@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

I think an attack on ships should be preceeded by an AA defense equal to half the ship’s defense.

And I like the idea of TAC/NAV being allowed to chose target.

Another thing I thought of was to fix a scale for the units in game so we can have some more interesting OOB.

Any level of AA which is higher than up to @1 on aircraft, is going to create a lot of aircraft attrition. I saw this happened many times in various playtests. So, it implies to compensate for the accelerate losses of aircraft. Keeping 10-11-12 IPCs values is too high and was balanced for a game which was meant to shield aircraft casualties in many many ways.

As I wanted something like 1914 dogfight for Fighter while TcB being able to target enemy’s ground units (at least, but I’ve tried just 2 times with targeting warships too: need more playtests on that point ). I developed my own working house rule but on 1942.2. It works relatively well. But cannot say for G40 kind of scale.

Fighter are A2 D2 M4 Cost 7, always hit aircraft first if any present, as long as there is on the opposite side.
TcB are A3 D2 M4 Cost 8, pick any ground target as casualty upon a successful hit.

I hope you will see how this going in the direction you intend to implement.
The 1914 dogfight mechanic can somehow be working each combat round, as long as you have Fighter remaining on any side.

Just note that Tank A3 D3 C6 have better odds, so it happens very often when trying to take a needed TT, Fighters were sacrificed along the battle so to keep better odds and the opportunity to conquer the TT.

HTH, wish you luck to find the adequate numbers for your game.

@SS-GEN said in Global War 1940 2nd ed.:

Also I’m a bit hesitant on naval fig D4 in a DF

Hi SS, what makes you so reluctant about Fighter defending @4 (4/12 is 33%) in a Dogfight?
Most game with DF features allows such Fighter defending with 33% odds.
I’m thinking also about Balanced Mode, which play fighter interceptor and escort @2.

You wrote:
Land-based Fighter C10 A@6 D@7 M5 DF A@3 D@3
Naval Fighter C10 A@5 D@7 M4 DF A@3 D@4

Also, for same 10 IPCs cost, I feel that it is a correct trade off between better offense and range compared to landing on Carriers and a small bonus in dogfight.

You wrote:
Land-based Tactical Bomber
C10 A@7 D@5 M5 DF@1
Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot

Naval-based Dive Bomber
C10 A@7 D@5 M4 DF@1
Roll a 3 or less can pick target with return shot.

For same 10 IPCs cost, in that case, there is no trade off between better range compared to landing on Carriers.
In addition, with D12, it may be relevant to use the option to increment Dogfight for these two aircraft. After all, 1 out of 6, is not an OP value.
Maybe, you can improve Dogfight of Naval Dive bomber compared to “Stuka” as Land-based TcBomber. If a single value for A/D is what you are looking for these bombers, then @2 might be also correct.

@MGregersen said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

@baron-Münchhausen Does a definite document with these interesting changes exist so that it could be applied to the G40 board version?

Hi everyone!
I’m pretty busy during lock down.

Just a few minutes to say hello.
Especially to a new member, Mr Gregersen.

I’ve got a lot of various of Word doc for different games and roster. But no definite. The most useful way to find what suit your game is to pick a few House rule from Barney’s TripleA development. And see what you feel working.

IMO, there is so much fun to tweak a few things to see if it improves the flow of the game according to your taste and of your friends.

For my parts, I like boats and naval battle a lot. So I tend to increase ships building with lower cost.
But to what extend can you play while affecting balance somehow.

Barney is the one which play test the beast more intensively. He can surely give a bit of advice about what worth a try.

If you want some Word file to tweak with I can share one.

Have fun and take care all of you.
There is a nasty virus outside, be safe everyone.

Baron

Another aspect I forgot to mention,
is that a few rules on Sub warfare with DD and aircrafts can be implemented quite differently between board game and TripleA due to the programming effort required to derailed from OOB rules mechanism.

In a few cases, you can get similar results with less combat steps.

@Imperious-Leader
On Baltic convoys in 1942.2 or AA50, instead of Norway Sz, it is about giving a real opportunity for Germany to defend it against USSR Sub or other Allies built in Atlantic.

