ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

Lone transports only. Enemy has to kill them. If they are not killed get a escape roll @2 each.
My game transports defend @2 against planes only too. So if a plane kills them they get a AA shot and if a sub or ship kills them no defense shot at them.

That’s for d12 die. For d6 then @1. Even better odds.

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

@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.

@variance:

Transports no longer defend at 0; they revert to their original and correct defense of 1

So go back to the scenario that transports protected warships? Or are you going to keep the rule that transports are always taken last but still allow defence on a 1?

Interesting idea, assuming it is a yes to the latter above.

I am currently working on a mod in TripleA that will do this. Germany owns Germany, Italy, Poland, and Libya. Britian owns, in addition to its regular territories: France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Morocco, and Algeria. Russia owns Finland. Japan only owns Japan, Manchuria, Kangitsu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Caroline Islands, and Formosa. Britian owns all Japanese territories that weren’t mentioned here, except for Wake Island, Kwantung, and the Phillipines, which are owned by America.

On round 1, Russia and America are out. That means that they will get no money, they can’t move units, and they can’t be attacked, with the exception of China. Americans in China get to move, attack, and be attacked normally. Also, Japan gets to attack the Americans on Wake Island, the Phillipines, and (on J3 or J4) the navy off of Pearl Harbor (which will have at least 2 battleships). On Round 3, Russia gets to join. However, Germany gets to attack Russia in G2. I’m not sure whether to let America join in round 3 or 4. It depends on how much firepower Britain gets to wield in the Pacific and India initially, and how much they can maintain pressure on Japan.

Britain starts out with no cash to spend on B1 simply because they would have a mountain of cash from all the territories. Plus, the Axis need to have a chance to beat Britain back in the first few rounds. Germany and Japan will start out with 50 bucks (to represent their massive military buildup relative to the Allies.

Unit count in all Axis territories will basically double to give them much needed initial firepower. Germany’s navy will be beefed up, mainly in SZ5. There will be some extra navy in the Med just to make sure that they have a shot in Africa. To balance that, the subs off the coast of America will be removed, as well as the British navy off America as well (so Britain can’t storm Africa).

I already have some idea for the initial situation in Japan. They will start out with enough land units, navy, and transports to either gobble up Pacific islands or storm China, but not both. Plus, there is the Indian and Australian navies to deal with, not to mention the threat at Pearl Harbor.

My goal is to be semi-historically accurate, because some accuracy has to be sacrificed in order to make the game playable and fun, and also because the map wasn’t designed for historic realism.

One thing I’d like to do is to give Japan incentive to attack Pearl Harbor the turn that America begins to play, but I don’t know of a way to give Japan good incentive to. I think I might give Japan a reward for destroying the battleships in Pearl by giving them some money or units if they do.

I would appreciate and welcome suggestions for pretty much anything in here. I want to make this work and have it at least as balanced if not more balanced than 1942.2.

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.

I’ll continue this proyect. The definitive rules are:

Victory conditions:

Axis win if

a) Japan has at least 6 VCs at end of USA’s turn
b) Germany + Italy have at least 7 VCs at end of USA’s turn

Allies win if they have at least 13 VCs at end of USA’s turn

Tech:

Use delayed tech as default (techs enter in play at the end of the turn of the power that discovered them)

NOs:

NOs are mandatory

Europe:

Dardaneles closed 1942 scenario: Karelia IC deleted and moved to Novosibirsk (at setup) 1941 scenario: you can move Karelia’s IC to Novo (1 time each game). Do it in deployment phase. You cannot deploy new units at kar or novo the turn that you move the IC

China:

Using AAP40 rules for China China plays after Italy and before USA Setup is the same for both scenarios (use OOB 1942 for both) However, the chinese fighter is moved from Yunnan to Sikang and China gains 1 aa gun at Sikang China is allowed to move to any place. No limits of movement with one exception: China cannot enter at soviet controled territory (and USSR cannot enter at chinese territory) China doesn’t start at war with Germany and Italy. Germany or Italy can DOW China at pleasure, but China cannot DOW ger/ita unless that one of them DOWed first or that NAP is not active

UK

Colonial garrison: you MUST deploy a free IC for UK round 1, as if you had purchased it. The free IC costs 0 IPCs 1941 only: add 1 uk inf to sum, bor, ngui and sol

USSR/Japan non agression pact:

The breaker pays 15 IPCs to the bank unless it attacks a territory or SZ defended by multiple nations (that case, pay 0 IPCs). You can attack multinational SZs and ignore units belonging to a power that you’re not at war If the NAP ends, China can enter to USSR and viceversa. Also, if Germany or Italy attack China, the NAP should be voided, making a fully global war

This will be my last effort to balance AA50 (I’d like to play some games here and there). I’ll try to post the AABattlemap module soon. I want to end this before moving to my next proyects, a custom 1940 OOB module and some other module called ‘Spain, 1940’ …

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.