@SS-GEN
Good questions.
Cutting down starting IJN TPs seems a working way to delay Japan expansion. IMO, it is detrimental to the funny aspects of J1 turn however. For my part, I would not go in this direction.
Then give the US more money.
@SS-GEN
That is what I was trying by giving easy 10 IPCs from 2 NOs and moderately easy 10 IPCs additional from 2 NOs compared to OOB USA NOs:
5 for control all of the following territories: Western United States, Central United States, and Eastern United States.
5 Control at least three of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, and/or Solomon Islands.
5 Control the Philippine Islands.
5 Control France.
Right. But with 15 bid for Allies and 2 NO 10 Icps for US why not try to remove the 15 bid with another change.
I like the NO where both US and Japan get if either one controls. Now you can have more islands involved but probably not the way Agra wants to go.
Sorry meant Argo
@SS-GEN
You can edit easily your post on this forum.
@SS-GEN said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:
I like the NO where both US and Japan get if either one controls. Now you can have more islands involved but probably not the way Argo wants to go.
Which NO specifically you are pointing at?
May not work with this game. You would need to shift them around. Do you still have my pic I sent you have my 3 island groups ?
You said you where going to look into it in your game.
I removed the Anzac NO Black Chip group. Gave US a new NO 3 island group.
Solomon
Gilbert
Johnston
Not in this pic. After play testing
@Argothair What about that spectacularly elegant idea we discussed last year (in this thread) : The Colonial Outpost?
Colonial Outpost
Instead of a bid, before the start of the game the Allies may designate any Allied TT as the “Colonial Outpost” for that game. Add an IC + AAA to that territory and increase it’s IPC value by +1 (but not over 3) for the duration of the game. If the “Colonial Outpost” is ever captured by the Axis Powers, the IC there is destroyed (not captured) and the value of the territory reverts back to the original value printed on the board.
I’m teaching this game to my group soon, and I liked this idea so much that I’m planning to pretend that an “internet quorum” of “unassailable genius” (namely yourself and @axis_roll) had decided this was the best way to balance 42.2 and 50_41… and if the idea completely tanks I can blame said quorum for all failures. :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
GERMANY
• 5 IPCs if Axis Axis control 2+ of NW Europe, Norway, and Finland; and no Allied warships in SZ 6
• 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Karelia, Ukraine, Caucasus
• 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Archangel, Moscow, and Kazakh
RUSSIA
• 3 IPCs if Allies control Archangel and no Axis ships in SZ 3 or 4
• 3 IPCs if Allies control Persia and Caucasus, and no Axis ships in SZ 34
• 3 IPCs if Allies control Soviet Far East and Yakutsk, and no Axis ships in SZ 63
JAPAN
• 5 IPCs if Axis control 4+ of Iwo Jima, Carolines, Alaska, Midway, Hawaiian Islands, Wake Island, Solomons
• 5 IPCs if Axis Powers control at least one of the following territories: India, Australia, New Zealand and/or Western USA.
• 5 IPCs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, Fukien, Kwantung, and French Indochina/Thailand
• 5 IPCs if Axis control Borneo and/or East Indies, and no Allied subs anywhere in SZ 49, 50, 60, 61, or 62
why subs? What about ANY ship?
UK
• 3 IPCs if Allies control E. Canada and Iceland and there are no Axis ships in SZ 1, 2, 7, 8, or 9.
• 3 IPCs if Allies control Gibraltar and Egypt and there are no Axis ships in SZ 13, 14, or 15
Hard to attain, s/b 5 IPC
• 3 IPCs if UK has at least one land unit in Italy and/or the Balkans.
s/b $5
• 5 IPCs if Allies control India, French Indochina, and Kwangtung.
Not going to happen, Kwangtung very hard to be in Allied hands on UK’s turn
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea.
ITALY
• 5 IPCs if Axis control Morocco and Libya and there are no Allied ships in SZ 13, 14, or 15
• 5 IPCs if Axis control 2+ of: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus
USA
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Midway, Hawaii, Alaska and Western USA.
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, Solomons, Hawaii, Western USA
• 5 IPCs if Allies control 3+ of Japanese Islands: Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Carolines
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Philippines
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Mexico, Cuba, Panama, Brazil and Greenland.
• 5 IPCs if Allies control Morocco and Libya and USA has land units in Morocco or Libya
• 5 IPCs if Allies control France and USA has land units in France or NW Europe
CHINA
• +1 Chinese artillery for any Chinese-owned territory if Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan
• Sikang starts the game with 1 infantry, 1 fighter. Yunnan starts with (only) 2 infantry.
• Chinese troops may move into Burma, French Indochina, and/or Kwangtung.
Above list was a combination of OP and best thoughts (IMHO) from thread.
Couple of points/questions in above list.
Other points: That’s allot of USA bonus money, Could be easily at +$20 round 2 ($60 USA IPCs!) , going forward… plus an attainable $10 more if full effort against Japan. May need to lower some of the pacific NOs to $3
@axis_roll said in Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]:
Above list was a combination of OP and best thoughts (IMHO) from thread.
