Posts made by baron Münchhausen

Thanks for the infos.

CV A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, no aircraft operation if damaged?
Repair at the end of one’s turn when in a sea-zone near IC or VC (and NBase).

Scramble only against attacking aircraft.

Is it correct?

@toblerone77:

Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.

That’s seems very true.
I never play 1942.2 KJF with the Victory cities so I don’t know if it changes a bit vs Milton Bradley version.
However I played the Gamers Paradise version in which every Islands lost or win changes 2 IPCs from both Japan or USA.
The number of starting IPCs product stay the same, but every island lost brought 4 IPCs difference between the winner and the loser.
Japan territories got 17 IPCs from Asias and Japan+ 16 IPCs from Pacific Islands but only get 25 IPCs from their initial territories.

That was a real way to cut down money for Japan. But Alaska was more interesting at 4 IPCs, Midway at 2, Hawaii at 3 and adding 4 IPCs from China and the 36 IPCs of USA were cut down fastly to only 23 IPCs. Meanwhile, Japan takes a jump from 25 to 38 IPCs, the economy was upside down if USA didn’t care about PTO because of a KGF all-out strategy.
Maybe it wasn’t realistic to give 2 IPCs to Solomon’s but it created a more active Pacific.

Maybe it worth trying adding 1 IPCs value for every  of seven japanese Islands captured in Pacific to promotes more activities:
In 1942.2 this 7 japanese islands at 0 IPC can become at 1 IPCs when captured by UK or USA. On the other hands: Australia can worth 2x2 IPCs, New-Z 2 IPCs, Alaska can be at 4 IPCs, Midway at 1 IPCs, Hawaii at 3 IPCs and Mexico at 4 IPCs. However, even with this addition USA and Japan incomes stay at their starting level. (42 IPCs vs 30 IPCs.)

It can be rationalize as access to natural ressources, interruption of vital merchants convoy, etc., to explains why USA or Japan lose IPCs while one of their territory has been captured.

@oztea:

I find that the house rule
Victory Cities can scramble one fighter  :-) “I like it”
Is much better

US can protect its fleet off the eastern seaboard
UK can protect its fleets in home waters
Germany can protect ships in the Baltic
Germany can protect ships near Italy
UK can protect ships at India
Japan can protect ships in home waters, and around the Philippines
US can protect ships at Hawaii and at the west coast

We also play that carriers can take 2 hits, and battleships and carriers have to repair at a VC or Factory

You said better, but it can be complementary.
What is the requirements to be able to scramble?
Is it necessary that at least one aircraft attacks ships nearby a Victory City?
Example, EUSA had 2 DD when 5 Subs attack, does Washington can scramble a fighter since it is only a sea battle?

How does the obligation to repair Capital ships affects your game in favor of Allies?
Explanation:
Uk & USA vs Germany / USA & UK vs Japan, both get a chance for two turns to destroy Axis damaged BB and CV. (One turn to bring it near a VC and another waiting to get repaired.)
And only one turn for Germany or Japan because at their second turn, Allies CapShips will be repaired.

Does this rule slow too much the navies in Pacific Theater of Operation? IJN? USN?

What is the cost and stats of your 2 hits carrier?
We played it at CV A1 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits and repairs at the end of the player’s turn. If damaged, only one aircraft can land on the carrier.
So no Naval Base, VC or IC repair.

@Baron:

We played 1942.2 and use this house rule.

We gave starting Airbase to Hawaii and Caroline Islans (as historically accurate).
It allows scramble from Hawaii fighter and japanese bomber a landing field after the attack of the hawaiian sea-zone.

It also enable the hawaiin fighter to land in russian territory: Soviet Far East. So, it provides a much better protection to the infantry stationned there.

Once in Carolines Islands, the Strat Bomber was able to reach almost any sea-zone from the USW coast to the Alaskian’s sea-zones and return base.

I think the balance was kept.

Now that I spelled it out, I’m not quite sure.

