Gamerman's G40 Laegue House Rules Playtest Shin Ji (Axis) vs Nozdormu (Allies)

[Shin-Ji]

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.  Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

[Guest]

@Shin:

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.  Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

No the rules we played under are flawed and need to be reviewed. Gamerman made notes and these notes need to be implemented before we start a new game. Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

[gamerman01]

@Shin:

Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

If you do, please make a few tweaks

Iraq value down to 1
6 flying tiger chits, defending on a 2
Sydney and Calcutta are dual capitals - you lose 1/2 money if one falls, and India cannot collect from Australia/NZ, and NSW cannot collect from West India, Burma, Shan State, Hong Kong
Reduce 3 East Russian stacks from 6 infantry to 5

Shan State cannot be convoyed when controlled by India
Malaya max convoy damage to India is 2 (was 1 before)
(Malaya max convoy damage would be 3 if controlled by Australia, and India controlled by Axis)

[gamerman01]

@Nozdormu:

Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

Game is apparently still contested, so is not over  :-)

I might have a couple more rule changes to try, too…  Looking over your suggestions again now

[Guest]

You are forgetting the cheesy 12 ipc the Germans can take if the Russians can’t refuse.

[gamerman01]

Right, I thought that went without saying, but good point

Tacs stay at 11
I re-thought transports and I want them to go back to 7.  I don’t want transport purchases competing with subs and tanks

[gamerman01]

The Russia/Japan 12 IPC loophole has been closed - I changed the document the other day.  I am updating the document with these changes, and am separately listing them for you so that you don’t have to scrutinize the whole document again

[gamerman01]

Oh yeah, victory cities.  I definitely want to update you on those.

[Shin-Ji]

@Nozdormu:

@Shin:

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.� Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

No the rules we played under are flawed and need to be reviewed. Gamerman made notes and these notes need to be implemented before we start a new game. Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

Fine with me. �I just can’t tell the intent of what you’re writing sometimes. �And the reason I suggested to play by the same rules was for the fairness aspect, since the current rules appear to disadvantage the Allies.

[Shin-Ji]

TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.7

Game History

Round: 33

Politics - Japanese

Purchase Units - Japanese
            Japanese buy 3 fighters; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 12 PUs;

Combat Move - Japanese
            Turning on Edit Mode
            EDIT: Changing PUs for Japanese from 12 to 9
            EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
            1 armour moved from Union of South Africa to South West Africa
                  Japanese take South West Africa from British
            1 armour moved from South West Africa to Rhodesia
            1 armour moved from Rhodesia to Anglo Egyptian Sudan
            1 armour moved from French Equatorial Africa to Anglo Egyptian Sudan
            1 armour moved from French West Africa to Gold Coast
                  Japanese take Gold Coast from British
            1 armour moved from Gold Coast to French West Africa
            11 bombers moved from Western Germany to United Kingdom

[Guest]

@Shin:

@Nozdormu:

@Shin:

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.� Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

No the rules we played under are flawed and need to be reviewed. Gamerman made notes and these notes need to be implemented before we start a new game. Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

Fine with me. �I just can’t tell the intent of what you’re writing sometimes. �And the reason I suggested to play by the same rules was for the fairness aspect, since the current rules appear to disadvantage the Allies.

Which is why I am playing with the allies again.

[Shin-Ji]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.7

Game History

Round: 33

Politics - Japanese

Purchase Units - Japanese
            Japanese buy 3 fighters; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 12 PUs;

Combat Move - Japanese
            Turning on Edit Mode
            EDIT: Changing PUs for Japanese from 12 to 9
            EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
            1 armour moved from Union of South Africa to South West Africa
                  Japanese take South West Africa from British
            1 armour moved from South West Africa to Rhodesia
            1 armour moved from Rhodesia to Anglo Egyptian Sudan
            1 armour moved from French Equatorial Africa to Anglo Egyptian Sudan
            1 armour moved from French West Africa to Gold Coast
                  Japanese take Gold Coast from British
            1 armour moved from Gold Coast to French West Africa
            11 bombers moved from Western Germany to United Kingdom

Combat - Japanese
            Battle in Anglo Egyptian Sudan
                Japanese attack with 2 armour
                British defend with 1 infantry
                Japanese win, taking Anglo Egyptian Sudan from British with 1 armour remaining. Battle score for attacker is -3
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 armour
                Casualties for British: 1 infantry
            Battle in United Kingdom
                Japanese attack with 11 bombers
                British defend with 2 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 1 artillery, 1 factory_major, 1 harbour and 4 infantry
                Japanese win with 9 bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 2
                Casualties for Japanese: 2 bombers
                Casualties for British: 2 aaGuns, 1 artillery and 4 infantry

