G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

So what does BM give USSR as lend lease each turn? 6 IPCs?

But if USSR declares war on Japan, they lose 2 IPCs per turn such that they only get 4?

I am not sure I understand the whole NAP/Lend Lease rule for BM.

Here the BM Russian NO:

Russia

• 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).

• An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

HTH
Baron

[baron Münchhausen]

If we ever try to change something about 1941, here is a few issues:

Broken Rules in Axis & Allies 1941:

Over purchasing cheat on Axis & Allies 1941 - make sure to purchase more units than you know you can place and simply decide which units you want to place then refund the rest.

Losing your capital in Axis & Allies 1941 and capturing an capital, you are still not able to purchase any units.

Game Issues in Axis & Allies 1941:

Russia cannot build a navy in Axis & Allies 1941.

Russia cannot take Japan capital on its own. You will have to take the German capital first in order to be able to build a navy to take Japan capital in Axis & Allies 1941

Beefs about Axis & Allies 1941:

Historical inaccuracies with army pieces.

Lack of in-game money for Axis & Allies 1941.

Game-play of Axis & Allies 1941 lacking units.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AndixVS9u-A

This let me think that maybe there is other kind of grunge about 1942.2 which can be seen on web.
And might worth to consider at least.

[baron Münchhausen]

It is a bit far away from NOs and Victory conditions but nonethless I would like to quote a few critics and answers about Marines unit in an on going discussion in BMode thread:

BMode Marines unit
A1-2 D2 M1 C5,
2 load on 1 TP, 1 can load on either Cruiser or Battleship,
Attack @2 in amphibious assault
No bonus from artillery

New Unit - Marines:
Cost 5; Attack at 1; Attack at 2 when involved with an amphibious assault; Defend at 2; No bonus from artillery; Can be loaded onto cruisers and battleships (1 to a ship).

Note: During amphibious assaults, Battleships and Cruisers may bombard territories other than the one they unload their marines into.  Also during amphibious assaults, Marines attack at 2 even if they arrived over land (to join an amphibious assault by other ground units).  Kamikazes (by themselves) do not prevent and cannot be used against a marine amphibious assault that is from a different power’s cruiser/battleship.  Marines loaded in the combat movement phase must conduct amphibious assault in that same phase.

@regularkid:

@simon33:

There a few things I hate about Balanced Mod, all to do with Amphibious Assaults.

1. Why on earth should you be able to assault from a Cruiser or Battleship? None of those ships would carry the assault boats needed. Indeed, even boarding or alighting as an NCM away from a naval base is dubious
2. Why should Marines get to attack on a 2? The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. It doesn’t really reflect the real world IMO.

Just thought I’d give that feedback. Maybe I’m wrong.

Simon, there is significant historical precedent for warships carrying detachments of marines into combat. For starters, virtually all US battleships, during World War II, carried marine detachments (between 50 and 100 men), who, in addition to manning ship guns, served as ship expeditionary forces. See, e.g., http://seastories.battleshipnc.com/marines/

Smaller warships also carried marines. For example, it was a group of ship-borne Royal Marines that proved decisive in the Battle for Madagascar. From the relevant wikipedia article:

“The French defence was highly effective in the beginning and the main Allied force was brought to a halt by the morning of 6 May. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area. The Marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” and the Vichy defence was soon broken.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

Also noteworthy, the Japanese’ made extensive use of cruisers, destroyers, and even battleships as troop transports throughout the war. A few examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Kitakami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kirishima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Hayanami

So, yah, the idea of cruisers and battleships transporting small land forces is not only fun and good for the game, its historically accurate! HF!

@Cmdr:

The Tokyo Express also really comes in handy in the Pacific.  It’s annoying enough to go out island collecting, if you can send a cruiser with a marine on it instead of a cruiser and a transport it helps speed game play up a bit as well.  (Thinking Marshals, Jonah, Guam, Midway, Formosa, etcetera…islands you may want to collect but don’t want to dedicate a fleet to getting and are probably un, or under, defended)

@simon33:

Interesting points - note a couple of things:

• The Kitakami lost 40% of its torpedo tubes to fit in 2 assault boats
• The first link notes that the Marines transferred to a transport when they were planned to assault a beach
• I’d have thought an infantry represents significantly more than 100 troops.

