Concerns and Balance Problems with 42.2

Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Norway, +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 tank Manchuria
Americans: +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal

I like many of them, US pretty interesting. ! 👍! 👍! 👍
Instead of New Guinea, I rather prefer VC Shanghai but add 1 Art+1 TP troops in Carolines Islands to help for Invasion of Australia or Hawaii.
IC freed a TP for longer expeditionary amphibious, and allows some IJN shuck shuck in PTO.
If only Melbourne Australia could become a VC!!!

Germany IC in Norway can replace my IC in Paris.
I like the possibility to launch u-boat in Northern Arctic sea.
But still, I would be curious of naval warfare impact of this vulnerable IC in Paris VC for Allies to take.

Soviet Far East IC can easily recreate some kind of trans-siberian railroad theme. It pours a single unit far away from Moscow.

He understands the editions, and has set out “tournament VCs” for each one, if necessary, such as economic victory.   Mr. Harris has occasionally commented through Krieghund and his other friends, who lurk and sometimes comment here.

I would like to know which ones VCs are in Tournament rules.

Like the “everyone gets a factory” idea, but both the American and USSR factories you propose seem pretty easy for Japan to press and take, which saves them the necessity of building their own IC.

I believe that Japan cannot go in all directions while defending Homeland SZs against a major US fleet stranglehold.
And IPCs invest/rewards is not the same, for sure.
North (3-4 IPCs, Soviet Far East), West (5 IPCs, Sinkiang, then Moscow), South West (5 IPCs, Calcutta, then Caucasus), South (3 IPCs, Australia) and East (1 IPC, Honolulu), North East? (2 IPCs, Alaska).

The question remains, does adding IC in PTO decrease the Center Crush occurrence or increase this Crush? IDK
Is there any way to win for Axis without it?

Getting back to our general discussion, one of the other commenters laid out the problem;  The US gets wiped off the board by the first turn, and it never recovers.  In other editions, this is overcome by giving the US scads of money, so why Germany has 48 and the US 38 income during the main part of the game is pretty abusive.   You can change the middle all you want, by adding 6 Russian artillery;  this may scare Germany for a turn or two from stacking against Moscow, but it won’t affect the crush around the rest of the world.

Still, I wonder if US would get a restricted USA R0 with the last ICs on many TTys. USA saved warships (more historical) but would not have much money, but Sinkiang IC would get 1 Infantry and

These ideas sound interesting. I’ll admit my crystal ball feels a little cloudy. With certain tweaks it’s easier for me to picture how the game might develop than it is with others.  For example, with an A0 round, I have a pretty good sense of what the initial priorities would look like for each side. Going with unit additions for each nation instead and it’s somewhat harder for me to see. I always felt Germany would be fun with another anchor IC, but it’s hard to know how that is offset by the British. UK is really poor on income, and lacks a way to develop the royal navy. Russia is likewise really poor and barely able to withstand Germany, even when the UK is sending every available ipc to their defense. Basically the Allies are playing a game of pass the buck. Russia is entirely dependant on UK fighter support for survival. The UK is in turn dependant on the USN to get anything going on the Atlantic side of the map, while the US itself is stalled by 3 rounds.

If you want to preserve this dynamic, but shift the balance in favor of Allies, then the focus should be on the US, since an accelerated entry by the Americans cascades down the line (which was the main idea behind my A0 suggestion). If you want to break with this dynamic, and shift the balance in favor of Allies, then I think the focus should be on Russia, because this would remove the chain of dependency, allowing the UK to spend it’s money for something other than propping up Russia.

Beyond that, I think the real balance disparity is twofold, involving both production and income. The production issue seems a lot easier to solve than the income one (just adding factories where needed). I would worry though, that without a way to trade territory sooner and maintain income parity, the UK/US would end up with more responsibilities but without the cash necessary to manage them. With Russia the income issue is even more intractable, since there is an upward ceiling at around 30 ipcs that you’re not going to get beyond, regardless of how many extra units you give them.

