1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread

  • '17 '16

    Hi everyone,

    with the help of a few members (Barnee, SS General, Imperious Leader) and ideas of many (Black_Elk, Young Grasshopper, Argothair, CWO Marc, Der Kuenstler,…) , I’m working out a personal project inspired by years of discussion. It crystallized in the last two months. I used TripleA plateform and V5 map programmed by Barnee with a customized game and roster developed mainly around the Redesigned thread in house rules.
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions

    SS General is generously working, tweaking and printing a map based on an map file of 1942 2nd Edition created by Imperious Leader which gives us a kind permission to use and modify it according to our need for gameplay, which I want to thank for his artwork.
    Here is his main thread:
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34574/redone-1942-2nd-edition-map-file

    This thread will be mainly to help us (SS, Barnee and me) discussed conveniently of issues regarding this double sided project (Triple A and tabletop game). My main interest is to make an improved version of 1942.2 game to play with my friends, while using TripleA (a Redesigned version on the OOB V5 version will be available soon for experimenting the Larry Harris 2nd Ed TR and the Redesigned roster) as an interesting tool to experiment ideas. SS is actually making the first board game playtests on the beta version of the map. I use the Triple A version as a testing ground. Special thanks to Barnee and SS General for your support, time and passion for Axis and Allies, and your help in developing this project.

    If you want to comment, analysis or make suggestion about issues of the moment, feel free to write a post. The more POV I can have, the more it will help me makes my mind about the best way to solve issues. Just assumed I remain the final judge, since it is my own personal project.

    Hope you will find some interests in it and enjoy what you read.

    This is the actual roster being tested.
    LAND units:
    Infantry A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3, Gets +1A when paired 1:1 with Artillery
    Artillery A2 D2 M1 Cost 4
    Anti-Air Artillery A- D3 M1 (ncm) Cost 5, up to 3 rolls @1, 1 roll max per aircraft.
    Tank A3 D3 M2 Cost 6, Blitz, gives +1A to Tactical Bomber paired 1:1
    Industrial Complex Cost 15, produced up to territory value, max damage doubled TT value.

    AIR units:
    Strategic bomber A- D- M6 Cost 5, no hit value. DF: A- D-, 1 hit value, damage: D6+2
    Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 M4 Cost 10, Dogfight: A1 D-, damage: D6,
    Depth charge: A1 D1, gets +1A paired 1:1 with either Tank or Fighter

    Fighter A3 D4 M4 Cost 10, Dogfight: A1 D2, gives +1A to Tac Bomber paired 1:1

    NAVAL units:
    Destroyer A1 D1 M2 Cost 5, Depth charge: A1 D1, block sub’s Surprise strike 1:1
    Submarine A2 D1 M2 Cost 6, Cannot hit aircraft nor submarine, Surprise strike,
    Submerge cannot be blocked but Sub submit to 1 Depth charge phase roll.

    Transport A- D1 M2 Cost 8, Can load 1 Inf and any 1 other, or 2 AAA (ncm, only).
    Escort Carrier A1 D2 M2 Cost 9, Carry 1 Fg or TcB, block Sub’s Surprise 1:1
    Cruiser A3x2 D3x2 M2 Cost 12, Shore bombard @3
    Fleet Carrier A1 D3 M2 Cost 14, Carry 2 Fg/TcB, 2 hits: repair start of turn, damaged: no flight operation
    Battleship A4x2 D4x2 M2 Cost 20, Shore bombard @4, 2 hits: repair start of turn.
    If damaged at the beginning of a combat round or by the end of Sub’s Surprise strike phase, it can only roll 1 die @4.

    Here is the initial set up (based on Larry Harris 2nd Ed. TR) we work on at the moment. SS’ picture.
    1942 2nd Ed_Advanced map and setup for Redesigned_Barons project.jpeg

    For now, as a work in progress, the IPC total is:
    USSR : 25 IPC
    UK: 40 IPC
    USA: 50 IPC
    Allies sum: 115 IPCs

    Germany: 45 IPC
    Japan: 35 IPC
    Axis sum: 80 IPCs

    Map total: 195 IPCs.