But if you reckon it’s more fun that way, might give it a go.

@simon33:

@Shin:

Who would buy a marine that attacked at 1?

And it’s all abstracted.  Their boats come with the 5 ipc cost.

Fair enough but I still feel that they’re overpowered. Maybe 1/1/1 and 3IPC cost with no bonuses? They’re supposed to represent a small detachment of troops.

@simon33:

@Shin:

If they are that cheap, there’s no reason to buy Inf unless you’re going to pair them with Art.

That is a valid criticism - so long as you are using them on the attack.

Would it be better to just have 4IPC cost and no amphibious assault bonus? I also don’t like them counting towards the number of ships able to bombard - perhaps the bombardment should be weaker one point weaker and also reduce the Marine’s attack to zero on the first round if a marine is supporting the bombardment?

If you did that, I reckon they’d be about as perfect a unit as I could dream up.

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

@Adam514:

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.

@simon33:

They are awesomely cost efficient from the point of view of the purchaser when doing amphibious assaults. You have to consider not needing to buy transports.

Mad if you didn’t use them.

@Adam514:

@Gamerman01:

I am playing my first bal. mod game in months, and I realize that (unless I forgot something) there is a powerful argument for marines that has never been made.

An argument for keeping them as is.

Since marines are treated as infantry on transports (they could have made them like non-infantry and that would have actually been reasonable), marines upgrade transports.

A transport can now take an artillery and a marine, a mech and a marine, or a 3/3 TANK AND A MARINE
Contrast that with transports in classic  :lol: that cost 8 IPC’s and could transport only ONE TANK that was by the way 3/2, and NO INFANTRY with it (not that that’s relevant, just interesting comparison)

So transports can take marines to locations for cruisers or battleships or transports to pick up and take from there, and transports have the option of taking an infantry, AAA, mech, artillery, or tank along with, or 2 marines.
Marines would be overpowered if you lowered the cost or upgraded their capabilities in any way.  They’re already awesome. Plus you have something (besides AAA) to buy for 5 (if you don’t understand the significance of this I’m not going to take the effort to try to explain it to you), so marines are pretty much perfect as is.

A MARINE AND A TANK on a single transport!!  Holy cow
A marine that has the option of being picked up by a cruiser or a battleship, which can also bombard when unloading them.  Jeez.  They might be overpowered already.  Maybe they should cost 6  :-D

Yup there are situations in the Pac where you would buy a tp and marines and load them to send them towards the main fleet of cruisers and bbs, which results in barely any tempo loss (if you have extra units in Hawaii for example). That’s often a better solution than having your US cruisers and bbs stay on the West coast, especially considering you probably have a maximum of 3 units that you can produce there on US1.

However, I doubt you can replace inf with marines and be more cost-efficient that way in Europe for example.

@axis-dominion:

i’m loving marines, i’m finding myself buying them more and more (in my current game vs giallo i now have 5 ca 3 bb and 7 marines  :wink:)….one of the most brilliant innovations to the game in a while i must say, and totally breathes more life into these ships.

@majikforce:

I am also starting to love marines.  They can do alot. But I’m not so sure I’m okay with two of them being able to be loaded on a transport or one of them and an art, tank,mech or AA on a transport.  Call me a traditionalist but Axis and allies has always had the transports have to carry at least one inf.  I’ve always looked at transports like they have a spot for 1 or 2 inf or 1 inf and a “special unit”, art, tank,mech etc.  I would consider marines in the special category.  Might balance out their awesomeness!!  Just my two cents.

@simon33:

I’ve always thought they’re overpowered. Maybe get rid of their amphibious assault bonus and/or support for a bombardment.

@Gamerman01:

Haven’t played a ton of balanced mod yet, but I would think the transporting of 2 marines on a single transport is rarely done
That said, I really enjoyed your post

@Shin:

Well, one nice thing about Marines is that they don’t seem to be overly favored as either Allied or Axis units.  Both sides can potentially get a lot out of them.  In practice, I’ve seen them used more by Allies, but I think that will change as new strategies are developed.

@simon33:

@Baron:

@simon33:

You’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.

