Europe 1942?

@SuperbattleshipYamato I have played a few games and though the Axis can initially worry the Allies , (I thought I would lose ), I have always been able to keep the income gap and , as the game progresses, it opens up much more .
I don’t believe , The Allies don’t need help in this game, if the players are equal ability.

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

I know that 1942 Second Edition doesn’t come with National Advantages (NA) out of the box but I’d like to experiment playing with a few. I grabbed the list of NAs from the Larry Harris Tournament Rules PDF (https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf) but a few of them reference specific spaces/zones. I am wondering how to modify them for the 1942 Second Edition game board.

Trans-Siberian Railway (U.S.S.R NA) previously mentioned that certain land units can move two spaces along Russia, Novosibirsk, Yakut S.S.R., and Buryatia S.S.R territories. However, on the 1942 Second Edition game board, Evenki National Okrug is in the way along with Vologda as well. How should this be modified?

Kamikaze (Japan NA) references sea zones 58, 59, 60, 61. In the 1942 Second Edition game board, are those still valid?

Chinese Divisions (U.S. NA) references China, Sinkiang, and Kwangtung territories. Which territories should it be on the 1942 Second Edition game board?

This is 1942.2, not Global 1942. The US starts at war.

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.

I like the idea to create a new unit class that behaves in a unique way, and the AAgun does seem to be pretty good to denote it (since they’re rarely purchased). But of course, creating a new unit class does create some barriers to entry and diminishes the ease of adoption.

Basically the Bazooka concept as described (whatever you end up calling the unit, for me that’s not as important) will require an update to the battleboard, and the unit cost/abilities lists of the maps/book. Its one more thing that players have to learn, in addition to the new set up, so in that respect it will be harder to gather testers than if you just stick with the regular unit roster. Sure it’s a different balance then, but at least everyone has the info memorized already.

I think the easiest approach for a mod to adopt is to keep everything else the same, and just a offer reprint of the unit set up cards for each nation.

Those are typically separate materials anyway, and even the OOB cards have misprints (for the starting IPC value of UK and Germany) and printing out a few new cards is pretty easy. Placing starting units for a new set up takes about the same amount of time as it does to set the OOB game. So that’s pretty easy too.

I like a lot of the concepts here, especially the 1 ipc factory, which I think could be a major benefit to the play patterns on the board. But the Bazooka concept might overshadow them.

Perhaps test the Bazooka concept first in the OOB game to see how if it gathers interest? But I kind of like this set up, with the placements, even if they’re just normal AAguns. You can always use a bid, or further tweaks to rebalanced the situation (sans bazooka concept, if that’s needed.) I like pretty much all the other ideas. Though I’d still pull for a Pearl Factory hehe
:-D

Again man, nice concepts

@Hobbes:

Based on AA50’s 1941 scenario.

I apologize, I just realized this must be on the Revised map.
I saw AA50 1941 and just assumed it was on that board.

the turn order grabbed my attention because I think that the AA50 turn order where UK always follows Japan makes a Pacfic campaign very difficult to achieve for the allies.