IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files

Makes sense Charles DG.  General HG uses armored cars as artillery scouts.  Could do something similar.

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.

@all-encompassing-goose Sounds good - hope you have lots of fun with it!

It seems to me like in a lot of cases retreat would not be an option, unless like Black Elk said they could choose any adjacent friendly territory.
Here’s an example using 1942.2 with Germany and Russia:
Germany starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter in Ukraine.
Russia starts with 3 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank in Caucasus.
Russia decides to send 2 infantry, 1 artillery to Ukraine from Caucasus, 1 infantry, 1 tank to W Russia from Caucasus.
Germany sends 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter to Caucasus from Ukraine.
Now there is a border clash. Let’s say Germany wins losing 2 infantry. Now Germany has 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank and 1 fighter that move on into the Caucasus. Basically, Germany now takes control of the Caucasus.
Let’s say the battle in W. Russia goes badly for Russia and they decide to retreat the 1 infantry and 1 tank that came from Caucasus.
How would you handle this retreat? Would they go to Russia or Kazakhstan?
Or would they go back to Caucasus and fight the German units there? If this were the case, would they act as attackers or defenders?
Or, if neither Russia or Kazakhstan were available as retreat options, I guess the infantry and tank simply fight on in W Russia until they are destroyed?

I like the idea of veteran infantry. I will always want the British SAS, US Marine Core, or Waffen SS fighting on my side (YES ALL OF THEM!). Also I’ve never like mechs. I think they should have just made trucks. A bit more complitcated but interesting.

That non-aggro pact looks a little familiar.

But it should add this: the 2 signatories cannot allow their allies to attack the other signatory from their territory.

That is, for example, UK bombers based on Russian soil cannot attack Japanese units, nor land in Russia from such an attack from elsewhere.

The treaty should remain in force for as long as the power gaining the right to attack wishes.  For example if Berlin falls Russia and Japan are only at war when Russia declares war on Japan, which it can do at any time.  Japan would not have the right to attack until Russia declared war, or until it’s own criteria were achieved.
(Supposing Russia wanted to see a powerful Italy beated down a bit, or rebuild it’s own forces up after a hard German campaign, before risking war with a bloated Japanese monster.)

updated 11/10/07 check first page

@Cobert:

I like unlimited attacking (in Risk only), it adds an element of surprise since you can attack right into your opponents gut.

Im playing a free-for-all game later tonight.  Im probably going to be Russia, jus to add a challenge.

I sense an early treaty with Germany and a war with the UK in my future…Russia in africa/india might not be a bad idea.

ithink japan will be the most intresting to play. probably most likely to piss everyone off. it has no common enemy everyone except german yis in the grasp of japan. even then if japan want safrica they may start a war. you may have to give up ypu 2 eaxstern countries as appesment. but don’t forget to attack sinkiang first turn.  w.r russia should fall to you to so german should evacuvate it 1st turn.