G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

And does it change something about it if Strategic bomber are cheap as 5 IPCs and can bomb for D6 damage only?

[simon33]

I’ve updated the download to contain another map with that. It has a few annoying features like prompting you for an attack and even when you say bomb, you still get a warning about “units will die”. Defense is zero too. Not sure if that’s what you want.

I’m not convinced of that idea but it’s good enough for playtesting.

[simon33]

Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.

Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.

Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?

Does canadian can bring some help in UK or too poor to early add relevant Infantry or Canadian Fg for G3 SL?

About StB A0 D0 M6-7 C5 D6 damage, it is because it is THIS unit which is at the total overhaul of redesign combined with Triple A package options.
It is the origins of all that is happening that fast.

If there is no fear to maxed out on first bombing raid, would you still require that minor IC and base rise to 8 or 9 damage?

[Argothair]

Simon, somewhere around page 70, we analyzed 2/1/6 bombers that deal 1d6 damage to factories and agreed that they would be used as naval spam (if cheap) or not used against factories (if expensive) or overpowered (if they still bomb at the full 1d6+2). There doesn’t seem to be any price point that would balance them.

If you can think of a way to balance them, I’d love to hear it. Please include proposed stats for fighters, bombers, destroyers, transports, aa guns, and factories.

[simon33]

Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.

2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.

Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.

2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.

Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.

At high cost like 12 IPCs, using StBs on SBR when near maxing out bases or ICs is not an optimized choice.
Playing with StBs A0 D0 C5 D6 is so cheap that you can risk bombers on almost maxed out bases or IC.
No more an issue and no risk for Naval units anymore. Dark Sky strategy is no more possible with this bomber.  TacBombers with only M4-5 moves are used in a different ways than StBs but can act like StBs on Bases. This create a much more realistic projection of power for bombers in regular combat and naval combat. StBs have a dedicated role “strategic bombing” but it allows to see TcBs being use according to their name “tactical” revealing their own potential strategy when you cannot reach fleet 3 SZs away from air bases.

[Black_Elk]

C5 bomber discussion kicked off on page 43.

I’m not opposed to including more bomber options beyond what we have already in there, though I still think anything with a combat and hitpoint value at m6-7 is going to remain primarily combat focused, rather than SBR focused. 0/0 C5 represents the extreme, purely SBR oriented.

I don’t know if people want to try alternative intermediates you could always have separate toggle or upGun.

Almost back from this San Diego bachelor party haha. Catch you guys in a few