I can picture a lot of ways to get around these income problems with additional rules, but I’m assuming these wouldn’t be of much interest to most players who simply want a game that tries to balance the map using extra units alone. So the challenge is how to strike a good balance (with enough variety to be both entertaining and historically grounded), while using no new rules and relatively few additions to the starting units (since we don’t want a giant list, or something that takes too long to set up). Also, creating a balanced mod that required a bid, would be self defeating, so you’d want a pretty good sense of how the script for the opening pans out, and what the viable incomes/purchases are for each nation during the first two rounds.

I think something that pulls Germany West rather than East has potential. An anchor IC could be used in this way. A German navy might also work in a similar fashion (where they are encouraged to pull units off the Russian front to maintain a navy). Or simply more Allied ships or amphibious threats that Germany has to manage right off the bat.

Likewise something that pulls Japan East instead of West, seems like it would be advisable. Whether this can be achieved with 1 ipc factories in the PTO is tough to say, but I’m inclined to think it might help.

Keeping with the 9/10 split on VCS, I would like to see a game that is decided by Paris/Rome/Shanghai/Manila vs Leningrad/Honolulu/Calcutta being at least as viable as one that hinges on Moscow alone. Would be nice if San Francisco could be contested, though this seems particularly far fetched (even with additional 1 ipc starting factories nearby.) Japan really only has one route in, via the northern push, but it’s hard to see how they ever match American production doing that, at least while Russia is still alive. I think this is a map issue, where you’d need more tiles in North America, impassable Rockies or something along those lines, to make it work. That’s not an option here. But even if you can’t give Japan a realistic option vs W.US, at least we could give them a more intense defensive campaign for the South Pacific. I think the US might need a bit more to pull that off consistently, otherwise I imagine they’d probably still go KGF exclusive, pulling ships out of the Pacific, using whatever they have in China to bolster Russia.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more interesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone US battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

This could provide a historical theme for the mod. Suggests a timeline for the end of the first round that is roughly six months after Pearl Harbor, ie. the second round kicks off in June 1942.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more intetesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

I thought that Hawaii US Carrier was a kind of Midway replay, just a few miles South.
There was only USA Cruisers, DDs, CVs in Midway (USS Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise).

@Black_Elk:

Keeping with the 9/10 split on VCS, I would like to see a game that is decided by Paris/Rome/Shanghai/Manila vs Leningrad/Honolulu/Calcutta being at least as viable as one that hinges on Moscow alone. Would be nice if San Francisco could be contested, though this seems particularly far fetched (even with additional 1 ipc starting factories nearby.) Japan really only has one route in, via the northern push, but it’s hard to see how they ever match American production doing that, at least while Russia is still alive. I think this is a map issue, where you’d need more tiles in North America, impassable Rockies or something along those lines, to make it work. That’s not an option here. But even if you can’t give Japan a realistic option vs W.US, at least we could give them a more intense defensive campaign for the South Pacific. I think the US might need a bit more to pull that off consistently, otherwise I imagine they’d probably still go KGF exclusive, pulling ships out of the Pacific, using whatever they have in China to bolster Russia.

Perhaps a Midway opener for Japan/US would be more interesting than a second Pearl? If there was a USN presence at Midway, we could force a choice on Japan. Basically a script where Midway is the more attractive target? Like say a lone US battleship at Midway? If Japan sinks it then the carrier in sz53 “escapes”, if they go for the carrier instead, then the USN has a second Battleship to form the nucleus of a rebuilt Pacific Fleet.

This could provide a historical theme for the mod. Suggests a timeline for the end of the first round that is roughly six months after Pearl Harbor, ie. the second round kicks off in June 1942.