    Modified territories are:
    Central United States: 4 IPC (instead of 6).
    Eastern Mexico: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Central America: 3 IPC (instead of 1)
    Greenland : 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Iceland: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Gibraltar: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Anglo-Egyptian Sudan: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Belorussia: 3 IPC (instead of 2)
    West Russia: 3 IPC (instead of 2)
    Ukraine SSR: 4 IPC (instead of 2)
    Caucasus: 5 IPC (instead of 4)
    Japan: 4 IPC (instead of 8 )
    Formosa: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Okinawa: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Iwo Jima: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Wake: 1 IPC (instead of 0)
    Philippines: 2 IPC (instead of 3)
    Carolines: 3 IPC (instead of 0)
    New Guinea: 2 IPC (instead of 1)
    Solomons: 2 IPC (instead of 0)
    Alaska: 4 IPC (instead of 2)
    Midway: 2 IPC (instead of 0)
    Hawaii: 4 IPC (instead of 1)
    Western Australia: 2 IPC (instead of 1)
    Eastern Australia: 3 IPC (instead of 1)
    New Zealand: 4 IPC (instead of 1)

  • '17 '16

  • '17 '16

    I keep this empty post for addendum.

  • '17 '16

    Here is the end of Round 1. SS’ picture.
    IMG_30901.jpg

    It will help compare the evolution with next picture of Round 2.

    One thing which makes me think you were conducting a KGF is the fact that India’s fleet was send into Med to protect Cairo. This opened up more room to maneuver for Japan and mainly INJ.

    You played an interesting defensive strategy with Japan with 2 consistent fleet. And being stationed into Carolinas allows IJN to be reinforce right away by the end of round 2. I see the interest of an IC in Carolina to compete with UK’s capacity to join USA fleet into Solomons. It is the first time I see how this IC in the middle of Pacific islands, at least, help being in par against two Allied powers.

    Another point is that invading Solomons and New Guinea allow to keep USA at same level of ressources. We can see this in round 2, as USA lost all Chinese territories but gain 4 IPCs in south Pacific. So it is break even, and so Japan do not gain any more ressources by invading main land.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Here’s a pic after 2 turns.
    FF5FBF9B-2CD9-4A06-99B3-315DA8D1FD56.jpeg

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Quick comment then be back in a while. The new AAA gun is nice for the double duty.
    Also moved that Ger CR and BB out Atlantic. Forced US to send in 2 DD 1 Tac and 1 fig. US got 3 hits to sink but the CR and BB rolled 4 hits. Wiped out US stuff.

    Wish there were more cruisers but tuff with cost 12. DD are pretty weak in game. Think your better off with subs for 1 icp more to give u that FS or a A@2.
    A lot of SBRing based on really no figs to intercept but like it. With 3 allies bombers that can hit Ger forces them to keep back a fighter but so far only one dogfight in Calcutta and US tiger fig got killed. Japs brought 2 escorts. They can just camp on FIC and pound Calcutta.
    Well just observations.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    Very instructive to see how it evolves when new to the game and setup.
    About Subs vs Destroyer. Subs have a stronger offense but cannot block any unit. Only DD or other warships can block. And, of course, you cannot attack other Subs with your Subs. So, Destroyer remains the better cost efficient for defense while, for attack at warships, you can count on Subs.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    About SBR, for sure, there is no prevarication about doing or not doing SBR. The question is: where do I send my Strategic bombers squadrons?

    If you don’t sent them, it is a lost occasion. You will find that Germany has plenty of IC and can be targeted with less risk because Fighters cannot be everywhere. In addition, if UK’s TcB is without tactical objective, you can send it into NWEurope to bomb the IC.

    Another point about US StB into Eastern Australia. StB on defense are treated like defenseless transport and taken last. So, it will not help against any invasion. So, as soon as possible, you may transfer StB in Solomons. Round 4, you may be able to SBR Carolines.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
    I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unessasary for them.
    Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
    I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unnecessary for them.
    Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.

    I like your observation about Cruiser or Battleship to escort Carrier group. It is clearly what was intended about Redesigned rules, to improve the need to purchase these two warship types. A Task force needs naval firepower to protect Carriers and it is not with Destroyer or Subs which bring it.

