@Baron:
@Baron:
D- Control of Vital US communication access ways theme could be:
+5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.Would that mean SZ89 and 64? Might as well give Japan a shot at disrupting it too.
That is the case SZ64 is in Pacific (But on Europe Map). Do you agree or not?
Yep. Agree.
It gives me 24 NOs actually.
Easier to approve: ANZAC (1), UKPac (1), Italy (2), UK Europe (2), France (1), China (1)
Intermediate to approve: Russia (3), Germany (4)
Harder to determine if still OK: USA (4+) much complexity, Japan (5).
This excludes all Sphere of influence penalty NOs (4).
It makes 28 including 3 peacetime NOs: 1 Germany, 2 for Japan.
My suggested USA NOs list is written in a way to explain three possible Japanese strategy:
Offense USA NOs:
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front+5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
(Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)+1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)Defense USA NOs,
National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
+5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:A- Pacific Islands:
+5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)B- Continental North America:
+5 (Aleutian and Alaska)C- Continental Central America:
+5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
+5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.
Wake Island, Philippines, Guam were conquered (also part of Japan NOs).
Midway was next step for Japan to reach its own NO. Wake already cut a US 5 NOs.
Aleutian were captured by Japan, this cut another 5 IPCs from US.
Finally, if Panama’s Canal was next target, it would cut another 10 IPCs from US NOs.
Leaving not much money to built units.
In addition, A and B are on Pacific map while C and D are on Europe map.
Would you like to see Greenland as part of North American continental NOs with Alaska and Aleutian ?
That way, it may allows Germany a way to undercut a US 5 IPCs NO?
@Imperious:
Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy
For me it would be more important to list the possible expanded objective goals first, then modify the values as needed. Rather than the other way around, if that makes sense? So for example, once you know that Panama is a desired objective, it’s easier to pick an appropriate value relative to the others, or to pull money off another objective and put it into this one, or perhaps modify any of these somewhere down the road if the initial value proves too high/low to make the objective relevant.
Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.
I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.
Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.
I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.
I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.
For the NO expansion, I think we’re working under the idea that it’s best if used with a VC expansion (and catered to those conditions), but also could work independently.
To that last Q, I think Greenland could be added, not sure where it should go though. I suppose if you consider Alaska/Greenland as part of an Arctic control NO they could go together, but it seems to make that one a bit thematically ‘fuzzy.’ I would nix the word “continental” from each, since it’s not very descriptive for any objective that includes Greenland or Aleutians or West Indies.
I like the idea of regional Sovereignty NOs, where the theme serves as a mnemonic device for the region effected. So in that sense it might be nice to have the Alaska NO as it’s own discrete thing, rather than attaching Greenland (even if I like the idea of Germany have some potential to disrupt a US NO if they managed to conquer that TT.) It never really comes into play at all OOB.
Of the 4 listed, C seems like the one with least gameplay interest. Because in order to disrupt it Axis would have to hold one of these territories through the US collect income phase, which seems rather challenging for some already far flung TTs. Seems to require that Axis take Central America and land blitz blockers in Mexico to have a chance at holding it long enough to disrupt. Or I guess if G landed in W. Indies, or the US had no blitz units at the ready it’s more doable, but still seems like a lot to take down the NO.
D seems a lot more attractive since it can be disrupted with ships. I wonder if the wording there needs to specify submarines? Seems like having a destroyer or a carrier or a battleship ought to be equally disruptive. Even if subs are the most likely.
ps.
@Imperious:
Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.
Have you considered this?
Just to clarify my thought for the US was to eliminate the OOB freebee objective (the one I listed earlier generically as +10 at War) and replace it with a few objectives that are more interesting. That’s basically what Baron did. This shows the OOB objectives and how they might be replaced.
10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
Replaced by the Panama NO, and the Alaska NO.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
Replaced by the Hawaii NO
5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
Removed
5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
Replaced by the Axis island NO
5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.
Replaced by the Normandy NO.
I think the Mexico NO could just be dropped altogether in favor of something else that is more focused/achievable for Axis, or to increase the value of some other NO. Especially if Panama/West Indies sea zones are already incorporated in another NO.
Here is another draft based on your intent, Greenland is place with the other ATO TTs NO:
This provide a way to interrupt this NO via either Panama, Greenland or West Indies opportunistic invasion.
It keeps Panama as a highly valuable target (cut 10 IPCs).
Offensive USA NOs:
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front
+5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
Replaced by:
+2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)
(Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)
Defensive USA NOs,
National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
+5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:
A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
+5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)
B- Alaskan Territories:
+5 (Aleutian and Alaska)
C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
+5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.