Increasing Hawaii to 3 IPCs and Midway to 2 IPCs and Alaska to 4 IPCs would make for a +6 IPCs USA IPCs to reach 48 IPCs.
And increasing the opportunity target for Japan within 2 SZs from Japan (6 IPCs) and 3 SZs (3 IPCs).
And another reason to not let this additional income into USA hands, to reduced their means against Germany in KGF.
So, that way, Alaska can receive a Japanese IC and at 4 IPCs can built a substantial forces to fight against San Francisco from North (Alaska) and South (Hawaii), for a different ‘WHAT IF’ scenario.
If China is 4 US IPCs, and Alaska, Midway and Hawaii is 9 US IPCs, this means 13 IPCs to grasp for Japan.
That way, this make US the main enemy of Japan economic interest. So USA can start at 48 and going down to 35 and Japan from 30 to 43 IPCs.
(This was possible in old A&A game Classic : World War II The expansion, Pacific extension II.)
What do you think?

I’m just talking inspired somehow by the Vichy rules from Balanced Mode project.

Just adding a few US warships in Midway will make for a scripted battle but which let dice decides the future R2 and others in PTO.

Yeah, I was thinking more about how the battleship unit could serve as a target of oppertunity. Players always have a strong incentive to attack lone battleships, since they are so much more vulnerable at that point than when they converge with other ships. But if the battleship seems a stretch then perhaps a pair of cruisers would work just as well. Like you I had assumed that the carrier fleet in sz53 OOB was meant as a nod to the Midway battle, but that connection would be strengthened if there were actually some ships at Midway to start.

As for the production spread, I would be in complete agreement with your proposed suggestions for the PTO (increasing the value of those territories) if the goal here was a map redesign. But I think this goes beyond what many would accept. Adjusting printed IPC values goes a lot farther than simply adding units, and would require more overhead in the set up (including a way to represent those changes at a glance.) This is easy to achieve in tripleA, but much harder face to face. Even if I wish the map looked that way myself, it would violate the idea set forth earlier, that any balanced mod be achieved purely through the addition of starting units.

Yeah. I was day dreaming, I know.  :lol:

@Black_Elk:

Yeah, I was thinking more about how the battleship unit could serve as a target of oppertunity. Players always have a strong incentive to attack lone battleships, since they are so much more vulnerable at that point than when they converge with other ships. But if the battleship seems a stretch then perhaps a pair of cruisers would work just as well. Like you I had assumed that the carrier fleet in sz53 OOB was meant as a nod to the Midway battle, but that connection would be strengthened if there were actually some ships at Midway to start.

As for the production spread, I would be in complete agreement with your proposed suggestions for the PTO (increasing the value of those territories) if the goal here was a map redesign. But I think this goes beyond what many would accept**. Adjusting printed IPC values goes a lot farther than simply adding units, and would require more overhead in the set up (including a way to represent those changes at a glance.) This is easy to achieve in tripleA, but much harder face to face. Even if I wish the map looked that way myself, it would violate the idea set forth earlier, that any balanced mod be achieved purely through the addition of starting units.**

I still had these US/Japan IPCs points tokens.

Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Norway, +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 tank Manchuria
Americans: +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal

Here is my own synthesis from your ideas (BlackElk and Argothair) to get more opening options:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory France: Paris VC +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada +1 Artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea +1 Infantry, +1 Artillery in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ
Americans: +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal
I prefer to increase naval actions as much as possible. That’s why many IC outside center can bring something more.

Japanese IC in New Guinea is a game input for Rabaul Base in New Britain.
Any unit built there can be considered as a ‘Tokyo Express’ to make pressure on surrounding Islands.

No problem with pipe dreaming.  :-D

It’s possible that I’m not the best one to offer suggestions for a balance mod. I can imagine a whole host of interesting options for additional units, but have a tough time envisioning myself actually playing the mod enough to fully stand behind those options. I’ve done the mod thing a couple times in the past on various boards with mixed results. It takes a lot of time and dedication, with a core playgroup of testers willing to play it to death, and even when successful it still takes a back seat to the official game, so it can be hard to find willing opponents.

Usually, if I’m going to alter the base game, I like to do so in a way that is extremely simple, or narrowly focused. It’s just easier to persuade my friends to try something new that way. I’m not sure how convincing I can be with assurances that a whole series of unit adjustments are all going to balance off each other in a satisfying way. Usually the best I can offer is that it will be a new start, or at least enough of a reset that the overall balance is not yet clear. But like most people who take that approach, it’s hard to find something that sticks, and I’m often sent back to the drawing board.