    2 or 3 Destroyers (10-15 IPCs) do not bring same kind of firepower. So, each warship has a better fitting niche.

    Talking about China, I saw that all US troops were pretty much erased by Round2. I wonder if instead of adding 1 Infantry into Szechwan, an Artillery could improve the possible reaction against IJA advance. (Set up for Szechwan would then be: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fg.) To improve the aggressive stance, instead of the defensive posture which Infantry incarnates.

    In this game, there is no Burma road. So, since Japan get an IC in mainland Asia right away. Maybe making it tougher for round 1 and 2 can make it better than a free ride toward Moscow?

    I agree that, without Mechanized Infantry, it is difficult for Germany to bring Infantry on the Russian front, and more often it is German’s tanks which received the blunt of USSR Infantry counter-attack. And, if possible, two TPs in Baltic helps a litttle toward a faster movement of Infantry eastward.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    Here’s a pic after 2 turns.
    FF5FBF9B-2CD9-4A06-99B3-315DA8D1FD56.jpeg

    I also noted that you built an IC into Ukraine SSR. Good idea. I never thought about purchasing IC as a valid investment for Germany. Since Ukraine is now 4 IPCs, it worths something to built and purchase unit for this TT.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The setup is not LH gen con and what are the adjusted IPC totals per nation ( UKR, West Russia, et al 3 IPC areas)?

  • '17 '16

    @Imperious-Leader said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    The setup is not LH gen con and what are the adjusted IPC totals per nation ( UKR, West Russia, et al 3 IPC areas)?

    It cannot be exactly the same but it was the initial basis. Of course, after, it evolved in its own direction.

    For now, as a work in progress, the IPC total is:
    USSR : 25 IPC
    UK: 40 IPC
    USA: 50 IPC
    Allies: 115
    Germany: 45 IPC
    Japan: 35 IPC
    Axis: 80

    Map total: 195 IPCs.

    Besides many zero IPC TTs which received value, West Russia and Belorussia are 3 IPC, Ukraine SSR is 4 IPC and Caucasus is 5 IPC.
    Carolines are 3 IPC. Japan only 4.
    West Australia is 2, East 3 and New Zealand 4.
    Alaska is 4, Wake 2, Hawaii 4, Mexico 3, East Mexico 1, Central America 3. Central USA is 4.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    IC question. IC in Caucasus worth 5. Has 8 dam. 10 max. How much do I need to pay damage off before I can build units?
    Pay 4 to build 1 ? Pay 5 to build 2 ? Pay 6 to build 3. Etc.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    With 5 IPCs value, it means that when maxed out at 10, you need to repair 6 IPCs to at least being able to built 1 unit.
    So each damage point made by a bomber means 1 unit which cannot be built. When you reach the nominal value of the territory, there is no built possible without repair. What is above this level, is additional damage up to double the nominal value.

    So 8 damage means repair 4 to be able to built 1 unit.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    @baron-Münchhausen said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    @SS-GEN
    With 5 IPCs value, it means that when maxed out at 10, you need to repair 6 IPCs to at least being able to built 1 unit.
    So each damage point made by a bomber means 1 unit which cannot be built. When you reach the nominal value of the territory, there is no built possible without repair. What is above this level, is additional damage up to double the nominal value.

    Cool. Ya something in my game.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    @baron-Münchhausen said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    @SS-GEN said in 1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread:

    Right. Ya I get the DD sub thing. Still need fs blockers but u better make sure u have a BB or Cr with Ac or fleets. Need that punch.
    I did buy a couple cruisers as Ger to protect Transports but maybe unnecessary for them.
    Ger seems to not get inf fodder to eastern front fast enough but japs coming back door for Russia.

    I like your observation about Cruiser or Battleship to escort Carrier group. It is clearly what was intended about Redesigned rules, to improve the need to purchase these two warship types. A Task force needs naval firepower to protect Carriers and it is not with Destroyer or Subs which bring it.

    2 or 3 Destroyers (10-15 IPCs) do not bring same kind of firepower. So, each warship has a better fitting niche.