It is more acceptable to use airfield this way with Fighters because it allows them to attack the other island next door. Nevertheless giving like M6 for fighter.
But for the bomber at M6 which started from the airfield and return to it, it’s also giving them 2 additionnal moves. They cover a very large area.
It seems a bit inaccurate because you can start from Hawaiin Islands, SBR Japan and go to Manchuria or Buryatia SSSR (Doolittle would be jealous).
Isn’t too much since you can attack the japanese sea-zone near Tokyo and come back to Hawaii.
Or even have an airfield on Midway and be able to SBR Japan and Tokyo without the need to capture japanese islands.
Maybe it should only give +1 move to Strat Bombers either in or out of the airfield to better reflects the real range of the B-26 and B-29 bombers.
It is still ok for Fighters:

They would allow the island to be treated as the same square as it’s surrounding sea zone for movement purposes

of any fighter but not of Strat. Bombers.

In this manner, USA must still capture Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Philipines Islands to built an airfield and be able to escort Strat Bomb with fighters on SBR against Japan.
This wasn’t the case without this limitation above.

Another way to reduce the cost to 3.5 IPCs each: must always buy 2 Marines for 7 IPCs.
Marines: A2 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to attack @3 on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to attack @3 after first round.

Now I have the impression that it is too cheap…

For the cost maybe you better get:
Marines: A1 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with 1 Marines so both get A2.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to get +1 attack on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to get +1 attack after the first round.

So, even if you loose 1 unit during amphibious assault it can still get A1+1 (for 1@2) with support ships/ or with Fgt or TBom.

Is it more of your taste?

@toblerone77:

Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical.  A cost of four is too high in the mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.

So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO

I agree with you.
The goal of this tread, I believe, is to think a variety of possibilities.
Probably maximise every option that appear in the process.

Another problem as I learned about Iwo Jima is that after the Marines reach the beach and the island, the support ships has to cease fire because they will hit their own troops instead of the enemy entrenched inside caves.

That why I see a reason to limit the bombardment to the first round only.
No more support from ships after first round (wether troops are too far inland, or wether they can be hit by friendly fire.)

@toblerone77:

Baron why would you buy a marine unit if it costs as much as a gun? You can already bombard with your cruisers and battleships. The whole point is that a marine uses a “fire mission” ability that no other unit has making it worth it when your taking islands and hopping off and on in defenseless transports.

If a marine costs as much as artillery or armor or mech infantry they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach. Even if they are +1 every round they would be if they were army units with artillery support plus they would have a shore bombardment!

Hi toblerone77,
Do you imply that Marines don’t get the shore bombardment of the first round?
Instead, they get only the +1 for each paired Marines with a support ship for all the rounds of battle?

You said:

they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach.

But it seems that historically as well as physically, the beach is where any men even marines are the more vulnerable.
That’s why I suggested the “Marines” or “Elite units” get their main bonus after the first round.

We played 1942.2 and use this house rule.

We gave starting Airbase to Hawaii and Caroline Islands (as historically accurate).
It allows to scramble (max 3 fgts as in 1940) from Hawaii 1 fighter and japanese bomber a landing field after the attack of the hawaiian sea-zone.

It also enable the hawaiin fighter to land in russian territory: Soviet Far East.
So, it provides a much better protection to the infantry stationned there.

Once in Carolines Islands, the Strat Bomber was able to reach almost any sea-zone from the USW coast to the Alaskian’s sea-zones and return base.

I think the balance was kept.
But no other airfield were needed nor built (cost 10 IPCs) in PTO during the game.
It was an all-out Kill Germany First.

Thanks for the idea, it will be probably interesting in a KJF scenario.

Their is still this Marines only unit:

A1 D2 M1 C4 attacks @2 during amphibious assault.
We can add this ability only after the first round.

If supported by DD, CA, BB on the first round, it keeps @2?

But what can we do about it when paired with Art? Arm? or even Fgt/TBom?

Marines @3 only after the first round?

And that is high vs Inf D2…

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)

Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of 1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:

� A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A Marine unit that enters combat by moving from one land territory to another land territory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as long as at least one friendly unit attacks from a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious Assault.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory in an Amphibious Assault that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less.

@toblerone77:

@Baron. I s hould have qualified what I meant. +1 for marines would simply mean that if you attack ten marines and the landing had 1dd, 1 bb and say a fighter that three of the marines would attack at +1. Marines could easily call in close air support or call a fire mission when available during WWII.
The advantage of buying marines in that way means you don’t need to have artillary that is essentially cargo in a sea battle. In my example if you had attacked with ten destroyers you’d essentially have ten arty without having to buy them or risk losing a fleet due to less escorts. Naval support for marines is useless in land battles. Therefore your arty still has it’s need and usefulness. The marines keep their unique and primary role of conducting naval warfare while not being cost ineffective. So buying marines makes more sense in the PTO. You can have more destroyers and less arty but similar firepower while still having escorts for your transports.