The scale and pace of this game cannot give room for a working weak spot so far from Germany’s influence in Norway SZ, even if this only 1 SZ away from Baltic. Trying to protect this SZ outside is a waste of money or units. So, it remains almost a deprivation of Germany’s IPCs with no way to win the upper hand.

In Baltic, when Germany abandon ship building, then it still becomes an Allied Sub raiding zone.
Just a bit later.

So, it is the compromising between play balance and historical accuracy.

@mAIOR said in G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions):

Yeah… My idea for my rework revolved around DD making an ASW check if subs decide to do a surprise attack. If successful, the submarines will be sunk.

So I want to have the ability to spend money on convoys and escorts and the uboats reducing that amount with successful attacks. Kind of bringing a bit more of the strategic humpf to this boardgame.

I like DDs with a 2:2 value as I think it is fitting. Submarines are downgraded to 1:1 but they will also cost a lot less like 4 or even 3.
Their impact will also be more over time than immediate.

Sooo many things to try out…

As a matter of fact, you are not downgrading Subs, it is quite the contrary. Going from A2 D1 Cost 6 to A1 D1 Cost 4, 1 hit. Is a blessing for them.

Reducing Submarine to low 4 or, even 3 IPCs, is a dangerous path to create unbalancing effects in Naval Combat. One issue you might encounter amongst power players which are looking for ways to win at all costs, is about the fodder unit. If any unit can be used for cheap fodder, no matter its combat capacity, you will use it as a shield around hard hitter. For instance, 5 Subs A1 D1 at 4 IPCs would provides 5 hits and 5 pips A/D for 20 IPCs. Compared to a single roll @4 for Battleship, with 2 hits. The real deal will be to purchase almost exclusively Subs around already existing units to protect them.

I’m not sure it would be the kind of Naval warfare you are looking for.

@Azod
Just wait and hope that Japan Fighter is taken as casualty. So you have not to go into Hawaiian SZ. I tried as much as possible to fully load this Carrier, I will try to join a Battleship or returning to Japan, to protect newly built transport. And, if building 1 Fighter along 2 TPs, it can land on Carrier, too.

There is at least 1 Fighter which need to land in Wake, Solomon or on the Carrier. IMO, I would land Japan bomber and this Fighter together to protect the bomber.

Dead zoning SZ is an important part for Japan. You have to think that fleet is better at defense than offense. So, be sure to have Subs or Bombers to support any attack on US or UK fleet.

@SS-GEN
Thanks for the addendum.

With up to 2 planes you get the same strength as a Carrier.
Islands were nick-named unsinkable aircraft carriers.

The OOB rules forbidding to land on a just conquered territory was certainly introduced to prevent both unlimited full move attack kamikaze-liked.
And unbalancing the borders battle with immediate hold of a TT with 1 ground and a massive airfleet, making impossible to fight back and forth over a territory.

The impact of this rule is that besides opening combat with setup, there is no dogfight in skirmishes battle overland, only at sea with carriers or scramble.

Allowing 2 ( you may decide to go 3, as scramble allowance) is to keep things within limits while having the fun of dogfight above battlegrounds.

When u mean pay 2 you mean 2 move left then plane can land. It’s like fly across sz move 1 then land move 1 = move 2.
So the 2 planes can land after battle if they have 2 moves left.

Exactly. For instance, 2 land Fighters (M5) starts from an island with AB+1M move 2 SZs, and 1 over land. 3 moves left. If they win, they have enough to land, otherwise they can fly back.

This one talk about map reshaping in Europe, making Berlin a land TTy only with no access to Baltic Sea.

Amphibious invasion of Berlin: A recurring issue
June 24, 2014, 01:55:30 pm to reply #17 on: June 30, 2014, 01:42:16 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33755.msg1293376#msg1293376

Another map reshaping for 1942.2, this is opening post:
@Argothair:

Background

So, for those of you just tuning in, there’s a reasonably broad consensus about A&A 1942: 2nd Edition that it’s a fabulous game but that (a) it’s slightly unbalanced in favor of the Axis, and (b) it fails to break out of the increasingly tired rut where Russia immediately evacuates all of its Asian troops, China is a speed bump at best, and the optimal strategy is for the Axis to race for Moscow while the Allies race for Berlin.

