Converting 1940 to 1942.2 (air, naval, convoy & kamikaze)



  • As I’ve mentioned in some other threads, I’ve recently bought 1942.2.  We are enjoying it thoroughly and would like to add elements from the 1940 global game.  Specifically I purchased tactical bombers and mech infantry and have air, naval, convoy and kamikaze counters on the way.

    In using the air, naval, convoy and kamikaze counters I’ve had to convert from the 1940 global map to the 1942.2 map.  I’ve done so as closely as possible I think.  I’d like to list the conversions here and if anyone spots any glaring errors or oversights please shout out.

    In regards to air/naval bases:

    Germany:

    Germany - air/naval
    Italy - air/naval 
    France - air naval

    Russia:

    Russia - air/naval
    Karelia - naval

    **Great Britain: **

    U.K. - air/naval
    Iceland - air/naval
    E. Canada - naval
    Gibraltar - naval
    Egypt - naval
    S. Africa - naval
    E. Australia - air/naval
    New Zealand - air/naval
    India - air/naval
    Malaya - naval

    Japan:

    Japan - air/naval
    Caroline Islands - air/naval
    Phillipine Islands - air/naval
    Wake - air

    U.S.

    E. United States - air/naval
    W. United States - air/naval
    Hawaiian Islands - naval
    Midway - air

    As far as convoy routes:

    SZ 3,7,8,10,11,15,17,18,22,24,28,33,34,35,36,37,39,40,45,47,48,49,53,56,60,61,62,65.

    As far as Kamikaze SZ:

    48,51,52,59,60,61,62.



  • Hey Sep,

    I’m not sure about Air/Naval bases for extended movement, simply because in some cases air units will be able to reach 3/4 across the board. Also, as much as I like the naval bases for repairing damaged battleships instead of flipping them after battle, I’m not quite sure how scrambling from air bases will effect the overall balance. I’m very interested to see how you modify the setup to include the tactical bombers and mech infantry.

    Cheers.



  • We were discussing movement from air bases in another thread and the same concern was raised.  We were discussing it in regards to Air Transports.  The suggestion was to simply not have air bases provide the extra movement.  This is something to look at closely.

    I do like the repairing of damage that the naval base provides, and would like to also make the AC a two-hit unit.  But again may have to disregard the extra movement from them as well as the SZ’s different.  I’ve not used the scramble at all, and have only done a quick run through of the rules.  But I could see that it would affect balance because of the different SZ set up.

    In regards to the set up of tactical bombers and mech infantry Baron Munchhausen offered this:

    @Baron:

    I always plays 1942.2 with these units.
    Mechanized Infantry can be buy on first round.
    I don’t place any on the set-up.

    About Tactical on the set-up, I split the 6 planes for Germany and Japan into 3 Fgs and 3 TcBs.
    I change 2 Fgs for 2 TcBs with UK.
    1 Russian Fg for 1 TcB.
    With USA, I usually change 2 Fgs for 2 TcBs.

    However, I know that Oztea has made a few set-up with these units also.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    If introducing new units to the 1942.2 roster, I think you could use the opportunity to promote a better (or at least new and interesting) overall balance by sides in the process. But before diving too much into it, just a preface that I don’t believe the 1942.2 game map would support the G40 production profiles as a purchasable units, so I would stick to the OOB values/rules for the Factory unit. Trying to use the G40 system of Major and Minor industrial complexes would likely require a reworking of the game to be feasible and would allow many production exploits/limitations on a map at this scale. If you do want to change the production profiles, just to realize that this is a major overhaul, that will likely require a complete reworking of the game, or an alteration to the OOB 1940 rules. I find the later option less desirable, better to keep the same rules as G40 whenever possible, for ease of introduction.

    With respect to bases, I’d share the same concern as others, that the movement advantage and ability to scramble would be too distorting for this map. A nerfed base with altered rules doesn’t seem worth the effort, so if you wish to introduce a repair mechanic for ships (e.g. the two hit carrier) this ability could perhaps be folded into the normal “coastal” factory unit?

    Basically I’d just stick to an expansion for combat units and leave the facilities as is, for simplicity, to see how it alters the game. One easy way would be to simply add these 1 of each new units to the starting set up, rather than trying to switch out OOB units to incorporate new G40 ones.