You touch the point.
In a way, the usual buying of 1 Inf+1 Art on a transport is the competitor of Marines unit in PTO. And in a sense, it simulates a better Att of Inf vs Inf+Arm in ETO.
Since it costs 3+4 IPCs (A2+A2), if 2 Marines cost 4+4 IPCs, you must get something for your 1 additional IPC. (Maybe that’s why you suggest 2 Marines for 5 IPCs?)

I disagree  about DD, CA or BB support Marines att +1 for more than one round.
However, I agree for Art, Arm and even Fgt or TacB giving a bonus +1 Att.
So, for you, is it a Marines @1+1 or a Marines unit @2+1?

I was also thinking about this:

Marines may be purchased at 2 for 5 IPCs and directly on transports when purchased at the same time adjacent to any one teritory that includes an IC and NB.

Does it change something to be on land or on the transport?
It is only different for aircrafts on carrier or on land, but not realy for Inf or Marines.
So it give no advantage here, except for the naval base (ex.: Hawaii) some sea-zones away.

@toblerone77:

Maybe A1/2* D2/3* M1 C3/2.5 Special: Marines may be puchased at 2 for 5 IPCs and directly on transports when purchased at the same time adjacent to any one teritory that includes an IC and NB.* Marines may attack at 2 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault when accompanied by destroyers, cruisers, or battleships. Marines attacking with fighters or tactical bombers increase by +1 on a 1:1 ratio when tac bombers or fighters originating from an AC are involved in combat. Marines defending a territory with a NB have a +1 added to two or less Marines.

NAs: Globe and Anchor- The first time Japan attacks Hawaii during the game the US may have 2 Marines placed in WUSA after the conclusion of the attack. (Once per game.)
Old Glory Raised- If the US captures and holds Iwo Jima for one round of play the US recieves 2 Marines unit to be placed at either WUSA or Hawaii. (Once per game.)

IMHO, the cost seems too low for a unit that has special ability over regular infantry…
Marines A2 when paired with a combat ship DD, CA, BB for the entire battle?
Maybe for the opening cycle? (If we think about the intense bombardment that precede amphibious assault during WWII in PTO. Marines can still move under the intense gunnery fires of their support ships.) Works like Art support but only for the Marines and only on the first round.
(For the following rounds, if their is 2 Marines together, they gain A2 as long as they are paired?)
So your idea can be added to mine as another possible condition to get bonus Att+1 for this special unit.
Even a lone Marines unit get 1 A2 on first round if they’re is any one support ship.

Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or Elite unit.
So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3).
If their is only two Elite units, then both get +1 Att, thus getting 2E units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.

I’m not sure about the historicity of tactical aircrafts support.
I think their coordination between air force and ground troops wasn’t so developped.
Maybe it is better to give bonus Att+1 to Arm so they get @4 when paired 1 on 1 with Marines unit.
I saw that HBG have Sherman Flame Tank with the Marines miniature.
Their is also LVT…

@toblerone77:

I need to think on this a bit more but I think I have some great ideas about marines. My Great-uncle was a Marine Paratrooper in WWII and would’ve been assigned to a very elite unit until it was scrapped by the allies due to cost and logistics. Some of the stories he told my Grandmother really reflected the animosity the Marines held for MacArthur and the Army. What I learned mostly is that the Marines were able to do much more with less logistically and new how to fight harder than the boys in the ETO. While the Army in the PTO were in hell the USMC was in the basement of Hell.

Using this as a guideline I’m trying to incorperate this into my game stats. I’ll keep you posted.

Very, very interesting…
Maybe, we must think about USMC units as more than just better infantry but, instead, it represents a better organized integrated force, with some Art, some Arm and some fighters in it but still meanly infantry.

So, it can be Ok to give them Att@2 or even @3 in certain circumstances.
But I don’t forget this: it cannot be a replica of Art (A2/D2/M1/C4).
And it is still strange to get Att@2 in amphibious assault but only Att@1 on regular ground battle while the first was “the basement of Hell”.

