Which new unit for the 2nd Edition?

@imperious-leader said in Global 1940 Fixed Units Variants:

@gen-manstein right, just off the top of my head.Baron M. could collaborate

Barons to busy. We don’t need his collaborate.

@Young:

@Baron:

@Young:

Cruisers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Aircraft Carriers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Battleships
receive 2@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Do you realize that these warships are made better at destroying directly planes than planes themselves?

Sorry… I don’t understand your question.

According to usual casualty order, when planes will roll a hit in naval combat, the owner usually choose a Submarine or a Destroyer before 10 IPCs Fighters.
With your suggested rule, CA, CV and BB will take down aircrafts with more regularity than planes’ hit rolled.  To me it seem paradoxical.

I’m with you on the bonus staying pretty simple. There’s enough going on in Axis and Allies attached to the VC and worded as an objective bonus. Kind of primes players for the concept of an NO generally, if they like to move on to other games like AA50 or the 1940 games, so I like that aspect from a teaching perspective.

Its interesting you mention adding set factories to 1941. After AA50 I became very interested in the idea of just setting up a board with all the factories already in place, and removing the factory as a purchasable unit from that game. 1941 does the job for you in a way, by eliminating the unit from the roster, which makes the game a lot more straightforward. Especially for new players, its just one less thing you have to worry about (where to buy a factory, and how to exploit production etc.) When we first started trying to adapt 1941, we played a number of set factory games.

First idea was to just give each power 1 additional factory, but set in a place that would make sense for the period, but also be relatively balanced/entertaining.

We put it up to choice between a few different factory options for each power…

So for the Russians the question is between Archangel and Karelia?
Archangel factory has a potential upside for Allies in that it’s one space further from the immediate eastern front, but the downside is that its closer to Moscow if Axis control, and also closer to Japan via Urals. Still contested out of sz 4. Karelia provides some interest in that it gives G another early target, and an early foothold that it can use in sz 5 or sz 4. This draws more attention off Caucasus, but I think ultimately Karelia goes to Axis advantage, since Germany can get the drop on it so quickly. Archangel gets another round.

For the Germans: Italy seemed the obvious choice on balance and for the history.

For the British: Egypt, South Africa, or Canada? Its kind of a tough call here too, but the consensus view seemed to be that Egypt was simply too overpowered, and made the med too “do or die.” South Africa also felt a little overpowered, but did have a kind of classic charm to it, reminding me of many games in Classic where the UK would use that strat. On balance though Canada is a lot safer for Allies. It has a less dramatic impact on the opening round, and can be very helpful in rebuilding the royal navy after Germany sweeps it up. UK is under a lot of pressure already with production split up various places. The British are more likely to be torn between purchases if you put it in Canada, which has a kind of novelty.

For the Japanese: Manchuria. Manchuria is the only candidate really from the history, for what the Japanese had going in Chosen and the resources from Manchukuo. This gives Japan 6 production, on par with the other powers and able to match W.US production into the pacific. Basically Japan is less nerfed if they can hold it. The problem here though is the scripted attack on Manchuria on R1. This is the favored play for KJF already, but putting a factory in Manchuria just puts a big target on it. I’m not sure its necessarily a problem because it kind of reminds one of Zhukov in early days, albeit anachronous hehe. Japan can usually retake the territory on J1, so its not much of a problem and takes the first round production boost out. Just sets off an early pacific fight basically, encouraging Russia to send the fighter to China and try the Japan crush gambit.

For the Americans: Szechwan, Philippines, or Hawaii?
I favor Hawaii for the history, and on balance. Philippines is more a gift to Japan. Szechwan in like a built in burma road bonus, but throws off the china balance more dramatically if taken. Hawaii is kind of out of the way, but it returns an American advantage in Pacific production 7 vs 6 Japanese production. Its a target to split Japan off focus on India and Moscow, so I like that aspect.

Basically you could let each player choose if you want to show them the advantages or overpowering exploits of production in different places. Or teach how cliff hangers can tilt to be all one sides over places like Egypt and Szech and Karelia. One additional factory to each player 3 Allies vs 2 Axis, is fairly straightforward. But then you basically revert it to a fixed production type game. It has the advantage of restricting and focusing everybody equally by the inclusion of new production elements.

1941 is a fun board to play around with because it’s set up is so fast and relatively simple play time, provided you include Artillery. The artillery unit is essential for this map to be fun :)

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

@imperious-leader said in ANTI-TANK UNIT:

Ok unit is a 3-2-1-5 unit.

But moves 2 in NCM

if it rolls one in combat, another tank or armor class unit must be taken as loss by defender.

Bingo !

I recently went back to my older games and incorporated the newer pieces into them.  I only went as far back as Revised.  At first I thought it would simply be a matter of altering the setup some but found a few more problems:
1 - In the older games, Destroyers were 3-3-2-12, same as Cruisers are now.  Also, Aircraft Carriers had an attack of 1, now they have no attack value.  So basically, you have to bring the costs back to the older games and you have to use the 1940 battle boards.
2 - You can’t use air or naval bases in the older games.  Especially in Revised because there are a lot less sea zones.  For example, with a naval base, Japan and W USA are one move away from each other.
3 - ICs and build limits also present a problem.  In the older games, you simply have ICs and their build limit is based on the IPC value of the territory they are on.  I don’t know how to incorporate Major and Minor ICs into the older games.  I simply used the new unit values with the old IC rules.

Well, I hope this helps you.  If you would like my setup changes, let me know and I can post them for you.

No, the map of Europe is that the increase of Europe on the main game board.
During the next game, I am going to fix both cards together.
Both map will be on same height.
One table instead of two.

ok lets talk about it in the setup thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8697.0

so far only change is FTR (fighter) on CV (aircraft carrier) is NAV (naval fighter)