    For example, just give Russia one of each new unit type, as a way of introducing it:
    Moscow: 1 Mech and 1 Tactical bomber.

    This is equivalent to a 15 ipc bid for Allies, allows for better Russian opening (a less dicey W. Russia battle for example, or a better Ukraine opener etc.) So it at least in the opening round the introduction of the 2 new G40 unit types, would represent an initial boost to Russia (Allies), and then just let everyone else buy them. If that isn’t enough then give each nation 1 Mech and 1 Tactical bomber at one of their second Victory City. This would provide some new interest for all nations, but would still favor Allies overall, since there are 3 nations on the Allied team vs 2 Nations on the Axis team. That would be 1 Tac B and 1 mech at…

    Leningrad: for a bolder Russian opening, and potential strike against sz 5, the mech could make it to Evenki, the TacB to Bury for KJF set ups, otherwise they could give Russia more punch on the Eastern Front.

    Paris: less dangerous than locating them at Rome, but still providing some cool G1 interest. From her the TacB could be used either against sz 7, sz 14 or sz 17 to give the Germans a leg up. The mech can race pretty for towards the east, or perhaps be used in Africa.

    Calcutta: more potent KJF opener or Africa opener, to counter the expanded Axis threat. The TacB would make sz 37 more viable, or at least give extra cover for sz 61, alternatively it could go to the Eastern Front or Egypt. Alternatively the Mech might would a hit on FIC workable.

    Manila: this seems a bit less distorting than Shanghai, since the TacB would have to move out off an island, and the mech would have to be transported, still giving Japan something extra to work with but without being as overpowered on J1.

    Honolulu: I’d vote for putting the extra units at Hawaii, just to encourage the dual front war. The logic being that with a few more units in this theater the likelihood, the American player is more likely to dedicated resources in the Pac.

    Another way would be to give each player nation the two bonus units, 1 Mech and 1 Tac B for free, and allow them to determine the location using normal bid rules, or at a Victory city of their choosing.

    Or you could try some alternative fixed set up change, but I think it’s easier to just make a simple addendum to the normal set up card. That way the starting unit set up change is as easy as possible to implement.

    Despite my reservations, a nerfed base might be fun, if you can find rules you like that work for the map scale. One possible approach, if you want to pursue a full redesign of the game, would be to include them, but not as units for purchase. For example, if you wanted to try the bases, and G40 factories, then just lay it all out from the outset as permanent features of the map. This would prevent purchasing exploits, as you could just design all the facilities to work for your intended balance. So for example you might give Japan a minor factory in Manchuria to aid the overall balance, but Japan wouldn’t be able to just buy a ton of new minor factories all over the place, or drop a Major factory in Manchuria and push 10 units a round from there etc. Bases might work the same way, with set locations only, not as purchasable, that way you could build out the design around the units you want to introduce. Once you had a factory scheme worked out, you could use the actual TacB and Mech units, to re-balance the opener.



  • @Black_Elk:

    Despite my reservations, a nerfed base might be fun, if you can find rules you like that work for the map scale. One possible approach, if you want to pursue a full redesign of the game, would be to include them, but not as units for purchase.

    This sounds like it may be a viable option to begin with.  We’ve been discussing the addition of adding an air transport in another thread.  One proposal offered involved them being used around the air bases.  From KNP7765:

    Attack 0, Defense 0, Move 6, Cost 8
    Subject to AA fire
    Can move 1 paratrooper in combat move to enemy territory and land in any friendly territory. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 2 infantry in non-combat move to any friendly territory with an air base. MUST load at an air base.
    Can move 1 infantry in non-combat move from any friendly territory to any other friendly territory. Does NOT need an air base.
    If transport planes are in a territory that is attacked and all friendly combat units are destroyed and there are enemy combat units(s) remaining, transport planes are automatically destroyed. (same as sea transports)

    This would give a purpose for an air base if the extra move component was removed.

    As far as naval, the ability to repair BB and CV is fairly substantial in-and-of-itself.  I’ve read the scramble rules.  It can be tried to see how it does on the 1942.2 board.  It can always be nixed if needed.  The extra movement can be nixed as well from the get-go perhaps to maintain balance.