We’ve talked about many potential solutions for these issues, most of which have involved adding additional units and/or changing the price of units. We’ve steered clear of changing the map, though, mostly because map changes disrupt game balance in ways that are hard to predict, and tend to damage the graphics – you don’t want to go around leaving permanent marks on your snazzy $60 game boards with a $2 sharpie.

A Modest Proposal

Keeping those risks in mind, I have a proposal for a very small set of changes to the 1942.2 map that could yield big payoffs in terms of creating additional game balance and strategic variety without ruining the aesthetic appeal of the game. It’s just a proposal, though, so I strongly recommend using a pencil…

1. Draw a vertical line from the northeast corner of Afghanistan to the center of the southern border of Sianking, dividing Szechuan into two territories: Qinghai (west) and Henan (east). Qinghai is worth 1 IPC and contains a new Victory City named Chongqing. Qinghai starts the game with 1 American infantry. Qinghai borders Kazakh, Sinkiang, and Henan. Henan is worth 2 IPC and starts the game with 2 American infantry, 1 American anti-aircraft gun, 1 American fighter, and 1 factory. Henan borders Sinkiang, Henan, Anhwei, Kwangtung, and Yunnan.

2. Draw a vertical line from the northwest corner of the Caspian Sea to the center of the southern border of West Russia, dividing the Caucasus into two territories: Armenia (west) and Volgograd (east). Armenia is worth 4 IPCs and starts the game with 3 infantry and 1 artillery. Armenia borders Ukraine, West Russia, Volgograd, Persia, and the Black Sea. Volgograd is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 tank, 1 anti-aircraft gun, and 1 factory. Volgograd contains a new Victory City named Stalingrad, and borders Armenia, West Russia, Russia, and Kazakh.

3. Draw a diagonal line that runs across the narrowest portion of Vologda, starting from the southeastern border of Archangel and finishing at the northwestern border of Novosibirsk. The line will split Vologda into two territories: Omsk (west) and Chelayabinsk (east). Omsk is worth 1 IPC and starts the game with 1 infantry. Omsk borders Russia, Archangel, Chelayabinsk, and Novosibirsk. Chelayabinsk is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 factory. Chelayabinsk borders Omsk, Archangel, Evenki, and Novosibirsk.

4. Draw a vertical line splitting Libya into two territories: Tunisia (west) and Cyrenaica (east). Tunisia is worth 2 IPCs and borders Algeria, Cyrenaica, and the Italian sea zone. Tunisia contains a new victory city named Tunis. Tunisia starts with 2 German infantry at setup. Cyrenaica is worth 1 IPC and borders Tunisia, Egypt, and the Italian sea zone. Cyrenaica starts with 1 German tank at setup.

5. Eastern Australia is now worth 2 IPCs instead of 1 IPC, and contains a victory city (Sydney).

New Starting IPCs:
USSR: 24 -> 27 IPCs (+3)
Germany: 40 -> 42 IPCs (+2)
Britain: 31 -> 32 IPCs (+1)
Japan: 30 -> 30 IPCs (no change)
USA: 42 -> 44 IPCs (+2)

New Victory City List:
Allies (10): Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, Chongqing, Honolulu, Sydney, San Francisco
Axis (7): Paris, Berlin, Rome, Tunis, Shanghai, Tokyo, Manila

There are 17 total victory cities. If either the Allies or the Axis control 11 or more Victory Cities at the end of the USA’s turn, then that team immediately wins.

New Russian Starting Factory List:
Karelia (2 units/turn), Volgograd (2 units/turn), Russia (8 units/turn), Chelayabinsk (2 units/turn).

Strategy Discussion

The point of these changes is to encourage the Russians to vigorously defend their Asian territories, to encourage Germany to vigorously defend north Africa, to allow the Americans to pump major resources into China if they so choose, to force the Allies to defend at least part of the Pacific, and to give both sides even chances at victory even without a bid.