I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines.  The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assaults, didn’t ring true to me.  Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation?  If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”

@B.:

@Imperious:

Yes i second that… air fights air untill one side has so air and following that hits go against land forces as preemtives. Thats very simple.

One need to think more than once before engage an enemy force of figthers and how to protect those bombers. By your rule fighters will be a very important unit, maybe too important and hence become a game breaker. However I will try it in my next game. Another variant would be what I suggested before, air-to-air combat for the first cycle of combat where only air units may be taken as casualities. If no side has got air supremacy after the first cycle of combat, the fighters attack as normal. If air supremacy then fighters attack/defend during opening fire step of combat!

I would like to know what kind of rule you use.
Is it like 1942.1 : Fgt A1/Bmb A0  vs Fgt D2?
Is it like 1942.2 : Fgt A1/Bmb A1 preemptives shots vs Fgt D2?
Is it like Global 1940: Fgt A1/Bmb A1 vs Fgt D1?
And if it’s neither, maybe you have an idea on wich one among these three is better for tactical and balance.

Great idea:
“If air supremacy then fighters attack/defend during opening fire step of combat!”
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack." :-)
By fighters, you mean any aircraft probably?

@toblerone77:

My transport idea came from the fact that Marines even today aren’t supplied with the best equipment and operate with a lot less logistics than any other branch of the armed forces.

Depending on which game we are playing Marines could also have the ability to be deployed directly on naval bases rather than only at ICs.

I know there are going to be some who will bring balance into the equation…

I didn’t know about this fact.
Interesting this special ability. Sure, it will help USA against Japan for a faster deployement.
However, I won’t mix it with a three marines transport.

Yes, I’m always trying to keep balance and historical inspiration together while introducing new units or new rules for a game like 1942.2 (or even 1940).

If you have some ideas about HBG units, let’s share.

Actually, it’s a documentary about escort carrier in Atlantic warfare (and HBG Casablanca) that makes me think about introducing new units in my A&A games.

@toblerone77:

1- You could give improved attacking stats but stipulate that only so many Marines can be on the board at one time.
2- Additionally they can transport three to a transport if only Marines are carried by said transport.
3- On the other hand you could give them a sneak attack.

About 1)
I intended to not limit the number of bying on this unit, that’s why I’m trying to give it limited capabilities. No attacks at “3” or “4”, etc.

About 2)
That is an interesting idea, but restricted to “marines” units, and not appropriate for “Elite units”.
So, it makes it mainly usable by UK, USA and Japan. In this way, I think it will unbalance the game.

Although, I was inspired by this idea, that’s why I suggested to add +1 to Attack when paired with Armor. Thus, a transport with 1 Elite unit can brings up to 5 points to attack instead of only 4 (Inf@2+Art@2) / (Inf@1+Arm@3).

It is not  the 3@2 for amphibious assault =6, but it has better offensive punch.

About 3)
It sounds interesting… Can you be more specific about it?
Is it like paratroopers first shot @2, then @1 for the other rounds?

Thanks for your reply.

@Game:

The issue is control of the air

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.

I like it because it gives another reason to buy AAA in this game.

Question:
In 1942.2, does AAA blocks all aircrafts for Air Supremacy or only 3 aircrafts?

Other question: if someone uses the house rule Cruiser get 1 AA shot, will you use it in a way to block Air Supremacy for all aircrafts or only 1?

Thanks anyone to tell me about how you use this rule in your games and how it affect the balance between Axis and the Allies.

Some treads treat this subject but I wanted a new start here in house rules.
I have summarize some ideas to make these two units:
No more than 1 type of unit/territory.
Allow up to 2 bunkers or pillboxes/territory (2IPs allow 1 additionnal hit).
Also allow up to 2 heavy weapons fortification: cost 1 IPC and give +1 def 1 Inf/Art.

Cost   Move  Att  Def              Special
Coastal fortifications: 10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Ship Gun
Inland fortifications:  10    0      0   3Inf+1/3@1  Anti Tank Gun
Coastal fortifications work only against amphibious assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by land.
Inland fortifications work only against land assault and give no bonus if territory only attacked by amphibious assault.