    In this way the bases do have a purpose.  Perhaps not enough of a purpose to go out and buy one, but if as you suggest you go with the starting bases and allow no future purchases then they are fine.  In other words they are useful enough to have because you start with some, but not useful enough to purchase more.  So in the 1942.2 Global game you learn to use what you start with.

    If we want to discuss including the extra movement point…

    On the 1940 Global map a strategic bomber leaving London (M7) can get all the way to Evenkiyskiy.  On the 1942.2 map, the same M7 SB, using the same route can get to the far side of Russia.  That is substantial and concerns, imo, are justified.

    As far as naval bases, U.S. can get from Hawaii to Iwo Jima using M3 on the 1940 global map.  1942.2 puts you off the coast of Tokyo.  So as with the air base, the extra move on the 1942.2 board probably just isn’t the best idea.

    So I’m leaning on the as-is air bases that work with air transport and the naval bases that repair ships.  Scramble is still up for discussion.

    As far as the TB and MI, perhaps just as easy to allow each player to replace 1 ftr with a TB and one inf with a mech at the start and then they can purchase them as per normal rules.  That way no one has anything ‘extra’ from the OOB and the capabilities of just two units at the start are slightly enhanced.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Some neat ideas in here, and it could be a lot of fun to play with tac bombers and mech. inf. on the 1942.2 map.

    My personal design philosophy is that when you scale back the map, you also have to scale back the complexity of the rules and features. That doesn’t mean you can’t have convoys, airbases, etc., but it might mean that you have to find a way to make them smaller or less intrusive.

    For example, having dozens of convoy zones makes sense in G40, because even the smaller factions start out with dozens of IPCs per turn – even if you lose, e.g., 4 IPCs to submarine raids, that’s still only about 10% of your economy. In 1942.2, though, the same submarines could wind up doing a lot more damage – submarines in the western and central Mediterranean alone could wipe out 14 German IPCs, i.e., roughly 30% of the German economy. To fix that, I’d recommend having about two designated ‘convoy zones’ for each nation – if there’s one or more enemy submarines in the convoy zone during your collect income phase, then nothing happens, and if there are no enemy submarines in the convoy zone, you collect, e.g., 2 IPCs per convoy zone. That keeps the rules simpler and prevents the submarine warfare from taking up too much of people’s time and attention.

    Similarly, for the airbases and naval bases, maybe you can combine the two! An airsea base could cost, e.g., 10 IPC and allow you to repair capital ships, scramble fighters, and load/unload ordinary infantry from air transport planes. The map would start with airsea bases on Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Stalingrad, Cairo, Calcutta, Sydney, Tokyo, Honolulu, and San Francisco. You could build more if you like – it wouldn’t happen in every game, but it might be a good idea as part of a specific strategy.


  • 2017 '16

    @SEP:

    So I’m leaning on the as-is air bases that work with air transport and the naval bases that repair ships.  Scramble is still up for discussion.

    One HR I used from Knp or Oztea, I don’t remember, is to allow 1 Fg scramble per Victory City.
    (So, Germany could protect any ship in Baltic Sea with 2 Fgs if they can place 1 in Germany and 1 in Karelia.)

    I played this with some variations and I can say that allowing 2 Fgs to scramble from UK changes the game dynamics too much IMO.

    So, an Air Base put in the set-up at no cost which allows 1 Fighter to scramble isn’t unbalancing.
    More than 1 can create some balance issues.

    However, one of my next step (to play-test) is to allow 1 Fg scramble from Victory City and also to buy an Air Base at 10 IPCs (cost adjustment due to 1942.2 lower economy) which provides also 1 Fighter scramble.

    So, if UK player buy an Air Base, he can defend the UK’s surrounding SZs with 2 Fighters, instead of only 1 from VC.


    On balance issue:
    Don’t forget that anything which allows to scramble 2 Fighters creates a similar effect as bringing 1 Full Carrier in a SZ, without any vulnerability to submarine. You get the best high defensive unit without the additional cost to bring a Carrier with enough escorting unit.
    And, even if you destroyed both in a turn, you can built 2 new Fighters every turn as SZ air cover, without additional cost.