Non Combat Move - Japanese
            9 bombers moved from United Kingdom to Western Germany
            3 bombers moved from Iraq to Western Germany
            19 armour and 5 mech_infantrys moved from Iraq to Eastern Persia
            3 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Persia to Eastern Persia
            1 infantry moved from Union of South Africa to 71 Sea Zone
            3 armour and 1 infantry moved from Rhodesia to Belgian Congo
            3 armour moved from Belgian Congo to French Equatorial Africa
            2 battleships, 5 carriers, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 8 fighters, 1 infantry, 7 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 5 transports moved from 71 Sea Zone to 70 Sea Zone
            2 battleships, 5 carriers, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 8 fighters, 1 infantry, 7 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 5 transports moved from 70 Sea Zone to 83 Sea Zone

Place Units - Japanese
            3 fighters placed in Japan

Turn Complete - Japanese
            Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 11
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 39 Sea Zone. Rolls: 3,3,2,1
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 6 Sea Zone. Rolls: 5,5,2,2
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 80 Sea Zone. Rolls: 1,1,5,2
            Japanese collect 26 PUs (11 lost to blockades); end with 35 PUs total
            Objective Japanese 3 Control Honolulu Or Sydney Or Calcutta Or Western United States: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 40 PUs

[gamerman01]

OK, I have an idea for the rules changes

I will highlight all changes to the document from the ruleset you played game one with, in yellow.  So you can just look for the yellow highlight to see the changes.

[gamerman01]

I’m done updating the document, so you can review it whenever you want.

Whenever you are going to start game 2, please be sure to review the yellow highlighted items.  Everything else is the same.  Don’t hesitate to let me know if you have concerns.  I’m very happy you guys are planning to play another game, with tweaks.

[Shin-Ji]

One minor change that you might consider - Perhaps Korea could be a VC rather than Manchuria?  It’s generally traded with the Allies more often, so it would be more interesting.

[Guest]

@Shin:

@Nozdormu:

@Shin:

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.� Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

No the rules we played under are flawed and need to be reviewed. Gamerman made notes and these notes need to be implemented before we start a new game. Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

Fine with me. �I just can’t tell the intent of what you’re writing sometimes. �And the reason I suggested to play by the same rules was for the fairness aspect, since the current rules appear to disadvantage the Allies.

So let me get this straight. You admit the allies are at a disadvantage during the current rules (which is true afaik and which is why I wanted to start a new game under updated rules), but you still wanted to claim a win :P? It is like testing for the formula 1, ending first and then saying won the championship.

[Shin-Ji]

Also, this allows Japan to win the game without going more than one space away from Mainland Asia, which seems wrong.  Maybe take out Sumatra as a VC and add NZ, as Noz mentioned before?

[Guest]

@Shin:

One minor change that you might consider - Perhaps Korea could be a VC rather than Manchuria?� It’s generally traded with the Allies more often, so it would be more interesting.

Korea is easier to defend tho if Japan really wants to hold out near the main island, then it is really easy to defend.

[Guest]

@Shin:

Also, this allows Japan to win the game without going more than one space away from Mainland Asia, which seems wrong.  Maybe take out Sumatra as a VC and add NZ, as Noz mentioned before?

NZ is a better VC t.b.h.

[Shin-Ji]

@Nozdormu:

@Shin:

@Nozdormu:

@Shin:

Thanks?

I’ll take the win.� Do you want to switch sides under the same rules - to get more data?

No the rules we played under are flawed and need to be reviewed. Gamerman made notes and these notes need to be implemented before we start a new game. Also if you are going to take a win, then we continue playing. Bring up Japan. I will tear you to shreds.

Fine with me. �I just can’t tell the intent of what you’re writing sometimes. �And the reason I suggested to play by the same rules was for the fairness aspect, since the current rules appear to disadvantage the Allies.

So let me get this straight. You admit the allies are at a disadvantage during the current rules (which is true afaik and which is why I wanted to start a new game under updated rules), but you still wanted to claim a win :P? It is like testing for the formula 1, ending first and then saying won the championship.

It’s still a game, isn’t it? �What are we playing for, if not to win? �The fact that I won playing the Axis is perhaps an indication that the Axis is too strong here, I’ll admit. �Saying I won the game does not mean I’m saying I’m a better player - Hell, I freely admit you’re better than me - it just means that I will, after Germany’s next turn, hold 8 VCs in the European side of the board, and thus win this game.

And all that means is “Hey, Shin Ji won that game and it seemed a bit cheesy/odd. �Let’s review the rules and go again.”