Simon33,
do you still believe what you said about #1 NO on Novgorod?
and why do you think that Marines are overpowered (even at 5 IPCs)?
Thanks,

It’s mainly the bombardment shot that I think is over the top. Put a marine on a BB and attack a fighter on Guam and you’ll easily kill it, more often than not.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

So what does BM give USSR as lend lease each turn? 6 IPCs?

But if USSR declares war on Japan, they lose 2 IPCs per turn such that they only get 4?

I am not sure I understand the whole NAP/Lend Lease rule for BM.

Here the BM Russian NO:

Russia

• 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).

• An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

HTH
Baron

Thanks Baron.

Okay so the Balance Mod NAP is that if Japan attacks the USSR, the other lend lease territories go up by 2 IPCs each. That’s likely 4 extra IPCs a turn, or +3 net for the USSR if you assume that Amur remains Japanese. USSR also gets to activate Mongolia if Japan DOWs on USSR. That doesn’t work the other way around, does it?

[baron Münchhausen]

Category
         “New Units and Other Changes”

1) “Marines”
          Marines are a A1 D1 M1 C3 Unit. They receive +1A when making an amphibous attack. They may be transported into battle by Battleships on a 1:1 basis.

Based on various comments in BMode threads, see above, I’m starting to believe this one will be a bit overpowered, the defense @1 and limiting to battleship load (not Cruiser) is not enough to weakened that one.

In order to have 2 in a TP and be more useful than Infantry and Artillery  A4 D4 C7 in amphibious, it should remains 2 Marines at 3 IPCs each to get A2-4 D2 but,

is it possible to built in Triple A two Marines pairing 1:1 to get the amphibious bonus?
That way, when unloading from Battleship, it will be A1 attack, unless a second Battleship is there.

Or, do you think limiting to Battleship is enough weakening Marines spreading that they will be mostly use on TP and still balanced somehow?

The only different possibility for Marines value I can see actually is:

Marines unit
A1-2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4,
2 may load into Transport,
May be transported into battle by Battleships on a 1:1 basis,
Attack @2 in amphibious assault
No bonus from artillery
I also prefer this one rule (which need to be PEnforced in Triple A)
Also during amphibious assaults, Battleship may only bombard territory into which they unload their marines unit.

That way, 1 Tank and 1 Marines still give the best combined offence in amphibious landing: A5 D4 C10
Still figuring how Marines were better with landing crafts and special amphib vehicules.

Assuming Artillery cannot be put on board the same TP than Tank.

See this one particularly, showed how movement on TP increase Marines effectiveness:

@Baron:

@Adam514:

@Gamerman01:

I am playing my first bal. mod game in months, and I realize that (unless I forgot something) there is a powerful argument for marines that has never been made.

An argument for keeping them as is.

Since marines are treated as infantry on transports (they could have made them like non-infantry and that would have actually been reasonable), marines upgrade transports.

A transport can now take an artillery and a marine, a mech and a marine, or a 3/3 TANK AND A MARINE
Contrast that with transports in classic  :lol: that cost 8 IPC’s and could transport only ONE TANK that was by the way 3/2, and NO INFANTRY with it (not that that’s relevant, just interesting comparison)

So transports can take marines to locations for cruisers or battleships or transports to pick up and take from there, and transports have the option of taking an infantry, AAA, mech, artillery, or tank along with, or 2 marines.
Marines would be overpowered if you lowered the cost or upgraded their capabilities in any way.  They’re already awesome. Plus you have something (besides AAA) to buy for 5 (if you don’t understand the significance of this I’m not going to take the effort to try to explain it to you), so marines are pretty much perfect as is.

A MARINE AND A TANK on a single transport!!  Holy cow
A marine that has the option of being picked up by a cruiser or a battleship, which can also bombard when unloading them.  Jeez.  They might be overpowered already.  Maybe they should cost 6  :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

So what does BM give USSR as lend lease each turn? 6 IPCs?

But if USSR declares war on Japan, they lose 2 IPCs per turn such that they only get 4?

I am not sure I understand the whole NAP/Lend Lease rule for BM.

Here the BM Russian NO:

Russia

• 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).

• An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

HTH
Baron

Thanks Baron.

Okay so the Balance Mod NAP is that if Japan attacks the USSR, the other lend lease territories go up by 2 IPCs each. That’s likely 4 extra IPCs a turn, or +3 net for the USSR if you assume that Amur remains Japanese. USSR also gets to activate Mongolia if Japan DOWs on USSR. That doesn’t work the other way around, does it?