    In 1942.2, the balance between UK and Germany about protecting any invading fleet (from any side) is pretty close in the first few rounds.

    Hope this can help.



  • @Baron:

    @SEP:

    So I’m leaning on the as-is air bases that work with air transport and the naval bases that repair ships.  Scramble is still up for discussion.

    One HR I used from Knp or Oztea, I don’t remember, is to allow 1 Fg scramble per Victory City.
    (So, Germany could protect any ship in Baltic Sea with 2 Fgs if they can place 1 in Germany and 1 in Karelia.)

    I played this with some variations and I can say that allowing 2 Fgs to scramble from UK changes the game dynamics too much IMO.

    So, an Air Base put in the set-up at no cost which allows 1 Fighter to scramble isn’t unbalancing.
    More than 1 can create some balance issues.

    However, one of my next step (to play-test) is to allow 1 Fg scramble from Victory City and also to buy an Air Base at 10 IPCs (cost adjustment due to 1942.2 lower economy) which provides also 1 Fighter scramble.

    So, if UK player buy an Air Base, he can defend the UK’s surrounding SZs with 2 Fighters, instead of only 1 from VC.


    On balance issue:
    Don’t forget that anything which allows to scramble 2 Fighters creates a similar effect as bringing 1 Full Carrier in a SZ, without any vulnerability to submarine. You get the best high defensive unit without the additional cost to bring a Carrier with enough escorting unit.
    And, even if you destroyed both in a turn, you can built 2 new Fighters every turn as SZ air cover, without additional cost.

    In 1942.2, the balance between UK and Germany about protecting any invading fleet (from any side) is pretty close in the first few rounds.

    Hope this can help.

    I like that quite a bit.  Sounds like a 1942.2 Global is coming along nicely.  Figure my HGB units should be arriving today or tomorrow so I’m kinda itching to put everything that’s been discussed to the litmus test.  We’ll probably start with the air/naval bases ‘as-is’ to get our feet wet, but if you do your 10IPC purchase option I’d like to hear how it went.
    🙂


  • 2017 '16

    Maybe you would like to read through this thread about Airfields and Airbase, and Naval Base, as a way to increase action in the Pacific.
    There is much more ideas in other posts, but this can give you a few hints about how to exploit a specific Air Base for Pacific Islands with scramble option and movement bonus option:

    @Baron:

    Welcome back TDS,
    Your combined defense of AB & NB @3 sounds more like a Coastal Guns feature.
    It’s seems strange to apply it in the PTO on islands group from an historical perspective (sounds more like a coastal defense as a German’s Atlantic Wall).

    However, reading your post makes me think about another way of making these islands an interesting tactical assets:
    If a valueless Pacific Islands group has at least 1 Inf on it, up to two Fighter units (no TacB) can scramble on defense to protect the SZ.
    No AB needed, the island is treated as an unmovable 2 planes Aircraft Carrier.

    This way, an unoccupied island with Fg on it is not sufficiently crowded to maintain a qualified Island Airfield.
    What do you think?
    2 Fighters is too much?

    Maybe 1 Infantry allows 1 Fighter to scramble.
    But 2 Infantry units allow 2 Fighters to be able to scramble.

    But 1 single Fighter able to protect the warships in the nearby SZ, can this be enough incentive to put Infantry on an Island and fight for it?

    The difference between Air Base and this Island Airfield is:

    • No additional +1 move allowance, as part of an Air Base bonus.

    • Tactical Bombers can scramble from Air Base not only Fighters.

    • Up to three units (Fgs or TcBs) can scramble to protect the SZ nearby.

    • No need to put any Infantry unit on the Air Base to make it operational.

    • An Air Base can be bombed and damaged while an Airfield cannot.

    As I said valueless islands group, can this be extended to all Pacific Islands group?

    @CWO:

    Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group).  This would:

    • Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.

    • Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).

    • Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.

    • Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.

    • Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.



  • That’s an interesting idea.  Indeed, the actual history justifies fighting for specific islands and this would help to reinforce that as well as promote action in the Pacific.  Something to ponder….


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 19
  • 2
  • 7
  • 10
  • 1
  • 19
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

72
Online

14.5k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts