Accurate IPC Counts for 2nd Edition?

Wow! Thanks for all the great feedback. I agree with everything you mentioned.

We are working on a How-to-Play video for 1942.2 that will be finished soon. It is a detailed look at every aspect of the rules with lots of examples. It can be watched all the way through by a new player or used as companion to the rulebook. I worked with a number of the games top players and a few educational experts to make sure everything is accurate and easy to understand. Yes, it is a very long video.

We are in the final editing process now. We look forward to sharing it with the community in the coming days.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Exactly! It was one those games where after round one that you knew you had a big uphill battle ahead of you lol.

The  rules for bidding  is whatever the two sides can agree upon. That said, most here would only allow one unit per territory or SZ and only where one of that nation already exists.
Of course you could have a Carrier, but it could be destroyed before you used it, of course.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

The files were finally approved. Here’s what I posted in the BGG forum:

I recently uploaded to the BGG files area the following player aids and helper files for Axis & Allies 1942 2e:

Setup and Profile Cards:
Setup (front) and unit profiles (back) for each nation that are easier to read than the ones included with the game. This file is meant to be printed on 5 double sided sheets, one for each nation.

Player Aid with Sea Profiles:
A player aid containing pictures of each sea unit profiles, order of play, turn phases, combat sequence, victory conditions, and a color coded stacking chip chart. This file is meant to be printed on both sides of one sheet of paper.

Player Aid with Unit Profiles:
A player aid containing unit stats, order of play, turn phases, combat sequence, victory conditions, and a color coded stacking chip chart. The back contains the unit profile chart from the manual. This file is meant to be printed on both sides of one sheet of paper.

Victory City Flags:
A collection of Victory City flags. These can be used to create stands to show which side controls each victory city. I printed them on label paper and folded the flag around some small posts to create small flag standies to place on the board.

Enjoy!

@Most:

I’ve ordered both from Field Marshal Games and they’re in the mail! I should get them Monday unless UPS delivers on Saturdays. Can’t wait!

can’t wait to hear ya’ll cough and guzzle your way through 2nd Ed, man.

@Most:

Thank you. I wish there were more of the UK and German artilary units. They look Awesome.

@LuckyDay:

Units look very nice, although I’m still not sold on unique pieces for AA guns, something standard for everyone.  Why not make unique IC’s for each country in mark-3, after they start making ICs again…
Still, maybe this bodes well for better Italian units in the future instead of reusing Germany’s…

I agree; I just picked up my new copy at my FNGS all the new sculpts are an improvement and the new artillery pieces are a BIG improvement visually, aesthetically, and even tactilely, if that’s a word (i.e., they have a much more solid, quality feel to them.)  I’m not sold on the new AA rules; I think I may continue to use the old light grey pieces in their original role and use the new pieces as “dual-purpose” artillery.  The idea is that they can target 1 aircraft (and/ or maybe a tank too, making them “tri-purpose” ?) if they roll a “1.”  Not that I’ve thought through all the implications yet of this new “house rule” idea yet, but it’s worth thinking about.  I’ve already tried it in one game using the old German 88’s for dual-purpose “special units” and the new HBG 105’s for regular field artillery, and it seemed to work OK.  The new pieces just give everone the same possibility (and look much better to boot!)

I plan to use mine for the 1941 game.