At this point the only set up change I’ve been able to convince myself about (and a few others in my group) is that Russia could really use a bomber in 1942.2. Here I think I can make a strong case that the red bomber is less distorting, more dyanmic and entertaining overall, than a comparable bid for Russian ground. I also think it’s better for balance than ground or a 3rd Russian fighter. But beyond the Red Bomber I have a harder time pinning this board down.

Personally I think the Americans took the biggest hit, compared to previous editions. All their shucks are gone, transports are harder to defend, and America lacks sufficient starting units/income to make an impact on the early game.

For something hard and fast, my inclination would be to give the Russians a bomber by default, and then let players bid for the Allies. But I suspect the bid would typically be allocated to Russia/UK rather than the US, which is a little unfortunate, since the US is rather boring to play.
This leads me to suggest a Russian Bomber and a US Atlantic Destroyer by default, which is still considerably less distorting than an open bid of 20. At least gives the US something to do in the opening round if the transports survive, but still doesn’t solve the issue with Japan going all monster, and it’s hard to say whether even this would be enough to produce the desired balance by sides.

+1 Russian Bomber, + 1 US Atlantic Destroyer
and then bid for Allies?

This would be a much narrower bid, probably in the 3-9 range, likely going to Russia in Caucasus for ground, or to the Brits in Egypt/India for ground, or perhaps to the UK for an additional sub somewhere.

I’ll admit it is a lot simpler for me to imagine a full redesign of the game map and production spread, than it is to fix the existing map just using units haha.

@taamvan:

“UK is really poor on income, and lacks a way to develop the royal navy. Russia is likewise really poor and barely able to withstand Germany, even when the UK is sending every available ipc to their defense. Basically the Allies are playing a game of pass the buck. Russia is entirely dependent on UK fighter support for survival. The UK is in turn dependant on the USN to get anything going on the Atlantic side of the map, while the US itself is stalled by 3 rounds”

its just a 4 line indictment of the playtest here–forget balance as an abstract;� why it is fun to run uphill for 3 turns in a game that only lasts 4 turns as a result?� Why attempt any other moves than a drive on Moscow?� Even after Germany attacked me, assuming I lived with Russia, Japan was ready to hit me again with 3 tanks and 3 planes, this all on turn 4.� �Moreover, like in Global40, they owned my USSR land and income and once Russia has to turtle hard you cant even make attacks that recover adjacent money.

However, just as with the U0 idea, it simply shifts the balance AGAINST the Axis, because while they can still break thru to Moscow and threaten the spice, they cant hold it as in G40.� � That I suppose is what we want;� it seems like if the game began with 1) a US fleet off NYC that can either cross on U1 or go to the pacific 2) enough Russian pieces to prevent a G1 stack/take 3) anything in india at all such that you have choices other than to turtle it 4) a less favorable geometry of squares that make Japan invincible but UK/US helpless.� Its probably too much to fix.

IDK, but I believe if with restricted USR0 and EastCoast Naval units and everything below, this can easily lift UK burden to built a strong Royal Navy.
That way, Germany need to dealt partly against this threat in ATO. But, with 1 more DD can keep his Baltic TP (to back up Norway, or fast track Germany Infantry toward Karelia).
So Russia is partially relieved and can built a few units (Tank, Art, Inf) in Far East to hold is few TTys IPCs against Japan. And better fight back and forth with StB (and 2 Fgs) supporting ground attack.
USA will need to balance between his 3 entry points: ATO, China and PTO according to what Japan does.
Not enough money to make a 3 fronts war, at least a surviving Carrier in PTO provides a Naval core.

@Baron:

Here is my own synthesis from your ideas (BlackElk and Argothair) to get more opening options:
Soviets: +1 Factory Soviet Far East, +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory France: Paris VC +1 destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Factory in Eastern Canada +1 Artillery India
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea +1 Infantry, +1 Artillery in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in SZ
Americans: +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC +1 Factory Sinkiang, +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal
I prefer to increase naval actions as much as possible. That’s why many IC outside center can bring something more.

