G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[Black_Elk]

@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

[baron Münchhausen]

@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 income

etc…

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

@barney:

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

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 Leader]

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

@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 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:

[simon33]

Here’s my wish list, which is basically a development of BM3.

From BM3 I will steal:

• SBR rules (ftr A2 D2)
• Breaking up the Lend Lease objective into a 3IPC national pride and 2IPC lend lease. Or perhaps swap them around.
• Balkan + Crete objective for Germany
• Malta+Crete+Cyprus objective for both Italy and UK
• Guam/Midway/Wake objective for USA and Japan
• Amur and Persia Lend Lease lanes (2IPC each) but in the latter case, you also need to hold NW Persia and the Caucasus
• No lend lease before round 3
• Atlantic free of subs but send it to Canada
• Vichy but convert British units starting in France to French units
• Marines but 1/1 and 4IPC cost with no bonuses. In PBF/PBEM these will always be taken first as casualties.
• Removal of objectives for USSR taking Berlin
• Reduce the two existing ANZAC objectives but to 4IPC each.

From BM I will ignore:

• Guerilla fighters for China
• Extra ANZAC and UK_Pac NO
• USA Pacific Islands NO (Carolines, Marianas, Marshall, Palau)
• USA North Africa objective
• Reduction in Chinese NO
• UK Sicily/Sardinia objective
• Bonus in Lend Lease for Japanese DOW on USSR
• Japanese bonus for Okinawa & Iwo Jima

I will also add:

• Reverse the German objectives for Novgorod and Volgograd (Rationale: the tank factories benefited the USSR, not Germany, and the USSR needs some love)
• SZ5 being a convoy zone - Rationale: Kamchatka still has no roads in and Vladivostock is a major port. Should get some hate with blockades
• Canada as a separate power or separate economy, haven’t completely decided which, with only the Atlantic clear of subs as the NO from BM. I prefer the separate power really.
• Perhaps trim a couple of UK inf from London to help out sea lion.
• Airbase on Malta. Reason: Historical accuracy. Was an important air station.
• UK Original ownership of Sierra Leone. Reason: Historical accuracy
• USSR DOW on Japan will nullify Mongolia. Reason: Logic
• Increase max damage on airbases, naval bases and minor industrial complexes to 9. Rationale: Increase pressure on defenders to provide interceptors and reduce the effect that you don’t want to trade a territory with significant damage on a major IC because you repair their damage. Also makes it more worthwhile to bomb the bases.

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.

[Black_Elk]

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

[barney]

yea a 9 dollar hit for minors and bases seems good to me. I always thought 6 was kinda weak. No need to steal guam/midway/wake or the lend lease lanes. They were all discussed here 70 or so pages ago. :) Don’t get me wrong plenty of good stuff go’in on with BM

[simon33]

@Black_Elk:

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.

The rationale is the logic. If a plane can take off why can’t it defend? Making it a tech would not achieve that objective.

@Black_Elk:

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 - Hmm, has a pretty big effect on strafing SZ111 G1.
French West Africa (Dakar) NB np
Central America (Panama) NB Add another SZ in the middle of Panama if you do this please.
Amur (Vladivostok) NB np
West India (Bombay) NB Hmm, allows a big shuck between South Africa and WI.

Your airbase ideas… Hmm, not sure. Mostly won’t be used I think. Even Malta is probably a once or twice per game use.

@barney:

yea a 9 dollar hit for minors and bases seems good to me. I always thought 6 was kinda weak. No need to steal guam/midway/wake or the lend lease lanes. They were all discussed here 70 or so pages ago. :) Don’t get me wrong plenty of good stuff go’in on with BM

Ok. Haven’t read the whole thread.

[Black_Elk]

To explain further, all of the HR features Barney is putting together are achieved via the Edit Mode, Add Tech feature.

They are not technologies in gameplay terms, this is just the back-door we are using to create an expanded House Rules “game menu” that can be used even after the game has launched.

It’s basically like an on/off switch for HR ideas.

So when I say tech toggle, that’s what I am referring to.  :-)

Here the idea is that you can create modular games, using the features that interest you, and ignoring those that don’t. So you could have a Tech Add switch called something like “Scramble in all Territories” where +1 fighter can scramble from any coastal TT, and if selected this makes it so that a single fighter can scramble from anywhere, not just from Airbases, for all players. Then make that stack to the AB, to get it up to 4.

