Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment

[baron Münchhausen]

GHG suggestion makes me think about this for solving Japan invading Soviet TTs.
@Baron:

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Starting at the Himalayas, the line moves north dividing China from Russia, along the west side of Mongolia, the eastern borders of Timguska and Urals. It gets a little snakey up north but I needed to follow some border lines so I chose those 2. If you look at a satellite map you can see that there is no difference between these mountains and the Himalayas. It looks as though this is an extension of that range that branched out perpendicular to the Himalayas. In real terms this is what separated Europe from Asia in the development of cultures for thousands of years. The Silk Road is really just a path that traders used to go between the 2 continents to exchange goods. It winded through these mountains in 2 places, Mongolia and China.

On the Asian side of the mountains there is 8 Russian territories worth 8 IPC’s. If Japan wants to expend the resources they can conquer those territories. It would still have been an almost impossible task for them to do this much but I wanted to make it somewhat worth their while to even bother attacking Russia. Any IPC they gain is one lost for the Russians. It truly would have been impossible for them to move beyond these mountains. The Trans-Siberian Railway would have been simple enough to destroy for the Russians behind them as they were retreating. That’s why I allow them to move their troops from Asia to Europe but not Europe to Asia. The Mongolian Rule would still be in effect. Really though, that mountain range should have been drawn on the map to begin with and made impassable like the Himalayas. It makes the game more realistic when you don’t have Japanese sneaking up on Moscow or Russians piling into China like all they had to do was hold hands and skip across the border.

Side note; Tankograd was built up against the western side of this mountain range. It was there because of the proximity to the rocks that were converted into metal and because it was safe due to the fact that nobody could attack them from the east through those impassable mountains. It was as far as you could get from the front lines with Germany.

Respecting the physical borders of the planet seems more logical than creating political borders that can be debated. The ability to drive a mechanized army through those mountains is not debatable.

Does Timguska able to be captured by Japan if coming from China instead of Russia?
It means up to 9 TTs on G40 Asian Map.

Would it be simpler to use directly the Pacific OOB left map which already physically separate there?

So, if Japan want to go to Russia, it needs to pass through India and Persia, right?

And once Japan reached this Ourals border, does it means Russia can no longer invade it from the Western Side of Ourals?
(Assuming Trans-Siberian Railways are too easily destroyed from either side.)

That way, it can make sense to built a Rising Sun Empire into Asia.
Cutting all possible attacks from western side of Pacific Map, except from India can be very interesting for Japan. It can now just concentrate against USA, UK and ANZAC.
Chineses and Russians TTs remains both ways for Soviet units until Japan close the supply lines.
End of the story.
Moscow is not endangered by Japanese armies but neither Japanese interest in this part of the Asian land.

You wrote this:

This version of the San Francisco Experiment also includes the Argo Map Mods, which treat South America, Persia, Saudi Arabia, the West Indies, and Borneo as “soft neutrals” that can be occupied by any player.

In addition, there are two new canals: the Kiel Canal, which requires players to own both Norway and NW Europe in order to move between Sea Zones 5 and 6, and the Straits of Gibraltar, which requires players to own Gibraltar in order to move between Sea Zones 13 and 14.

The Dardanelles Straits (near Turkey) are open to all players, because Turkey cannot be owned.

Finally, the connection between Russia and Western China has been severely restricted: units may only pass between Sinkiang and Evenki. Kazakh and Novosibirsk are no longer considered adjacent to any Chinese territories. The game will automatically enforce all of these restrictions.

Assuming the connection between Russia and Western China has been severely restricted: Allied/Soviet units may only pass between Sinkiang and Evenki.
Kazakh and Novosibirsk are no longer considered adjacent to any Chinese territories.

What about Japan being able to close Soviet land movement toward Sinkiang and all Soviet TTs east of Ourals if Japan control Evenki?

Once captured, Japan can not move toward Vologda, Novosibirsk or Archangel or any Western Soviet TTs.

To me, it seems to fit this bill:
“Japan’s objective is The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Asia for the Asians).”

That would mean the only access to Moscow and Western russian soil is through Persia.

---

I checked on Canal restrictions. You did a good job. Everything works as you said.

So, Submarines are also restricted.
I like this simple rules for all naval units.

It makes Gibraltar very important without adding IPC or VTs on it.
Operation Torch can protect its navy that way.

[baron Münchhausen]

Factory in French Western Africa seems an interesting wink to subtly make a reference to Free French units. Once the only Vichy Infantry is destroyed. UK can built 1 unit there and use them to fight in Africa.

I find interesting that only 1 NWE Fighter can reinforced this lonely Infantry, if Germany decided so.

It seems to tip the balance of this TT to become Allies unless Germany put a real effort to keep it.

I still find that there is maybe 1 UK Infantry in excess in Africa.

May be Italian East Africa Infantry could be drop.
Why do you need an AAA?
Change it into an Artillery if you drop the Infantry in IEA.
It would make a pretty good reinforcement from South African Dominions, without adding another IC in Africa.

---

IDK if you are totally against the idea of adding 1 German Sub in Italian SZ and changing UK DD into a Cruiser.
Here is the story of the Raid on Alexandria in december third 1941 made by Regia Marina.
Quite a daring action for this special forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)
Here is the casualty:
2 battleships disabled, (HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant)
1 destroyer damaged,
1 tanker damaged,
8 killed

This represented a dramatic change of fortunes against the Allies from the strategic point of view during the next six months. The Italian fleet had temporarily wrested naval supremacy in the east-central Mediterranean from the Royal Navy.

The Italian submarine fleet of World War II was one of the largest in the world at that time, second only to that of the Soviet Union. It saw action during the Second World War, serving mainly in the Mediterranean. At the outset of World War II the Italian navy had 107 submarines: During the conflict 88 submarines, some two-thirds of its total strength, were lost.

At that time, there was a small fleet of U-boat in Med Sea, too.

The 23rd U-boat Flotilla was established in September 1941 to intercept coastal shipping sustaining Allied forces through the siege of Tobruk.[9] U-boats patrolled the eastern Mediterranean from the 23rd flotilla base on Salamis Island in Greece. On 7 December control of the 23rd Flotilla was transferred from Kernevel to the German High Command in Italy headed by Albert Kesselring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_II)

Using the Surprise attack of Submarine on Cruiser to figure for this raid seems an interesting way to emphasized this event.

[Argothair]

Writing from a phone on the subway, so I cannot hit all of your points yet, but here are a couple.

There are obviously ways to rearrange the sub Saharan Africa forces if desired. If you want an artillery instead of an aa gun somewhere, or one less infantry, that’s fine. The important point is to start with at least 50% of British African assets south of Egypt.

You could start French West Africa with as much as 1 inf, 1 aa gun, 1 factory if desired. I agree that French West Africa is impossible for Germany to defend against a concerted British assault, but that is intentional: historically, the 1 inf + 1 ftr in French Equatorial Africa (Gold Coast) went east to help defend Egypt rather than west for an immediate attack on Dakar, and the Free French still captured Dakar in the winter of 1942. If Britain had been willing to both strip reinforcements intended for Egypt and bring in Canadian marines in order to assault Dakar in 1941, Dakar could not possibly have held.

I’m not sure I understand your proposal re: further limiting movement in Siberia. Are you looking for a rule that says that Japan can never invade from the west past a certain point? A rule saying that Russia can no longer reinforce China, even with existing Far East troops, if it loses Evenki? I do not see how such rules would add to the game. Maybe you can explain it to me.

I denied the USA starting artillery because it took 10 months between Pearl Harbor and Operation Torch, even though America historically went “Europe First.” The idea is that American Army divisions were inadequately trained and organized in 1941 for an effective amphibious landing. Is that not accurate? I think a US2 attack on Morocco, France, Holland, etc. Is still totally doable on my setup, and for US 1 the US can often attack in China at a profit, and may have a Philippine sub left to attack with and some cleanup work to do in the east Pacific. I hope all that is not too boring for the U.S. player!

Thanks for playtesting, and looking forward to reviewing your games!

[baron Münchhausen]

I’m not sure I understand your proposal re: further limiting movement in Siberia. Are you looking for a rule that says that Japan can never invade from the west past a certain point? A rule saying that Russia can no longer reinforce China, even with existing Far East troops, if it loses Evenki? I do not see how such rules would add to the game. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Not exactly, if all Soviet TTs East of Ourals i.e. Evenki to Soviet Far East (all Soviet TTs on G40 Pacific map) are Japanese controlled TTs, or there is no more Russian units East of Ourals and Evenki is controlled by Japan, then Soviet can longer send troops there.
The Trans-Siberian Railways has been cut off by Japan.
It makes for a realistic military and geo-political achievement against Bolshevism in itself.

So, for Japan, the Asian conquest objective is to control all chinese and all Soviet TTs up including Evenki. That way, they have no more military worries for their back in Asia. (Asia for Asian theme)
They can focus on India, Anzac and USA.
GHG clearly made me realized how narrow were communication links between Western and Eastern side of Ourals mounts.
Volodga will be the Western Side of Ourals and the IC is for Tankograd.
As long as there is Soviet units in the east (whether in China or elsewhere in Soviet TTs) it will be possible to reopened the railways if regain control of Evenki.

Usually, it is a non-issue. Japan is clearing its way along the north or the chinese access to Evenki (via Sinkiang).

I like that Sinkiang can be reinforced by Soviet unit supporting Mao communist army (as you first made it).

[baron Münchhausen]

I denied the USA starting artillery because it took 10 months between Pearl Harbor and Operation Torch, even though America historically went “Europe First.” The idea is that American Army divisions were inadequately trained and organized in 1941 for an effective amphibious landing. Is that not accurate? I think a US2 attack on Morocco, France, Holland, etc. Is still totally doable on my setup, and for US 1 the US can often attack in China at a profit, and may have a Philippine sub left to attack with and some cleanup work to do in the east Pacific. I hope all that is not too boring for the U.S. player!

What about placing a Tank in Eastern USA instead?
And a third Infantry in Western USA (needed to convert Mexico while the Tank move to East Mexico through Central USA).

I saw that Tank in Western USA to run into Mexico and blitz eventually to reach Colombia USA2 and make a diplomatic move to get some Neutral South American TTs in USA3 while Panama’s Infantry convert Brazil on USA2.

Clearly, using only 1 Infantry and 1 Tank to invade somewhere, will be sub-optimal.
Unless US decides to directly land into Brazil to get 3 IPCs faster, then US can land somewhere in US2. It is funnier to allow impatient player to make such correct move, but going with an half-empty TP (M3 in addition) is delaying everything. As player, you better wait for the next round to have a fully loaded Carrier.

On Western USA, the Tank is already strange, and you don’t need it since you cannot go further south than East Mexico.

Do you know if there was the same number of Strategic bomber (B-17) in Western and Eastern US?
It is only a vestigial remnants of AA50 set-up (which needed A4 bombers).
For pure depiction, it seems OK to have B-17 in both Western and Eastern USA.
Anyway, both can get into UK on USA1.

---

I would place 2 u-boats in SZ8 not SZ9 to start. It prevents these two to only attack UK’s ships and not US East Coast units. Hitler was quite directive on that one: do not provoke or attack US ships.
Germany waited Japan Pearl Harbor raid before DOW on USA.

[baron Münchhausen]

There are obviously ways to rearrange the sub Saharan Africa forces if desired. If you want an artillery instead of an aa gun somewhere, or one less infantry, that’s fine. The important point is to start with at least 50% of British African assets south of Egypt.

I agree wholly to this 50%, it seems you know your business on African Armies.

You could start French West Africa with as much as 1 inf, 1 aa gun, 1 factory if desired.

No necessary. If there is nothing on FWA on set-up, I’m ok.
I like that there is no unit. Germany can get 1 Inf and 1 Fg, or even 1 Tank and 1 Fg (or 2Fgs!) if they really want to keep it.
But it means 1 less Fg in NWE which do not attack UK’s fleet somewhere, except for SZ13 Carrier.

To make Vichy a real partner, Germany have to give a “few guarantees”.

Also, would you increase Tanks in set-up to 11 (as in OOB 1942.2)?
To make a real cut into Russia, Germany cannot divert any resource in water or Africa, IMO.
I build up only Infantry and 1 or 2 Artillery to spent all money, each G turn.

IDK if it can be possible to make German’s purchase more interesting to allow for other strategy.
A late Sea-Lion, invading Iceland for VTs, going all out in Africa.

I played according to old pattern about capturing Russian Capital.
But, if we try a one per game round 24 IPCs (24 VTs) bonus split between alliance members, this can give more attract to VTs.

Another step can be to give 1 IPC per controlled VT at end of each income phase of a given Power.
For example, Germany can get up to 4 IPCs by end of G1 if Cairo is captured.
Even 5 IPCs if Caucasus is captured too.

[baron Münchhausen]

I’m not that persistent for Wake and Midway receiving planes instead of Infantry.

But what do you think of either replacing 1 Infantry in Philippines by 1 Tactical Bomber (B-17 were mainly used that way in South-East PTO.)
Or add 1 C5 StB unit in Philippines. It will not change anything into opening, unless Japan decided to skip this VTs (which would be very weird).
Anyway, if they do so, this StB can eventually be useful for USA.

Prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the 19th Bombardment Group had 35 B-17s in the Philippines. By 14 December only 14 remained. Beginning on 17 December, the surviving B-17s based there began to be evacuated to Australia, then were sent to Singosari Airfield, Java on 30 December 1941.
The 7th Bomb Group was originally scheduled to reinforce the Philippines in December 1941 from Fort Douglas, Utah, and the ground echelon had already left by ship from San Francisco. Pearl Harbor Attack led to ground echelon being returned to United States and the air echelon remained at Hamilton Field, California flying antisubmarine patrols. 9th Bomb Squadron deployed to Southwest Pacific in mid-December, travelling east via Floria, Brazil, across central Africa to the Middle East. Then via Arabia to Karachi, India via Singapore to Singosari Airfield, Java, joining the 19th BG on 14 January.
Both units would remain on Java until March 1942, taking part in the brave but ultimately futile attempts to defend the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. The B-17s were never present in large enough numbers to make any real difference to the course of the campaign. The 19th BG withdrew to Australia with the B-17 survivors of the 9th Bomb Squadron, which was re-equipped with B-24s in India as part of Tenth Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress_units_of_the_United_States_Army_Air_Forces#Fifth_Air_Force

[baron Münchhausen]

In Karelia SZ, I would place 1 DD, 1 Sub and 1 TP (for figuring convoys I suppose).
Russia needs this Sub to do something different than only land battle.
1 Sub in PTO is enough because it can make disturbing R1 lucky attack on Japan.

To get a less scripted play in opening, maybe Baltic may get only 3 Infantry.
Belorussia, 1 Inf and 1 Tank, Ukraine 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 Fgs.
But West Russia can still have 2 TcBs and even 1 AAA…
While Karelia still have 1 Fg…

[baron Münchhausen]

IDK if it can be faster to work this way…
Here is below a different set-up which is similar to yours but with a lot more naval units.
I even add an IC in Canada.
Maybe Germany might see the need to use more u-boats in a way to block this built up.

IDK if it can work to increase possibilities, strategic options.
I tried to solve the US West Coast issue, as I perceived it.
Now, you can have both Hawaii J1 and kind of Midway-Hawaii USA1.
It is around 35% success for USA1, of course it depends if Japan brings a third Carrier in Hawaiian SZ or a Battleship in Midway SZ. But doing this, may not be optimal for Japan income increase.

Take a look, pick the save, revert things back. Take a snap shot.
With less words and more pictures, it may helps see faster where we disagree, discuss, disagree radically or agree to disagree, etc.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussiaG1.tsvg

[Argothair]

I think it works! I think we’re done here, at least as far as an Alpha version to send out to the wider community. I can’t think of any changes that I feel confident would improve this setup. :-)

I tested a G3 Sea Lion, and it does not seem to work unless Britain is caught totally by surprise. The problem with leaving the Russian air force alive to conserve the German air force is that the Russians can just fly their planes over to London for extra defense. Also, if Britain sees the Sea Lion coming, then they can keep their African fleets on the west coast of Africa, and then a combined assault on UK2 + US2 can probably destroy the Axis Mediterranean fleet, which means two fewer transports that are available to hit London. Still, if everything goes perfectly, a Sea Lion could work. Japan has to keep the USA busy enough that it can’t afford to send any fighter reinforcements to London. The Sea Lion chances were 0% for Germany in my test, but if you remove 1 Russian fighter and 3 American fighters, then I think it switches to something like 20%.

I would prefer higher odds for a G3 Sea Lion, but I’m not sure how to make that happen without disturbing other aspects of the game.

I also tested an immediate G1 Barbarossa blitz, with Germany building mostly tanks and sending both Med transports to take the Caucasus on G1, plus using the Finnish troops to take Karelia G1. I was not able to take Karelia, but it did weaken Karelia enough that all of my eastern front forces were safe. UK & USA were able to save Moscow by steadily flying in fighters and sending reinforcements from India/Egypt, but this means that Japan would have become a monster (I did not actually use Japan’s turns for these two tests). I think a G1 blitz is much weaker than a more reasonable German opener that only attacks Baltic/Belorussia/Ukraine with land forces, and waits until G2 to attack Leningrad and Stalingrad – the optimal G1 move is probably to send one Med transport to Ukraine (so you don’t run out of infantry there to soak hits) and one Med transport to Egypt (for the TUV profit, and so those forces don’t wind up coming to the aid of Stalingrad a couple turns later). Still, the G1 blitz is an interesting alternative to have on the table, and depending on how Japan exploits the Allies’ distractions, it could be a viable opening!

I also tested some battles in the Pacific, and it seems to see-saw for quite a while, with Japan and the USA each able to destroy each other’s fleets at a profit, turn after turn. That’s pretty cool! It’s not obvious that either or both players would actually want to throw 60%+ of their budget into continuing to smash up fleets near Hawaii, but it’s good that that’s an option. The factories in Hawaii and Sydney go a long way toward making the South Pacific something worth fighting over; it really does seem to matter when you win control of a sea space. If America is off the coast of Hawaii and can hold it, that means a big boost in USA’s Pacific momentum because they can build a carrier in Pearl Harbor and fly in planes to land on it from the mainland. On the other hand, if Japan can deadzone the coast of San Francisco (not at all unlikely, if the battles go well for Japan and the USA tries to split its attention between both theaters!) then it can be a real challenge for the USA to make a Pacific comeback – even if they have ships near Hawaii or Mexico or whatever, those ships may be effectively dead for lack of an ability to reach reinforcements/safety. The M3 transports threaten San Francisco once the USA loses control of its sea zone, the submerging unblockable subs provide some additional fodder in regions that would otherwise be deadzoned, and the M3 cruisers and carriers equipped with 3.5 attack fighter/tacB pairs really help project offensive power three spaces forward instead of just two spaces forward. It’s all very exciting. I can’t be sure that it’s balanced, because there are hundreds of plausible combinations for Japan’s five fleets vs. USA’s three fleets, but that’s a good thing! There are options. :-)

Anyway, great work on this map. I vote we slap both of our names on it, submit it to the tripleA experimental map collection, and call it a success.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia_SeaLionTest.tsvg
1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia_BarbarossaTest.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I think it works! I think we’re done here, at least as far as an Alpha version to send out to the wider community. I can’t think of any changes that I feel confident would improve this setup. :-)

I tested a G3 Sea Lion, and it does not seem to work unless Britain is caught totally by surprise. The problem with leaving the Russian air force alive to conserve the German air force is that the Russians can just fly their planes over to London for extra defense. Also, if Britain sees the Sea Lion coming, then they can keep their African fleets on the west coast of Africa, and then a combined assault on UK2 + US2 can probably destroy the Axis Mediterranean fleet, which means two fewer transports that are available to hit London. Still, if everything goes perfectly, a Sea Lion could work. Japan has to keep the USA busy enough that it can’t afford to send any fighter reinforcements to London. The Sea Lion chances were 0% for Germany in my test, but if you remove 1 Russian fighter and 3 American fighters, then I think it switches to something like 20%.