Japanese IC in New Guinea is a game input for Rabaul Base in New Britain.
Any unit built there can be considered as a ‘Tokyo Express’ to make pressure on surrounding Islands.

‘What if’
USA R0 restricted and 1 Red StB in Moscow to increase russian dynamics.

What can be added to Axis, Japan and/or Germany, to balance?

The minimum number of units to open up a maximum of options?

A0 noncombat turn (no purchase), Russian bomber in Moscow, German destroyer in Baltic, Japanese factory in New Guinea, British artillery in India, British factory in Eastern Australia?

You lose the China campaign and the Siberia campaign and the Norway campaign, but that also means you have fewer deviations and variations to test. You should still get interesting campaigns in the South Pacific and North Africa.

For the A0 + bomber idea, to the question about max options for Axis with the minimum number of pieces, I think factories have to be considered.

I start to wonder how many factory markers come in the box haha. I’ve probably misplaced a few and tend to use my plastic pieces from previous boards rather than the punch outs.
But let’s just say we’ve got like a dozen beyond the OOB set up. Here are some ideas… Thinking about factories purely as targets/anchors for fighting…

Norway? It was suggested earlier, with some solid points. The only downside I see is that it might be a bit hard to hold without a naval investment, and so Axis might not see it as a boon so much as an Achilles heel. But I like the target aspect.

France? It seems a bit hard to justify factories elsewhere around the globe while ignoring France. This would be a significant change, since it makes light trading for income here less likely. Germany would have a strong incentive to hold it, as would the Allies. It’s hard to say what the effect would be in terms of SBR. It would give the Allies another target for bombing campaigns, but the downside there is that Germany has another place to spawn units. The potential of a France factory for the battle of the Atlantic (and also for the Med/Africa) would be considerable.
Probably the most dramatic single alteration one could make, just using production.

Northwestern Europe? This would be less potent than France, but it’s right next door and so could give a nod to the Fortress Europa angle. It borders three sea zones (for battle of Atlantic options),  and is in range of Canada and Archangel. Could serve as a target territory for Allied invasions, but perhaps a bit less dramatic on the swing. It strikes me as somewhat of a compromise between France and Norway.

I think any of those would alter the German game sufficiently to create some cool new dynamics. But I wouldn’t use more than one.

Alternatively extra destroyers could also be fun, though the gameplay potential there is a bit more one dimensional than a factory. (No chance the Allies could use it against you at some point.) Still would be fun to have a Kreigsmarine for a change.

On the Pacific side things seem more delicate. With a zero turn their naval defense is more complicated. I think a Philippines factory would provide the most gameplay interest. It’s right in the middle of everything (giving Japan some manuveravility), but also presents a nice target for the Allies.

Part of me thinks a US factory in Alaska could be fun. It’s an ill advised purchase, but as a starting unit it might open up the North Pacific. Gives the Japanese a target that might make a sneak on North America more attractive. Alternatively would give the USN some flexibility if they wanted to go North instead of South. Though I suppose with an A0 turn the US doesn’t need it, and would be pretty deadly on US2 if you wanted the zero turn to include a purchase phase. Just A0 non com at this point?

I wonder which is more interesting for A0, only a non com move? or only a purchase phase?

Most of the other starting factory locations that seem interesting to me are 1 ipc locations. Like Malaya, New Guinea etc. Or for the Allies places like E. Australia, New Zealand, W. Canada, Hawaii, Soviet Far East, or in China.

I don’t think E. Canada factory is necessary with an A0 turn. That suggestion was geared more towards the standard sequence with Russia opening.

Questions for everyone. :-)

Black Elk, what is the reasoning behind an East Canada factory? How is it supposed to work? Wouldn’t a French factory encourage more light trading, because neither side could afford to let the other take and hold the factory?

Baron, what is the Caroline Islands transport supposed to attack? On what turn(s)? As a one-shot attack, or as a shuck-shuck? What’s to stop that transport from going to Burma on J1 to setup a J2 capture of India?

