ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

This is 1942.2, not Global 1942. The US starts at war.

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

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?

Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

Blockhouse cost 6 and boost all Infantry and artillery +1 on defense all rounds up to the IPC value of the territory.

A 4 IPC space will only boost 4 units of these types +1.

If taken over fortification is destroyed.

Hmmm, an interesting set of ideas.  I am planning to do the same, using the original Pacific and European games for my summer history class and historical gaming class.  I have some home rules for Pacific that I use, where I have increased the game to 6 players: the US, British India, Australia, the Netherlands East Indies, China, and Japan.  For the European Game, I am planning to add Italy, using the pieces from the Anniversary edition.  There will be theater commanders for the US and the UK in Europe and the Pacific, and a separate commander for Australia.

I do have rules for Lend-Lease, and also Lend-Lease certificates that I use.  I have modified the rules a bit for aircraft and shore bombardment, and Japanese Infantry are a bit harder to kill.  When I add Italy, it will have the option of changing sides during the game, or even staying neutral.  It does mean reworking the IPC for the Europe game, but such is life.  Should be interesting when it is finished.  I am also writing a combined rules set for the game.

@Bardoly:

My main point though, is that giving techs for free is definitely a house rule, while allowing one’s opponent to pay 5 IPCs and you assume that the tech die that he rolls is automatically a “6” and then his Chart 1/2 die is automatically forseen, is more of a gentleman’s agreement rather than a house rule, and as such, could possibly be allowed in League play.

Whether it’s a light beer or a wheat beer or a pilsner beer, it’s still a BEER.

In other words, I am pretty sure any gentlemens agreement is still a house rule, and would technically be against any league play rules.  Sorry  :cry:

I have never played a game where 1 power sent 4 bombers in a single turn but I understand your system and its not bad.

We sometimes play with a guy called HB because he only want to play USA and he only like to focus on buying ridiculous numbers of bombers. His knowledge of various bomber statistics is amazing. In games i usually see him attacking Germany with 6-8 bombers. He also hates the fact that the game has no A-bombs because he loves to build them even more!

Thanks for the clarification C_F. It will definitely even the game out or even favors the Axis. Africa is much more attractive since the value essentially doubles for the Axis. The Axis can exploit the many odd IPCs territories. The Axis will catch up to the Allies economically in no time while having a superior number of units.