D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
+5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.
Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.
Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.
You could give the 5 bucks for whack’in it and the 2 bucks for control. Replace “captured” with, “captured or recaptured”
or “liberated” if you prefer
Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.
Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.
Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
+2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
(Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)
And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.
Something like this:
JAPAN:
Japan Defensive NOs:
+5 if not at War with West.
+5 if not at War with Russia.Japan Offensive NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.+5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney) OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)
However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).
Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.
I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.
Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.
I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.
I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.
“Backward” may not be quite the right word. Along the lines of what I discussed a few posts ago, when I was talking about design methodologies, I think it’s more a case of what the logical outcome is for a particular design approach.
In one approach (call it the goal-driven approach), Step A is to set the specific objectives of the project, as clearly and in as much detail as possible, so that one knows what to aim for. In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to generate ideas and to check them against the objectives set in Step A to see if these ideas fit the desired goal.
In the reverse approach (call it the option-driven approach), Step A is to generate lots of ideas, without imposing on them any restrictions that pertain to whether or not they fit a precise, detailed goal. In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to figure out what can be done with all of these ideas…in other words, to see how they can be integrated into (to use an automotive analogy) a functional four-wheeled vehicle rather remaining a collection of separate components. This building-up-from-the-components approach, in its pure form (and I’ll say more about that in a moment), basically creates a situation in which you look at your collection of separate components and say, “Okay, if we put together components A, B and C, we can create a game that does this; if we put together components C, D and E, we can create a game that does that…” and so forth.
That analogy isn’t perfect in the case of an A&A redesign, of course, because we’re not dealing with a pure form of the building-up-from-the-components approach. We’re dealing with a game that already exists, and there’s an aspiration to improve it in various ways. This discussion thread has, by and large, been following the option-driven approach rather than the goal-driven approach, so Step A / Step B as described under the goal-driven approach don’t apply. However, because we’re dealing with a pre-existing game, Step A / Step B as described under the option-driven approach don’t necessarily have to apply either because there’s another option…and I think it’s perhaps what Black Elk was driving at in the part of his post that I’ve quoted.
To go back to my automotive analogy, I think that at this point Black Elk isn’t aiming for a single finished product, but rather is aiming to create a “car customization kit” that would present a whole bunch of options to the individual car buyer and which would leave it up to each individual buyer to decide what features he wishes to use in the customized car he orders. The basic car would always be the same, but it could be customized in all kinds of ways: Do you want a moderately conservative blue paint job, a very conservative black one, or a flashy red one? Whitewall tires or black? An upgraded music / sound system? Manual transmission or automatic? Retractable hood or fixed? Do you want leather-covered seats? Do you want armoured doors and bullet-proof windows, if you’re a VIP type of person? And so forth. And it would be up to the buyer to be sensible about what options he would combine, because some combinations would be less optimal than others. (Example: the previously-mentioned safety-conscious VIP who wants to keep a low profile would be poorly served by a car that combined armour plating and bullet-proof glass with a retactable roof and a flashy red paint job.)
Black Elk said at one point that “I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title.” That’s possibly one way of looking at it, but an alternate way of looking at it would be in purely practical terms. Since any A&A redesign process involving more than one person is almost guaranteed to generate various degrees of disagreement, and since even a single person may be at a loss to decide which among many options he wants to use to solve a given problem (because choosing option X means rejecting option Y), the whole “problem” of reaching a decision can be avoided entirely by offloading the problem to the end user (the car buyer, in my analogy) by saying: “Here are the options we’ve devised for you; now go ahead and choose which ones you want to use.” It’s pragmatic. And in a sense, it also solves another old problem: replayability. Any “finalized” redesign of A&A is likely to meet with the same fate as the OOB game: it will get decoded and “solved” to the extent that experienced players will eventually figure out the optimal set-piece moves for each power…and, ironically, will also figure out the redesign’s flaws, which in turn will make them want to redesign the game again, which will bring us right back to the starting point for all of this. The car-customization-kit approach, by contrast, creates the possibility that players will never play twice under the same set of rules, which automatically creates variety. In such a scenario, the “testing different combinations” phase would not be a means to achieve the end-result of the redesign process; the practice of playing with different combinations would instead be the actual end result of the redesign process.
I think your analogy perfectly captures the spirit of what I’m driving it!
And since we’re kind of on the same page, I’m sort of hoping for one that ends up looking like this…
Hehehe
Is it for everyone? Hard to say there. Will I end up crashing it into a tree the following week from inexperience? Let’s hope not! But least it gives me something to pine for
:-D
i never figured out why Larry when he added NO’s never considered why some areas are of benefit to capture ( which adds income), while other areas cause players problems ( which should cost players income).
