1942.2 All ships cost 2 ipcs less

I so far think that tanks costing 5 IPCs is very solid.

This actually makes the tank a worthwhile investment. For instance:

for 15 IPCs you can buy 5 infantry or 3 tanks. Based on average dice rolls:
5 infantry would hit 0.85 times on offense, 1.65 times on defense
3 tanks would hit 1.5 times on offense, 1.5 times on defense.

The defensive values are similar, meaning that infantry on defense is still a better investment since there are more of them, they can absorb more hits from attacking tanks! Personally all this does is take tanks and makes them a considered buy instead of the ol’ infantry only buy since tanks in older versions of the game were so neutered on defense. They are now equal value to infantry because what you are paying extra for is the increased mobility. Even looking at the numbers for if 5 infantry attack the three tanks, it is very close, with a slight advantage given to the defending tanks.

So we are still seeing that if money invested is equal, defense has an advantage as far as infantry and tanks are concerned.

Also if we increase the money to 35 IPCs and our purchases now include artillery:
5 infantry
5 Artillery (combined offensive of 3.3 hits and 3.3 hits on defense)

7 tanks 3.5 hits on offense, 3.5 on defense

If the tanks attack the infantry and artillery on average the 10 unit stack will win, with 3-4 pieces remaining.

If the infantry and artillery attack, on average they can still win with 3-4 units remaining. So artillery tip the balance of power over to infantry again with their ability to raise the infantry’s attack.

Tanks literally are costing more solely for movement capability, a tank only purchase strategy only works if you have the economy to spend more money than the other guy. If the money spent is equal, tanks still lose.

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

I just use the same Color for several nations. This is my way. List is ww1-ww2. Germany Germany. Germany ANZAC. France France.  UK Uk. US US. Austria China. Russia Russia. RUSSIA Italy. (Perfect) Italy Japan(perfect)

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

I was actually thinking about this at work tonight. It could be a really cool concept.

Try this house rule for China to have IPC’s like other allied countries:
1941 China Modifications
These changes enable China to function like a 4th allied country. China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country. China starts the game with $7 IPCs. $2 inf for China, other unit costs are unchanged. China can save unspent IPCs. China gets to Non Combat Move their fighter and place their IC before start of game play (start of round 1). China gets an IC for mobilization of new units. The IC can move one territory per turn and place units into the just moved into territory even if China just took the territory this turn (no unit limit on placement of Chinese units).
If China or her allies capture a Japanese IC in Manchuria or Kiangsu or ANY original Chinese territory, the IC is immediately destroyed. If China captures a Japanese IC in French Indo China, the IC is destroyed. If any allied country captures a Japanese IC in Burma or Kwangtung, it would revert to UK control. If any other allied country (besides China) captures a Japanese IC in French-Indo China, the IC is not destroyed, and control would be reverted to the capturing country. If China’s IC is captured, it is destroyed, and China no longer can ‘purchase’ units. Without the IC, China can get new infantry units per out of the box rules. Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

China has its own National Objective:
The Burma Road If the allies control Burma and 2 of these 3 territories: India, Yunnan, and Hupeh, China receives an additional $2 during their collect income phase.
China Modifications FAQs

Are all Chinese units limited to China and Kwantung? (as per AA50)
• Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

Can China roll for Tech?
There is no restriction on how China spends its money.

Can the axis conduct Strategic Bombing Raids on a Chinese IC?
No, since the IC has unlimited development. The Chinese IC is limited by the fact that China has few IPCs to spend.

May Chinese infantry be placed the same as AA50? (i.e. not just at the IC)
If China still has its IC, new units may only be mobilized in the territory where the Chinese IC resides. Since the IC can move into Allied territories not under Chinese control, reference "Handling when China moves their IC out of territories under Chinese Control.” Once the Chinese IC is lost, AH original Chinese rules apply.

Can the Axis use the captured Chinese IC to build?
No. When the territory where the IC resides is captured, the IC would be destroyed.

What happens when China loses its IC but still has Chinese units / territories under Chinese control?
When China’s IC has been captured and destroyed, China reverts to getting more infantry as described in the AA50 rules. They no longer collect income in the form of IPCs, nor can they ever get any other unit than infantry

China just lost it’s last territory and still has IPCs in her bank. What happens to the IPCs?
Any Chinese IPCs go to the conqueror.

Can the Chinese fighter (the Flying Tigers) attack units in sea zones outside China if it returns to China in the same turn?
No, it can’t leave China/Burma/French Indo-China/Kwangtung, even temporarily.

yea but Soviets only really buy men anyway just to survive, except for the first turn and/or second.

for the Soviets you can be more historical…

a soviet tank drops to infantry
Soviet Artillery is gone

This is representative of the ‘fodder’ concept of Soviet troops, they fold quite easily when punched, but they have alot of them.

German stuff is built for quality so it lasts with more levels of step loses by comparison.