I would prefer higher odds for a G3 Sea Lion, but I’m not sure how to make that happen without disturbing other aspects of the game.

I also tested an immediate G1 Barbarossa blitz, with Germany building mostly tanks and sending both Med transports to take the Caucasus on G1, plus using the Finnish troops to take Karelia G1. I was not able to take Karelia, but it did weaken Karelia enough that all of my eastern front forces were safe. UK & USA were able to save Moscow by steadily flying in fighters and sending reinforcements from India/Egypt, but this means that Japan would have become a monster (I did not actually use Japan’s turns for these two tests). I think a G1 blitz is much weaker than a more reasonable German opener that only attacks Baltic/Belorussia/Ukraine with land forces, and waits until G2 to attack Leningrad and Stalingrad – the optimal G1 move is probably to send one Med transport to Ukraine (so you don’t run out of infantry there to soak hits) and one Med transport to Egypt (for the TUV profit, and so those forces don’t wind up coming to the aid of Stalingrad a couple turns later). Still, the G1 blitz is an interesting alternative to have on the table, and depending on how Japan exploits the Allies’ distractions, it could be a viable opening!

I also tested some battles in the Pacific, and it seems to see-saw for quite a while, with Japan and the USA each able to destroy each other’s fleets at a profit, turn after turn. That’s pretty cool! It’s not obvious that either or both players would actually want to throw 60%+ of their budget into continuing to smash up fleets near Hawaii, but it’s good that that’s an option. The factories in Hawaii and Sydney go a long way toward making the South Pacific something worth fighting over; it really does seem to matter when you win control of a sea space. If America is off the coast of Hawaii and can hold it, that means a big boost in USA’s Pacific momentum because they can build a carrier in Pearl Harbor and fly in planes to land on it from the mainland. On the other hand, if Japan can deadzone the coast of San Francisco (not at all unlikely, if the battles go well for Japan and the USA tries to split its attention between both theaters!) then it can be a real challenge for the USA to make a Pacific comeback – even if they have ships near Hawaii or Mexico or whatever, those ships may be effectively dead for lack of an ability to reach reinforcements/safety. The M3 transports threaten San Francisco once the USA loses control of its sea zone, the submerging unblockable subs provide some additional fodder in regions that would otherwise be deadzoned, and the M3 cruisers and carriers equipped with 3.5 attack fighter/tacB pairs really help project offensive power three spaces forward instead of just two spaces forward. It’s all very exciting. I can’t be sure that it’s balanced, because there are hundreds of plausible combinations for Japan’s five fleets vs. USA’s three fleets, but that’s a good thing! There are options. :-)

Anyway, great work on this map. I vote we slap both of our names on it, submit it to the tripleA experimental map collection, and call it a success.

Thanks Argo,
I checked your partial game. Seems fine.
I think it is interesting to left alive 1 or 2 Soviet planes.

I’m actually trying this setup myself since you seems to agree with the few points I added in.

Moving VTs from Eastern Canada to Iceland and Poland to Ploesti in Romania need to be done, one day or another.

I’m not convinced about Rio over Carolines Islands, need to see deeper mid-game and how it impact balance.
I did not try a +1 $ single bonus at the end of a turn per VT owns and a +1$ to split between Alliance members. This will be next once the general rough balancing and depicting history will be done.

The old Capital capture is dominating my play-tests.

Your Japanese fleet groups allow for a lot of openings. I like to feel there is too much things to do and not enough units to get the job done.

IDK for sure about West Coast fleet vs Midway fleet.
I’m still able to obliterate everything. And US1 counter-attack is not very punchy when all three full Carriers and a Battleship are all at Midway.
1 IJN Destroyer is needed in Midway against Soviet Sub but it allows to throw it in against West Coast fleet.

At least, it reliefs UK fleet from an important power projection when all IJN Carriers are at Midway.

The need to control both Norway and North-Western Europe seems very hard on Germany.
I’m not sure about that one. It is blocking a lot of possibility for German Baltic Fleet.
Maybe only NWE need to be controlled?

Here is a saved game of 3 rounds, it is G4, but not played.
I totally missed a Sea Lion. The start was awful, I lost too many Subs.
Also, I lacked coordination with Med Fleet.

Japan was dominant at Midway but loose the edge against UK in South-East Asia.
Also, Submarines can be a real pain if there is no air cover to protect warships and TPs.
I lost 1 BB, 1 DD and 2 TPs to a Soviet Sub. And 1 Cruiser, 1 DD, 1 TP to 1 US Sub.

I’m not so sure that Sub should not be block at all…

But, I would like a rule when crossing a SZ in which there is Destroyer…
Probably a good thing to implement. Each DD can roll 1@1 ASDef.
I forgot to apply this rule. And I feel very much OK.

If you choose to move any type of surface ships through a sea zone containing one or more enemy submarines without stopping to fight those submarines, you must roll one die per enemy submarine (it does not matter how many ships you move, only how many enemy subs there are).
Your fleet takes one hit for each “1” rolled on the dice.
If you move through more than one sub-infested sea zone, repeat this process.

But, it can be the other way around. Each DD roll once regardless of Sub number.

I believe Germany needs a bit more Infantry or Tank at start to make Sea Lion more plausible.

---

After a second opening try, I still feel it needs a bit more Infantry to fight on Eastern Front.
It was pretty much interesting to lose 4 planes and Russia kept its 2 TcBs. AAA rolls snake eyes.

I made a V3: Germany, Poland and Romania received +1 Infantry.
NWE received 1 Armor.
Norway, moved 1 Infantry into Finland to reach 4 Infantry.

IMO, the temptation to use planes to boost a Karelia G1 with 4 Infantry (vs 4 Inf and 1 Art) might rise the dilemma toward not launching plane on UK’s fleet and lets Subs doing the job, partially at least.

Extreme StBs purchase and Subs should probably be tested to be sure it is not OP.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia4G.tsvg
1941Argo_edit setupv3_TcBsRussiaG1.tsvg

[Argothair]

Moving VTs from Eastern Canada to Iceland and Poland to Ploesti in Romania need to be done, one day or another.

I can get to that soon.

The old Capital capture is dominating my play-tests.

One thing we could try is assigning secondary capitals to each country – Rome, Vologda, Beijing, Ottawa, and Los Angeles? If you lose your primary capital you still get looted for one turn, but then you can carry on from your secondary capital even if you never retake your primary capital. I think it is already an option in the .xml.

At least, it reliefs UK fleet from an important power projection when all IJN Carriers are at Midway.