Taamvan, if we left the rest of the map alone (OOB), what Russian units would you put in Eastern Europe so that the Russians would be able to keep the Germans out of Karelia, West Russia, and the Caucasus for three full turns even without Allied help?

@Argothair:

Questions for everyone. :-)

Black Elk, what is the reasoning behind an East Canada factory? How is it supposed to work? Wouldn’t a French factory encourage more light trading, because neither side could afford to let the other take and hold the factory?

Baron, what is the Caroline Islands transport supposed to attack? On what turn(s)? As a one-shot attack, or as a shuck-shuck? What’s to stop that transport from going to Burma on J1 to setup a J2 capture of India?

Taamvan, if we left the rest of the map alone (OOB), what Russian units would you put in Eastern Europe so that the Russians would be able to keep the Germans out of Karelia, West Russia, and the Caucasus for three full turns even without Allied help?

Nothing can prevent this maneuver. But hope for more elsewhere.

IDK if India with additionnal Art and purchase can overcome that reinforcement, I hope so.

TP in Carolines (with Carrier, 1 Fg, 1 Cruiser) is to provides some immediate incentive to move forward toward East (Hawaii), South (Australia) or South East (New Zealand), instead. With more IPCs to grasp and keep more than a single turn (unlike Burma).
Assuming that US and UK will react to such aggression.

An IC on France or Northwestern Europe if trade too lightly can escape to the German attacker, then UK or US can easily reinforce this TTy in addition from what coming from TPs.

A France IC taken and hold by US would mean an incredible amount of units right near Germany or Italy and probably shorten the game once achieved.  Compared to OOB, which need numerous UK, US TPs to achieve a constant flow of units.

Northwestern Europe is still an interesting place to put an IC, giving 3 SZs access for build placement.

I think a starting factory in NW Europe would be very thematic – it represents the increased ability of the Allies to supply their European armies with food, amno, fuel, etc. based on control of the only intact deepwater harbors in the region, and it represents increased Axis piwer projection toward the Atlantic based on control of the Dutch shipyards.

I’m not on love with the starting French factory, partly because it is fun when playing the Allies to try to hold France long enough to build your own factory there. If the Allies can build, hold, and use a French factory without losing London or San Francisco, that is usually as good a place as any to call the game and accept Germany’s unconditional surrender.

@Argothair:

I think a starting factory in NW Europe would be very thematic – it represents the increased ability of the Allies to supply their European armies with food, amno, fuel, etc. based on control of the only intact deepwater harbors in the region, and it represents increased Axis power projection toward the Atlantic based on control of the Dutch shipyards.

Agreed, Northwestern is probably ideal. 2 production points is enough to open up some interesting  possibilities for either side without being too insane.
:-D

My thought with France is that the Germans would stack it so deep that D-Day becomes do or die for both sides. This might tilt the balance away from the Eastern front towards the Fatherland (which could be cool), but my concern is that it would just be too simple for Germany to lock down.  Probably makes a naval build too simple, allowing them to crush Egypt or Caucasus, or even go after UK.

Northwestern on the other hand, still allows for a German fleet link up in sz 8, but doesn’t provide the same kind of transport spam potential. If G wants to go crazy on the water they could still try nutso moves like a double carrier buy, but at least there is a production cap. Alternatively they could drop a couple uboats in the water to try and strangle UK a bit, but again with less overkill potential. The SBR effect is a lot less dramatic, since raids on a 2 IPC territory are not optimal, but at the same time it doesn’t make things too easy on Berlin (they have 2 more production points elsewhere if the capital is bombed out, but these are at least one turn out of position from the eastern front.) I think it’s a nice trade off. Still useful for D-Day, but not the be all end all that a France factory would represent. Germany should have fun with it.

