National Advantages, National Objectives, and Technology in '42 2e

Just finished a game with the Europe only setup. Had to make a few modifications (changed the artillery piece in Paris to a tank and the artillery in Western Germany to a mech; pulled a few subs/tanks from my 1941 game) due to the Germany setup requiring more pieces than the game comes with. Other than that, had an absolute blast, definitely seemed balanced. Thanks.

I like the rule.  I think I would make the replacement or added launcehers a little more, maybe 10 IPC’s since it is a free SBR on an opponent’s facility.  A bomber an be shot down.  A rocket is just deadly.  A mobile unit transported or moved into a forward position would be handy for the US.  A rocket launcher in Tobruk would help soften up Egypt or Northern and Southern Italy.  If Rome is captured the US or UK, rocket strikes from London and Rome om German facilities would be devostating to the Germans.  Even Japan could use this tech on Calcutta or Sidney.

@barney:

Looks like you’ve got it tuned in pretty good to me YG. Those all look good and equally obtainable for each side. Good work!

Thanks Barney… I agree, a couple are easy for both sides but they get really hard after that. Using it tomorrow in a game where it’s the only house rule.

oztea-

i appreciate the more concise version of my suggested NO’s, and they seem historically sound. But wouldn’t this prove to be a bit overpowered? I mean, the UK as a whole receives 10 IPC’s just for domination of 4 strategic points. I dont think the UK needs that much of an economic boost in comparison to the other nations, do they?

These ideas for Spains involvement are sound, (although im not sure they should be presumed to be part of italy) and can easily be applied to other states as well. Lets see what neutrals there are. . .

Turkey: wouldnt be easily swayed, but if the USSR had fallen and germany had put them under enough pressure, they may have sided with the axis.

Latin America: All declared war just before the end. To make it simple: become pro-allied once paris and moscow both under allied control. Or once allies have 10 europe VC’s

Mongolia: taken care of with border pact

Sweden: loosely supportive of Germany with iron ore exports, but even when surrounded by german territory did not give in , so impractical to include rule.

Saudi Arabia: started out leaning towards axis, but eventually declared war on germany, and other arab states (yemen, oman, UAE) had ties to britain. not sure where theyd go. . .

Correct and add to this as needed, but I dont see the point of putting those countries on the board and not using them.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

@crusaderiv:

For japan, you can add Chemical weapon.

Japanese used gas and chemical weapon against chinese forces during world war II.

Hi crusadriv,

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. What I’m proposing isn’t making new weapons developments, but taking the existing weapons developments that we know about from the upcoming Global '40 game and preemptively retrofitting them into the Pacific '40 game. That probably still sounds confusing… Ah well.

-MIR

OK here you go:

USA:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yc45jzgdk22

Russia:
http://www.mediafire.com/?m9wekdzzzj2

Japan:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yosk8d6aiui

UK:
http://www.mediafire.com/?w9tnjgl1vqs

Italy:
http://www.mediafire.com/?m7k0sjdiphr

Germany:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lz52uo2mddc

Italian 14:  I don’t get this one.

Bridging friendly units has the same effect, so this NA is of no value.  Or does this reset the units and regardless of whether the unit fought in the Combat Phase it can bridge across?