    Talking about China, I saw that all US troops were pretty much erased by Round2. I wonder if instead of adding 1 Infantry into Szechwan, an Artillery could improve the possible reaction against IJA advance. (Set up for Szechwan would then be: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fg.) To improve the aggressive stance, instead of the defensive posture which Infantry incarnates.

    In this game, there is no Burma road. So, since Japan get an IC in mainland Asia right away. Maybe making it tougher for round 1 and 2 can make it better than a free ride toward Moscow?

    I agree that, without Mechanized Infantry, it is difficult for Germany to bring Infantry on the Russian front, and more often it is German’s tanks which received the blunt of USSR Infantry counter-attack. And, if possible, two TPs in Baltic helps a litttle toward a faster movement of Infantry eastward.

    Adding an art in China may help if the fig stays. But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense. Then it went to Calcutta for defense and interceptor service and of course it died with no kill. I wouldn’t say it’s frustrating but it’s hard to balance the UK income. Maybe Calcutta needs a fig on setup ? This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory. Tests continue…

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    Cool to see that your playtest continue today.

    A Fighter help against SBR for sure. At first, I was opened to the idea of removing one Inf for 1 Fg in India, but then I realized how such would impact the initial KJF move which brings all Indian and ANZAC fleet against IJN Carrier group in East Indies.

    Thinking deeper, I also realized that the additional Indian’s Fg purchase was built into a factory in Cairo… That is the tough call UK have to make.

    However, more IJN Fg in mainland means less against USNavy…

    About : “But with UK spread all across the map with 1 income the China fig needed to go to Cairo for defense.”
    It is another reason which inclined me to add an Artillery unit in China. No need to rely only on Fighter for attack punch.
    I will adjust that one into TripleA and the word file.

    About: “This is just based on japs can bring escorts and chance they kill a fig but looks like best to not intercept with Uk fig based on cost of a fig but still can defend @4 for territory.”

    That is a factor on why Fighter dogfight values are Attack 1 but Defense 2. Attacker need to bring a ratio of 2 escort for 1 interceptor to be in par.
    As in regular combat, defender get a small advantage over attacker.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Then basically Cairo should fall everytime then ?
    So it’s up to the allies to choose one or the other side to prevent a axis win ?

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN

    Not necessarily. IDK if it can be optimal on this map (in which UK already got 3 IC) to built IC in Cairo (instead of Union of South Africa).

    I know that on OOB 1942.2, Cairo’s IC is a valid option for a KGF.

    My own playtests had heavily focused in KJF, so I kept minimal and played very defensively Cairo. Sometimes, I exchanged it. On one case, USA landing and Germany’s landing in Gibraltar (in preparation for Sea Lion), Germany was not able to conquer Cairo.

    It is mainly UK which decides whether going KGF or KJF and it is all about Indian and Cairo’s fleet, and what you do with Cairo and India. Otherwise, if USA going the other way, might be a bit of an unoptimal strategy if UK invest massively into Asia while USA going Atlantic.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    So that tells me it’s one side or other then
    I’ll probably start a new game in a few turns maybe.

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    From my limited experience, I would say USA player is doing 80-20% whether KGF or KJF.

    Splitting economy more 60-40%, makes for a longer game. But I played many like that on OOB map.

    But now, with ANZAC IC and all the changes in PTO I don’t know if it is possible to do KGF and only invest 20-80.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    So then as the axis the two have to decide at start of game what side is going to go for the win then

  • '17 '16

    @SS-GEN
    I would say that both Powers have a few optimal attacks to do then, according to results, will judge how they can coordinate or not. It was more like Sea Lion or not? Hard Barbarossa or more ressources in Africa., for Germany.

    For Japan, it was more always mainland Asia between India or North in USSR, and about reacting to UK and USA.

    IDK if we can simply assumed the same on this map. I hope not.
    So, what works for OOB might be quite different on PTOIA map.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    So what is the way on oob game ?

Suggested Topics

  • 24
  • 1
  • 79
  • 1
  • 7
  • 3520
  • 8
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

16.0k
Users

37.6k
Topics

1.6m
Posts