Exactly.
And this imply that according to Redesign NO for Russia, it is a clear incentive for Japan to invade Amur so to block a 5 IPCs bonus.

Japan NAP on Russia is not in good shape with such NO…

Also, here is a comment about Novgorod and Stalingrad as German’s NOs:
@simon33:

@Baron:

@simon33:

1) I want to reverse the Novgorod bonus to be a bonus for the USSR holding it rather than a bonus for Germany. Ties in with the KV-1 Tank factory there the way I see it.
2) USSR lend lease routes - do the Persian and Siberian routes have historic precedent? Particularly the former one through those mountainous regions. The latter one I guess had the Trans Siberian railway. Perhaps some stuff went that way.
3) West Indian ocean free of Axis subs - this is a bit too much of a gift for the Calcutta economy IMHO.
4) East Pacific Islands ANZAC NO: I think it is too easy to hold

Simon33,
do you still believe what you said about #1 NO on Novgorod?

Thanks,

Yes, I still think that reversing the Novgorod objective would be a neat improvement to the game and game balance. Come to think of it, what’s the Stalingrad objective for? Was a not that significant city of about half a million where the Germans just happened to be stopped.

They’ve given an NO to Germany for doing the main things that they weren’t able to do in the actual war.

[barney]

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

So what does BM give USSR as lend lease each turn? 6 IPCs?

But if USSR declares war on Japan, they lose 2 IPCs per turn such that they only get 4?

I am not sure I understand the whole NAP/Lend Lease rule for BM.

Here the BM Russian NO:

Russia

• 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.

• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).

• An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

HTH
Baron

Thanks Baron.

Okay so the Balance Mod NAP is that if Japan attacks the USSR, the other lend lease territories go up by 2 IPCs each. That’s likely 4 extra IPCs a turn, or +3 net for the USSR if you assume that Amur remains Japanese. USSR also gets to activate Mongolia if Japan DOWs on USSR. That doesn’t work the other way around, does it?

Exactly.
And this imply that according to Redesign NO for Russia, it is a clear incentive for Japan to invade Amur so to block a 5 IPCs bonus.

Japan NAP on Russia is not in good shape with such NO…

Yea I like how the extra 2 bucks kicks in if Japan attacks, myself. I do it a little bit different. The original LL routes requires no allied units present, but if Japan attacks, then that restriction is removed. Idk that it has a big impact, just trying to discourage both having allied units in Russia and a Japan attack.

[baron Münchhausen]

I cannot say if it works or not but it seems an interesting detterent against Japan breaking NAP.
It would be some kind of hypothetical alternate war scenario in which Allies can enter Russia to bring help to fight a two fronts war.
In that specific scenario, Allies Sphere of influence would be out as soon as NAP is broken.

It would be up to Japan player decision.
Of course, if Russia break the NAP. The Sphere of Influence remains active.

[Black_Elk]

A lot coming in at once there.

First for marines, the defining characteristic of this unit used to be only a bonus to amphibious assault. Otherwise it was the same as an infantry unit, just more expensive. In the older games it was useful (over a tank at the same cost) only because a single transport could deliver 4 or more total attack power with 2 marines or 1 marine 1 art (at a power of 5). Fairly huge, compared to only a single tank at a power of 3. I suppose if you wanted to imagine it’s application in games since Revised, it would be compared with an attack power at 4, (for 1 inf 1 art, or 1 inf 1 tank combo).

The useful comparison there is no longer Marine vs Tank, but Marine vs Artillery.

Lately (in the more recent mod) the defining characteristic seems to be its ability to be transported by a warship. Or to activate an independant bombardment.

I don’t have a whole lot of input to offer here. I anticipate that this will not be an HR I utilize on the regular. Though I would still argue for its inclusion, as it seems to be a popular concept, and worthy of further exploration.

I think the ideal would be a package that offers whatever concept is current in the balance mod, as well as any other viable alternatives that make sense for a standard roster that includes artillery and the modern transport capacity, perhaps one that doesn’t involve warships at all?

I would opt for as much flexibility as possible, perhaps with an “upGun” or “downGun” option, that can change the attack value or basic abilities on the fly, according to player preference.

