• '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    This mod makes no changes to the map divisions, or the starting unit placement. Only to the production values on the board. See map overview

    http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/High-production-mod-for-1942-second-edition-td7585507.html;cid=1396406545745-319

    I have tried to gather all my thoughts surrounding production and present them in the simplest way I could think of, with a direct mod to the OOB game. At a glance it feels very similar to the OOB set up, but substantive changes to the value of key territories allow for a more expansive game. With new purchasing options and new strategies.

    On the physical board the modification can be done with those little round stickers you can get at any office supply store. Only the production numbers change, nothing else, so you can use the same set up cards.

    Basically the idea is this… If you give Russia more money (esp. in the East), not only do you balance the Russian game against the most crushing tank drives, but you also give Japan a viable route into North America. The start is 90 to 130, but this levels out to around 110-115 for both sides from the second into the third round, and could go either way after that. Can you see how the production builds? Basically this kind of distribution gives Japan more directions to go, instead of the straight push towards Moscow. At the same time, it gives Germany, UK and USA more options and potential attack routes. The idea is to put the money into the contested territories, so that rather than folding back to the core, all players are encouraged to fight out, and drive, developing production along the way.

    Take a look at the Eastern Front, Karelia in particular, then the Soviet Far East, the Pacific and China, North Africa, the governing principle is - more money, but always and only where it can trade hands. Along the way, all zero ipc territories are given a value.

    I’m curious to know if anyone likes this sort of direction for a mod?

    My thought was to keep the alterations focused on only a single aspect of the game, production, that way it is easier to adopt. So no messing with the map divisions, or the starting units, just modifications to the territory values. I’d like to hear any thoughts you might have on the way I distributed production, if you like it, or if not what you would adjust.

    Many people like to customize the game with a bid or unit adjustments to balance, or special rules. My chief interest is in how production might be used to accomplish similar things, without requiring additional rules, units etc.

  • '17 '16

    Surely a lot of work.
    First thoughts: you gave 30 IPCs to Allies and only 20 to Axis?
    Are you able to cut it down, so to be nearer OOB IPCs or not?

    For example: cutting down some 3 IPCs to 2 IPCs territory?

    Or for Australia making it a 1 IPC-3 IPCs (on the eastern side, to better reflect industrialized region) territory? And be able to built a more potent IC.

    I agree, Pacific islands should be at least 1 IPCs.

    Maybe lowering down a capitol territory?
    Modify initial on board IC to produce a fix number of unit vs newly built IC?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Also, before someone moves this thread to languish in the house rules section, I’d just like to point out that it is also a general discussion about production values in 1942.2 (which clearly I believe are too low.) If you like take the above example as an argument in favor of high production and for the factory at a cost of 12. Lets list some of the reasons…

    1. Russia at 40 can be effective offensively, rather than purely defending

    (you like that long list?) hehe

    But seriously, the Axis are also stronger which provides both sides with more interesting back and forth strategies around Russia (as opposed to the turtle on Moscow strats which predominate across all previous editions.)

    Among other things, Russia can now afford to purchase units which are otherwise out of range. Such as fighters or bombers, tanks, new factories, and artillery wall, or (dare I say) a navy? Why shouldn’t they have these options? To me, in order for Russia to even hope to make use of all the sculpts that come in their set OOB to begin with, an economy at 40 seems totally reasonable. They are fighting off a Germany and Japan that are together bringing 100 ipcs at them (and can co-locate and coordinate in ways which never even occurred in WW2), at the same time both of Russias allies must cross oceans to support them directly. Unless you want to see the same game for the thousandth time, with Axis making a b line to Moscow, as the W. Allies do everything they can to prop up the soviets, then it seems like a good choice to start with the Russia re-balance and go from there. So that’s what I have done.

    You can of course nitpick over this stuff forever, but I have found in testing that, if you put it at the values above the game starts to take on cool shapes. USA and Japan actually battle over the Pacific Islands, as well China, and the Soviet Far East, Australia and even carry the fight into North America. Russia and Japan can battle over the Far East and China as well. UK and Japan can battle over India, and Australia. Germany can battle for control of Africa and Scandinavia, while at the same time putting these areas back in play for the UK. The Eastern Front balances much better with Karelia at 4, since it splits the center, instead of Russia just abandoning Karelia, they have an incentive to fight towards it. W. Russia and Arch are more valuable in the trade for all sides. Germany and Russia have more incentive to trade rather than stack withdraw/stack push.

    And really when you get right down to it, the map doesn’t look all that different at a glance. Its not going to make anyone’s head explode 🙂 its just about 10-15 ipcs per nation added into play, but it makes a major difference to the gameplay! I encourage anyone who’s willing to try it out, and let us know what you think.

  • '17 '16

    I can just say you have so many compelling reasons.
    In addition, you can play-tested it easily with Triple A.

    I was looking into the Pacific, New Zealand is still at 1 IPC.
    I found this rather low, if you want to create some incentive.

    American Islands should be higher to provoke more battle in PAC.
    Give Midway a 2 IPCs value and Hawaii a 3 IPCs.
    If necessary, lower down Central or Eastern USA.
    In Gamer’s Paradise version, all small islands in PAC had a 2 IPCs value, except Alaska was at 4 IPCs and Hawaii at 3 IPCs.
    (You can imagine that it is the strategical value of NB which raise the IPCs value. And it is a way of communication with Australia.)

