Balancing the 42.2 game without the need for Bids

@all-encompassing-goose

I hope so. Can’t wait to see what people will say!

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

That’s generally what war is about, one country(s) wanting to expand and colonize, and other county(s) trying to stop it to protect their own interests. England was a super power at the time, it won multiple wars allowing it to expand the Empire. With expansion comes a strain of resources and uprisings (like that little conflict in the America’s). Although the English were on the winning side of WWII much of the Empire was disassembled afterwords.

The axis partners had spheres of interest prior to the start of WWII. Germany would dominate Europe, Italy the Med region, and Japan would get Asia and the Pacific. If things had continued to go the axis way,  those lines very well could have gotten blurred leading to conflicts among the axis. We all know that the Germans were capable of back stabbing their treaty partners.

Yea the Germans were late to the party, but did colonize in the Pacific and Africa prior to WWI. As a result of WW1 they lost those colonies. It is reasonable to believe that had the war progressed in their favor the Germans would want those lost territories back at some point. Would the Japanese just freely relinquish those Pac territories? Maybe some kind of trade off?

I’m no historian, but I don’t think the Japanese had any interest in expanding into Africa during the war(?). That would fall under German/Italian influence where the Euro axis were already fighting. I’m not saying the Japanese didn’t have the means to make landings in Africa, only that it would probably raise red flags to their axis partners if they did. Plus such a landing would have been a major strain on Japanese ambitions and holding they already had in their own back yard. They chose to keep the NAP w/Russia to continue their conquest of Asia and the Pacific (against the wishes of their strongest ally). I don’t think the Japanese would have looked at Africa unless they got the US to sign a treaty giving them complete reign of Asia and the Pac. Then they may have looked towards Africa or the Mid East???

With that said, I like that fact that if the US goes full tilt Europe the game allows you as the Japanese to venture to into Africa, and other European territories. Same for if the Japanese are getting pounded the Germans/Italians can make gains on the Pac side if they want. I wouldn’t like a set of rules that limit you to one map side or the other. Many people already complain about the Acme Chinese wall as it is.

If a house rule limited axis cross overs, or base certain moves on a domino type of effect, I think that you would also have look at putting in some US spending limits per theater as well.

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

I have seen many Axis won games where the Axis won by the skin-of-their-teeth. If those games went on a couple of more rounds, it would have surely turned into an Allied victory.
For example, I have seen this happen: Germany takes over Russia gaining Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. They already have Berlin, Warsaw and Paris, plus Italy has Rome. There is 7 of the 8 VCs they need to win on the Europe board.
While Germany was fighting in Russia and Italy was dealing with the British in the Med, the US fleet stomps the Japanese fleet and has them cornered on Japan. The US also builds up a HUGE invasion force in the Atlantic. They move it to SZ 91 off of Gibraltar. That same turn, Italy finally manages to grab Cairo from the Brits –- VC #8 — and puts a single destroyer blocker in SZ 92.
See, the Allies are screwed. That big US invasion force could easily take Rome, but the US fleet has to stop in SZ 92 to smash that 1 Italian destroyer. Therefore they can’t get to Rome, or Cairo. From SZ 91, even with the Gibraltar Naval Base, there is no other European VC that is under Axis control that they can get to. They could invade W. Germany, but while that would hurt the German effort, there is no VC there. Both Berlin and Paris are 1 more turn away. At the beginning of Italy’s turn, the Axis win.
Berlin, Rome and Paris could all be totally undefended, but since the Axis captured their 8th VC and held it for one full round, they win. In a way, this kind of sucks but that’s the rules. I guess it is designed to make the Allied players think harder about their defence of VCs. Perhaps go all out on that critical 8th VC to keep it from the Axis an any cost, whether it be Cairo, Moscow or even London.

Blockhouse cost 2, defend at 3 or less, can stack but not move.

Blockhouse cost 6 and boost all Infantry and artillery +1 on defense all rounds up to the IPC value of the territory.

A 4 IPC space will only boost 4 units of these types +1.

If taken over fortification is destroyed.