Planes attacking more than 1 territory.

@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.

@Baron:

It is intended to be played with the starting board.

Fg A2D2M4C8, 1 hit, all hit destroy an enemy plane first, if there is any.
Give +1A/D to any TcB paired with.

TacB A2D3M4C10, 1 hit, gain +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with any Fg or Tank.
Can do a Tactical bombing raid vs AB and NB.

Now, the Fleet Carrier is A0D2M2C16, 2 hits, can now hold up to 3 planes.

This point is for balancing vs OOB full carrier with 2 planes:
2 Fgs= A6D8C20 (.7pt/IPC)  / 1 Fg+1TcB= A7D7C21 (.67pt/IPC)

3 TcBs= A6D9C30 (.5pt/IPC)
2 TcBs + 1 Fg = A7D9C28 (.57pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A10D10C28 (.71pt/IPC)
1TcB+2 Fgs= A7D8C26 (.58pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A8D8C26 (.62pt/IPC)
3 Fgs= A6D6C24 (.5pt/IPC)

There is probably some changes to compensate for the weaker planes units.
For instance, 1 CV with 1 Fg and 1 TcB should be added an additional Fg on board.
You can also put on board a Fleet Carrier 1 TcB or 1 Fg when there is 1 plane on a CV and at least 1 Fg or TcB in a Naval Base nearby.

Since in this HR TacB gets the best defensive value, it should be better to put on the initial board a TcB instead of an OOB Fg and put a Fg instead of a TacB.

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Korean Troops.

Hmm…I note that some of the troops lack hands, arms and heads.  I assume that these body parts are provided separately in the package for attachment with glue, and that these figures aren’t supposed to represent soldiers who’ve been severely wounded in battle.Â

How well do these figures fit alongside A&A troops in terms of scale?

They Americans a bit beefy compared to the Axis players but so are the Germans. You could probably snap the two piece figures together but I’ll be glueing them. I will also probably prime, paint, and dip thess guys too. I’m not sure what I’ll do with them yet. They were a steal at six bucks and I couldn’t pass it up.

The Koreans with AKs just fit the part of some kind of insurgent, and I couldn’t resist buying them. The Easy Company Americans have guys dragging parchutes and really might come in handy. The Korean era Americans have M-14s, M-1 Gerands, and M-1 carbines.

When I get a minute and get the guys off thier runners and cleaned up I’ll post pics.

Tanks don’t have to be adjacent to their attacking territory either. They can move 2 spaces to attack. For example, say you have a tank in Germany and you are attacking Baltic states. You can move through Poland with your tank and attack Baltic States.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

replace
“its income cannot be spent in other territories.
That income and only that income can be spent in its IC or VC during purchase units phase this turn.
That income is forfeited if not spent this turn.”

with
“The blockaded territory’s income can only be spent in its own VC or IC. Income from other territories may not be spent in the blockaded territory’s VC or IC.
If the blockade territory’s income is not spent this turn it is forfeited.”

It makes more sense now that I it’s been fully explained. One of the challenges here would be protecting E. U. S. from a sudden German attack, but it would probably be easy enough to destroy any German transports.