    USA and Japan will feel how it hurts to loose them.
    In addition, if USA loose some Chinese territories, it can easily get Gadalcanal and keep some incomes.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    This is the feedback I like to hear. On principle, I am not at all opposed to ideas like the following…

    New Zealand at 2
    E. Australia at 3
    Hawaii at 3

    So long as we follow the general rule: all territories should have a minimum value of 1, and new money should be in contested areas wherever possible.

    I think there is something to be said for having nice round numbers. So using the totals at either 40 or 50 for each nation at the start. Round numbers carry with them a kind of intuitive force in the mind of the player, and help to establish the relative strength of each Nation. I would prefer not to alter the capital production if it can be avoided, but where IPCs can be shifted out of the core to more interesting locations I think it can work.

    The value of production between 1-3 is should be considered flexible and less strict, since these territories are less than/equal to the replacement cost only a single infantry unit. Territories which include starting factories and guns should be see as the industrial core.

    I think the numbers are solid, perhaps if you want to tweak it a tiny bit, then we should consider where to take the ipc from, before adding it in somewhere else. USA could take 1 ipc from Central USA to strengthen Hawaii. That would put both territories at 3. and 1 ipc from Mexico to Midway.

    UK could take the IPC from Burma (since Burma is already a necessary transit, perhaps it doesn’t need the 2) which could then be used to increase Eastern Australia or New Zealand. I favor new Zealand. The only other British ipc that is easily shifted would be from E. Canada to another location.

    New Zealand would definitely be more attractive at 2, but it is also somewhat out of position for both sides. Not a part of the map usually contested, though I suppose it could be. New Zealand was critical to the Allied supply and logistics plans in the Pac after all. The Idea of 6 total british ipcs works pretty well. Shall we adjust?

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    This is the feedback I like to hear. On principle, I am not at all opposed to ideas like the following.

    New Zealand at 2
    E. Australia at 3
    Hawaii at 3

    So long as we follow the general rule: all territories should have a minimum value of 1, and new money should be in contested areas rather wherever possible.

    I think there is something to be said for having nice round numbers. So using the totals at either 40 or 50 for each nation at the start. Round numbers carry with them a kind of intuitive force in the mind of the player, and help to establish the relative strength of each Nation. I would prefer not to alter the capital production if it can be avoided, but where IPCs can be shifted out of the core to more interesting locations I think it can work.

    The value of production between 1-3 is should be considered flexible and less strict, since these territories are less than/equal to the replacement cost only a single infantry unit. Territories which include starting factories and guns should be see as the industrial core.

    Thanks.
    I agree on the principle also.
    However, the more IPCs on the board, the longer the game.

    Russians will have a lot more of new opportunities, it will be funnier to play them.

    IDK for round numbers.
    Maybe you should keep the initial ratio of IPCs between each powers while raising up the sums.
    Russia 24 + Germany 41 + UK 31 + Japan 30 + USA 42 = 168 IPCs.

    Russia = 14.3%
    Germany = 24.4%
    UK = 18.5%
    Japan = 17.9%
    USA = 25%
    Sum = 100.1%
    VS:
    Russia 40 = 18.2%
    Germany 50 = 22.7%
    UK 40 = 18.2%
    Japan 40 = 18.2%
    USA 50 = 22.7%
    = 220 IPCs

    There is also a difference between Axis money vs Allies:
    Axis 42.3% vs Allies 57.8%
    VS
    Axis 40.9% vs Allies 59.1%

    Maybe it is a difference which can matters more…
    IDK  :?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    So something like this…

    updated. I suspect the suggestions offered above will agree with the patterns established in testing, and don’t seem like they would break the set up. I will put them up for testing.

    The relative values and % in 1942.2 don’t recommend themselves to me as a basis for the adjustment, given the gameplay which it currently produces. I say you start with the intuitive gameplay needs and build the balance from there.

    v5 high production mod.jpg

  • '17 '16

    You said:

    New Zealand at 2
    E. Australia at 3
    Hawaii at 3

    Did you change your mind?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I am waiting for the compelling argument on Eastern Australia, and where to pull the ipc from if so. Here is the situation that concerns me, at 3, if UK puts the factory there and drops 3 units a round, can Japan muster enough transport power to ever threaten it? So far I have seen it working pretty well at 2.

    So lets argue the merits. If we move the ipc from western to eastern australia. Or else where to pull it from? W. Canada and Transjordan both seem to work well at 2 so I am reluctant to take from those. Burma is admittedly a wash. At 2, it does encourage the brits to trade a little, but not enough to make it an every round trade. I consider Burma a transit, a spot you need to park it in regardless of the value. But New Zealand is an interesting case I will grant. If you want to pull action there, it does seem like 2 would be the minimum, as it has not seen action in games tested thus far, I am inclined to agree with you that it could be good to have at 2.

    The alternative is to break the round numbers, but its always so much cleaner if you can get and even spread.

  • '17 '16

    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?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    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.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '17 '16

    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. :?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    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

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

    production mod.tsvg

  • '17 '16

    I don’t have the 1.8.0.3 version of Triple A
    What/where is the lobby?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '17 '16

    Thanks.
    I will have to find a way download the latest version.
    Still an issue…

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    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.

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 5
  • 16
  • 2
  • 3
  • 12
  • 4
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts