How do you make those maps?

Sounds pretty cool! I’d watch the video haha. I have a lot of old pewters from the 80s, but mine are all high fantasy, dragons and the like. My uncle had some kick ass Napoleonic era pewters, and a great set of plastic army men from the early 60s that I always pined over.

My first serious attempt at the map concept was for the computer in tripleA, a few decades ago, so pretty limited by what the thing could do at the time. It worked for a bit, but was kinda wonky and used some gimmicky ideas for the naval movement and convoys, as a way to delay the USA. It had a kind of one direction flow from the Americas to support the Entente, but the game was basically decided by what happened in Europe with the CP. I was never very satisfied, but it was a fun project cause I like the era. You can see the map down at the bottom here…

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Great_War

Then I tried to revisit the era again, but ended up not using the WW1 map abstraction concept, opting for something that just had the whole world on view and a more free form 1898-1918 vibe, so the factions could be less rigid. Basically I wanted it to include the Spanish American war, and Africa scrambles, or Boxer rebellion-y stuff with a kind of slow build into WW1. I split the Entente into Anglo-American and Franco-Russian sides, to see if I could find a way of dividing up the world and then tacked some others minors onto each team just to see how it would work. I think I had America-Britain-Portugal-Japan on one team, France-Spain-Italy-Russia on another. Germany-Austria-Ottomans-the Dutch and China on the last. Just so the spread would be evenly distributed with some fronts in each theater to tease out. I determined it as too simplistic and anachronistic though. It was basically the dilemma of the 3 faction game and being modelled more on the playscale of Risk than A&A that proved kind of intractable. The factions weren’t entirely satisfying, though I thought it kind of fun for make believe, and colonial competition. I just called it “Domination” lol. That one had a very limited unit roster, and simplified economy, but a much larger scale of territory divisions. I think it still would have worked on a 6 ft table, but only because of the limited units. Really it was just an excuse to draw a world map projection with a warp that I liked a little better than the traditional A&A map.

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Domination

I wanted something a bit closer to Mercator, but which would still give a much larger Europe. The squish-blob challenge I found was in how to manage South Asia and Africa, where the map compression becomes more extreme due to what has to happen with Europe/Med in A&A style games, so there was some abstraction, but a bit different than the earlier idea. I abandoned that one too, but Hepster picked it up again and revised it considerably for a 1914 era game using the same base projection but focused more on politics and a much more highly evolved roster/ruleset for this one…

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario

I’m not sure if that one would work as a physical game though without a very large map. Perhaps 2x6 ft tables to make a large square with a more extreme warp in the map projection? But basically its better on a computer I’d imagine since you can map zoom and scale to micro with the imaginary sculpts. But work on it has gone a bit quiet since last year. Anyhow, it have a few of the abstraction concepts for stuff like convoys or how to handle the Bolshevik revolution (always a toughy), or things like cities through an abstracted scheme, but not so much with the playboxes ideas.

I’m definitely interested in different ways to push the map around though. I enjoyed the Classic playboxes in the first A&A map I picked up, even if they were just sort of cosmetic zooms in that one. I liked the look of it.

I was just trying to visual what the coolest possible legacy product for me would be.

A 3 or 4 section split map, so that its easy to move or store a set board. A rigid material that doesn’t get wet or bend, or worn from folding (since its sectional.) Something printed on metal would be coolest, because that would allow for Cyanite style magnetic sculpts and also a way to stack the sectional board, using pylons or columns like an inch or so high, you could stack a set board on top of itself with the sculpts in place for easier storage on top of a shelf or corner of a table (since A&A is such a long game that would be particularly rad).

A double sided map would be sweetest, with the obverse serving as the main base map, and the reverse something more customizable. So maybe a political historical theme for the front map (all the pretty national colors, with the labeling of things like VCs or starting territory control with little roundels etc being printed directly on it.) The reverse side could be a more stripped down build-it-yourself topographical map, showing the basic territory and sz divisions, but using movable control markers to indicate things like VCs and starting territories control. On upside down, it could then service multiple scenarios or different start dates.

Magnetic sculpts, with chips, baseplates and risers for easy grouping and stacking.

WW2 nation themed unit trays, dice, and dice tower.

The underside of the box lid itself, could serve as a large battle board field for multiple encounters per turn. Something that shows the base attack/defense power (“hits at”) in Rows 1-4, and shows moves remaining on the attacker side (“moves left”) in columns to the far right or left of each row 1-5. That way all the critical gameplay information is preserved when moving sculpts from the map to the battle box and back again. Movable battle markers could be used to indicate which square on the battleboard field corresponds to which territory or sz on the map. Since there is a lot of room on the box lid, you could also have a field/marker that is used to expand a territory or sea zone that is becoming overcrowded. Similar to the blow up boxes on the Classic map, but more adaptive.

The inside of the box base could serve (as it often already does), for rolling the dice and housing the sculpt trays, but with a tower this would make it easier to save space.

Using a sectional map rather than a folding map, with pylons everything could be stacked on top of itself, even for a set game. And then moved around easily from spot to spot. Basically a longer box, with a narrower attack profile hehe

The 1942 game map in print is 40″ x 26″ but its comprised of two folding pieces of cardboard which is harder to move around without a backing and takes up a lot of space when set. Global and AA50 also use folding maps. A rigid sectional map that was more like 12x24 in 4 panels would be larger when playing but easier to transport when set, and a lot smaller when stacked so you could have something a little closer in total size/space to the game box itself. Just a few inches taller. With magnets stuff wouldn’t shift around, so it’d be easier to leave out without dominating the room.

Then for the manual something like a gamemaster’s guide, or a players handbook or DMG in D&D but for Axis and Allies. Like with a layout of the standard rules for the scenario or campaign that comes in the box, but also with a section at the end on the history of the game, and ideas for how to customize or create new scenarios, paint sculpts, add to the game and whathaveyou.

Something like that would be platinum plus. Take all my loot hehe

OK i found all the files and i must say they are impressive. PM me your email and ill start

Thanks! I mostly agree with your comment about per-dice research efficiency; the only reason I didn’t include additional penalties for triple-stacking your scientists is for the sake of simplicity. If you want to play with a -3 penalty, or (even better) a -4 penalty that rounds up to a -3 penalty if you roll three 1’s, then go right ahead!

Giving each Axis nation 3 tokens and each Allied nation 2 tokens tends to give the Axis an early edge in research (they will manage their first couple of breakthroughs earlier than the Allies will), but then the Allies will start to catch up and then overtake the Axis later in the war, because the Axis scientists (on average) will be more “crowded” and will take more stacking penalties.

You could bump Radar to 14 pts. or even to 16 pts. if you really want to, but there are limited opportunities to make full use of the potential synergy. E.g., suppose Germany is using a “Dark Skies” approach to ward off Allied fleets with its enormous Nazi bomber squadrons. Britain might want both Radar and Anti-Aircraft Cruisers to help protect its fleet. Russia, on the other hand, only needs Radar – they’re not going to build any cruisers. Similarly, Russia doesn’t have much use for Jet Fighters, since if it’s suffering from a strategic bombing campaign, it won’t be able to afford much in the way of extra fighters. There’s also the concern that “Heavy Bombers” has always been an overpowered technology in every version of Axis & Allies that had tech. I tried to err in the opposite direction by making the anti-aircraft techs roughly as powerful as the aircraft-enhancement techs!

There is an “Improved Artillery” tech in some of the OOB versions of Axis & Allies, and I’ve never seen anyone buy it, except maybe Russia, who really does have to count every dollar and might not be able to afford enough artillery to fully power its infantry stacks. It is really challenging to fully exploit the advantage of 2:1 artillery support is that it’s really hard to maintain the desired ratio. E.g. if I have a stack of 10 infantry and 5 artillery, then after one round of combat, I probably have something like 2 infantry and 5 artillery, and the extra artillery support becomes moot. It stays moot on defense, too, when those artillery try to hold the ground they just captured. But if I have a stack of 20 infantry and 5 artillery instead, then my army is hugely inefficient – even with 2:1 artillery support, I’m only generating 40 pips of punch on 25 units, so I’m going to give you multiple rounds of combat in which to score hits and wear down my army.

You get the same problem in reverse if you want to only boost the artillery’s native attack power. With a stack of, e.g., 8 infantry and 3 artillery, the tech would only give you +3 pips of punch – it’s just not very exciting. You could try attacking with a stack of all artillery, e.g., 10 artillery for $40, but that just seems weird and un-thematic.

Anyway, let me know if you try out the rules, with or without some modifications! I’d be curious to see how they work in live play. I’m defending my rules so you have the benefit of my opinions, but they’re just opinions, and ultimately the house rules are there for everyone to enjoy however they like…if you think you’ll have more fun tweaking the costs or nerfing a couple of the techs, then go with what seems fun! :-)

UPDATE: Screenshot & TripleA save game file!

Note that both the map and the saved game are missing the neutral units (including French & Dutch), because the WW2v5 map in TripleA doesn’t allow for neutral units, but this should still save you a lot of setup time if you’re interested in playtesting the 1939 scenario.

AAA screenshot 1939.png
Argo 1939.tsvg

@Young:

@BM,

During Alpha 2 I was upset that each interceptor got 1@2 and each escort and bomber were 1@1. This prevented any SBRs being attempted and a game mechanic I loved in classic was now extinct in 1940 Global due to the risk vs. reward. Than Alpha 3 came out with all air units hitting @1 during air battles and I was so happy because if I wanted to conduct a SBR, my teammates couldn’t scream “PLEASE DON’T” at me for tring a foolish strategy. So, I’m happy for the way things are and my lone bombers without escorts can still have a chance to get by (there were lots of guns on bombers, so I don’t have an issue from an historical view point). The problem with the India bombing raids is not the air battles or the fact that it can get maxed with a couple of raids, it’s the UK Pacific income and the inability to repair faster than it gets damaged. The SB+AB=+2 DMG house rule helps the UK Pacific problem without hurting the Europe theaters because there are lots of Air bases in Europe. If attacking bomber gets zero defence capability against interceptors, SBR would go extinct like Alpha +2 IMO. What would happen is I would raid India with 2 bombers against 2 interceptors and the UK could just roll 4@1 if they like (interceptors + AA Guns) I would not expose my bombers to those odds if I can’t fire back, plus American players who have watched Memphis Belle a hundred times would wonder why their Super Fortress bombers don’t have a least a 1/6 chance to hit in an air battle during SBRs. The way I see it, the SBR mechanic doesn’t need changing IMO because you never see it too much or too little (at least in our groups), there are problem areas with the rules like cruisers, neutral territories, the victory conditions etc…. but I’m happy with the balance of SBRs.

I’m very grateful Young Grasshopper for this deeper and more extensive answer about what criterions where important for a good SBR.

There is at least two points which are beyond statistics comparison.
Even if odds are really goods for the attacker (with higher bombing damage such as 1D6+3), having a defenseless Strategic bomber @0 in dogfight is quite an intuitive deterrent to use bombers in Strategic Bombing Raid. And it is less funny to have those big and costly unit being passively slaughtered.

Also, the historical depiction is a pretty good annoying argument against a zero-attack strategic bomber.
Flying-fortresses defensive formation were not defenseless planes, even if they were still vulnerable against interceptors.

Also, if YG’s fellow players feel that Alpha 2 SBR was a wasted strategy, while the actual G40 OOB SBR is sound, this give me another target.
Any viable SBR should be pretty much as efficient as it is actually with OOB G40 SBR.
And odds clearly reveals how G40 OOB SBR gives pretty good ones for the attacker.
One issue is that the actual values are so against interceptors, that defender decision to keep all his fighters grounded is most of the optimized one. While intercepting is much like a gambit than a sound tactics.

Now, with your answer YG, I really made my decision on which of the many values I calculated is the optimized one, funnier, historical, at least as balance as the actual OOB SBR rules, and to have the better incentive while staying as close as possible with the odds of OOB G40 SBR.

So, thanks a lot YG.
I will probably submit a more complete post with all the reasons which make the most interesting SBR.
For now, here is the real winner for Global 40 SBR after a closer analysis and comparison.

I already provided the answer elsewhere, the only difference is that I would advocate for a bombing damage of 1D6+3, instead of 1D6+2.
And I would use oztea idea, but rise to +3 minimum damage per StB shooted down by IC’s AA, instead of +2 minimum damage:

I still recommend D6+2 (+2 minimum damage) for 1942.2 SBR, because the economy is so much lower than Global.

If you take a look at the table below and compare D6+3 with OOB G40 SBR, you will find that the numbers are pretty close from each other, except when there is no interception, but the overall odds stay similar and you gain a much more interesting dynamics which provides a lot of incentive to make such interceptions as a vital and optimized defense against bombers run.

