Avoiding Infantry blobs. Change their Cost to 3.2!

@The-Captain You’re absolutely right, but as the Russian player I’ve been glad to see those factories bombed out. Germany has moved the Southern Italy, Berlin, and Paris factories underground as they consider those the main factories they’ll be producing from. The Allies learned this the hard way too the India Industrial Complex took a lot of bombing damage. It’s kind of late but UK may finally put that factory underground.

I should also add that for a “bid”, we give the US “improved shipyards” and that seems to balance things out.

@barnee re: testing

Since the Axis each have a starting income that is divisible by 3, originally I had the mechanics for merging theatres as a function of the Axis country either increasing their income by 2/3rds more than their starting income, or decreasing it by 1/3rd less than their starting income. (Which sort of dovetails into the “2 out of 3” rule for Victory Cities.)

This effectively worked out to:
Germany: +14/-7
Italy: +8/-4
Japan: +10/-5

Changing it to a uniform +10/-5 made the math a little bit more intuitive, but it also means the USSR doesn’t have to get beat up so much (down half their income, possibly even losing their capitol) before the US/UK are able to jump in and help.

In terms of territorial gains/losses, this typically works out like…
+10 Germany = Karelia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Persia
-5 Germany = Finland/Norway, Eastern Europe

+10 Italy = all of Africa, plus Brazil or Eastern Canada
-5 Italy = all of Africa (except for one territory), or losing Southern Europe

+10 Japan = all Chinese territories, plus India or Philippines
-5 Japan = Indochina/Burma, Manchuria

So, Italy probably has the toughest time (as one might expect) but none of these scenarios are completely out of the realm of possibility.

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.

After a year break we played a game according to these rules yesterday.
Japan heavy navy focused getting Honolulu, Sydney, Rio de Janero and even San Francisco! Leading to a land war on the American continent.
Meanwhile Russia and Britain heavy focusing Germany, with conquering the whole of northern and eastern Europe (Oslo, Kiev).
But then, Germany seized an opportunity of taking London after Britain player overcomitted and did some bad rolls.
Axis win the game.

It was very confusing, and we did a lot of bad mistakes. But it was fun, and we really had a game with battles at totally new battlefields.

After Russia and Britain both starting very defensive, Germany and Japan player decided to play an altrenative strategy, attacking US. It worked at least partially. Germany forced to play defensive on land, losing total whole of east and north Europe (but defensive Russia took quite a while). Japan using heavy Navy and invading Australia, South America and finally even US west coast. Land war on the American continent between Japan West coast and US East coast (and Canada a bit). Few action in China at all…all players were turteling after the initial clashes. Money was needed elsewhere and infantry could hardly attack alone. Tank war in Africa between German Egypt and British South Africa. Both players had minor factories in africa, pumping tanks. Great navy clash in the northern Atlantic between US+Royal Navy and the German navy. To some bad rolls, British and US player losing atlantic fleet. Germany lost as well nearly whole fleet, but was able to invade exposed London and win the game. Maybe one turn later, the Russian steamroller would have taken Berlin.

The changes in Navy Balance (increase offensive power by chaper Battleship and Cruiser) as well as the alternative start setup allows for totally new strategies like “Kill US”. We are still not sure if this setup is balanced, we did only 3 games with this so far. I’d be happy about any feedback.

@Black_Elk:

What if you just moved the carrier fleet from Pearl to San Diego?
Instead of introducing new TUV onto the board, you just shift it out of harms way. This would give the US a strong Pacific option, but also preserves these units to go either way if desired.

Admiral James O. Richardson would have approved of this concept.  In fact it’s pretty much what he said to President Roosevelt in 1940.  It didn’t turn out to be a good move career-wise in the short term (he was dismissed as CinCUS), but this wasn’t altogether a bad thing for him in the long run in view of what happened to his successor, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.

Just a suggestion, not promoting anything.  You could go check out the Historical Board Gaming site,  they might have a few things you’re looking for.  They pretty much have everything.

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game.  Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be.  They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE.  In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50.  To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed.  Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
  But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships.  There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost. 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point.  But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else.  For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.