, but on the forums some people talk about it. I’m never good at that.

I don’t know which way the game leans axis or allies. I’ll have to play it out a few more times before I’ll have a definite opinion. Do you remember which sides won at your club? Regardless, it seems very balanced and the US could get real aggressive anywhere it wants immediately. The US does start out with an Army, but Germany has a sizeable European garrison for defense and a nice navy in the Baltic for reinforcing Finland. Russia starts with a destroyer/sub combo in the artic, so they have a chance to kill a german sub in sz 125 and can therefore almost be guaranteed to collect their 5 IPC bonus for a few turns. Also, over time, the allies gain a few more IPCs as the French territories get occupied by allies. Russia might be tempted to stack it’s much larger mobile army at Amur on round 2, but I think it better to move it to Europe.

@Imperious:

Ok if you want more units make it basic:

3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB

CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

Just found this thread, thanks to Innohub.
Lots of good ideas. Thank you  all.

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

Minor IC COST: 8 UPGRADE COST: 7

Can produce: Militia, Infantry, Artillery, Anti Aircraft Guns, Fighters, Transports, Submarines, and Destroyers

Major IC  COST: 15

Can produce: ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS: Tanks, Bombers, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships

An Industrial Complex (IC) can be built on any territory that your Power has controlled since the start of your turn. Minor ICs may only be built on a territory with a value of 1 IPC or more. Major ICs must be built on a territory with a value of 3 IPC or more. There is a limit of one IC per territory. The cost to upgrade a Minor IC into a Major IC is 7 IPCs.

Newly purchased land and air units must be placed into the territory with the IC. Sea units can only be placed into a sea zone adjacent to the territory with the IC, so long as there is a Naval Base on the territory coastline that touches the sea zone.

For example, the IC in the territory of North Italy is adjacent to two sea zones; SZ 27 and SZ 28. However, as the Naval Base in North Italy is sitting on the coastline that touches SZ 27, newly purchased naval units can only be placed into SZ 27. If the player controlling Italy bought another Naval Base and placed it on the coastline touching SZ 28, then he/she would be able to place new naval units into SZ 28 as well.

IC placement.jpg