Dicetruction Does 42.2

Thanks for posting this here. Discord is miserable for actually maintaining/archiving information to the point where I have no idea how it’s become top dog over the years.

Wow! Thanks for the amazing feedback! We really appreciate you taking the time to go through the whole thing so carefully. We hope you will share this with others interested in learning the game.

Audio balancing with other folks is always tricky. We did our best.

The Geronimo Easter egg is available in both videos. Each has one subtle error. Find them and win a prize.

Oh yeah …… :-D

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?

@Black_Elk:

OK I have updated the link per request, to provide a Low/Medium scale production mod for 1942.2 as well, using ideas outlined in this thread.

http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/High-production-mod-for-1942-second-edition-tp7585507.html

Any thoughts?

I believe Russia at 30 is definitely workable. As a starting income it is much better than 24. A solid 30 ipcs allows for a purchase of 10 inf, or 4 inf 3 tanks, or 4 inf 2 art 1 fighter, or 6 inf 1 bomber etc. To get Russia up to 30, you don’t have to mod the start values nearly as much. Though I do suggest, if trying this out, that we just bring the values of the valueless territories to 1, since this activates the Pacific and gets away from the idea of even needing spaces at zero for this game to still work fine. :)

I propose the following, for all Axis and Allies games going forward: If a territory is not worth 1 ipc, then don’t put it on the map! If it is important enough to be on the map, then it is important enough for a single ipc. If not, it should simply be collapsed into another territory.

I really agree with you on this.
A zero IPC territory have no interest in itself, unless someone put a big fleet with Transports around in a prep-step for an invasion of a more important territory, besides this, it is a deserted area. And if any player have to choose between a zero and a 1 IPC before going further, he will prefer to fight for something instead of nothing.

Because I don’t have enough time to play Global.

I like to have an historical style A&A.
Convoys rules are interesting for representing the economical effect on UK of U-Boats warfare ETO and on Japan of USA subs warfare PTO.
It is an interesting alternative to SBR.
Subs can be useful outside direct naval battle.

I put some HR and new units in 1942.2 (like antisub Escort Carrier, mechanized infantry, TacBombers) because it is a smaller scale than Global but still complex.

When I have only 2 or 3 hours with friends, we play 1941.
But it is not a game intended to have HR because even OOB rules from 1942 can ruined the balance.
We play it OOB rule only.

@Sean.C:

Isn’t the Spring 1942 map basically identical to Revised?  I looked at the two and didn’t see any major differences.

Ah oh ye of having too little time or a life outside of games! There’s a HUGE difference! Just look at the connectivity of Central United States!!!

@Striker:

@Mallery29:

One million-kajillion posts

Your debate would carry more weight if you acknowledge the existance of the edit/modify button. � Presentation matters.
I see a a large amount of cherry picking, strawmanning and assumptions.�  If you two are so sure of your strategies, play a game against eachother and prove them.

Added nothing to the discussion. Good job Striker.  I know 42 better than Global…that’s why I don’t post strats in Global, I just ask questions…same with 41…only played it twice, said what I saw, and that’s it…