Both share the same other traits:
Take 2 hits, repairs as BB/ 6 damage points, repair at 1pt/1 IPC
Give up to 3 (Inf or Art) +1 defense/
AA in-built against SBR from SBs & TBs/

3 coastal guns ASG each@1 pre-emptive against support ships during amphibious assault, in order BB/CA/DD: once hit a BB cannot bombard, must repair.
Or
3 Anti Tank Guns 3@1 (pre-emptive strikes vs Armors)
It must take 2 hits to be destroy, or the territory has been captured.

Even if the 3 defenders has been killed, but take only 1 hit, as long as the territory is not captured then it can be repaired at no cost, as BB. Except for a Strategic Bombing Raid:

Can be SBR (damage are cumulative, up to 6 points) but do not affect the number of hit that unit can absorbs:
1-3: no effect
4: -1 def 1 Inf or Art/ -1@1 ASG (2 coastal guns attack)/ATG (2 anti-tank attacks)
5: -1 def 2 Inf or Art/ -2@1 ASG (1 coastal gun attack)/ATG (1 anti-tank attack)
6: -1 def 3 Inf or Art/ no coastal gun attack / no ATG attack

Even after taking 6 points of damage, it can still take 2 hits before being destroyed.

Special features:
The bombers (SBs/TBs) can make their first shot an SBR against these complexes (before the amphibious assault/ or normal combat occurs) and makes normal attacks against any ground units after the first round.

But there still have the other part of the problem to check: does it favor the balance toward the Allies as said Gargantua?
Are we able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?

I think that along the play, the more disputed territories are between Russia and Germany. About 2 to 3 countries can be exchange per turn. Those battles adds 4 to 6 more IPCs on the board than the total territories’ IPCs value.

If someone want to try this kind of collect income phase, I suggest to keep the balance in a simple way to give 1 additional free Inf to Russia and Germany at the end of every turn for the first four turns. This unit will be received after non-combat move, to be put on board during the placement phase of the other units already purchase by Russia or Germany.

After that, they’re will be less units on the board and far less contested territories per country’s turn.
Is it better now?
If someone dares to try it, please let me know.
How many countries markers gets in their hands?
This will be a sure sign of the frequence of ping-pong exchange over countries.
This will help determine how much extra IPCs this situation produce.

I see now a way to make the count:
You put on the board a number of flag tokens equal to IPCs value when you win new territory.
And you give the original owner’s as many Flag token (FTk) from the conquerer than the face value of the territory.

When this territory is conquered back, you return the FTk in to the enemy’s hand.

When it is your turn, count every flag tokens (own and enemy) in hands, each is worth .5 IPC that you must pay before making purchase (if their is one FTk left, keep it for the next turn). So even a 1 IPC territory can be counted without approximation and rounding up or down. Just keep the lone FTk until you have to pay a whole number of IPC.

For example:
Russia take WRus 2 IPCs
It put 2 Russian FTk on board, give 2RusFTk to Germany= collect: 26 IPCs.

On Germany’s turn 41 IPCs minus (2RusFTk X.5 IPC) = 40 IPCs

Germany: win back WRus 2 IPCs, return 2 RusFTk to Russia= collect 41 IPCs

On Russia turn’s, 26 IPCs minus (2RusFTk X.5 IPC) = 25 IPCs for purchase.

So the initial global gain 4 IPCs for a 2 IPCs territory but we substract 1 IPCs from Germany for loosing the territory. And Russia the same.
So the real IPCs for purchase is equal to the value of territory on the board.

Although, we need to introduce a special rule for the first turn of play.

You don’t receive Flag Token for territories lost on the first turn of play unless you had already collected incomes.

Thus, Russia don’t give FTk to German player.
Germany give FTk to Russia but neither UK or USA.
Uk give FTk to German’s player but not to Japan.
Japan give FTk to Russia & UK  but not to USA.
USA give FTK to Axis’s player. So every one give and take.

I think it is playable and not too complicated to use.
Many players already put nation’s markers on the board to keep track of conquered territories.
You just have to place the same number than the value of the territory and give as many markers to the enemy player (you’ll enjoy it).  
I’m pretty sure many player’s will like to give Flag token to others… and won’t forget to check them and make them pay.

Now, the “more you invade me, the more I produce” paradoxe is fixed.

But there still have the other part of the problem to check: does it favor the balance toward the Allies as said Gargantua?
Are we able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?