The Russians now have a starting factory in the Ural mountains (Chelayabinsk). Holding that factory and the immediately adjacent territories is worth 6 IPCs, meaning that you can drop two infantry a turn into the Ural factory and have them pay for themselves. Russia may not have a good reason to defend Buryatia, Yakutsk, and the Soviet Far East, but now at least there is a Russian rallying point somewhere along the 3,000 miles between Vladivostok and Moscow. If the Japanese conquer Chelayabinsk, it will seriously improve the Japanese income and logistical situation, but it is not necessarily an immediate game over for Moscow, which is still two spaces away.

The Russians now have some room to trade in the south – Germany wants to capture Armenia because of the valuable oil worth 4 IPCs, and can do so relatively easily by swinging the Italian navy over to the northeast, but because Armenia does not come with a free factory, and because the USSR can still produce units in Volgograd, it is not necessarily worthwhile for the Axis to pull extreme stunts like flying the Japanese air force over to defend a captured Armenia.

The Americans now have a starting factory in China (Qinghai) that is guaranteed a chance to produce 2 units before the Japanese can even attack it. Because the Americans start with an extra infantry and extra AAA gun in the region, if the Americans use both builds and also consolidate all forces in Qinghai, they have some hope of holding it against the Japanese on turn 2 even if Japan sends all available forces and the Russians/British do not help reinforce it. With a coordinated Allied effort, China can now hold against a mid-strength Japanese attack until turn 5 or 6 without the need to strip Russia or India bare.

In north Africa, the Germans no longer have an attractive option to blow open Egypt on turn 1, because the ex-Libyan infantry is now out of position in Tunis. On the other hand, the Americans no longer have the option of defending all of Africa by ferrying troops to Morocco – once the Germans do crack Egypt on turn 2 or turn 3, the Allies will have to reinforce sub-Saharan Africa via West Africa and/or India, because Morocco is just too damn far away. On the third hand, if the Americans do choose to land in Morocco, the Germans will be less likely to just abandon north Africa in response, because now they have a 2 IPC territory with a victory city in it to defend. If the Germans let the Americans walk into Tunis, the Americans can build a factory there, and use it to seize Paris and Rome, setting up a European Allied victory even if the Allies never capture Berlin.

Meanwhile, most of the old strategies can still be used if desired – the sea zones are all the same, the navies and air forces are all the same, the capitals are all in the same places, the starting forces distribution is virtually unchanged, and most of the map is encouragingly free of pencil marks.

Let me know what you think!

PS Many thanks to Black_Elk for his thread on moving Russia’s factories to the east, which is what got me thinking about these map changes in the first place, and to everyone for your feedback on earlier articles I’ve posted, which have helped me push the ideas in this piece forward to (what I hope) is their logical conclusion.

@SS-GEN said in SS GEN's 1941 Global War Game:

Well on islands a lot just had an airstrip. I can see maybe going with 1 plane on them and 2 at a airbase on the bigger so called islands.
I still would like to play with any airbase can scramble 3 planes but never get the +1 move.
But that’s another topic !

2 aircraft or less is to give room for a correct defense built up after winning.
Usually, attacker will not compromise aircraft on the frontline. To put them at risk, the main reason is to reinforced a needed to keep TTy wich have a few land units. With only one aircraft, my playtest showed it was not enough. Unless playing with OOB Fighter A6 D8 M4, which only one can bring a good swing,if casualty are played as normal.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

How much bid do you give Allies in 1942.2?

Never use bid. Only 1942 customized game, as I have not much opportunity to play with friends. Usually, either side can win. I’m more interested in balancing my game with Triple A before playing on table top.

@Navalland said in New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively):

I prefer having one multipurpose unit instead of two specialized units.

You are the master on your table.
All these are about an issue which can appear as a matter of taste.

Fighter are not use the same way as bomber, but if you want a single kind of Aircraft like 1914, it is up to you.

The issue on this thread was about never find relevant to use Strategic bombers as strategic bomber in game. Being a suboptimal strategy.

So, how can a Strategic bomber can be use as such like it was in WW2?

Black Elk suggested an idea, which I find more interesting in combination with introducing Tactical bombers from G40 game.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I like new type of units only if they are absolutely needed and bring somethings to the table which other units couldn’t. I wouldn’t really want 2 type of cruisers just sake of history, I didn’t even find particularly useful introducing mechanized inf, and tactical bombers.

