ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

@guillermo

Have you been able to try these house rules, Guillermo?

The scale is the thing that most bedevils me.

I was recently watching some commentary on house rules from [b]Lion in the Trenches[/b], who was reacting to suggestions that he place an Austrian cruiser in the Sea Zone off Tsingtao in his Global 1914 customization. He made the point that a single Austrian cruiser doesn’t scale with the squadron or fleet implied by the corresponding game piece.

By my estimate, Global 1940 models ground units at the level of army corps, naval units at the level of fleets or task forces, and air forces at the level of wings. There are a handful of exceptions for colonial detachments, such as the two starting British Infantry in Kwangtung (Hong Kong), which stand in for about 14,500 defenders historically. India’s potential as a source of colonial manpower is significantly curtailed by the British Empire’s income problems, and Australia often explodes in production by the end game (win or lose) even when their national manpower pool and industrial capacity would never have allowed it.

In my opinion, scale should be balanced rigorously against the opportunity for fun gameplay. In my Global War games, I always add a French Infantry in Indochina, for example. There is also a clear movement in favor of bulking up the Dutch presence in the East Indies when games of Global War are played, and many players prefer to give the Italian fleet-in-being a fighting chance with set-up variants to blunt the Taranto Raid.

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

Two questions (actually four…:p):

1. Sealion or Barbarossa? And why?

2. On which turn should Japan attack UK and US? Why?

Thank you!

Can anyone think of a balanced way to make Canada its own power without connecting it with Anzac?

I think I overreacted on the Italian situation. I foresaw UK being able to focus more on Italy in this compared to a normal game, since Britain’s income is centralized due to Halifax, and because it can probably afford to redirect Pacific forces west since USA in the Pacific isn’t as immediate of a threat to Calcutta as Japan was. Additionally, to defend the mobilization of Spain, I moved France’s destroyer by Madagascar to the Mediterranean to block off a Italian T1 transport heading to Gibraltar.
To counterbalance that I made one of Italy’s NO more attainable, upgraded 2 infantry to mechs, gave a free tank and artillery already in Africa, combined the Somalian infantry with the Ethiopians which is almost like giving an extra infantry, gave a free destroyer, and took away an ANZAC infantry from Egypt and a UK AAA from Malta.

But there’s another big factor to consider. Like, uh, I don’t know… USA PLAYING ON THE OTHER TEAM, MAYBE?? ;)

So! I’m changing some of that, and that’s the biggest change of these tweaks here. I acknowledge most of these changes are in favor of the Allies. I now present v1.4, which I intend to be playable as-is and the last of this series of changes, until I play some real games myself or get feedback from you kind or heartless souls. ^_^

v1.3 —> v1.4 changes
-Burma: -1 Infantry, -1 Fighter, +1 Artillery
-switched Cruiser and Battleship in SZ37/SZ39 (this and the Burma changes were actually done a while ago, I just forgot to write them down)
-removed extra tank in Libya, re-separated Somalian infantry, returned Malta AAA
-added to Story (Greenland)
-placed Commonwealth transport in SZ106 (Canada should have SOME sort of Navy, right?)
-removed extra Inf in Slovakia
-changed Eastern Mex standing army to 3 Inf (from 2)
-simplified Commonwealth defense perimeter NO
-modified Commonwealth 1st NO to require Ontario or Quebec (to encourage US player to strike fast and not overwhelm them separately)
-modified UK anti-sub NO to exclude eastern US coast
-fixed Russian lend-lease NO to not penalize Russia for support from allies
-added 2 Inf in Borneo
-added 1 Inf in Hawaii
-fixed a conflicting statement about Bolivia (Bolivia is Pro-Allies)

I’m wanting to condense rules for AA50 Strategic down as much as possible
I do still like the idea of adding ONE unique Tech to each nation
Atlantic Wall and Panzerblitz are not really necessary and add more complexity than needed
With only 1 starting BB, Yamatos has limited use and can also be eliminated (I’ve kept Air bases as a Global Tech (at reduced cost) for Naval defense vs. HB)

**GERMANY

1. WOLFPACKS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-improved communications grant subs the following benefits:
a) Destroyers now detect Subs on a 1:1 ratio.  Any Sub that is undetected, does not have any of it’s special abilities cancelled (eg. Sub movement, Submersible and Surprise Strike)
b) ALL Subs, regardless of whether a Destroyer is present or not, can ALWAYS submerge after 1 round of combat
c) ATTACKING Subs that are not detected, have the option of choosing transports as their primary target.  Subs roll their Surprise Strike and can have their 1st hit dedicated to sinking a transport.  Any subsequent hits are targeted at other naval vessels.

JAPAN

1. TOKYO EXPRESS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/Researcher)
-Your DDs gain limited transport capability. Maximum carrying capacity is 2INF per DD. Each DD can be used during either Combat or NCM, but not both
i) COMBAT - Your DDs can load and/or unload only 1 INF during Combat. A unit loaded in Combat must be unloaded in Combat on the same TURN (unless DD is sunk or forced to retreat). If the SZ is hostile, your DD must first participate in Naval Combat. If your DD survives, it may then unload 1INF into the Amphibious Assault.
ii) NON-COMBAT - Your DDs not participating in Combat can load and/or unload up to 2 INF during NCM. INF loaded during NCM do not need to be unloaded the same TURN, and may remain aboard the DD. A loaded DD does not suffer any combat penalties.

ITALY

1. MERCHANT MARINE (Minor Tech, 5IPC/Researcher)
-Up to 2INF/TURN can be transported from Italy to Algeria without a transport as long as Axis controls Italy, Algeria, and there are no Allied surface ships in SZ 14.**