Europe 1942?

@Imperious-Leader sorry, no pics this time but the table did feel like this was a way better way to begin the game. Gets the game going a little quicker and with zero 9-12 anxiety for either side. Seems like it would be more fair for tournament play also.

@taamvan Nope. Its Deathheads map he came out with right around 1st AA50 edition came out. 2008 or 9 I believe.

He did get ideas from AAE AAP. Had his own Mods with using AA50 rules if they applied. D6.

I changed a ton of stuff to it and made it a D12 system. Game reports are in House Rules thread under 1940 Global War 2nd Edition if your interested in looking at.

Honestly The 2 young good players I have went at it in Europe the whole game. Said it was the best game for them as far as historic effects. Convoy raiding SBRing back and forth and UKUS did there NA combine attack one time in game and got Paris back. Germany had UK down to 26 icps with raiding and some Africa stuff but US got on board and finally got UK back to 50 icps in income. Also what hurt UK early was there Tacs and destroyers could not get dice hits on the Wolf Packs. Epic.
UK even had there NA Sub Hunters for whole game and Got a +1 for Tac bombers against lone subs and still missed a bunch.
Also only 1-1 for figs hitting surfaced subs with a destroyer. 5 subs Vs 2 Destroyers can only scramble 2 figs.
You also got to have the Sub being able to submerge after Tac bomber attack and even with a destroyer present. Then you give Destroyer a depth Charge drop attack.

Map pics in the thread i posted.

@simon98v said in [1942 2nd ed.] Suggestion for a setup change:

Russia: Add a bomber to Karelia, remove the factory there
UK: Add 2 infantry to India
US: Remove 1 transport from sz 11, but make US gain a full turn of non-combat moves
This will help the US preserve some of its starting fleet, save some of the troops in China, make Russia a little stronger vs Germany and help the UK hold India for longer. Thoughts?

It totally imbalanced toward allies… If you play OOB ( not LHGC version) this would track toward allied advantage. To balance you start with LHGC, and move existing units around for both sides, not just add 20 IPC to allies.

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

Not a problem.  Will do! 👍

Fair enough! And thanks very much for the writeup. If anyone tries this again, consider adding:

2 German subs in SZ 10 (Greenland)
2 German subs in SZ 12 (west of Morocco)
1 Japanese carrier with 1 Japanese fighter in SZ 62 (east of Tokyo)

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.