*Edit

Perhaps just include the 2001 marine as another standard option?
You could just nix the line about it being USA only I suppose.

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 nor-
mally 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 terri-
tory 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 ter-
ritory one Marine unit may attack with a roll
of 2 or less.

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

For Russian NOs/NAP enforcement on the Pacific side of the board, at one point back in 2014 I suggested that we not use the Pacific Route through Vladivostok by sea, but rather the Northern Trace ALSIB by Air.  This was a more gameplay oriented solution, because it did not involve coastal TTs or Sea Zones.

Instead of Amur/sz5 which is the Pacific Route, the ALSIB is from Fairbanks in Alaska to Krasnoyarsk in Siberia.

Sure you lose some symmetry with the other two routes, by not having a sea zone involved, but I thought it seemed better for the NAP. Japan would not be able to immediately disrupt this route with a DoW, provided the Americans control Alaska and the Soviets control Siberia (further inland.)

[baron Münchhausen]

For gameplay and test purpose you may want to reintroduce this Marines unit but,
a 4 IPCs unit able to get @3 when combining attack and amphibious landing is too much power. Seems from another era when TP can bring 1 single Tank and nothing else.

I don’t remember, was it possible to either give +1A combined with Art or the other +1A for amphibious landing so a Marines A1 cannot rise higher than A2?

For my part, if there is still room I suggest to add the same Marines unit A1-2 D1 C3 we have in the roster  but at 4 IPCs.
That way, there will be a Redesign Marines at C3, another at C4 and finally BM Marines C5.

If not, or if Barney have no time for it, then I prefer we stay with 2 Marines type: A1-2 D1 C3 (1 on BB) and A1-2 D2 C5 (1 on CA or BB).

That way, it allows to play with 2 extremes and will be easier to compare.

About the Northern Trace ALSIB by Air which was more gameplay oriented solution, because it did not involve coastal TTs or Sea Zones, I find this an original way to solve the issue on NAP. Fine with it.

[Imperious Leader]

Bucharest is 50 KM south from Ploiesti and in Romania, you really want this specific name?

Baku is in Caucasus, right?
If an NO gives 5 IPCs to Germany, if Axis get there, it is not enough?
(Actually VCs only give +1 or +2 IPCs)
It was the same for Gibraltar (it must covered for Azores), NOs but no VC.

Bucharest does not provide petrol for Panzers. Hitler could care less about the capital. If you want areas on the map where a HUGE deal was made then Polesti and not Bucharest.

Baku oil center was a HUGE focus for German efforts in 1942. Yes it is in Caucasus.

Archangel is the part where 25% of lend lease came its relatively ice free compared to other areas in Russia and was the closest thing to warm water port in the White Sea.

You need to consider realistic areas as candidates rather than equidistant or whatever consideration. Give the project Historical flavor. Some places will be low laying fruit, others not so much.

Gibraltar needs to be considered of course. Azores is just a nice place to park long rang axis bombers late war. Mosul was probably their most important city for oil in 1940’s

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Bucharest is 50 KM south from Ploiesti and in Romania, you really want this specific name?

Baku is in Caucasus, right?
If an NO gives 5 IPCs to Germany, if Axis get there, it is not enough?
(Actually VCs only give +1 or +2 IPCs)
It was the same for Gibraltar (it must covered for Azores), NOs but no VC.

Bucharest does not provide petrol for Panzers. Hitler could care less about the capital. If you want areas on the map where a HUGE deal was made then Polesti and not Bucharest.

**Baku oil center was a HUGE focus for German efforts in 1942. Yes it is in Caucasus.

Archangel is the part where 25% of lend lease came its relatively ice free compared to other areas in Russia and was the closest thing to warm water port in the White Sea.**

You need to consider realistic areas as candidates rather than equidistant or whatever consideration. Give the project Historical flavor. Some places will be low laying fruit, others not so much.

Gibraltar needs to be considered of course. Azores is just a nice place to park long rang axis bombers late war. Mosul was probably their most important city for oil in 1940’s

Are you arguing for Archangel as a VC or as NOs for Germany?