@Argothair:

I think a starting factory in NW Europe would be very thematic – it represents the increased ability of the Allies to supply their European armies with food, amno, fuel, etc. based on control of the only intact deepwater harbors in the region, and it represents increased Axis piwer projection toward the Atlantic based on control of the Dutch shipyards.
I’m not on love with the starting French factory, partly because it is fun when playing the Allies to try to hold France long enough to build your own factory there. If the Allies can build, hold, and use a French factory without losing London or San Francisco, that is usually as good a place as any to call the game and accept Germany’s unconditional surrender.

Totally agree.  :-)

I also find that Szechwan IC is better to provide an historical thematic: US supporting China, beyond Himalaya.
So, adding an AAA improve the anti-air capacity of Chennault’s Flying Tigers, somehow.
This IC would be within grasp of japanese’s Kwantung and Yunnan’s (coastal TTy) armys, once conquered by Japan.
Such IC would be double edges. Once conquered, it will help a bit Japan to reinforce his depleted ground army.

But adding such IC, and we know that China was not a dead horse as it seems in OOB 1942.2, is this an incentive to commit Japan into a centre rush?

Also, Soviet Far East IC seems to me an interesting target for Japan to slowly built an army to make a centre crush.

So, even if historical maybe it is not a good idea to add some strategic target on the road toward Moscow. IDK.
I believe IC creates a sense of urgency to hastely conquer these entry points.

With AAA in Szechwan, what about 2 more US Infantry in Sinkiang instead ? This would provide like a 3 turns investment from a US IC.

To the contrary, adding an ICs both in Hawaii and Alaska, which imply to not built any Eastern Canada IC, IMO, so Japan can hope to fight in North America.
Can better be an incentive to fight eastward. But what can be of some help to UK to build a fleet? One Fighter?

At this point of exchange, I see these opening options, if no US R0:
Soviets: +1 bomber Moscow
Germans: +1 Factory Western Europe +1 Destroyer Baltic Sea (SZ 5)
British: +1 Factory Eastern Australia, +1 Artillery India + 1 Fg in UK?
Japanese: +1 Factory New Guinea, +1 Artillery in Carolines Island + 1 Transport in Carolines SZ
Americans: +1 Factory in Hawaii: Honolulu VC+ 1 IC Alaska +1 AAA gun Szechuan, +1 DD in Panama Canal + 2 Inf Sinkiang?
I prefer to increase PTO naval actions as much as possible. That’s why many IC outside center can bring something more.

Japanese IC in New Guinea is a game input for Rabaul Base in New Britain.
Any unit built there can be considered as a ‘Tokyo Express’ to make pressure on surrounding Islands.
This IC can also be an incentive to act to properly protect against UK and US.

For anyone who’s still reading this thread, (100+ posts! Woo!) let me say a few words about how I think we can avoid having every game wind up turning into a rush to the center.

Any change, anywhere on the board, can theoretically be part of a center rush. Add 4 Russian infantry to the Caucasus? Wow, the Axis had better charge at the Caucasus even harder than before, or else the Russian center will grow strong enough to be unbeatable. Remove 4 Russian units from the Caucasus? Wow, the Axis had better charge at the Caucasus even harder than before, because it’s such an obviously juicy opportunity. Add factories to 7 of the territories in or near the Pacific Ocean? Wow, Japan should just ignore the Pacific and focus on crushing Moscow – there’s no way they can capture all 7 factories with just their one starting transport. Delete every starting unit in the entire Pacific Ocean? Better head to Moscow; the Pacific’s an empty waste of time.

So the trick is not to make a change that could never help a center rush – the trick is to make a series of changes which, taken together, allow players who are interested in other strategies to pursue those strategies without incurring a disadvantage.

