It is certainly possible, but I would suggest that the values at 3 are ideal especially for Russia, because it is the replacent cost of an inf unit. We have seen how they work at 1 or 2, and this still encourages players to withdraw to the center. At 3 Russia’s incentive to fight is much stronger. It also allows for the factory push against North America from the far East. I would say play at least into round 3 and see what you think, because right now the balance feels pretty dead on. Its important to recall that most of the money is in swing regions, so it is actually in play for both sides even though Allies start with a slight edge, Axis starting units are in a stronger position. I also considered the 1-3 split on Australia, but my concern is that it makes it too easy for UK to factory camp, without providing a stepping stone into/out of W. Australia. Keeping it too close to the OOB and you end up with the same basic dynamic, which is why I went with 40 for Russia as opposed to 30 or 35. The alternative seems to require unit adjustments, which I would like to avoid. That said it is fairly simple to put them at 30, all you do is take every territory currently at a value of 3 and drop it to 2, but I find that 30 just isn’t enough for Russia to be effective. (the additional starting money to Axis is less than the Allies, but it is much easier for them to use this money right away, and the money that does go to Allies is concentrated in areas which the Axis can reach in the second or third round, so it has that balance built in.)
Think of it like this, the way the current production is set up, the Soviet far east is worth about a dozen ipcs, the west is worth about a dozen, and the center is worth about 15-20. Compare this to the OOB, where more than 2/3rds of the money is concentrated in the center, with only a paltry couple ipcs in the far east. Of course any intelligent Russian player will withdraw under those conditions. But up the values to 3 per territory and it is now much more risky for them to just abandon the region, not only because of the money, but because of the potential production advantage given up to the enemy. What’s more, they now have enough starting money to actually fight against Japan, instead of just stacking infantry to defend against the inevitable. The same holds for China. Territories at 2 are much better than 1, but are still worth less than the replacement cost of an inf, so unless there is a strategic reason to trade the territory, players frequently just pull back or bypass. This is what we are trying to correct. So yes, the money included is a bit more ambitious than just a minor tweak here and there, but I think the result leads to more entertaining gameplay.
Larry’s solution to the Japanese Tank Drive was to keep the total Russian money exactly the same as it always was, to lower the value of the far east and china even more (dividing it up in a few places), and to put a factory in Karelia… I think its pretty safe to say this didn’t work. So I am suggesting that we try the opposite approach. Instead of keeping Russia perpetually weak, we give them a viable economy to match the historical reality, and put more money (not less!) into the contested areas they control at the start, so that both sides have a reason to fight over it.
ps. the work is fairly simple, if you play tripleA, I have already given you the xml mod to playtest with. But really even with the stickers it doesn’t take more than a few minutes to alter the values for the high economy game. And you can always remove them afterwards
Basically what I wanted to do, was show people how (using the same map and same unit set up) they can adjust the 1942.2 gameboard to play at a higher production. Trust me, watch the excitement on everyone’s face when they see what they can now purchase in the first round with the extra money. It gives a whole new flavor to the game, without requiring all the special rules and extra units/territories/player nations of global.