If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income
If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income
If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
If the allies sweep the axis out of Africa, Italy loses income
If the axis control Archangel, Amur, and Persia ( all parts) the Soviets lose income- that’s where 100% of the lend lease came from 25%/50%/25%
If the Allies take Sweden, Germany loses income
If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses income
etc…
Oh crap i got a 69 L-68 with factory side exhaust blk/blk
@Baron:
Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.
Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.
Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
+2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
(Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.
Something like this:
JAPAN:
Japan Defensive NOs:
+5 if not at War with West.
+5 if not at War with Russia.Japan Offensive NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.+5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney)OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)
However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).
Well if you want the 2 bucks it could look like this:
@Imperious:
Oh crap i got a 69 L-68 with factory side exhaust blk/blk
Now that sounds like a truly mean machine! Much closer to what I would wish to rock in reality (instead of the fantasy A&A raceway) because side exhaust looks clean as hell already, and who can argue with black?!
Living the dream man! I dig it
:-D
Its a good point about the positive negative income thing. I’d say that the negative idea is workable too, but in that case it would be nice to run down the list and find some candidates for each, so there is a bit a parity on each team between bonuses and penalties. It might play better with a system that includes more generic bonuses (like a VC bonus) so you’d have an offset for new cash.
Glorious Barney! As always
@Imperious:
i never figured out why Larry when he added NO’s never considered why some areas are of benefit to capture ( which adds income), while other areas cause players problems ( which should cost players income).
If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income
If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income
If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
If the allies sweep the axis out of Africa, Italy loses income
If the axis control Archangel, Amur, and Persia ( all parts) the Soviets lose income- that’s where 100% of the lend lease came from 25%/50%/25%
If the Allies take Sweden, Germany loses income
If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses incomeetc…
Positive bonus is easier to grasp as concept and gives a better incentive.
The lure of profit is a general principle incentive.
But fear of loss is an higher motivation principle.
So, it may creates more defensive pattern logic, more turtle up tactics.
So, instead of rewarding risk for daring strategy, it rewards the higher defensive capacity.
The game may be more static that way.
You may also get similar results as long as you use NOs to give IPCs to strategic TT owned.
Such as, +3 or +5 if x or y+z TT is owned.
And give no IPC to capture a given target.
That way, losing a TT or SZ means NOs bonus loss.
2 kind of asymmetric NOs:
+5 / +3 original owner vs 0 bonus to capture or cut an NOs
+10/+5 original owner vs +5 / +3 to capture a given TT or whole group to get NO.
Symmetric NOs:
+5 owner vs +5 bonus to capture
The issue is about creating too much NOs. Which add too much IPCs in game.
Seems more interesting to suggest a positive goal to keep or reach a given target.
So, your list is pretty interesting as a check list for Redesign NOs,
does it satisfy all of your conditions above.
Aim:
If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income
On Gibraltar, it works because it worth 2 IPCs for UKE and gives 5 IPCs to Italy, making it a 7 IPCs swing.
Egypt and Trans-Jordan gives together 2 IPCs to Italy but it was not considered in UK NOs.
This is strange and an important omission OOB which was conveyed until now.
I added Suez Canal as +2 NOs. Do you think 12 IPCs on UK1 collect income is too much, because I think so?
UK EUROPE
Defensive UKE NOs:
+2 for each Med Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Crete, Cyprus or Suez Canal is Allied controlled (Egypt and Trans-Jordan).
Theme: Maintenance of empire and assistance to Pro-Allies countries.
Offensive UKE NOs:
+5 each if Allied controlled: Danish (Skagerrak-Kategatt) Straits (Denmark) OR Normandy.
Theme: Capture of vital Axis communication waterways and/or Atlantic Wall.
If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income
Looking at these US and Japan NOs:
On Panama, USA holding it means +10 IPCs
Japan control it, then it means + 5 IPCs
Total swing of 15 IPCs, -10 for USA and +5 for Japan.
If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses income
This NOs would cut 5 IPCs from US, but give no bonus to Axis:
+5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones
If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
Since Japan have no NO, it worth only 3 IPCs for the TT + 1 IPC for VC.
And any Allies win +4 IPCs.
So that one is far less interesting but still 8 IPCs swing.
@Baron:
Here is another draft based on your intent, Greenland is place with the other ATO TTs NO:
This provide a way to interrupt this NO via either Panama, Greenland or West Indies opportunistic invasion.