@Baron:

@oztea:

Totally different suggestion I have been considering.
Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
To make SBR more attractive.

You could consider this rule to offset your beefing up of fighters.

From a realistic standpoint it has always been gut-wrenching to send over 2 bombers and get snake-eyed. Knowing that you just sent over probably 1000 bombers and not a single bomb fell on anything important.

Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
Do you also imply when destroyed by interceptors, Bombers can still do +2 damage?

After a fast review, I think I would add your idea as integrated part of the above SBR HR, since it has a small statistical impact (approx. 3,00 IPCs/SBR instead of 2,583 IPCs/SBR.)

I would keep the +2 damage only if hit by AAA exclusively, when an interceptor hit bombers, it is destroyed with no compensation.
That way, it would provide an additional incentive to intercept bombers to wholy protect IC.
And this is a double lever effect.
Attacker will more willingly commit bombers and defender will be more incline to throw fighters against them.
And this is in addition to the fact, that interceptor’s hit must be on bombers first.
It is a much more interesting target.

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, and the winner is…

A more historical depiction of SBR which keeps interesting odds compared to G40 OOB.
In this one, intercepting Fighters are targeting attacking Bombers (TcBs or StBs) first, then escorting Fighters.

There is also a special attack (as an AA gun @1 first strike against up to 2 Fighters) for each Strategic bomber (whichever the lesser number between Fgs or StBs) in air-to-air combat which provides some restriction about Bombers spamming strategies (Darken skies), see above chart for comparisons:

Strategic Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR or TBR damage 1D6+2. [EDIT: 1D6+3 for G40]

Tactical Bomber
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
TBR damage 1D6.

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2
Always hit Bombers as first target, whether Tactical or Strategic (owner’s choice).

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike* as an AA gun @1 against up to 2 intercepting Fighters, whichever the lesser
Bombard Industrial Complex or Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6+2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike
Bombard Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6

IC’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

I will explain sooner how I came to this conclusion.

Follow this line in each combat situation (fs= first strike):
D6+2 (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1)

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008

Here is the minimum damage for each StB killed by AAA according to SBR basic damage:
D6: +1 IPC
D6+1: +1 IPC
D6+2: +2 IPCs [Edit: 1942.2]
D6+3: +3 IPCs [[color=red]Edit: Global 40]
2D6:+3 IPCs

SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +4.375 - 4.778 = -0.403 IPC damage/SBR / -0.283 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.440 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.162 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.463 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +5.186 - 6.321 = -1.135 IPC damage/SBR / -1.040 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.473 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.095 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.764 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.870 - 8.667 = -0.797 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.723 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.241 - 8.667 = -0.426 IPC damage/SBR / -0.352 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR / +0.092 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.536 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.722 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +8.095 - 7.556 = +0.539 IPC damage/SBR / +0.626 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.530 - 7.556 = +0.974 IPC damage/SBR / +1.061 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR / +1.583 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.104 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.322 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.835 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.751 - 9.556 = -0.805 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.631 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.746 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.124 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.726 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1): / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.550 - 4.777 = +1.773 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.893 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +7.152 - 4.777 = +2.375 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.495 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.218 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR / _+3.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.241 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.690 - 6.778 = -0.088 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.153 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.125 - 6.778 = +1.347 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.588 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.264 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR / _+4.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.658 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 STBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.168 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +7.500 - 4 = +3.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.832 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR / _+7.834 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR / +8.666 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR****

@Chiclet:

One more thing:

Aircraft carriers should not cost 12.  They are essentially worthless without a fighter or two so to make a them worth while you would need to spend a minimum of 22 IPC. way too much.

I’d bump it down to 9.

Dont think so. Imho they are already to cheap at 12. I don’t know why they reduced the price, as it was 14 before. Reducing this even more would make other naval units like battleships totally unnecessary.

I’d stick with the Larry Harris scheme (factory in Sink for 5 doesn’t seem right), just add a total of 5 inf to what China already has.  1941 requires even more inf I think as China is much too weak.

If Japan can destroy China by Turn 3 something isn’t right IMHO.  A pro Japan should capture China by Turn 4-5, India by 6-8, and start threatening Moscow around Turn 10.  If Germany/Italy can still hold out for a few more turns at this point then the Axis probably deserves the win.