I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech. A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech. A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral. That is three IPC’s per round. If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech. That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech. A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time. They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed. It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology. It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers. If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart. The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off. Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech. It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships. It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively. I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik. Direct and to the point. Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.
Indian & Canadian Swap Thought
-
I had an idea and just wanted to see what people on here thought about it. I was looking at India and wondered why half should be governed by itself (Calcutta) and the other half (Western India) governed by the UK. Then I realized the same thing about Canada, it is also governed by two separate governments. (Keeping it simple; by governed of course I just mean the UK split income rule.)
It would make since to me to switch West India to the Pacific side falling under Calcutta’s control. Then of course they would gain the 2 IPCs. Then, the Yukon Territory & British Columbia would like-wise be switched over to the European side falling under the United Kingdom’s control & again they would gain the 1 IPC in British Columbia. Ok, so hopefully this will not cause an economic up-heaving between the two by changing 1 IPC; UK’s starting income will go down from 29 IPCs to 28 IPCs & Calcutta will go up from 16 IPCs to 17 IPCs. I don’t see a big disadvantage in game play, and it seems so logical.
Basically, India and Canada are each complete countries consisting of more than one territory. It really don’t make much since to me that each of these counties is split up to be controlled by two different governments and it’s such a simple fix to make it more geographically correct if anything.
The only other issue I see is, in my games West India always builds a minor IC and pumps 3 units into India each turn. I really think this is not good because now India is not fighting fair allowing the Japanese to kick its butt like the game indented (pun). However, the UK can still build a minor IC in Persia (once taken) and then they will have to travel two counties to where they were before. I think this is also a good thing. Between help from an IC in Persia & they still can get transporters in from South Africa, they won’t be missing anything.
Please provide feed-back; I’m I missing something and this simple change will destroy the entire game play?
-
Then, UK may not be able to build as much to defend Sealion.
The West India IC is fair because it diverts resources and Japan can still capture it eventually.
-
We’ve done this in every game since we started playing Global; we just thought it made sense. West India goes to the Pacific side, while British Columbia/Yukon go to the Europe side. This results in a simple +1 Pacific UK / -1 Europe UK IPC switch. However, any Middle Eastern neutrals later captured get administered from London, of course. Your point, however, on second thought, about the minor IC in West India may actually be what the designer(s) had in mind when they chose it. I don’t know myself. We’re still going to play with this house rule until they just make official.
Suggested Topics
