Oztea's 1942 Global Setup

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I crossed out my eighteenth point because I’ve changed my mind and those rules do make sense. I still think the new damage and repair rules are flawed with regards to historical accuracy.

Mind you, you could pair your reduction of IPC values with a reduction in the number of units on the board at the start of the game. How much you would have to remove is something you would have to play out several times in order to get the balance right. I suspect this would start moving away from “easy fix” and moving towards “might as well be a different game”.

Such is gaming.

-Midnight_Reaper

Here is a saved game “rough draft” edit of the China set up above, for use with TripleA. Right now it uses the standard turn order, but that can altered if desired. All edits to achieve the set up are logged in the game history.

Note how China is no longer a separate nation but instead placed under direct USA control.
Check the stats column for the total Money, Production, and TUV for the United States.

Burma units may be edited into the appropriate territories per the rules above.

There are no co-located units here, all roundel substitutions in play according to the rules above, including for the Commonwealth (represented here in the save edit by ANZAC at 20, Eire south Africa etc.

It is up to the player to enforce the production rules via the edit mode, or to adjust territory possession as necessary (in the case of liberated territories). Example if Japan takes Hunan, and the Americans then liberate it, the game will show Hunan as Chinese, edit possession back to United states. The same thing for the Commonwealth, or if UK pacific territories reappear after conquest/liberation, edit them back to the appropriate power. Otherwise it works as normal, just remember to enforce the factories at 10, 5, 3.

Edit any Soviet Japan Nap conditions you wish.

If no DoW is desired, then you can have all Axis declare in the first round.

VC or Combat bonuses may be edited into the IPC totals at the end of the turn to augment or replace NOs if desired.

Savegame attached below… the next step would be to create an xml gamefile reflecting the new production units, and the Commonwealth faction (while removing UK pacific and China). Eliminate the politics phase, and create a simple NO option on the VCs. Adjust the turn order to the one outlined above.

Halifax china mod no-colocation.jpg
G40 Halifax 2 China to USA.tsvg

here is a 2009 post from me at HGD: ( note this applies to when AA50 came out)

All you have to do to extrapolate these GDP numbers is to divide the GDP by 15

using 1941 numbers:
Axis: 911 divided by 15= 60.73

Allies: 1798 divided by 15= 119.86

IN AA50 the axis are at 60 total

IN AA50 the allies are at 112 total

This is why the game is somewhat accurate, and the balancing is all force projection with the advantage going to the axis, and the US and UK player facing the commitment of their forces all over the map.

For 1940 you have to make additional considerations because the game will have say 50% more territories than AA50, so the number you divide will be smaller and the total will be greater in the game so that you don’t have too many worthless territories.

So lets do June 4th, 1940:

Germany: 387, plus Poland 76.6, Czecho-Slovakia 30.3, Netherlands 44.5, Belgium 39.6, Norway 11.6, Denmark 20.9, Austria 27=637.5

42.5 IPC

Italy:147 = 9.8 IPC

Japan: 192= 12.8 IPC

Allies:
USA: 943
US colonies: 23.9
Total: 966.9= 64.4 IPC

UK: 316
UK colonies 14.4
Total 330.4= 22 IPC

France 82
French colonies 10.9
Total 92.9= 6.2 IPC

USSR 417
Baltic states 12.9
Total 429.9= 28.6 IPC

Now you have to account for peace time status vs. total war mobilization for both USA and USSR. The amount of GDP used for wartime purposes was at least twice as great for the current belligerents than neutrals. So i would put USA and USSR at 50% rate with the difference going to domestic purposes.

So problem solved. Game balanced unless your trying to make the game unhistorical with notions that the axis had ZERO chance to win, which is a bogus argument even by economics.

Seems to me that some of the Japanese NAs are very powerful, like Yamato Class Battleships, Paper Planes and Banzai attacks. With this, Japan would be unstoppable, on the mainland and at sea. Even the extra 40 IPCs for the US wouldn’t be enough, and I would know since that’s how I play, and that’s how I’ve played from the beginning. Tone them down or replace them and/or give the Allies a bid (20-30 IPCs) and it’ll be more fair.

Nonetheless, I still love the ideas, even if I have seen them around the forums. I also love the ability to pick which ones you want to use.

Updated rules slightly, added rules to first post

Anyone tinker with the setup, in order to make the game less linear?

We’re finding  that G1 and J1 pretty much open the exact same every game, decimating allied navies then G going heavy armor.

My buddy has come up with an interesting house rule which we are going to try out next time.  Its a bit complex, but in a nutshell the setup is kinda “Risklike,” in that you alternate unit placement.  Each county has so many IPC’s to spend and you can purchase and place what/where you want; with limitations of course.  You cant just place crap randomly all over the place.  You’ll need to start in countries controlled a the start and adjacent sea zones.  This gives players the option to go heaveir navy or air, or whatever.

I know, it pretty much takes away from historical accuracies, but thats alright.  The idea was to change the opening setup, allow for new strategies and make the game a bit less linear for us.