[1942 2nd ed.] Suggestion for a setup change

@SMichael23 Its not a solution if you magically give Italy this territory. If you want to model a problem, first get the facts straight with some research, then go into balancing it.

Aside from 1 ipc and 1 infantry, just increase Italy +1 and balance out the additional forces for both sides…

China is a road apple and a basket case. Japan needs to get thru that mess asap or they have no chance… If you hold back an already weak Japan in 42.2 you create a KJF scenario in every game.

Add italy fine, leave china alone and move the German air force out of UKR, give a bomber to Russia. Minor tweeks, then playtest

mostly good ideas, i would add axis minor allies with substitutions

Ya but every thing is raised +1 across the whole game for AD
So far Allies 3-2
But should be 4-1. Axis had 1 tank in coast city. Allies Didn’t bring enough troops.
It was nice had allies attack St. lo on T4 or 5
Added a few pieces to setup. 3 extra paratroopers and a few tigers late on card and AD@5 I think M1 only. Moved 3 block houses off coast on upper left side of map and put in 2 more against big US beachhead and other one against other US beach head.
This is the map I use.
Better take d day discussion to correct thread from now on
DA6E0A3F-2E5B-4517-B1B4-BDFC48594DD2.jpeg

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! :)

I do sometimes have to look more than once when I see the CV.  Should be AC.

Here’s a link to some. Although these are made for triplea you can obviously play them on the board as well. You might want some custom ipc markers for the TTs with different values though. I’m in the process of revamping these so they have their own zips. You won’t need to replace the whole global zip that way.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35578.0

Here’s one that changes Russia’s NOs

Russian NOs.zip

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

See this thread for various alternative maps:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30553.0

If Russia can attack a neutral Turkey then why not the UK?

But you’re right, since Turkey is likely to go to war T1 there’s little advantage for the Allies in not attacking it (unless you favour a house rule banning the Allies from attacking neutrals).

The point of Austria not attacking a neutral Italy is that it denies Italy an entire turn to collect income and build units.

I don’t like $10 NO’s, too all or nothing
Russia should have 3 NO’s, each wirth $5
first as normal (red territorries is interesting)
2nd for allies controlling nor/fin
third for euro territorries

USA should have another $5 NO in pacific

sorry I am short on details, perhaps I will post my ideas better when I don’t have house guests  :-P

I like the thread Jen, +1 karma!