Actually, it can be all the three! VC+ NO for Russia and NO for Germany

It becomes a pretty big IPCs swing, don’t you think?
TT: 1, VC: 1+1, No: +5 = +8 * 2 = this TTy provides 16 IPCs swing!
Caucasus, without VC is probably 7*2 = 14 IPCs swing
TT: 2,  No: +5 = 7 or at least 2 for Russia to 7 for Germany = 9 IPCs swing.

For Ploiesti instead of Bucharest, is it more for a pedagogical purpose that you prefer this name? Teaching more about history of WWII?
Because winning over the TT, you get all of it anyway.

For Azores, if we use OOB map, we cannot do much.

And what would you do about Stalingrad?
There was nothing but the name to capture.

Astrakhan, Baku and Rostov-on-Don were much of use for Germany.
Would you replace Stalingrad by Astrakhan which would have been a better place to cut the oil entry?

To chose a given VC or NO TT, do you agree that some play pattern may be of an important matter to recreate WWII dynamics?

[Black_Elk]

I am in a compromising mood. If we could just get the dozen people in here to agree on a single list for G40, then I think it would be possible to move the ball forward a bit with VTs.

Forget all the existing NO’s for the time being. Assume that the listed Territories will display whatever City/Region is most appropriate for historical significance to the war.  Set aside for the time being exactly how these territory tiles are meant to relate to the gameplay/victory beyond offering a simple +1 ipc.

There are other follow up options at our disposal beyond a VT marker, just as starting bases or NOs.

Let’s say for now that the OOB national Capitals (listed below) have a special status. There are 9 in the game currently.

UK
France
Russia
East US
India
New South Wales
East Germany
Southern Italy
Japan

There are 10 more territory tiles in the game that have also been singled out for special significance in the OOB game.

Poland
Egypt
Novgorod
Volgograd
Eastern Canada
Kwangtung
Kiangsu
Philippines
Hawaii
West US

Now in addition to these there are several more possible territory tiles (out of the hundreds of playable tiles on the map) that could be also singled out for particular historical/educational significance and highlighted by the VT marker and the +1 bonus. I’d say roughly 1 in 4 tiles on the game board might be serviceable for this purpose.

Here is a big list (in no particular order) of some not currently included that might be interesting,…

Caucasus
Gibraltar
Archangel
Scotland
Algeria
Union of South Africa
Iceland
French West Africa
Syria
Ukraine
Sicily
Szech
Alaska
Malaya
Amur
New Zealand
Western Canada
New Britain
Yakut
Midway  
Norway
Holland
Romania
Libya
Carolines
Manchuria
Iwo Jima
Iraq
Finland  
Greece
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Brazil
Borneo
Sumatra
Java
New Guinea
Southern France
Okinawa
Morocco
Normandy

Together with the 9 capitals, and 10 VCs of the OOB game, any of these could receive a Star/Red Dot/VC token (with a special associated name in mind). .

We don’t really have make a decisive choice for what that name is right now. If you want Romania to say Polesti, or Caucasus to say Baku, or Borneo to say Tarakan, that’s all doable. But in TripleA terms, it is just a gold Star with big V in the middle. Any that don’t get the VT status with the star, can still get an NO. Some VTs can have their significance further reinforced with the NO on top.

I also still think that the Kamakazi islands should have a generic bonus of some kind (because that information is presented pretty clearly with a visual on the boxed map.)

And finally, I think it is still worth exploring starting bases (particularly naval bases, which are a much less popular purchase than air bases) as yet another way to highlight a territories that otherwise receive less action or prominence to the game. For example, I think I’d have a hard time signing off on an HR package that didn’t provide an option to just give Scotland a Naval base outright.

[Black_Elk]

On that last point about naval bases…

Has anyone considered the idea of including a unit called Harbor, which can then be upgraded to a Naval base? My thought there would be that the Harbor is not a purchasable unit, but in place from the outset, in territories which make sense for this purpose.

Or I don’t know, maybe just making the NB unit a feature of the gamemap, rather than a purchase option in the unit roster?

Or maybe it’s unecessary to remove them from the roster, since they are so infrequently purchased by anyone other than Japan, maybe its easier to just add a few more? But it’s kind of silly how they can just go anywhere, and yet there are some pretty important historical NBs not included in the set up.

It still drives me half crazy that Scapa Flow was not included in the second edition of this game haha.

Are there a few more NB candidates we could suggest in some sort of “Naval Base Expansion” toggle?

