Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

@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.

@barney:

wow
I thought I could just read this and not have to think :)

Sounds way cool. I wonder how it will effect naval battles? In a good way I’m thinking
Yea I 'm gonna try it :)

Well I just read the whole thing! And yea sounds better.
Have you played any games yet?

I playtested this last one:
@Baron:

So, I tried with a better success this much more stable (and simpler) values for Fighter and Tactical on defense and only Tactical Bomber get bonus on attack for specific situations:

FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 7
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Attack to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with.

Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
**_Gain +1 Attack, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter .

Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4.
With these other units:

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4,  SBR @1
Defense 1
Move 6
1 hit
Cost 10

Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*): Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0

DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for all 3 types of aircraft:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory after first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.

a limited landing in a just conquered territory: 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as it can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

FLEET CARRIER G40
Attack 0
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 16
2 hits
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.
A damaged Aircraft Carrier still allowed flight operation for 1 plane unit.

FLEET CARRIER 1942.2
Attack 1
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 14
1 hit
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.

ESCORT CARRIER
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 9
1 hit
Hold 1 plane : 1 Fg OR 1 TcB.
ASV: Anti-Sub Vessel, same as Destroyer against Submarine.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 10
1 hit
1 Shore Bombardment @3.

BATTLESHIP
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2
Cost 18
2 hits
1 Shore Bombardment @4.

On a battlecalc, these values gives similar odds of survival to a full Carrier with 3 TcBs against itself when 1 CV and 2 Fgs attacks 1 CV and 2 Fgs. You get similar odds about 1 CV, 1 Fg, 1 TcB against itself compared to 1 CV 2 TcBs and 1 Fg against itself (as far as I can put similar numbers in the calc).

The idea is that a full Carrier is better on defense than offense.
So, to keep this principle in line, TacB has been put to a single defense value of 3.
It is slightly higher than Fighter (keeping @2), but remember that Fighters always hit planes first.

The 3-planes carrier provides more units in a SZ and Fgs A2 D2 C7 can be a good fodder instead of loosing a costlier Carrier with the same defense @2.
So during combat rounds, usually owner’s will keep Carriers and sacrifice Fighters and it doesn’t change the defense factor.
That’s the main difference with OOB Naval Combat, often Carriers with lower Def @2 are sacrifice earlier because of the high defense value of Fighters (D4).

Also, 3-planes Carrier gives more strategy and flexibility on which units (Fg or TcB) you prefer to put on board.
All 3 cheaper Fighters (A2 D2 C7) but with lesser odds A6 D6 C21.
All 3 costlier TcBs (A2-3-4 D3 C8) better on defense but not good against an opponent defending with planes (A6 D9 C24).
The mix of both Fg and TcB is far better in combat 1 Fg & 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs & 1 TcB.

I also like to put small 1 plane-Escort Carrier (A1 D1 C9) (bought from HBG) in the roster.
Their relative strength toward 3-planes Fleet Carrier is better historically depicted.
In fact, a single Escort Carrier can carry around 27-33 planes while a Fleet Carrier is around 90-100 planes.

I also experimented a Fg unit attacking @1 with First strike and defending @2 but the very low value of 1 and specific First Strike ability similar to subs was slowing down the battle process.
That’s why I prefer the A2 D2 C7 Fighter.
(Combat values wich are also similar to 1914 planes. From a A&A game franchise consistency POV.)
In each combat round, you start by rolling both attacking and defending Fighters, then picking up casualties on planes.
After, you continue with regular combat unit rolls.

One historical objections I made to myself was about that Fighters were better defending than attacking.
I answered it by giving a special +1 defense bonus to 3 Fighters when an operational Air Base is present.
This could figure the alertness of interceptors and all the Radar and Survey system against incoming planes.
Also, defenders can also have AAA unit on their side to increase the casualty rates of attacking aircrafts.
That’s why I think it can still be acceptable from an historical POV.
(Also, don’t forget how G40 OOB SBR rules doesn’t care about it, giving all planes a roll @1.)

TacBs Attack 2-3-4 Defense 3 values were more dictated by the defensive capacity required for Carriers to keep the similar balance of their OOB counterpart.

Strategic Bomber are lowered to 10 IPCs and it is required because of the dangerousness of attacking defending Fighters. Each round they could shot it down, no matter the number of ground units for fodder.

Finally, Cruiser and Battleship’s cost are reduced by 2 IPCs, 10 and 18 IPCs to level them against a more dangerous Fleet Carrier at full strength and cheaper planes.
To fully compete with this new carrier (which is a bit better than the regular OOB), it is now a must from the Battlecalc POV that Battleship and Cruiser need a reduced cost of 2 IPCs :
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 should cost 10 IPCs while Battleship A4 D4 M2, 2 hits should cost 18 IPCs.
So, Cruiser will be at the same cost than Strategic bomber (A4 D1 M6 C10),
and the Battleship (18 IPCs) still compete against the Cruiser (10 IPCs) + Destroyer (8 IPCs) combo.

Example: 12 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are too powerful against 7 A3 D3 C12 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.8% D. survives: 4.7% No one survives: 0.5%

10 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are within acceptable margin against 7 A3 D3 C10 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 75.2% D. survives: 23.2% No one survives: 1.6%

All in all, the additional money made from this savings will be needed to replace for the increased rate of aircrafts casualties.

From my little experienced with 3-planes Carriers, it works well.

Also, if you really want to increase aircrafts combat interactions in contested land territory, you should allow attacker to land a single Fg or TcB, or even up to 2 aircrafts in a just conquered territory.
(I ruled that an additional movement point to land in this zone is required.)
Otherwise, your game would mostly relied on AAA to defend against attacking planes.

I will post something on AAA issue in another thread more sooner than later.
For now, just know that I put them at 3 IPCs to get the maximum incentive to buy them.

Hope you will try and enjoy it.

One little physical inconvenient about a fully loaded Carriers unit with 3 TcBs is that there is not much place on the sculpt to put them in a row.
To overcome the lack of room for this bigger sculpt, is to put a chip on a Carrier below a TcB sculpt for additional units.
On the brighter side, any mix with a smaller Fg sculpt fit well on top of a Carrier._**

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

ammend the NO’s
give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game

Anyone given any thought to playing AA:Pacific and integrating the AA:50 ruleset?  By this I mean:

1. 1942/AA:50 unit costs and stats
2. 1942/AA:50 sub and transport rules

However the specific Pacific rules could stay in force:

1. USA Marines
2. Air Bases / Sea Ports
3. Japanese destroyers can transport 1 infantry
4. Unlimited builds in Hawaii and Japan

There is little conflict except in regards to SBR, where it would have to be decided which ruleset would be used for SBR, and if SBR would still affect the Japanese VP.

Any thoughts from you geniuses on how this would affect the Pacific game?  Better yet has anyone actually TRIED it?