NO's for 1942 second edition

I think uou woudk have to  cut some of America’s income. They could not have 50 a turn. Got to imagine some of that is spent in the Pacific. Probably start my shaving off 10.
Would be fun to try. If you do, tell us how it goes, please.

Not a problem.  Will do! 👍

I have labored in the past thinking of ways to fix the Research & Development phase. My ideas have ranged from ridiculously complex and elaborate to outright stupid, however, my final draft is both simple and balanced. The following house rule has been rigorously play tested, and none of the original technologies have been modified. This rule is balanced enough to bring the R&D phase into your games more often, while simple enough to get your fellow players to approve it.

Grasshopper’s Tech Rule

When an eligible nation chooses to enter the Research phase by purchasing 1 or more research dice, they will receive 1 bonus roll for free. Therefore…

_- if you buy 1 dice for $5, you will get 2 dice for a chance to roll a 6

if you buy 2 dice for $10, you will get 3 dice for a chance to roll a 6 if you buy 3 dice for $15, you will get 4 dice for a chance to roll a 6 etc…_

If a 6 was rolled during the research phase, you must then choose a technology chart to roll on during the development phase. However, after you have chosen a technology chart, and before you make a development roll, you may choose one technology that you will be immune from. For example…

- America chooses to make their development roll using technology chart #2, and decides to be immune from Radar (technology #4). Therefore, if a 4 is rolled, the player for America must try again until they get a result other than 4.

This process is reset after each game round allowing players to choose different charts and immune technologies with each R&D phase.

And instead of giving the US an extra $10 for having the Philipines and Hawaii, they should start off with $10 extra and lose $10 due to a massive loss of morale when they lose them. A penalty as suppose to a reward. The loss of morale can truly result in a loss of production. That would make it more realistic.

I am probably going to post this topic in another section. I would like to build more support for this for any future revisions to the rules.

@lnmajor:

Advanced Fighter Design. Great Idea in air combat, but your making a fighter stronger than your med. bomber in ground attack and as strong as a regular bomber in ground attack. Fighters should not have the same ability to inflict damage to ground and naval targets as a strat bomber or tac bomber, IMO

yep. make them 3-4-5-14 w/ the special escort/intercept. or 3-4-4-12.

I am gonna post a new version of mine using KISS. I think it is too complicated.

but i will do that in a new thread :-D

@Sergente_nella_neve:

That’s all. What do you think about this?  :-D

its not good if defender chooses, its also not good if attacker chooses
your hybrid system should be fun to play

@Imperious:

which ones are outdated? i was talking about revised specifically and not Milton Bradley.

no.1 and no.5
no.1 - we got rid of the system that separates naval units into classes
no.5 - only targeted attack when undetected and 1st cycle only, replacing the old screening system yeah I know and I agree with you about the transport unit

oh wow. thats not how i played it. Otherwise Germany can build fighters and get all her planes instantly as jets?

thats really strong Tech….

Perhaps you can convert one fighter per turn or build a new fighter that will be a jet?