1942.2_Advanced variant for more action in Pacific_based on Redesigned thread

@all-encompassing-goose

I just buy more pieces and limit the amount of units at any given time to those that are available.

@tincanofthesea when I designed the game I tried very hard to allow it to replicate any action that actually happened during the war.
The war started in June 1950, by August North Korea nearly pushed the Allies off Korea completely.
So yeah, that can happen in the game… although it isn’t very easy.
Another example is that I changed the movement value for naval units from 4 to 5. My reason was that it was impossible to transfer units from the West coast (Inchon) to the East coast (Wonsan) in one move. This actually happened during the war. In October 1950 Marines were pulled from Inchon to Wonsan.
The turns are month based. One turn round (both players have moved) equals one month.

I’m only seeing this now, but it looks pretty cool! However, it seems pretty unbalanced overall. A lot of this comes from the fact that Japan is no longer fighting the Soviet Union and that the UK doesn’t have much recourse when it comes to fortifying the front lines. Here are a couple of changes I would make to this setup:

Set China to its OOB 1942 Setup: China already gets steamrolled in a standard game, but with Manchuria free? Woof. With more units at China’s wing, while they may still get beaten badly, at least it isn’t as terrible as it could be.

Give the UK an Industrial Complex in India: Due to Britain not having the resources to garrison their land, give one IC to India! According to your Turn Order, this may end up impacting Japan’s initial spread. To fix this…

Japan Goes First: This basically gives us the OOB turn order, with Japan going first, Britain going second, America going third, and the Chinese going fourth. This is simply a more effective turn order when it comes down to Japan’s initial expansion.

Haven’t playtested these changes yet, but they should improve the balance of this variant to a degree.

(Also, sorry if this counts as necroposting. I didn’t want to create an entire new topic just for my personal thoughts on this post.)

@MacNaughton Yes. I have made up random WW1 Great Powers and related neutral territories all of which can be placed on a map of sea zones. In this way the map can change from game to game. This does take work to make the physical components. The game itself offers the parameters ( a statisitacal analysis of the map & PF values) to make up your own map.

Can you show some pictures?

@LT04:

Another problem with having way to many spaces is that they are only worth 0, 1, maybe 2.  Not worth building an IC there to help speed things up for two units.

What should be done, if you want an historic correct game, is to give some vital territories an high value, and other territories no value. Some territories had oil, like south Romenia, Caucasus and Iraq, other places had iron ore, like northern Sweden, and some places had big industri, like western Germany, eastern Ukraine, Volga and UK. So this territories should have high value. And poor places in the wilderness, like Belo-Russia, Northern Norway, Eastern Poland should have no value.

But because of playability, because the designer want battles in all territories, they usually give each territory the same value. So usually Germany with big industri and big resources and big population, have a 6 IPC value, and Belo-Russia with no industri, no resources and a small population, also get 4 IPC value. In the most insane case, there was this map that gave impassable Himalaya an IPC value of 2. That was half the value of Germany. I guess the designer had never visited Himalaya. But the result was, that impassable Himalaya had more action than the historical battlefields.

Global War 2.0 is available for Triplea.

Download at: http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=10246