This is one of my favorite features of the game – Japan can dominate the central Pacific in the first couple of turns if they choose to use all of their naval resources on that goal, but as a result, the British navy from South Africa, India, ANZAC can consolidate and start taking back Burma, Malaya, Thailand, Java, Kwangtung, etc., and as a result Japan’s income will top out around 25 IPCs…not enough to keep replacing its losses vs. USA. If USA keeps building full-on Pacific with its 40 IPCs, then USA will eventually come out on top. On the other hand, Japan can split its attention between US and UK, with the result that British navy will be crippled and Japan will control Indian Ocean for a while, but US navy will quickly rebuild and stabilize near Hawaii while allowing USA to still invest resources in the Atlantic theater. I like this; it is very historical, and presents Japan with a tough but clear strategic decision.

The need to control both Norway and North-Western Europe seems very hard on Germany.
I’m not sure about that one. It is blocking a lot of possibility for German Baltic Fleet.
Maybe only NWE need to be controlled?

Well, don’t forget that this cuts both ways – in the endgame, the Allies will have to take both Norway and NWE before they can threaten Berlin. But if we are going to weaken the restriction, I would say that the gate should be in Norway, not in NWE. NWE already has a factory and makes a good staging ground for further invasions of France/Germany. Norway is pretty useless if it is not one of the keys to the Baltic sea zone. If I were to revise map values, I would make Norway worth 3 IPCs and Finland worth 2 IPCs, like in AA50.

But, I would like a rule when crossing a SZ in which there is Destroyer…
Probably a good thing to implement. Each DD can roll 1@1 ASDef.

I thought I implemented this already so it happens automatically! Are we working from different .xml? Did you shut off the “Always on AA” option?

I made a V3: Germany, Poland and Romania received +1 Infantry.
NWE received 1 Armor.
Norway, moved 1 Infantry into Finland to reach 4 Infantry.

Unless you give the Soviets more infantry to match it, then I think Barbarossa becomes way too strong. In the previous version, when Germany uses both Med transports to hit Ukraine and/or Caucasus, and uses air force to hit Karelia, then Soviets can barely hold West Russia on R1 if they use every available unit (including the tank in Vologda). If you give Germany 4 more infantry on the eastern front, then Russia has to retreat literally to Moscow on R1, which feels too fast for me. It would not be fun to play Russia in that situation; you have no options for any counter-attacks or even for any advanced defensive positions; all you can do is retreat to capital and build infantry. Plus the UK/US have to rush fighters to Moscow, or even that will not hold. Not the kind of game I want to build.

Can you say a little more about why you think Germany needs more infantry on the eastern front?

[baron Münchhausen]

Maybe I have to change an option about Always active AA.

I don’t want a secondary capital for now. I just need to play considering VTs bonus.
Giving IPCs when controled is not integrated in engine actually. I’m bit lazy to make the calculations and edit IPCs on hands. I will focus on this when general dynamics will be OK.

I really like the various play patterns for Japan too.

How I see the issue with Eastern Front is that it needs a few Infantry remaining after G1 in Baltic (not difficult), but also Belorussia and Ukraine. Otherwise, the first Russian counter can get ride of half Artys and Tanks either in Ukraine or Belorussia.

It makes less TUV to keep in reserve to turn either toward UK (Sea Lion) or going toward Moscow.

In my mind, Barbarossa should work G1 and G2 then being repelled.
I’m not against increasing armies in East, adding 1 Tank in Vologda and 1 or 2 Infantry in Evenki, or 1 in Russia and another in Evenki something like that.

I just think Germany should be able to capture G2 West Russia and Karelia and/or Caucasus.
But should payed it dearly with the help of Eastern Units and build up of R1.

The idea is that trying to swap Caucasus G1 will be costly in planes and let survives Soviet TcB or Fg.
These can be very useful for Russia even R1.

[baron Münchhausen]

OK, keeping Norway and NWE for now.
Baltic TP is easier to protect with BB, DD so it can be possible to ship more units in Norway G2 or G3.
It will remain under microscope.

[Argothair]

I agree that the eastern front should normally have at least a couple of rounds of back-and-forth battles, instead of just Germany crushing Russia’s advance forces and then Russia wiping out the German tank corps. However, I think putting more German infantry on the front line is not the way to make that happen…in order to take and hold all three of Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine on G1, Germany should be forced to dedicate about half of its air force to Barbarossa, meaning that either the British Atlantic Fleet or the Russian Air Force will live.

I did not keep your v3 changes.

I think there is room to bulk up the German army in Southern Europe – the Yugoslavia campaign finished only a couple of months before Barbarossa started, so significant German forces would have still been there. Compared to your v2, I added +2 infantry to Southern Europe, +1 infantry to Berlin, and +1 tactical bomber to Finland. I also moved one tank from Romania to Southern Europe, to show Romania’s relatively weak tank corps.

Then, I added +1 infantry to Archangel, and converted the AA gun in West Russia into an infantry. This both potentially gives Russia some land units to fight back with on R1, and reduces the swingyness of the G1 airblitz battles. I also added +1 infantry in Kazakh and +1 infantry in Novosibirsk, to help set up additional counter-attacks / stacks on R1.

In the Pacific theater, I moved the Midway stack back one space to Iwo Jima, and added an American destroyer in Midway. This means that the only possible attack on Pearl Harbor J1 is with subs and planes – if Japan wants to stack the Hawaiian sea zone on J1, it will have to kill at least one blocking destroyer, kill the Hawaiian fleet with subs/planes, and then move in the carriers on non-combat – possible, but more difficult and now requires even more resources. There is also a better chance for the American sub in Hawaii to survive long enough to submerge, adding punch to the A1 counter-attack.

As compensation, I gave Japan a submarine in SZ 61 (Chinese coast), which allows Japan to hit the British BB off India on J1 with 1 sub and 1, 2, or 3 fighters from Thailand and/or the Okinawa carrier. If they don’t bring fighters from the Okinawa carrier, Britain has even odds to win the battle; if they do bring fighters from Okinawa, Japan should win, but Japan may lose a fighter, and it will probably make it impossible for Japan to safely stack Hawaii on J1.

Finally, I gave London +2 inf, -1 tank, +1 AAA gun and 6 starting bombing damage. I also gave Berlin 3 starting bombing damage, to be fair. The problem was that a G1 Sea Lion has a 30% chance to succeed if you bring the maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 3 ftr, 2 tacB (one fighter can reach from NW Europe and return safely to NW Europe, and you can build 2 carriers in the North Sea from NW Europe that the extra 4 planes can land on). This is extremely swingy, in a bad way, because the battle happens before the Allies make any decisions at all, and if Germany wins the 30% battle then it gets to loot the entire British treasury, which is devastating. The new G1 Sea Lion only works 9% of the time, which seems low enough that only crazy people will go for it.

