Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

I like your starting setup because it is flavorful, thoughtful, and sane, but there’s no way it favors the axis. If you are ever near San Francisco, I would bet $500 that I can beat you with this Allied setup (as in, I play the Allies every time) in at least 2 out of 3 low luck games.

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

The whole problem lies on Japan’s absurd overpowerness. No matter what house rules are present, Japan will always take Soviet far east and China. Allies have nothing to prevent it.

Why Japan’s role is always trying to rescue Germany via marching to Moscow? Why Japan always outproduce Germany and USA? It is neither fun, nor historical plus it totally deprives Pacific front and two ocean going approaches for USA.

Typically USA esablish a pipelines in North Africa while abandons Pacific, Britain in N.Russia, Germany turning into surviving mod waiting Japan to recue. I’m really sick of to see the same thing.

The solution is make Germany 2 times stronger than Japan considering 1942 borders, make Soviet far eastern and Chinese territories less valuable (Making two territory worth 1 with Nos), Hawaii factory with 2ipc value, then rebalancing.

@Black_Elk:

This thread has too much good information to let it sit for an entire year without comment.
:-D

Right now my group doesn’t play with escort/intercept rules, because it just doesn’t seem worth the risk to the fighters (in either role). So when the rules are in effect it mainly serves to discourage bombing altogether.

With altered abilites, like the ones suggested here, I might be more inclined to play the Escort/intercept game.

I think you probably need 3 things to bring Air into balance:
a.  an improved SBR mechanic.

b. Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery units Abilities. Like one that can move in combat, with a normal attack defense value of 1, in addition to a one time opening shot vs air, or something along those lines.

c. Some form of naval AA-fire.

I think you have touched on all the essentials here. And have brought up the others before. In addition to working out a dogfight system. The stats in thread are compelling and demonstrate how the first aspect “improved sbr” might be approached.

Nice work, as always

Thank you very much.
I forgot this thread, I will probably use some stats into my Summary thread under construction about various SBRs.

Nonetheless, it needs full focus to really weight all the aspects of SBR with all these numbers.
I can easily understand you need to be in a certain “vibe” to read this kind of posts, hence it was quite dusty.

Besides, I agree on your analysis of these 3 points a, b, c. They need to be coordinate to get a better game.
I made a lot of posts on these points over months.
Need to find the good angle to get a fresh start on these.

@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?

@templeton:

@Cmdr:

All this tech does is allow you to keep your artillery safely behind the lines - you know, where artillery is in REAL LIFE?

Counter battery fire is what tends to get artillery… anway at the scale of Axis and Allies this would make it more effective than MRLS!

We’ve used this rule in AARe and AA50e (enhanced) and it does not seem overly powerful.

As for realism, think of it as your guns have twice the range of their guns.  So you can hit them and they cannot hit you.

@cressman8064:

@Fishmoto37:

Here is an easy fix for the problem of not being able to land planes on carriers after one hit. Carrier takes one hit and combat lasts one round then it cannot land planes as per the rule book. If combat lasts two rounds then carrier can land planes because damage control parties have had time to make temporary repairs. If carrier takes the hit in the second round then it must survive a third round of combat in order to land planes and so on. The damaged carrier must still make its way back to a friendly naval base to be repaired. To be fair and balanced this rule must be the same for each nation even though the U.S. had the best damage control.

So according to this house rule if your attacked by an enemy fleet who scores 1 hit and you apply it to your carrier, then on defense you roll all 3 hits and wipe out the attackers you would loose your planes, where as if missed and the attacker continues for another round your planes can safely land if you eventually succeed?

You are correct. If you are involved in a small naval battle like this and the the battle is NOT in a sea zone that contains a friendly island or a sea zone next to any friendly land territory then you obviously need to put some serious thought into taking that hit on your carrier. This is all covered in the rule book for the first round of combat. This house rule does not even come into play unless the combat goes into the second round. It would make no sense to take a hit on your carrier if you thought there was any chance of combat not going into the second round and you might LOSE your planes. If you were attacked by a force that only took three hits to destroy, then I would take my first hit on my escorting vessel or vessels. I would never have an unescorted carrier anywhere near the enemy at any time.