[1942.2] Is there a 1940 setup for 1942 game?

@rusty-baldridge

Thank you, I’ll move the topic to the TripleA-Support-Category, then.

What @barnee says. You need to edit the respective part of the xml file to be found in the “game”-directoy of the map installation.

Based on my preliminary results, that advice helped me achieve exactly what I wanted. Thank you. The AI Goes down every time obviously. I will have to find some better allies to play against, wish me luck. And, just maybe that essay may show up one day. Not sure I want to frustrate you all with every detail yet. But, if I do make a guide on the AI Total Victory, its over about turn 11-12 unless I optimize it more. No condescension intended, nice to meet yall. If I am an eagle you are my wings, and such.🦅
🖖:0
AXIS 11-17-20 RV Milky!
(Edit reason total ipc is so high is I was on track to take both the west coast US, and Hawaii same turn but spammed thru hit assignment on Hawaii, blundered it twice and didn’t bother doing anything else for a few turns but spam the enter key and well, gotta get ready for a test at work… so yeah, no misleading intended either it was turn 11. I’ll just have to do it again tomorrow)

@Imperious-Leader https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34909/1942-second-edition-house-rules-for-a-more-interesting-game/44

Here is my latest file I know that it was seen before but anyone looking at this post for rules may be interested.

1942.2 is a very neat and faster pace game than other versions of AA, nevertheless the china rules of AA50 and paratrooper tech are both aspects bring in more historical realism, fun and tactical depth to the game in overall. I have tried to incorporat both rules as houserules into 42.2 and would like to have your comments on it if these break the balance . My group are not very sophisticated AA fans therefore a 6:4 balance would not significant impact to our overall result i believe.but of course i want to make the variant as balance as i can

China variants
As i know the original setup is more favour Axis side. And SU in general has a less resources other than her two alliances. So my rules set as below
a.) China power is controlled by SU player
b.) Except the initial IPC, China’s controlled territory IPC are reduced from US productivity.
c.) China can occupy and control only the 8 territories including Formosa/kwangTung/Manchuria .
d.) China only can produce infantry according to AA50 rules except 1 infantry/1 allies controlled territory in China.

The reason for this is enhancing China defence against Jpy in early rounds as it can deploy before Jpy invades. Also the cheaper cost of infantry (1 IPC= 1 inf) is offset by less IPC for US player. Thirdly SU player will has more fun when compared to us and uk.

Paratroopers variant

Generally , players tends to push all their ground force all to the most front line and leave its central territory very empty without any threat. Introduce of para hope can solve this unrealism. I modify the AA 50 rule of para and allow in the beginning of the game.

In combat move , 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry to the target hostile territory Moving and landing rule are as same as normal except the bomber can fly through hostile territories as long as it has legitimate landing route. When the bomber fly through and at the target territory with Aaa gun (during combat move only), do the aaa gun chking as usual combat.

We play tested once with both rules , we found the China rule brought a little upclimb difficulty for JPN player, but in long run , as US has fewer resources and get more balance and has a bit less impact to Axis

With paratrooper variants. We tends to build up more aaa gun and deploy inland or islands , also we will leave some def forces at some strategic territories which the overall deployment tactics looks more reasonable on the map.

Since we did not heavily play test enough,feel free to comment if you sight any potential problem to these variants

@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! :)

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

@BJCard:

Well, the Russians will likely have few artillery and tanks, so if Germany attacked the Russian stack with all its air (5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 2 Str Bombers) they could kill all the armor in the first round, greatly diminishing the Russian’s defensive capability (or if the Russians were on offence, the German air could kill its armor AND artillery, effectively neutering the attack and dooming Russia).

With the US- Japan starts with 11 Fighters, 8 Tac Bombers, and 2 Str Bombers, a much bigger Navy than the US with its measly 5 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, and 1 Str Bomber.  And that’s if the US doesn’t send any aircraft to London.  Just in aircraft alone, the US would need 149 IPCs to achieve parity- or the first 3 full purchases (if Japan did a J3).  No cheap DD/SS fodder- no new carriers (Japan has 3 to the US’s 1).  Japan will always have air superiority and thus always target high value ships (BBs/CVs) first.

I’m not sure where you get that the Allies have the advantage in Global 1940- all the bids are to the Allies (go look at the games being PBF), and many times the bid isn’t even enough.

If you wanted to use the air supremacy rules, it could be good, but you’d have to change the entire setup to reflect the power aircraft now have.

The obvious Allied counter would be to prioritize aircraft production, like in the real war (see: Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, Battle of Kursk), which isn’t as daunting as your projections would indicate.

Because planes can’t land in newly-conquered territories, each side could use their air units to cherry-pick the other fellow’s best offensive units on their respective turns, resulting in a mutual neutering until somebody finally broke through.

It would be a bloodbath in the sky for the first few rounds, but the Allies have the economic clout to pull off air superiority in the long run… and with this targeting prize, air superiority would really mean something worth fighting for, for a change.

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!