After a year break we played a game according to these rules yesterday.
Japan heavy navy focused getting Honolulu, Sydney, Rio de Janero and even San Francisco! Leading to a land war on the American continent.
Meanwhile Russia and Britain heavy focusing Germany, with conquering the whole of northern and eastern Europe (Oslo, Kiev).
But then, Germany seized an opportunity of taking London after Britain player overcomitted and did some bad rolls.
Axis win the game.

It was very confusing, and we did a lot of bad mistakes. But it was fun, and we really had a game with battles at totally new battlefields.

• After Russia and Britain both starting very defensive, Germany and Japan player decided to play an altrenative strategy, attacking US. It worked at least partially.
• Germany forced to play defensive on land, losing total whole of east and north Europe (but defensive Russia took quite a while).
• Japan using heavy Navy and invading Australia, South America and finally even US west coast.
• Land war on the American continent between Japan West coast and US East coast (and Canada a bit).
• Few action in China at all…all players were turteling after the initial clashes. Money was needed elsewhere and infantry could hardly attack alone.
• Tank war in Africa between German Egypt and British South Africa. Both players had minor factories in africa, pumping tanks.
• Great navy clash in the northern Atlantic between US+Royal Navy and the German navy.
• To some bad rolls, British and US player losing atlantic fleet. Germany lost as well nearly whole fleet, but was able to invade exposed London and win the game.
• Maybe one turn later, the Russian steamroller would have taken Berlin.

The changes in Navy Balance (increase offensive power by chaper Battleship and Cruiser) as well as the alternative start setup allows for totally new strategies like “Kill US”. We are still not sure if this setup is balanced, we did only 3 games with this so far. I’d be happy about any feedback.

Minor Indistrical Complex can build 2 units. Price of each unit can be up to 10. So 2 Fighters Jets are possible, or 2 Cruisers.
The 5 unit limit is hard for Major Complex, especially for UK. They must either invest much in Airforce or navy, or get a lot of Minors somewhere.

I can not tell about any systematics in this setup. We played it only once, and it was fun. Germany invaded London, Russia and Australia killed Japan, finally US took back Africa and won the game.

The general intention was to get rid of well known standard stategy. We want to give the players a variety of different options (Russian Offensive in the East, Japan invading Australia, Germany invading UK, heck even Japan invading Western US etc). I am very sure this first try is far far away from perfect, even far away from good. There are sure a lot of tactics better than others. Unfortunately only with your help, we will be able to find them and even them up with the weaker ones.
I hate these standard maneuvers, sinking this navy in G1, stacking up there in R1 etc … We want fresh and new games, with uncertain outcome. And we want navy. Thats why we added all those additional ships to the board. We had quite a long time to balance the UK indian ocean navy. But we suck, our game experience is small, we play all those other games as well.

Nevertheless, we would be happy if some of you pros would try this set of house rules, and tell us the opinion, and things to make better.

Lately we played a few games of 1942 second edition after a long while.
We were not so happy with the very scripted decisions players are bound to, to do the perfect opening. Games always are played very similar. Not enough variety.

We did some thinking, discussed a lot, and finally wrote down this set of rules that we hope improves our gaming experience. We played it once since then, and it was quite fun. Now, as we are far from being pros, we thought it would help to improve balancing, if we ask others about their opinion. Maybe they even like our ideas. And if not, they could at least tell us their opinion about the balance, and how we could improve it.

Three groups of changes: Victory City, Setup, Units

We are curious for your opinion. We enjoyed it a lot and will definitevely keep playing and improving it.
1942.2_House_Rules_rev1.0.pdf

Nope

Hi,

at the moment i am experimenting with a new ruleset for industrial complexes, and i am curious of what you think about it. The version i use is 1942, 2ed. The reduced production capacity forces players to build more of them (the reduced cost of the complexes compensates this a bit). Small isolated territories (like Tokyo or London) are now easier to conquer as they cannot throw out hordes of cheap Infantry. With the cheap Minor Complex, it might be worth building one in territories that normally dont get one (like in Africa or China or Australia). I hope for some completely new strategies (Sea Lion is now possible) and new hotspots of war. It should also lead to some more costly navy units and greater sea battles.

Minor Industrial Complex - 8 IPC
Can be placed in any territory with at least 1 IPC. Produces up to 2 units. No Bombers, Carriers or Battleships.

Major Industrial Complex - +12 IPC
Must be upgraded from a minor complex already under your control. Only in territories with at least 3 IPC. Produces up to 5 units.

Other changes:
Cruiser 10 IPC
Battleship 18 IPC

Starting Setup:
Major Industrial Complex: US East, US West, Germany, Great Britain, Moscow, Japan
Minor Industrial Complex: Italy, Caucasus, India

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

Even the 2-2-8 Destroyer outmatches the 20 IPC Battleship. No great change here. Changing the Destroyer from 2-2-8 to 3-3-10 is in fact a small nerf for it (use calculator to prove that).

However, I would of course appreciate 18 IPC for a Battleship, as this is is better balanced with the other navy prices.

Destroyer 3-3-10
Cruiser - kicked due to lack of specific role (more room in the box for regular units)
Battleship 4-4-18
Industrial Complex 12 IPC
No changes to any of the rules or to other units.

This would be my proposal for an imaginary 1942 .3rd Edition.
(and of course some minor changes to the map and the initial setup)

Above the other changes you made (which im not so cofident with) I’m interested in your decision to INcrease the cost of a transport.
I think this hurts the Allies a bit more than the Axis power.

A positive effect would surely be, that attacking islands (with only one territory) is easier (decreased cost of air and bombard), but it reduces player’s ability to do large seaborn invasions wich is a significant disadvantage for mainly the USA in Europe. Japan is not that much affected, as they can compensate the increased costs for Transports by industrial complexes.
I dont like the fact that it even decreases th ability to try a Sealion operation.

I think these changes have, all in all, the result that the amount of different strategies availible to players is decreased. It will result in a game that is more focused on Germany vs Russia and UK+USA vs Japan.

I can understand this “dogfight” thing, but I dont agree with you that such a rule would make fighters less useful. As it is both, an advantage and a disadvantage of fighters, I think a price of 10 is still appropriate. Air is so versatile, and reducing its costs would lead to people making even more of them.

The introduction of a dogfight rule should not change any costs at all (except for the cruiser and battleship, both costs should be reduced by 2 anyway)

Imho 2 air is enough. I’d rather kick the cruiser (not having a unique role) and make the destroyer a3 d3 cost10 (with anti sub vessel). Back to the roots as in Revised.