Balancing the 42.2 game without the need for Bids

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

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.

I think the USA non-combat turn zero pretty much balances the game 50/50! If you want, you can give the Axis a bid of 3 to 6 IPCs, but I doubt it’s necessary.

I don’t think Russia gets erased by Germany. Russia actually starts with a healthy number of troops even out of the box, and because Russia goes before Germany, Russia has a chance to shape the European map in its favor. With an USA turn zero, the Allied Atlantic fleets will survive, which means much earlier Allied pressure on Norway/France/Morocco, which really limits Germany’s ability to secure a permanent economic advantage against Russia. In other words, in my opinion, the problem with the OOB 1942.2 setup isn’t that Russia is too weak – it’s that the US & UK are too weak. Giving the USA a zero turn helps protect both US & UK assets, which fixes this problem.

Related to #2, if you haven’t already read Black_Elk’s sticky thread on Russian Openings, you really need to. It will totally change the way you see the 1942.2 board.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35487.0

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

Based on your feedback, I’ve made a couple of tweaks to the variant. The most recent version is attached for play testing.

Changes from the original version are indicated by underscoring:

Revised Russian National Objectives

1. Spread of Communism: Bonus for Russian control of originally Axis/Pro-Axis territories is confined to mainland Europe (excluding Africa, Iraq, mid-east Islands, etc.).

2. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:

a. Archangel, sz 125
b. Persia, sz 80
c. Siberia, sz 5

As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.

(Hat tip to calvinhobbesliker and ItIsILeClercs for this change. I enjoyed reading up on the subject)

Other Allied National Objectives

1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.

(Hat tip to The Hessian for this change)

2. Southern Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives UK + 5 PUs: Southern France, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas, Marshall Islands.

(Hat tip to Gencre for this change)

Air Raids

Fighters attack and defend at 2 during air raids. Strategic and tac bombers attack at 1.

Play-Testing

Over the last week, I had the chance to play test the variant a half-dozen times times, both as Allies and Axis. Some observations:

1. Axis players generally were more proactive in defending Western Europe against small-sale allied incursions.

2. In two games, Italy used its surving transport (after Taranto) to move defensive units to sicily and sardinia.

3. In all but one of the games, the changes to the Lend Lease objective effectively extended Russia’s +5 PU bonus until entry of allied units into Russia (usually by round 6 or 7). Mostly, no serious effort was made to contest the objective. However, in one game I was able to defeat it by getting a sub to sz 80 by round 4.

4. The 2 attack/defense value of fighters during air raids significantly reduced the frequency of unescorted bombing raids. Dark skies was not attempted in any of the games I played (whether due to the changes, or a coincidence, I don’t know).

5. The “Vital Forward Bases” objective encouraged “island-hopping,” as well as early naval engagement in the central-pacific, which was fun.

Thanks again for ur feedback guys. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the changes. Shoot me a message if you’d like to arrange a play test.

RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv5.tsvg

@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.