[LHoffman]

FWIW… I do like maxing out the VC/VT number at about 40 for G40. As you said B_E, you could make up a reason to have one every other territory if you wanted to. However, if you do that, they won’t mean anything. I think the list we had earlier was quite good. Arguments could be made to switch a couple around based on overall importance or incentivizing play as it relates to the geography.

[Imperious Leader]

Are you arguing for Archangel as a VC or as NOs for Germany?

Considering it can be either, whatever fits your system but it is a important spot

Actually, it can be all the three! VC+ NO for Russia and NO for Germany

It becomes a pretty big IPCs swing, don’t you think?
TT: 1, VC: 1+1, No: +5 = +8 * 2 = this TTy provides 16 IPCs swing!
Caucasus, without VC is probably 7*2 = 14 IPCs swing
TT: 2,  No: +5 = 7 or at least 2 for Russia to 7 for Germany = 9 IPCs swing.

For Ploiesti instead of Bucharest, is it more for a pedagogical purpose that you prefer this name? Teaching more about history of WWII?
Because winning over the TT, you get all of it anyway.

I think this should be a NO, oil income directly listed on the document as a German NO but of course we are referring to territory of Caucasus.

For Azores, if we use OOB map, we cannot do much.

I figured this was redesign, not OOB

And what would you do about Stalingrad?
There was nothing but the name to capture.

Stalingrad remains as VC, Baku, Caucasus is a NO

Astrakhan, Baku and Rostov-on-Don were much of use for Germany.
Would you replace Stalingrad by Astrakhan which would have been a better place to cut the oil entry?

Rostov could be a VC candidate. It was important to be captured/recaptured like 5 times. I would never replace Stalingrad for Astrakhan. Astrakhan was the operational designation point for the final German 1942 eastern advance, but its not noteworthy for anything. Its mostly marshland in that area.

To chose a given VC or NO TT, do you agree that some play pattern may be of an important matter to recreate WWII dynamics?

[Argothair]

Here’s that pair of bulleted lists we discussed from a couple of pages ago! Let me know if you have anything to add to either list, or if you see any goals that have no methods that would help achieve the goals, or if you see any methods that don’t help achieve any goals.

| GOALS

• Balance Allies vs. Axis

• Offer alternatives to a joint Axis attack on Moscow

• Offer alternatives to having all players focus on the center

• Encourage Japan & USA to fight in the Pacific theater

• Allow the USA to get into the game more quickly

• Give China a chance to resist the initial Japanese attacks

• Offer more opportunities for players to build navies

• Reduce time needed to get troops across an ocean

• Encourage Germany to defend the Atlantic Wall in Western Europe

• Reduce power of strategic bombers when used against warships

• Encourage interceptions and dogfights vs. strategic bombers

• Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death

• Increase the focus on the Battle of the Atlantic / submarine raids

• Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships

• Reduce ‘gamey’ incentives when liberating a dead ally’s territory

• Help ensure an interesting role for France, Italy, Canada, and/or ANZAC

• Simplify purchasing decisions

• Give players something to buy for 5 IPCs

• Increase ‘thematic’ feel of submarines

| METHODS

• Standard bid of extra units

• Bid of extra cash income each turn

• Alter the turn order (America first, China first)

• Increase territory values in Pacific

• Increase national objectives in the periphery

• Increased number of victory cities

• Victory cities provide lend-lease ‘warchest’

• Limited movement b/w Russia & Western China

• Discounted ships / redesigned naval cost structure

• C5 defenseless bombers

• Additional airplane types

• Defender gets to soak free hits vs. purely amphibious attacks

• ‘Fortress Europe’ national objective for unbroken control of Western Europe

• M3 transports / cruisers / all boats

• Enhanced naval bases, air bases, infantry bases

• Double warchest bonus after reaching threshold # of victory cities

• Convoy zones for submarine raids

• Alter special abilities of destroyers vs. subs vs. planes

• Cruisers / BBs can fire anti-aircraft shots

• Cruisers / BBs can carry marines

• All ships are cheaper

• Standardize ship prices at $6 - $9 - $12 - $15

• Territories become pro-neutral after capital falls

• Liberation / return of territory to original owner is optional

• Vichy France / France joins Nazis

• French partisans placed w/o capital

• French capital in London or Africa

• Redistributions of British economy / turn among Canada, ANZAC, UK Pacific

• Revamped factory system (more tiers? Higher unit caps for all factories? X units + 2 infantry?)

|

Edited per Baron Munchhausen’s additions

[baron Münchhausen]

Wow.

