Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

@Holy:

If there is any hope for the Allies to have a chance, the US has to be more involved (as we all know).  Along with the map problems, the game doesn’t give the US a real opportunity to threaten Germany or Japan, especially in the early to midgame.  End game is too late.

Here are my suggestions:

Going off the A0 idea, why not just change the turn order and have US go first (combat and all)?  Then keep the countries the same, thus Japan goes last.  US can clear out the two enemy subs, maybe go into Africa, and set up in the Pacific.

Give the US a plus 10 for holding West, Central, and Eastern US.  It doesn’t make sense that the US is on par or behind in the industrial IPCs.  Common, its the US.  It has to spend so much on naval to transport troops and aid its allies.

Ships can move 3 to cut down on game time and create real threats to enemy borders without 2 turns to defend.

I can say that M3 doesn’t seem to change anything for India IC.
Seems so hard to resist Japan Juggernaught if both IJN TP are kept alive.
M3 UK Cruiser allow more invading possibility but doesn’t seems a good idea.
It needs more strategy to keep Allies head above water.
And 3M was not a factor in IJN TP action.
IMO, it needs more than that. Or maybe this make a difference in KGF…

@Argothair:

I think your China rule does more good than harm, especially when combined with an A0 turn and/or starting factory in sinking.

It could be fun to try a game with:

1. A0 noncombat
2. Impassable Gobi Desert, and
3. One free extra starting factory in a 1-IPC territory for each player.

I think those rules would all synergize well with each other!

One of the things I find interesting about this potential change (closing the western border of China) is that it makes the Soviet Far East more defensible for Russia. If Japan pushes along this route they have to come heavy or risk being stalled up at the Yakut/Evenki choke point. The Russian supply line to Evenki has a one move/turn advantage over Japan’s out of sz 62/Manchuria. So even though Russia clearly has less purchasing power and hitpoints to send east, at least their final defensive line is closer to reinforce. Meanwhile if Japan goes north with the plan to march “all the way” then this takes pressure off India. China, if it had a little bit more to work with at the start, would then be a serious potential distraction. Also because the Indian units no longer have to worry as much about the Russian center (at least not compared to OOB with the Kazakh choke point) I think this makes them somewhat more likely to engage Japan on the offensive.

If Japan goes south to India, then it might be possible (depending on the presence of the USN) to reinforce the Russian position in the north. So you have a kind of counter weight, to the South Pacific. Again China would function as a stall, since every round Japan commits to China puts them likely one more turn off India. I think if the US had a reason to stay, more units for a mini stack (like they can achieve A0) or an IC, then they’d be more likely to keep the Flying Tiger around.

None of this really requires new mechanics or anything special.
It uses the regular rules, and standard set up cards.

The change is just to turn order, and enforcing a movement restriction at 2 tiles (one that applies to all units/players equally), the same way you can with sz16 if the bosphorus is closed. I think the 1 ipc factory idea would be fun. But perhaps it’s not even necessary if America had a viable purchase on A0, or just enough surviving starting units to have an impact. Either way I think China would feel more like the situation in WW2.

The change reflects what CWOMarc has mentioned in the past that the map doesn’t really present the vast Chinese interior with appropriate geographical scale. This rule (closing the Chinese border with Russia) is a way to abstract that, at least for gameplay. The terrain here is imagined as unforgiving, without the roads and railways and airfields or what have you, necessary for moving a huge army across it. Consider this movement restriction to reflect the Taklamakan desert, the Tibetan Plateau, or whatever other geographical justification is required. Szechuan is no where near Kazakh in the real world, and Sinkiang is pretty damn far from Evenki too, so this rule just puts that geography to scale. Basically “too damned far” for practical movement, and treated like Himalaya, or Mongolia (which in 1942 is imagined to include the Gobi). Here the rule is the basically like saying that for logistical purposes, this part of China didn’t look much different in 1942 than it did in the days of Genghis Khan, and harsh enough to be treated like other geographical impassable territories. Mostly for gameplay purposes, but it has a justification in history and in reality too.

In tripleA terms the rule to close the border between Russian and Chinese starting territories doesn’t even require a gamefile edit. You can option the rule on a game by game basis as desired. Player enforced, just like sz 16, and stated at the outset.

Ps. I think such a rule would make it at least somewhat more difficult for the Japanese to send fighter support to Germany. With the Chinese border closed Japan can’t send fighters from Kwangtung to Ukraine with such ease. Now those same fighters would have to travel across the Northern Route or the Southern Route or be launch from carriers towards Europe. I don’t doubt that crafty players will still find a way to get their fighters around the map, but at least it won’t be such a straight shot across central Asia, as it is OOB. I think this Japanese fighter transit is actually one of the top 10 problems, so anything to reduce its immediate effectiveness probably helps.
:-D

Teamvan, Black Elk, Argo or even No limit.

I know this is an old topic but did you guys ever come up with an allies setup change and not using a bid of 20 icps ?

I did see BE suggestion on a d6 roll list for allies piece placements

@taamvan said in Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2:

@general-6-stars

based on axa online, with the larry harris mod the teams seem pretty even and no bid mechanic is provided so far

Is larrys setup different than oob ? If it is can u steer me to larrys setup charts please.

@taamvan said in Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2:

@general-6-stars

add 2 inf india
move uk cruiser 1 sz west
add uk dd where uk bb and tt are off scotland
move german bomber from germany to ukraine

Thank you very much !

@general-6-stars No, I lost interest in this particular map; I got tired of trying to fight the tiny IPC values on important territories like Norway, Australia, Szechuan, Vladivostok, Urals, Persia, and Hawaii. No matter how well we fix the starting setup, there is still no way to fix the low cash value of the outer half of the map, which means fighting will almost entirely be concentrated in the center, which bores me.

I’m working on a new map (Argo’s Middleweight) and I published some house rules for AA50 (Balanced Mod), but I don’t think I’ll come back to the 1942.2 map – there are so many better board games out there that this map just isn’t worth playing. I’m glad I found 1942.2, because it was my gateway into A&A, but I’m done with that map.

I’m testing my own advanced 42 game. Test results so far here in my thread.
I got to half a turn oob game and said nope. Not playing this that way.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/38017/global-1942-with-general-6-stars-advanced-game/29