Because Finland was a signatory of the Anti-Comintern pact , and The Soviets had been at war with them prior and wanted Germany’s protection, and third because Finland is Finland and Stalin is Stalin.

@Navalland said in Artillery to defend at 3?:

Just trying to figure out the most balanced unit set up and wondering if +1 defense to artillery would be good idea. Probably better to leave it as it is right now.

Ya I would for now.

Panzer Grenadiers: 3-2-2 costing 5 ipc. Germany can have no more than 6 of these at any time.

Super Battleships: 5-4-2 costing 24 ipc and takes 3 hits to sink. They fire preemptively each round (losses are applied and do not get a chance to return fire) Cannot be built until turn 3.

Heavy Carriers: 2-3-2 costing 18 ipc and takes 2 hits to sink. Three planes can be carried, and while damaged they cannot launch planes. Cannot be built until turn 3.

Q-ships: 1-1-2 costing 10, these are armed transports and can be used to take combat losses like any other warship. They carry the same cargo as regular Transports.

Optional starting Technologies: UK gets Radar, Germany and USSR gets Self Propelled Artillery, Germany starts with Mobile Warfare Doctrine, USA gets Naval Radar on turn 3.

@Imperious-Leader Not as ridiculous as the OOB rule for Only the Attacker given the option of retreat but the defender gets to be Wiped out with no recourse- at least with my proposal the Defender can get away with maybe a few units, a number small enough not to wreck the game!

Check the range of V weapons. Four spaces is too long of a distance. Also, the new tech units it needs to be clear: When you get say King Tigers do all your tanks go “Poof” and become Tigers , or from that point on are any tanks you build…Tigers. The later idea is much more realistic.

That depends on what you term fail? If they commit 3 tanks 2 fighters and Caucasus units and don’t kill the tanks and or at least a plane, then that attack is a fail, but nobody unless hes a fool will say “Game over- insert 50 cents- do not pass go” Alot of other battles and an accumulation of advantages over turns is what you want. Of course the “Big Battle at Moscow” could change the fortunes of either side. Go to steam and enter my name and #2799 and we can play a game.

@Argothair

-Assigning 1ipc values to the Pacific Islands would certainly help and encourage Japan to invade them but I doubt USA will try to retake them. For balance purpose, Japan has to start with significantly bigger fleet than the Allies. It requires minimum 15 ipc (transport+destroyer) just to invade one of the island with a protection. Even if Japan lose some of them, she is still capable of compensating these loses with another conquests. While if USA just ignores Japan, the huge Japanese fleet lose its all combat value suddenly for a long time.

-Yes, the capital rule does not make sense. Nations should be able to collect income and mobilize units even if their capitals are fallen. Also no losing all of incomes when capital is lost.

-That’s why I think Germany is too weak and Japan is absurdly too strong in A&A games which should have been the other way around and it results Germany just spamming infantry and waiting Japan ro rescue. It makes no sense. Historically by far the strongest Axis country should not have badly needed Japan’s and Italy’s helps to just stay even alive. This aspects also encourage USA to go only one front since if Uk-Russia is strong enough to defeat Germany-Italy. USA could choose to go Pacific only to just secure the British colonies but still no two ocean going USA unfortunately.

-Ipc vaules are known very abstract but still it would look very weird if these Pacific islands worth more than 1 except Hawaii. For example Australia was obviously a lot more than twice valuable than Guinea yet having Australia just twice valuable than Guinea is somewhat justifiable for playability but Australia cannot be same with Guinea. It would totally negate all WWII feelings as much as the Japanese tanks storming Moscow.
If Guinea becomes 2 then Australia should be minimum 4, India 5 or 6, South Africa 3, Egypt 3, Hawaii 2 etc.

-Having both Indian and Australian factories can actually help Japan more then Allies since if Japan concantrated southwest Pacific with East Indies Factories, UK might find itself spending more money than Japan in this area to just defend these factories because the Japanese units will be in range in both factories simultaneously considering USA needs 2 rounds to reinforce Australia.That’s why I’am fine with Indian factory but not with Australian factory.

-A solid way preventing USA going Pacific only is making UK-Russia doomed to fall without strong US assist in Europe. Preventing USA going only Atlantic is uhm… well I do believe not possible in A&A maps with its rules and cost structures. Totally needs redrawings, revaluings, new rules and costings.

-Expensive ships discourage naval investments for both sides when fighters just do well better than them with similar costs. Destroyer is too expensive for even mimic infantry abilities on sea such as blocking, baiting, deadzoning etc. Of course reducing ship costs do not magically create two ocean going USA, it is just one of the indispensible condition to achieve that. The expensive ships also reason too why Germany and Russia don’t build navy either.

The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

@Der-Kuenstler Not bad, I myself just Revise the Mongolian rule being rather simple in my current YouTube House rules game/ If JAPAN declares War on Russia in any way, the Mongol troops goes to the Soviets- If the Soviets declares War on JAPAN (including going to China’s defense), RUSSIA don’t get them troops!!!

Anyone have any alternate setups or house rules for this game?

@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?

I use a bit different set up in my games. Bombers do well at strategic bombing while still keeping other options.

inf 1/2/1 3Pu AA
art 2/2/1 4Pu AA +1 attack bonus to infantry
arm 3/3/2 5Pu AA blitz

fig 2/2/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at, strategic bomber

sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6Pu
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP

trench 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP, repair, only one can be placed per territory per round.

1-1.png

My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.

@GEN-MANSTEIN said in Individual Development Chart:

What is that Operation Gomorrha ?

This mean heavy Bombers ? US and UK can do Same bombing run like a combined SBR attack ? Bombers attack increases ?

Almost.

A breakthrough means in your next strategic bombing raid all your bombers will throw three dice and you choose the best result. In the official rulebook heavy bombers do the same with two dice I think, but a breakthrough in that case means that this technology applies for every future raid while in my house rule it is valid for only one raid (but the breakthrough can be acchieved several times).

I have to add that the price system in my house rules is slightly different as well.

Britain can start with more factories only if nations are not allowed to use captured factories.

Germany+Italy should outproduce UK+Russia while Japan should be two times weaker than USA in a 1942 scenario.

I like this. Very simple. Very elegant. I’m going to have to borrow this for our next game. I’m going to make 8 Blue Allied Victory Tokens, 8 red Axis Victory Tokens and 1 Gold Victory Token.