More details for a few and one or two not directly covered above:

Simplifying purchase decision: 6-9-12-15 cost structure suggested for warships / 5-10-10 for planes, filling the 5 IPCs spot but keeping known warships cost
Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships: adding AAA capacity (up to two @1) to both

More historical depiction of planes vs Subs: Fg and TcB need no more DDs presence, Anti-Sub Air Patrol for TcB, Subs no more Naval fodder because DDs better as such

Increase the feel of Battle of Atlantic: (allowing Subs to be more ellusive, not blocked by DD.)

EDIT #1:
On filling C5 spot and completing M2 roster MI and Tank: introducing Mechanized Artillery A2 D2-3 M2 C5

Optimizing less interesting unit and KISS: streamlining AAA awkward NCM, change to A0 D1 M1 C4 but @1 vs up to 2 planes.

EDIT #2:
Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death: giving +1 IPC per  VC but an additionnal +1 IPC in Warchest end of each complete round.

[Black_Elk]

Thanks Argothair
These bullets are extremely helpful!

Helps to track what we’ve covered already so anyone who comes along after can trace the thoughts. Also shows how in many cases some related strategies can be pursued to improvd both 1942.2 and Global. Really appreciate the summary, great work man!

[baron Münchhausen]

@IL, what do you think about this 40 VCs for G40, now?

Here is a revised list based on IL request for keeping Archangel, Baku, Rostov-on-Don, Ploiesti and Mosul as VCs.
Rostov is no more VC meaning Baku needs to be NOs.
Kiev (Ukraine SSR) is in G40 40 list instead of Rostov-on-Don
Amsterdam (Holland) is out.
Helsinki (Finland) Pro-Axis Neutral is out.
Gibraltar will be considered with NOs.
Azores might be considered if we ever do map changes.

G40 40 VCs list, 1942.2 30 VCs & 20 VCs list
G40 only 10 VCs are bolded.
1942.2 20 VCs list is italicized.

Total VCs: 40/30/20
ETO VCs:  22/16/10
PTO VCs:  18/14/10

Axis ETO:   8/6/4
Allies ETO: 14/10/6

Axis PTO:   6/6/4
Allies PTO: 12/8/6

30 VCs / 20 VCs list on 1942.2 makes for :
Germany: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
Japan: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
China (US): 1 VC / 0 VC
USA: 4 VCs / 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs / 3 VCs
UK: 9 VCs / 5 VCs

G40 and 1942.2 40/30/20 Victory Cities list:

Axis 7+1 European VCs (5+1 VCs 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Ploiesti/Bucharest (Bulgaria Romania),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
7-Tripoli (Libya).
8-Mosul/Baghdad (Iraq) Pro-Axis Neutral,

9-Athens (Greece) (Pro-Allies Neutral / 1942.2: Axis),

Allies 13+1 ETO VCs (10 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
10-Washington (Eastern USA),
11-London (UK),
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Volgograd) (Caucasus 1942.2),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk),
17-Reykjavik (Island),
18-Cairo (Egypt),
19-Dakar (French West Africa),
20-Kiev (Ukraine SSR),
21-Ottawa (Ontario),
22-Tunis (Tunisia).

Axis 6 PTO VCs (G40 & 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Tokyo (Japan),
2-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
3-Manila (Philippines),
4-Truk (Caroline Islands),
5-Singapore (Malaya),
6-Manchuria (Harbin),

7-Rabaul (New Guinea) (G40: Allies / 1942.2: Axis).

Allies 11+1 PTO VCs (8 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
8-Calcutta (India),
9-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
10-Wellington (New Zealand),
11-Anchorage (Alaska),
12-Honolulu (Hawaii),
13-San Francisco (Western USA),
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan),
16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR),
17-Hong Kong (Kwangtung),
18-Vladivostok (Amur).

Victory Conditions to be determined…

You win if your team has at least x+ VCs in either theater, or at least y+ VCs globally for two consecutive round.

Check VCs number on Warchest phase at the end of a game round if VCs condition is obtained.