[1942 2nd ed.] Suggestion for a setup change

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

@cloud7707 I dig this. I like how you added it on the real rulebook, that makes it so legit. I definitely want to try it out, but gosh darn it Russia deserves that bomber!

In your games, do the Allies still generally do KGF?

@tranaas

What you can do is eliminate the units, then noncom into newly captured territory.

This isn’t a blitz.

By holding mechs and tanks back during combat movement, you could potentially noncom them into zones (newly captured or not) they could not have reached during combat. you often need all your firepower so this isnt all that common but it is helpful

My setup for Dutch East Indies for my game if your interested in is
Sumatra 2 inf
Borneo 2 inf
Celebes 2 inf
Dutch New Guinea 1 inf
Java 1 inf 1 tank
Cruiser, Destroyer and a sub in Java sea zone with a naval base.

Argo is correct in a way. J
there were a lot of tanks on Java, but most ships were in Java sea zone. When it was attacked Dutch only had 5 ships but allies had some there to.
Not a fan of an IC on Dutch East Indies. Japan just take and use plus collect 11 icps if game has can capture IC and use next turn.

1942.2 is a very neat and faster pace game than other versions of AA, nevertheless the china rules of AA50 and paratrooper tech are both aspects bring in more historical realism, fun and tactical depth to the game in overall. I have tried to incorporat both rules as houserules into 42.2 and would like to have your comments on it if these break the balance . My group are not very sophisticated AA fans therefore a 6:4 balance would not significant impact to our overall result i believe.but of course i want to make the variant as balance as i can

China variants
As i know the original setup is more favour Axis side. And SU in general has a less resources other than her two alliances. So my rules set as below
a.) China power is controlled by SU player
b.) Except the initial IPC, China’s controlled territory IPC are reduced from US productivity.
c.) China can occupy and control only the 8 territories including Formosa/kwangTung/Manchuria .
d.) China only can produce infantry according to AA50 rules except 1 infantry/1 allies controlled territory in China.

The reason for this is enhancing China defence against Jpy in early rounds as it can deploy before Jpy invades. Also the cheaper cost of infantry (1 IPC= 1 inf) is offset by less IPC for US player. Thirdly SU player will has more fun when compared to us and uk.

Paratroopers variant

Generally , players tends to push all their ground force all to the most front line and leave its central territory very empty without any threat. Introduce of para hope can solve this unrealism. I modify the AA 50 rule of para and allow in the beginning of the game.

In combat move , 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry to the target hostile territory Moving and landing rule are as same as normal except the bomber can fly through hostile territories as long as it has legitimate landing route. When the bomber fly through and at the target territory with Aaa gun (during combat move only), do the aaa gun chking as usual combat.

We play tested once with both rules , we found the China rule brought a little upclimb difficulty for JPN player, but in long run , as US has fewer resources and get more balance and has a bit less impact to Axis

With paratrooper variants. We tends to build up more aaa gun and deploy inland or islands , also we will leave some def forces at some strategic territories which the overall deployment tactics looks more reasonable on the map.

Since we did not heavily play test enough,feel free to comment if you sight any potential problem to these variants

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! :)

Just found this thread, thanks to Innohub.
Lots of good ideas. Thank you  all.

We use this rule. If fighters are in a territory with a air base, they may scramble to an anjacent sea zone. TAC or Bombers may not scramble.
Good rule.