And when you create a save game, it will save those settings, so they don’t need to be toggled every time. Also I believe it is possible to have a special “add tech” that adds several HR selections at once, to create specific packages with several HRs together all set to “on” at the same time. It’s pretty slick.

Ps. All the ideas about adding starting bases would undoubtedly disrupt the balance of the OOB play pattern. This sort of change is likely more extreme than any massive bid for combat units I could think of, so probably results in a much different game with a pretty different opener. Changes the movement options across a large section of the board, and as noted by simon, creates several new shucks. I’m not sure how I would utilize such an HR for mod creation or what other stuff might need tweaking to sustain it, just seemed like an interesting idea that might be worth exploring at some point.

[simon33]

The West India naval base also allows a retake of Malaya and/or Sumatra even if units can’t survive in SZ39.

Fair enough, re:tech.

[Black_Elk]

Also in practical terms, the addition of starting bases would at this point just mean editing them in manually at the outset for a gamesave. So the list I tossed out is just a suggestion of possible edits that might be fun to try.

Unlike increasing the damage that bases can sustain, which necessitates a toggle, just adding a stock unit to the set up somewhere is something that can already be done pretty easily via edit mode. So a base expansion is unlikely to be included as a standard switch in the initial draft game file.

That space in the tech add is better left for things that are harder to edit like NOs with a recurring bonus, or stuff that is currently impossible to edit, like changes to particular unit’s standard values, or new mechanics, or additional VCs etc. So it was more an idea for the game notes, like possible HR set up changes one might try.

To Simon’s other point, I’m curious about Canada. Is it possible to add a Nation to the turn order in a modular way? Many people have discussed the possibility of adding Canada in the past. In this thread those ideas have focused on Canada as part of a Commonwealth  (changing ownership to Anzac or whatever.) But if it could be done, a separate Canada might be a pretty cool option. Like having them be maple red up there in North America might look pretty rad. Is it possible to include the necessary materials (like unit graphics and such) as part of the standard HR package?

Another fun one might be Axis minors, for Hungary/Romania (that could maybe activate Bulgaria/Finland.) Not sure how easy such a thing would be to do on the fly, but it would be cool to have the materials for these available, in case someone wanted to create a more elaborate xml mod that used them.

ps. there is an older map called Ultimate World, that has some basic Canadian units and roundels we could tweak. On that map the units are more pink than red, but we could probably recolor them and toss in some mech and tacs or whatever, or recolor some of the standard British units, just to have a Canadian set at the ready in the bundle. Any interest?

[baron Münchhausen]

It would need a territorial NOs such as +3 PUs for all Canada TTy,
and another for +5 if no Axis warship in ATO to be somewhat viable.
And +5 if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or Italy or +5 if a Canadian unit is in Normandy.

This might be a workable minor Power.

UKE NOs however needs an increase compared to OOB for the 7 less IPCs income each round.

[Argothair]

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.

Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.

Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.

I would say that giving around 10 IPCs to create a minor country is about making this power something interesting to purchase and make something to do, based on ANZAC and Italy.
Maybe on mid-end game it can better coordinate with UK and US, but probably UK will miss these 7 IPCs in Egypt. I can not say.

However, for me it remains very theoretical. I still believe Canada needs at least 10 IPCs to be fun to play.

[simon33]

Increasing the max damage and adding Canada is easy enough to add to the xml.

[simon33]

@Argothair:

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40.

For me it comes largely from the illogic of a sea lion also taking Canada as an active allied power.

British Columbia should have 2IPC income so you could put an IC on the Pacific coast BTW.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

yea a 9 dollar hit for minors and bases seems good to me. I always thought 6 was kinda weak. No need to steal guam/midway/wake or the lend lease lanes. They were all discussed here 70 or so pages ago. :) Don’t get me wrong plenty of good stuff go’in on with BM

Why 9 instead of 10 which is half a major IC at 20?

Do you want to affect bases also?

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

Increasing the max damage and adding Canada is easy enough to add to the xml.

Really? It is easy to add another power?

[simon33]

Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.

Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.

I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.

Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0

Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.