It depends about what kind of game you like on 1942.2 map.

I really like Tactical Bomber as an addition. However, the map is small for a second M2 unit along with Tank. It clearly switch the balance toward Germany and Axis.

I like to specialized my aircraft types. Since I have both G40 and 1942 games, I can use all my sculpts, as I wish.

Adding WW1 Battleship from 1914 can make it possible to add such. But I really don’t think it adds anything to game dynamic if there is another type of Cruiser. There is enough warships as it is, IMO.

@Navalland said in New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively):

I was extensively considering this idea and concluded that having a unit serving to only one purpose is a bad idea. It means less flexibility and more predictability.

As long as you replace this role function with Tactical Bombers, there is no big issue. I played a lot on a Triple A 1942.2 variant which includes these 3 aircraft, it works pretty well. Strategic are used as strategic, that way.

@Imperious-Leader said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

Cruiser is CA, light cruiser is CL. Even though a CA is technically a Heavy Cruiser, the most common form of the two is CA which if you use one term the CA is always that acronym.

It is almost a Zombie thread which is being revived. LOL.
I totally agree with you IL. A&A sculpt are CA. My original intent was about using a lower cost to make Cruiser A3 D3 M2 C10, 1 hit as the lighter version of Cruiser. At 10 IPCs, it leaves room for an Heavier and costlier Cruiser.
For instance, an Heavy Cruiser can be A3 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits.
Of course, it is an hypothetical cases, because people need to have both type of sculpt.

@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:

If fighter and bomber remain the same then destroyer cost should absolutely not be decreased. Cruiser could be either 10 or 11, but 10 ipc could make battleship very bad unit.

I totally agree.

I suggested this scale in a quote below:
Subs, DDs and Carriers are already interesting buy at their OOB cost.

Transports 5 ipcs
Subs 6 ipcs
destroyers 8 ipcs
Cruisers 10 ipcs
Carriers 14 ipcs
Battleships 18 ipcs

@Navalland said in 1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less:

Decreasing naval unit costs are good, but its stand alone horrible idea since it totally negate all air coverage tactics especially for Germany. Air units should always have overall upper hands against naval units.

Air unit costs should be decreased in this case which will cause an unbalance between air and ground units.

You cannot conquer land without land units, and aircraft provide coverage for both land and sea. This is a good benefit compared with any investment in sea unit. They can becomes powerless if your invasion goes beyond the second round of combat or the second territory within a continent.

So, making Cruiser in par with Fighter or TcB is a small issue, IMO.

@Argothair

Maybe I feel it wrong because both 2nd and 3rd objectives are not clearly historical nor tactically working objectives.
During war, there was 3 Army groups with different and sometimes competitive aims.

To illustrate my point (trying to keep the 2+),

GERMANY

• Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
• Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: EASTERN UKRAINE, BELORUSSIA, CAUCASUS
• Northern shortcut of Seaports – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Karelia, Archangel, Belorussia
• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Archangel, Eastern Ukraine and Kazakh

That way, USSR might have different ways to shut these NOs, mainly through control of Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine.

I feel it worth a try to add Bulgaria/Romania to Softbelly. Ploesti oilfield were vital for Third Reich War effort.

@Argothair
Hi Argo,
I really like all these Allies NOs with “…no Axis warship in xyz SZ.”

It is a way to simulate U-boats impact on Allies trade and merchants ships war goods delivery.

All Ukraine was wheat basket.
Any way to add Eastern Ukraine into the NO mix?

I hope your Triple A playtest is going according to plan.

Just a 2 cents idea:

GERMANY

• Scandinavian Iron – 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Norway, Finland, and NW Europe
• Eurasian Wheat – 5 IPCs if Axis control 3+ of: Karelia, Ukraine, EASTERN UKRAINE or BELORUSSIA
• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control ALL 3 of: Archangel, CAUCASUS, and Kazakh

Second one is easier, third is tougher to get.

Might be also:

• Archangel-Astrakhan Line – 5 IPCs if Axis control 3+ of: Archangel, BELORUSSIA, CAUCASUS, and Kazakh