Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

@Imperious-Leader https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34909/1942-second-edition-house-rules-for-a-more-interesting-game/44

Here is my latest file I know that it was seen before but anyone looking at this post for rules may be interested.

I prefer to think along the lines of many fewer, large sea zones. Ships of both sides can co-exist in them, and must make search (or intercept) rolls to initiate combat. Land based fighters cannot attack ships.

@Der:

Planes WERE historically superior to ships as far as bang for the buck - that’s why carriers replaced battleships.

That is correct, but the 1940 fighters did not got the range to sink the Royal Navy in the real war. Taking off from Normandy they barely crossed the English Channel and got 10 minutes of operational time before they run out of gas. In this A&A game a Fighter unit can easily cross the Atlantic and sink everything afloat. And that is not historical correct, and I doubt it make the game better

More factories (probably with some simple rules that restrict the types of units that can be placed there) could radically transform the strategic options in A&A…

For me it’s already done…

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.

Very nice!  :-D :-D