I think a G3 Sea Lion will probably fail all the time on our setup unless the German player somehow achieves near-total surprise…London’s industrial capacity of 8 and relatively large economy means that Britain can always just drop 8 infantry in London, and then have Canada / USA / Russia fly over a few fighters to help reinforce the island. I think instead of trying to combine the German Med and German Baltic fleets (which takes too long), it makes more sense for an anti-British opener to send both transports to Egypt. If Japan follows up by moving its carriers west and attacking India and ANZAC, then Britain will be forced to fight on all fronts at once, and it really cannot afford to do so, especially if both Germany and Japan build a couple of strategic bombers each to bomb Britain’s factories.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns!

SanFran_1941_Alpha03.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

Good catch on a too early Sea Lion!
I will look all of this closely.
Though I like the swingyness of an AAA in West Russia.
Anyway, only aircrafts may attack it.
AAA is an opening 1 time impact.
Of course, it is against up to 3 planes…
Maybe too much on opening.

Below, it is a game v2 which finishes off Japan in 4 rounds!

It make me thinks IJN needs 1 more TP to achieve an early faster control of TTs and even a double opening which may includes Pearl, Midway and Alaska.
Otherwise, it seems to remain with a low income.

I will look closely at your new Japan overhaul.
(For my part, I was moving the Midway Sub into Carolines Island: so only 1 DD and 4 planes could have attacked US West Coast but the Sub may have reach Pearl Harbor.)

You can also look closely G1 and R1 counter. Germany was not able to pull any Sea Lion because the Subs failed radically on UK’s BB. It was a slow attrition of higher value units. At the end, Germany was only keeping Art and Infantry.
It was not enough units to overwhelmed Soviet Union.
The initial swing on planes allows Soviet to keep a lot of them.
I’m not sure it is a good idea to add another Infantry in Archangel…
If one more Infantry is needed, I would rather place it in Russia.

There is a lot of small changes with interesting outcomes. I will have to analyse it more closely.
I will come back to you about it in a day or two.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia4Gb.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

I think there is room to bulk up the German army in Southern Europe – the Yugoslavia campaign finished only a couple of months before Barbarossa started, so significant German forces would have still been there. Compared to your v2, I added +2 infantry to Southern Europe, +1 infantry to Berlin, and +1 tactical bomber to Finland. I also moved one tank from Romania to Southern Europe, to show Romania’s relatively weak tank corps.

Then, I added +1 infantry to Archangel, and converted the AA gun in West Russia into an infantry. This both potentially gives Russia some land units to fight back with on R1, and reduces the swingyness of the G1 airblitz battles. I also added +1 infantry in Kazakh and +1 infantry in Novosibirsk, to help set up additional counter-attacks / stacks on R1.

I’m a bit torn up by Alpha 3 setup.
IMO, it is too much planes in Finland from an historical POV.
It was already a stretch with 1 Fg and 1 TcB.
Are you against moving back the single Infantry into Russia?
(I really want to give a 2 rounds momentum to Germany to reach almost Russia (before Eastern forces push them backward). And allowing a single counter TT on R1.)
What about removing the AAA in Yakut and 1 Infantry in Novo but giving one Tank in Evenki?

Also, from a general POV, one comparative I made to better find where the balance can be is to compared ground units in OOB 1942.2. Since it allows one round of expansion, then Allies counter, I think Japan need at least the same number of units in mainland Asia to be able to push forward at least 2 rounds. Otherwise, it will always remain behind because there is already more opposition in China (more units, including 1 art and an IC) and in Soviet Union.

What do you think of adding another US Carrier on West Coast and moving 1 Fighter on it;
something like that, to increase US mobility (and more accurately depict the number of 2 Carrier Task force available in PTO: Enterprise, Lexington and  Saratoga, at San Diego during Pearl Harbour, torpedoed after first attempt to liberate Wake, being repaired WUSA at the time of Midway Ops, ATO:  Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp were rapidly sent into Pacific Ocean too) early actions and to diverge more from 1941 AA50 setup? I moved US Sub from West Coast to Pearl Harbor. It left more option to US player to save them (for US1 counter) or take them as casualties.

To offset somehow, it will be more interesting to add 1 Fighter in Carolines Island: Truk was such an important Naval and Air Base at that time for PTO (like an IJN Pearl Harbor). And use your added Sub into the mix in Japan.

What do you think of Wake and Midway Airbase?
IMO, Wake becomes an historical target that way while Midway is optional (1 more TcB for US).

However, maybe a more direct (and historical event) combat between planes and UK’s BB maybe more epic on opening. Something like 1 Fg+1TcB in FIC, vs 1 BB: 60%-25%- draw 15%
But Infantry on land will have far less air support or waiting J2 and make a more easier Naval Battle with all IJN units within range against UK’s regrouped fleet?
I gave 1 Fg and 1 Sub to India in compensation.

SanFran_1941_Alpha04Baron.tsvg

[Argothair]

Barbarossa

So, there are four “levels” of Barbarossa attacks that Germany can make on turn 1.

• Level 1: Minimum Attack – attack only Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine. Use mostly infantry, with tanks kept in reserve; the idea is to trade eastern europe back and forth.

• Level 2: Conquering Attack – attack only Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine, but use all available land units, with the idea of permanently holding eastern europe.

• Level 3: Penetrating Attack – attack most of Baltic States, Belorussia, Ukraine, Karelia, Archangel, West Russia, and Caucasus, with the idea of holding the border territories and trading Leningrad/Stalingrad.

  • Level 4: Maximum Attack – attack all of Soviet Union west of Moscow, and expect to hold it for at least one full turn.

  In my opinion, Level 4 should be impossible from our starting setup without amazing luck or a German bid. It is not fun for the Russian player to immediately lose everything west of Moscow and be unable to take any of it back on R1. It is also unrealistic – it took Hitler five months to make it from Poland to the gates of Moscow, which probably represents at least two game turns. Because it is not fun and not realistic for Germany to immediately conquer everything west of Moscow, that should not be allowed to happen in our setup. Do you agree?

  If you agree, then there are some major problems with your v3 and v4 setups. First, if you put 4 infantry in Finland, then Germany can easily use the Finnish infantry plus 2-3 planes to conquer Karelia on G1, or at least wipe out all but one of the starting Russian infantry there. Similarly, Germany can easily use the Italy / Southern Europe infantry plus 2-3 planes to conquer Caucasus on G1. Combined with the lack of starting Russian infantry in Archangel and West Russia, this means that Russia literally has nothing left that can counter-attack in Baltic States, Belorussia, or Ukraine. Germany does not have to worry about leaving tanks exposed on the “front line”, because Germany has already wiped out a whole second row of territories beyond the front line. It’s all dead. Russia loses all its starting units west of Moscow, and therefore basically loses its whole first turn. All Russia can do is build infantry and move reinforcements forward from central Asia. Russia cannot even afford to re-take the Caucasus, because whatever Russia puts in the Caucasus will get hit (and killed) again on G2 at a profit for Germany.