Couple of points/questions in above list.Other points: That’s allot of USA bonus money, Could be easily at +$20 round 2 ($60 USA IPCs!) , going forward… plus an attainable $10 more if full effort against Japan. May need to lower some of the pacific NOs to $3
Yes, it is a lot of money for USA.
However, Japan has the initiative and can deny a few of them, with not so much effort besides delaying money grab.
The 5 IPCs was two purposes: a single IPCs number easy to calculate, a high incentive to fight in Pacific theatre. By proposing mostly 3 reachable NOs in PTOs compared to 2 from ATOs, USA get big money to defend PTOs islands.
Don’t forget this get rid of US homeland NOs, there was initially 6 IPCs for 2 NOs. Now it is 5 IPCs for 1 NO?
What is the normal 15 bid ? In pieces ? I didn’t see an answer from my previous post for a reply.
@SS-GEN So the bid in my playgroup is just generally in the 15 range – I’ve seen as low as 10 and as high as 24. There are a few different ideas for how to spend it – sometimes you get a factory, ala @vodot 's elegant Colonial Outpost idea. Sometimes you get navy, like you build a couple of destroyers to reinforce Atlantic fleets and give the Luftwaffe a tough time. Sometimes the build is planes in London, which is often anti-Italy, with the idea of knocking out the Italian fleet early. Bids in the Middle East are very popular; some combination of infantry, tanks, and planes in Egypt/Jordan/India. @axis_roll is a devout proponent of putting a sub off the coast of India to sink a Japanese transport (the Japanese can’t reach it on J1 with their lone destroyer). And of course you will see people putting 2-3 artillery in eastern Europe to fight the Germans, maybe also an artillery in Yakut or Buryatia to keep Japan honest in the northeast. A dedicated KJF strategy might have infantry in Australia, Yunnan, India, and Buryatia to try to overwhelm the Japanese starting forces and pressure them into allowing you to keep at least one forward base.
in terms of the proposed revisions to the national objectives, I’m hearing a lot of back and forth about add more US money in Europe, add more US money in the Pacific, wait, that’s too much money for the US, scale it all back. The discussion is sort of going in circles a little bit. I don’t sharply disagree with any of your specific proposals, but it might be helpful to come to a consensus first on general principles.
For example, on turn 3, if the USA is playing with average skill and average luck, how many IPCs of NOs should they be earning if they go heavy into Europe? heavy into the Pacific? balanced in both theaters? I tend to think that playing a strategy that’s balanced in both theaters should be the most rewarding (because those are the kinds of games I enjoy most, so I want to encourage them), but that can be hard to do.
Is it reasonable to say the USA should expect to be earning 15 IPCs/turn in NOs in the early middlegame if it focuses on one theater, and 20 IPCs / turn in NOs in the early middlegame if it splits its energy between both theaters, and maybe 25 IPCs / turn in NOs in the endgame if it has successfully made big landings in only one theater, and 35 IPCs / turn in the endgame for big landings in both theaters? Is that too much money? Not enough? I enjoy games where the Axis have to win before the USA as a sleeping giant fully awakens and deploys its power, but, then, I’m an American, so I’m biased. :-p
@Argothair "For example, on turn 3, if the USA is playing with average skill and average luck, how many IPCs of NOs should they be earning if they go heavy into Europe? heavy into the Pacific? balanced in both theaters? "
I agree with having the USA be balanced, I thought I answered your “How many IPCs…?” with my post that tried to summarize the fluid NO list. (easily +$20, so $60 IPCs !)
There is only 2 NOs for ATO for USA. Much more in the Pacific (which is what is needed/wanted). We’re going to have to play some games with some initial figures to see if we’re heading in the right direction or we will {continue to} go in circles.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
One last thought, You don’t want to necessarily <overly> reward what would be a typical good move. For example, the Allies almost always conduct the Operation Torch landings into Africa, but USA is getting $5 for doing this solid move.
@axis_roll Well, accurately interpreting comments on the Internet is hard! You do keep suggesting 20 IPCs of NOs…but then you add exclamation points in way that leaves me unsure of whether you find this outrageously excessive, or merely exciting. :-)
I agree with your point about not overly rewarding moves that are easy enough to do and typically worth doing anyway. I’d be happy to lower Operation Torch as far down as saying it’s only worth 2 IPCs, and/or make the objective a little harder…but I’ve got other commenters insisting that all the NOs have to be the same value for easy counting.
I think I am going to make an executive decision and say that the NOs I’m designing are allowed to have different values. If you want to make your own NOs that are all exactly 5 IPCs, but part of what I see as the charm of Global 1940 Balanced Mod is that it uses different NO values to achieve a more nuanced effect. I like that and I want to steal it for Anniversary.
@Argothair "Well, accurately interpreting comments on the Internet is hard! "
HA! true dat. These are your proposals and you should have the final say once you consider other comments/perspectives. I have no problem with different NO’s having different values, that is the beauty of the construct, it’s flexibility!
Once a better finalized list has been generated, I do want to kick the tires on these NO’s via a game. Probably after Christmas time I should have some time to start that. Not to stray too far off topic, but do you envision these being the only changes to the OOB rules? E.G. No bid needed. Tech off too? (ugh to non-directed tech). Dice average