In the Pacific, I suggested adding starting factories to Sinkiang, the Soviet Far East, and Eastern Australia to complement the OOB starting factory in India, because the Allies can afford to pump units into all four of those factories if they wish, and if they do so, then Japan cannot afford to capture or even seriously attack all four of those factories. They also collectively “plug up” all of the routes to Moscow – if the Allies defend Siberia, China, and India, then Japan can’t reach Moscow at all, so Japan can’t be part of a center crush. Because Russia only needs to build 1 unit a turn, and that unit will be mostly paid for by retained Siberian income, participating in this kind of “anti-Japanese alliance” will not unduly weaken Russia. Similarly, this strategy will still leave the US & UK with some cash to assist Russia in the west. Instead of the Axis converging on Egypt / Trans-Jordan / Persia / Caucasus with robotic regularity, Japan will have to make an intelligent choice. Will Japan make a big push in China? A big push in Siberia? Or a big push in India? Depending on where Japan concentrates its forces (or where Japan gets lucky and makes a breakthrough), you will see different middlegame positions. A stack of 8 Japanese tanks in Yakut looks different from 6 Japanese tanks in Sinkiang, which looks different from 2 Japanese tanks in India. Meanwhile, Japan will also have to choose whether to use its naval budget to fight for the New Guinea factory, the Sydney factory, both, or neither. If Japan chooses to fight for at least one of these factories, then there’s a Japanese campaign that has nothing to do with the center. If Japan chooses to abandon both factories, then the US+UK can use them to threaten the Japanese homeland and money islands, forcing Japan to divert some of its attention away from the center as early as turn 3.

Of course, the Allies could choose to ignore all of these fascinating new opportunities, and just send all the Pacific boats through the Panama Canal to the Atlantic Ocean, evacuate everyone in Siberia back to Moscow, evacuate everyone in China back to Moscow, build 3 infantry a turn to turtle in India, and focus entirely on building a fighter wall to protect India and West Russia while slowly marching infantry east from Morocco through Egypt to Persia. But aside from being boring, that’s a dumb move on the Allies’ part, because then the Axis wind up with a bunch of free extra factories. 9 times out of 10, an Allied player who does that will just wind up losing a lot of territory and then losing Moscow shortly thereafter.

Similarly, in the Atlantic, I suggested putting a factory in Norway. This is a really drastic change that the Allies can choose to use to pull German forces far away from the center. If the Germans fight for the factory, they’re now heading northwest from Berlin, i.e., directly away from the center. If the Germans abandon the factory, then the US or UK can claim it and put immediate pressure on Paris and Berlin, which will (again) force the Germans to pull forces away from the center. The Germans could stubbornly ignore all of that and reason to themselves “I’d better crush Moscow quickly because now with an Allied factory in Norway, I have limited time before Berlin falls.” But the point is that this imaginary stubborn German player is putting himself at a disadvantage. It is not wise to abandon the Norway factory, evacuate France of defenders, and blitz straight for Moscow. 9 times out of 10, a German player who tries that will just wind up losing France and then losing Berlin.

A factory in NW Europe might work almost as well for this purpose as the factory in Norway, because it does give the Axis access to two new sea zones, one of which is in range of Eastern Canada. However, because the factory is on the European mainland, I think it devalues the Baltic navy to the point where Germany is ill-advised to build any boats – instead, Germany will prefer to fill its mainland factories with infantry and artillery.

Similarly, a factory in Hawaii and/or Alaska might work almost as well as the factory in China, because it does help accelerate an American attack on the money islands, and it does provide valuable targets for Japan if Japan wants to try to intensely harass San Francisco. However, these factories do not literally block a drive to Moscow in the same way that a factory in Sinkiang would. You can’t get to Moscow through China without going through Sinkiang. You can get to Moscow through China without capturing a factory in Hawaii. I also think that harassing San Francisco is a “niche” strategy – there are games when it makes sense, but without major changes to the map, Japan will never be able to steal San Francisco from an alert player unless the game is already long past over. Given that San Francisco is destined to hang on, it usually makes more sense for Japan to try to conquer Moscow (thereby winning) than to merely feint at conquering San Francisco (thereby diverting some US income for defense, but not winning unless that income happens to be absolutely crucial on the European front).

I am sure there are many options and ideas that will help pull the action away from the center (Egypt / Jordan / Persia / India / Caucasus / West Russia) and toward the various peripheries (Canada / Australia / Alaska / South Africa / Norway / Soviet Far East). As we think about them together, let’s try to stay guardedly optimistic about the possibility of avoiding the center crush. It’s challenging, but it’s definitely possible.