  Despite all this, with enough starting income and enough Russian starting infantry in Moscow / Novsibirsk / Vologda / Evenki / Kazakh, I think it will usually be possible for Russia to hold Moscow and eventually launch a counter-attack on R3 or R4, which is part of what you want. But I still don’t think this is fun for Russia! Russia should get to do something in the opening other than just sit around and wait for its recruiting to start making a difference. It is one thing for Germany to have the advantage in Eastern Europe in the opening; it’s another to give all of Russia west of Moscow to Germany without a real fight. Conquering Archangel / West Russia / Caucasus will be much more fun for Germany (and more fair to Russia) if Germany has to earn those territories by attacking wisely over 2 turns, instead of just using a standard opening move that will work 95%+ of the time.

  Adding more infantry to Moscow or a tank to Evenki does not really fix this problem, because the units are too far away from the front line. It helps make sure Moscow will hold, but it does nothing to help Russia counter-attack eastern Europe.

  You say you want to allow a single counter TT on R1, which I assume means that on R1, Russia should be able to successfully counter-attack one territory that Germany took on G1. Which territory did you have in mind? With the map as you have it now, I do not see any such territories.

  East Asian Mainland

  I do not want to disturb the Yakut / Vologda setup…I think it works very nicely. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA gives Yakut a solid backstop. If combined with the Buryatia + SFE forces, Russia winds up with 7 inf, 1 art, 1 AAA, which is enough to absorb a medium-sized Japanese attack or to go on the offense against a small Japanese garrison. This can be the new “standard move,” and if Russia wants to bring the Siberia Guard home more quickly, the 3 inf, 1 art in Yakut can go to Europe, while the 4 inf, 1 AAA stay in place in Yakut as a small deterrent to force Japan to bring in significant forces to take Siberia. If Russia wants to go heavy in the Pacific, it can bring in the Vologda forces to wind up with 8 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 AAA, which is a serious threat to Japanese interests in east Asia. One or both of the Vologda units (inf, tnk) could also go to China, instead. I think this all works well as-is and I do not want to disturb it.

  You suggest increasing the starting Japanese forces, and I am not totally opposed to the idea. Maybe they need +1 tank or something. I do not want to increase them too much, because the point is to give China a chance to hold and even grow if Japan does not invest in crushing them. The point is not to just rewind the 1942 battles by two turns and have them all come out exactly as scripted. If Japan needs more starting forces (and it might), then I would like to put them in Tokyo, not in Manchuria. That way Japan can choose to ship the forces to China, or leave them in Tokyo for defense, or send them to Australia, Hawaii, Alaska, etc – it is Japan’s choice how to use those troops.

  I reviewed your game where Japan was eliminated on turn 4, and I think you got very unlucky in Hawaii (on low luck, you had only 1% chance to lose the land battle as Japan with your 3 inf, 1 art vs. 1 inf, 1 ftr), and then after that you mis-handled the Japanese forces. You lost all of your transports on turns 1 and 2, but you still kept buying land forces for Tokyo, and then you had no way to ship those forces off of Tokyo to the front lines. After you lost the remnants of your fleet in your second attack on the Hawaiian sea zone, the Allies effectively had naval superiority across the entire Pacific Ocean, but you continued to build destroyers and transports as if the Japanese sea zone was safe, and the Allies were able to sink those new Japanese boats at a profit. Finally, when America was getting ready to invade Japan, you continued to build some boats and tanks, and you put 3 units into your Manchurian factory, instead of max-placing infantry in Tokyo to force the Allies into a longer, less profitable military buildup.

  I think it is fine to put one starting airplane each on Caroline Islands, Wake, and Midway if you want to. I think the islands are already somewhat useful as a place to do emergency landings of aircraft that started out on carriers (and as a place to land “surplus” planes if you want to fly them over from Los Angeles / Tokyo in excess of the number of carriers you have in position), but I can see where adding starting aircraft would be a fun way to get those islands into even more regular use.

  I am strongly opposed to the direction you are taking the US Pacific fleets. We keep adding more and more ships to San Francisco, while leaving Hawaii basically the same. In your v4, America has only 32 IPCs in Pearl Harbor, out of 170 IPCs total in the Pacific. This means that even if Japan sinks everything in Pearl Harbor, it does not “cripple” US naval power, even temporarily. We need to make a decision about whether attacking the San Francisco fleet on J1 should be (a) impossible, (b) possible but reckless, © an interesting anti-American opening option, or (d) the standard move. I think (d) is a bad idea because it means lots more putting pieces onto the starting setup only to take them off the board again before you get your first turn. Just like it is not fun for Russia to lose everything west of Moscow before R1, it is not fun for USA to lose everything west of Mexico before USA-1. I am fine with (a), (b), or © as long as the US will have a reasonable US-1 counter-attack. I like the idea of forcing America to respond to a strong anti-American opening by Japan by diverting fighters from Eastern US and spending 30+ IPCs in the Pacific on US-1 – this way Japan can choose to indirectly support Germany by forcing the USA to focus in the Pacific in the early game instead of allowing the US to proceed with Operation Torch.

  Thai air force vs. Indian BB

  This is fine; I like the way it works.

[baron Münchhausen]

Pretty in-depth analysis Argo.
You put a lot in this.
In my mind, there is no viable possibility for Germany to trade Eastern Europe.
It means not enough income and too much for Soviet.
It needs level 2 or 3 to works.
Actually, trying to take Karelia and Caucasus G1 imply that only 1 Italian Fg can be used against UK (fleet or Egypt). Meaning UK fleet will be in good shape.
Also, it makes very hard to get rid of Arch Fg and WR TcBs if fighting for both Karelia and Caucasus G1.
It makes for Pyrhic victory in my two or three attempts living Soviet with more starting planes while losing many Fg and TcB in opening.

This makes for 2 interesting options IMO, a pure level 2 Conquer with a balanced choice between UK fleet and Soviet Aircrafts. Usually, only Russia’s Fg and TcB can attack R1 either helping Caucasus or Karelia counter-attack on most vulnerable German stack (Belo or Ukraine). G2 will retake it and at most control Caucasus and Leningrad, leaving West Russia and Archangel.

A level 3 Penetrating attack gives no opportunity to directly attack Belo or Ukraine but Caucasus is easily reconquered (here, we differ : Soviet have to retake it for income and not allowing G build up) and you probably still hold Karelia and now, you have more planes to play with or, at least, Germany have much less. G2 will then gets Leningrad, West Russia, Caucasus and maybe Archangel. That will be the maximum expansion. But R2 will have much more to counter and repel with more Infantry and planes (that is where I saw Evenki third Tank useful with all planes).

That’s how I see it. Playing with more aircrafts imply much more options to use Infantry to trade TTs with Germany.
If Germany has no real opportunity to trade Archangel, Caucasus and Western Russia, its income will be too low and UK will easily block Baltic fleet by taking Norway. And fighting back and forth over it, allows to increase UK’s fleet steadily with US and UK units.
In fact, Norway is of main importance if there is a raid against UK’s fleet otherwise, the Luftwaffe is toasted with no fodder.

