1942.2 rules with krieghund's clarifications

Ya but every thing is raised +1 across the whole game for AD
So far Allies 3-2
But should be 4-1. Axis had 1 tank in coast city. Allies Didn’t bring enough troops.
It was nice had allies attack St. lo on T4 or 5
Added a few pieces to setup. 3 extra paratroopers and a few tigers late on card and AD@5 I think M1 only. Moved 3 block houses off coast on upper left side of map and put in 2 more against big US beachhead and other one against other US beach head.
This is the map I use.
Better take d day discussion to correct thread from now on
DA6E0A3F-2E5B-4517-B1B4-BDFC48594DD2.jpeg

I know that 1942 Second Edition doesn’t come with National Advantages (NA) out of the box but I’d like to experiment playing with a few. I grabbed the list of NAs from the Larry Harris Tournament Rules PDF (https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf) but a few of them reference specific spaces/zones. I am wondering how to modify them for the 1942 Second Edition game board.

Trans-Siberian Railway (U.S.S.R NA) previously mentioned that certain land units can move two spaces along Russia, Novosibirsk, Yakut S.S.R., and Buryatia S.S.R territories. However, on the 1942 Second Edition game board, Evenki National Okrug is in the way along with Vologda as well. How should this be modified?

Kamikaze (Japan NA) references sea zones 58, 59, 60, 61. In the 1942 Second Edition game board, are those still valid?

Chinese Divisions (U.S. NA) references China, Sinkiang, and Kwangtung territories. Which territories should it be on the 1942 Second Edition game board?

Good video along with the turn 1 video in HJ’s thread. One thing I do have to comment on is there must be some horrible, horrible rolls for the Germans in turn 1. Getting Egypt in turn 1 is usually dicey so not getting it is possible, I tend to take Trans-Jordan to make blocking  the canal a sure thing. But not getting Karelia is a definate blow to the Axis, especially with the 2 Russian Fighters there waiting to be picked off. When I play as Germany I love it when Russia packs Karelia at the end of their turn with Tanks and especially their Fighters. At least the Axis got into the precious Russian Tanks though. Also Japan taking their SZ 37 fleet into a blocked Suez Canal was a move I never seen before, but might be deadly for them as it seems USA is going all out Pacific in this one. As it stands with USA looking to dominate the Pacific and UK having an Atlantic fleet at the end of turn 2 with no US help, looks like an Allied victory is almost certain.

Good videos though, looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

Oh thank goodness! because that was really starting to melt my brain when I read it.
All is right in the universe again, thanks guys :)

Like Hobbes said the games I’ve been in have slight mods but we talk about them first before any bidding starts.
We do bid up for Axis. So the number that is settled on and wins that is the amount the allies get.

I agree with you, teh map should wrap around.

I was shocked with AAGlobal and i have posted a thread about that.

I agree with some of the map distortions

Europe is a lot bigger on the map and that helps to play the game, for example.

I do not agree that the map does not wrap around