It keeps Panama as a highly valuable target (cut 10 IPCs).Offensive USA NOs:
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front
+5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
Replaced by:+2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)
(Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
Kamikaze islands: Formosa,Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)Defensive USA NOs,
National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
+5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
+5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)B- Alaskan Territories:
+5 (Aleutian and Alaska)C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
+5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
+5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.
@Baron:
Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.
Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.
Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
+2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
(Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.
Something like this:
JAPAN:
Japan Defensive NOs:
+5 if not at War with West.
+5 if not at War with Russia.Japan Offensive NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.+5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney)OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)
However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).
Well if you want the 2 bucks it could look like this:
Positive bonus is easier to grasp as concept and gives a better incentive.
I think taking somebody’s lunch money is better motivation, its easier to take than to receive im for that. Or if its easier to receive than to take im for that. Whatever is easier– Most will take all the low laying fruit first right?
@Imperious:
i never figured out why Larry when he added NO’s never considered why some areas are of benefit to capture ( which adds income), while other areas cause players problems ( which should cost players income).
If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses incomeIf the allies sweep the axis out of Africa, Italy loses income
etc…
+1 for each
Malta, Yougoslavia, Greece, Crete, Cyprus, Alexandria.
+5
Suez Canal
Gibraltar
+5 each
Denmark
Normandy.
+1 for each, Allied territory
controlled by Axis
Italian’s African Original Territories
+5
no Allied surface warships
OR
OR
Theme:
Here’s my wish list, which is basically a development of BM3.
From BM3 I will steal:
From BM I will ignore:
I will also add:
Now, I think these changes have a small chance of balancing the game. Would require a fair bit of play testing. There is also the chance of a breakthrough in play making balance somewhat different.
I think that is all I’ve been thinking about.
EDIT: I’ve also been thinking about having a scramble of one unit from every land territory which can’t be revoked by bombing. If you have an airbase, you’d have 4 units potentially to scramble.
That last idea you just about the universal scramble is really interesting. I would definitely be down to explore that as an HR tech toggle add.
I think everything NO related mentioned above is totally doable.
From the top list A2/D2 is already an option, as well as the Soviet NO, and the Marines. They were at 1/1 3 initially (I think those initial stats were based on a unit that transports normally) but I think there was a concern about them being OP with warship transport, so I agree that 4 would be ideal. We already have a couple 5 spot units on offer in the expanded roster option like the C5 bomber, C5 destroyer (can evade), and the C5 Mobile Artillery unit, each of which I think are rather more compelling at purchase than marines, which would probably recommend the 4 spot so marines are not in direct competition with these but rather the standard artillery unit. Personally I think it would be ideal to have everything in the BM mod in the standard package, so that its easy to just turn off or modify individual options. Not sure how far along we are with the integration there, but that would be my thought for maximum adaptability.
I still like all the ideas listed for “add” especially the convoy zone in sz5 and the possibility of Canada, and option to up damage bases.
Speaking of Bases, I proposed the following just now.
I think each of these has historical merit and would connect the game map in interesting ways.
Scotland (Scapa Flow) NB
French West Africa (Dakar) NB
Central America (Panama) NB
Amur (Vladivostok) NB
West India (Bombay) NB
Alaska (Fairbanks) AB
Yakut (Krasnoyarsk) AB
Newfoundland (Gander/Goose) AB
Sierra Leone (Freetown) AB
Malta (Luqa) AB
Each AB addition is basically designed to facilitate transits across regions of the board that are otherwise under-served.
Alaska connects to Yakut along the ALSIB Northern Trace, which in turn connects to Moscow.
Newfoundland connects to England one move along the North Atlantic Ferry Route (and also can reach Alaska for a transition to/from the North Pacific)
England connects to Sierra Leone along the West African Reinforcement Route WARR, which in turn reaches Cairo or Malta in one move.
Same deal with the NBs, each is aimed at connecting the map in more interesting ways. Veers proposed earlier that West Indies might serve rather than Panama, I would keep this in the back pocket if the Central America NB proves OP, but for now I think I like it better, since it services both theaters and makes that TT more attractive for either side. Right now I have a total of 10 on the list. They are all Allied, so you could call it “Allied Base expansion” or whatever.
These would be strictly optional add ons, as part of a package, but of course could be easily edited out, if one proves lame. Right now I like them all for historical interest. Might even raise the list a dozen, if there are a few more that make a lot of sense. Perhaps one in each category NB/AB. I see this as more a historical interest feature, than a balance corrective. Meaning it would probably require other things to sustain it on balance. But I really just want Scapa Flow, and if we go there, might as well toss in a few more.
:-D