In Eastern Soviet, there is so much units that is a repellant in itself. In addition, the Chinese factory is a magnet that becomes prioritize along taking 2 IPCs Kwantung.
Japan has to wait for Soviet calling eastern troops for help against Germany, otherwise it will be too bloody for one or two 1 IPC TTs.

I believed by giving an additional back up tank, which can be use in either east or west, I gave more options to Russian players. I’m not a russian stacker, I rather like play offense and trade where Germany is weaker. Is it what you want by adding more russian units to front line, making stronger Karelia as a viable option?

Penetrating attack seems to me an handicapping tactics for airfleets but you have more boots on the East, level 2 allows to keep more planes but makes at least 1 TT vulnerable to R1 counter and it delay the income level next turn.

On Yakut AAA, what is it suppose to represent?
I do not want to change anything else, but it seems to me that Eastern divisions were less static and brings tanks with them. That’s why I think to better depict them and it was more useful also to get 1 unit which may fight either east or west.

[baron Münchhausen]

I am strongly opposed to the direction you are taking the US Pacific fleets. We keep adding more and more ships to San Francisco, while leaving Hawaii basically the same. In your v4, America has only 32 IPCs in Pearl Harbor, out of 170 IPCs total in the Pacific. This means that even if Japan sinks everything in Pearl Harbor, it does not “cripple” US naval power, even temporarily. We need to make a decision about whether attacking the San Francisco fleet on J1 should be (a) impossible, (b) possible but reckless, © an interesting anti-American opening option, or (d) the standard move. I think (d) is a bad idea because it means lots more putting pieces onto the starting setup only to take them off the board again before you get your first turn. Just like it is not fun for Russia to lose everything west of Moscow before R1, it is not fun for USA to lose everything west of Mexico before USA-1. I am fine with (a), (b), or © as long as the US will have a reasonable US-1 counter-attack. I like the idea of forcing America to respond to a strong anti-American opening by Japan by diverting fighters from Eastern US and spending 30+ IPCs in the Pacific on US-1 – this way Japan can choose to indirectly support Germany by forcing the USA to focus in the Pacific in the early game instead of allowing the US to proceed with Operation Torch.

I almost add 1 Cruiser to 1 Sub and 1 BB in Pearl Harbor, finally I changed my mind to a second Sub.
To not loose to much planes on this attack.
The issue with West Coast is that 2 Fgs and 2 TcBs can still wreck havoc in SZ.
IJN was in Midway and with 1 Sub and air can wipe it.
Then you put it in Iwo SZ with a DD blocker in Midway SZ.
The last option is to place 2 Carriers in Okinawa and place the last one somewhere else (maybe in China Sea, IDK).
Actually, the additional Carrier with 1 Fg, 1 Cruiser, 1 DD and 1 Sub gives only D10 for 5 hits while IJN has A14 attack with 4 hits. It can be very swingy. US player may decide to save Sub, or take the Carrier first before Cruiser. This can be viewed as if IJN found the carrier (Lexington) shipping planes to Midway or Enterprise coming back from Wake. This last one could have really occurred, a matter of a few hours: some scouting bombers even fight over Pearl Harbor !!!
But IJN is risking planes directly too, same way as against UK’s BB. (Glad we agree on that one.)

Maybe another idea to downscale West Coast is to place 2 Carriers in Okinawa and only 1 Iwo, that way West Coast can be downsized by 1 Cruiser and 1 Sub.
I still would let 1 DD and 1 Carrier with 1 TcB in West Coast while moving Fg in West USA.
It makes 1 TcB+1 Fg a daring raid, pretty reckless opening.

This would allows all Carriers to regroup at Midway, if Japanese player wanted it.

On Wake and Midway, it provides at least a reason to invade, particularly Wake.
That way, it feels more understandable that Japan controlled it for the duration of WWII.

I put 6 TPs and add 1 Inf and 1 Art in China because on J1, Japan has so much to do to reach around 30 $ income. Anyway, it will not be similar to 1942.2, China is much more heavily defended and US get Artillery to punch hole into Imp Japan Army and may received more help from UK.
At most, J2 will put a few units on Chinese coast.

The main issue with IJN is that splitting too much escort for each single TP is very risky.
Probably 1 or 2 have to be sacrificed to increase income fast.

---

Edit: I posted a different PTO with less powerful unit in WUSA coast and Mexico Coast.
I increased to 2 Fgs the US Carrier South of Hawaii.
Trading 1 plane 10 IPCs for 1 DD 5 IPCs is not interesting for Japan.

Wherever I moved Carriers, their planes were able to reach USWest coast and sink everything while establishing an unassailable Midway fleet. This is the big issue, allowing Carrier to reach either Hawaii or Midway (which is correct for late 1941, early 1942) without sinking US fleet.

So, I downsized this US fleet while increasing the counter capacity from the only US Carrier.

It gives a general idea of US fleet distribution: no BB, a few Cruisers, a lot of Destroyers, only 3 Carriers available in PTO and many Subs. Subs will survive according to US player casualty choices.
Particularly,  Hawaii now gets 3 Subs, to simulate multiple waves on Hawaii to sink them (if US choose to take them as casualty while Battleship take them down). This will increase the opening variety for US1 and gives a real tactical decision for US player.

As a counter, I increase by 1 Cruiser IJN in Chinese Sea and moved in Japan SZ the other Battleship. It allows more possibility to cover TPs, allows an opening on Alaska, Midway or as usual in Philippines but Cruiser is more vulnerable to Submarine.
IMO, Japan need to expand fast and it allows for more small skirmishes everywhere. I have the feel that Allies will be able to pick their fights and slowly decrease IJN strength (India have an additional Fg and a Submarine in Red Sea).
Also, there was many Japanese Cruisers which were sunk in WWII. A single unit seems too few to show the might of IJN gunships.
I named it Alpha5 because you may have decided to move in another direction (Alpha 4 is still open.)

From my first partial tries, I can say that it gives a feel for Japan to open up the engines because you can cover a bit more your TPs, but US counter is somewhat devastating (on Hawaii) if not enough Carriers in same SZ. Hawaii is really a deadzone with this setup and too much split is hard on IJN.
Even with an additional Cruiser, you still feel there is too many targets to take care of in a single assault.
Russian Sub in that configuration is pretty dangerous against Chinese Cruiser, DD and TP: in one test I loose all units. I would probably move 1 TP in Japan SZ. So, if it hits the mark, there is still 5 TPs remaining. But it left Soviet Sub with an interesting target to open hostility if you wish.

BB can remain in Chinese SZ while Cruiser is placed in Japan SZ. That way, there is no real interesting target J1 and must R2 to kill something with it.

SanFran_1941_Alpha05Baron.tsvg