IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files

@oztea I feel like there should be more dutch units.

Some suggestions in the order you posted great ideas;

reduce Bombay factory to minor
play G42 instead then switch back the diplomacy is a great module…or just start everyone at war!
Yep.  Agree on split neutrals easy mod
Pro-neutrals under control…  Germany too powerful and positioned though.
islands of 2 IPC; or more agree.  too abusive on Hawaii/wake etc.
scrambling seems a crucial deterrent power, its too weak as it is…stratbombing is devastatingly powerful
transports should only defend, otherwise they are better than destroyers as cannon fodder
agree, convoys everywhere, no problems.
I like that destroyers can carry 1 guy from the pacific game but since they can only noncom or combat it makes it kinda limited…

@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.

If you can build rail centers, players get a risk/reward thing going on that develops player options. They buy something and it benefits them, the enemy can negate them and it costs them using as bomber which in turn costs the enemy the use for another purpose he did not intend.

If i did this “stop land units moving two spaces” you disrupt all currently known strategy…basically invalidate it with one sentence, then you make combat moves problematic because tanks are usually behind the front lines because they move two and they are protected behind the front lines ( in the case of the German-Russo conflict). With your idea the whole panzer army needs to be on the front line and have lost the options to move north or south two spaces, and just have to fight whats next to them. You with that rule ruined the game. thanks.

It appears you never played global 1940?

Just please stick to the actual rules and find a pretty idea that adds to what players can do in the game that was not already accounted for.

How about an idea regarding neutrals? or Tech changes to alter SBR raids ( perhaps jet fighters taken in as escorts fire at 2?)  ?  ?

Something from that mind, that generally smart mind you have…

Added a new American National Objective…

- 5 IPCs if the Allies control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes.

Axis and Allies D12 system rules:
The purpose of this is to integrate the new pieces from HBG as well as new sculpts from AA41 and AA42.2.  The goal is to fit all the pieces creating unique values into Axis and Allies games.
I had considered using different unit values by nation, but this proved too difficult. The utility of using D12 allows many new units each having unique characteristics.

Note most OOB units are double attack and defensive values: (Attack-Defense-Movement-Cost)

Infantry: 2-4-1-3
Artillery: 4-4-1-4
Mechanized Infantry:
Armor: 6-6-2-6
(Note: these are considered mid-war tank design and can’t be built till turn 3)
Fighter: 6-8-4-10
Tactical Bomber: 6-6-4-11
Strategic Bomber: 8-2-6-12
Battleship: 8-8-2-20
Cruiser: 6-6-2-12
Destroyer: 4-4-2-8
Submarine: 4-2-2-6
Carrier: 0-2-2-16
Transport: 0-0-2-7

New WOTC sculpts:
Note: These cannot be built as early as turn 3

LAND:
Heavy Artillery: These are a 6-4-1-5 unit and have a special feature. If they roll a one result in combat, the defender must select an air or non-infantry land unit as a combat loss.
Late War Tanks: These are 8-8-2-8 units and can blitz like other tanks. In all other respects these perform as tanks. These tanks can be built as early as turn 6.

SEA:
Battle-cruisers:  These are 7-6-2-16 units and like Battleships they take two hits. They also bombard at 3.
Super Carriers:  These are 2-4-2-18 units that carry 3 planes. They also take two hits, but the first hit does not affect their ability to launch or land fighters.
Destroyer Escorts: These are specialized units to protect convoys. They have a movement of 3 spaces or four if leaving a naval base. These are 4-2-3-10 units and have the same abilities as a destroyer, except as long as you have at least one Destroyer escort, all transports in the same sea zone as the destroyer escort defend at 1.
Heavy Transport: These perform just like Transports, except they carry three Infantry or two armor type units. These are 0-0-2-12 units.
Advanced Submarine Design:  These are 4-2-2-8 units and have special abilities. They can avoid combat with destroyers or destroyer escorts at a 1:1 basis. If you got for example 2 of these subs and you enter a sea zone with 1 destroyer escort or destroyer, they can avoid combat and  pass thru into the next sea zone. If for example you have 2 of these units and get attacked by at least 3 destroyers, combat is performed in the normal fashion. If at any time the destroyer count is equal to the submarine count, the advanced submarines can submerge immediately.

AIR:
Medium Bomber: These are 6-2-6-9 units and have a number of new features. They can  perform SBR like any other Bomber, but are the only units that can  pick up Paratroopers
Advanced Fighter design:  These are 8-8-4-14 units. The key feature is their ability to be used somewhat differently in SBR. In these actions they get a +1 in combat as escorts or as interceptors.

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

always OOB.