Sweet! That method is going to save me like half a dozen steps over the way I used to do it in the past!
you guys should use dropbox. Their is no spam messages and you can load up any file
Zero complaints? The way transports defended battleships in classic was ridiculous!
A2D2 fighters in air raids should be universally accepted!
I’m wondering why AA Guns have a first strike capability in SBR. What if the AA Gun shot simultaneously to the bombing? Isn’t it possible that bombers are shot down after they release their payload?
I think the c7 defenseless transport is here to stay for most players. That c8 classic option was included for a shrinking minority, but one which has been vocal at various points about their disappointment with the new unit post v3. It was easy enough to include. So I can’t really see the harm. Most will ignore it I think.
I agree A2/D2 is optimal if using an OOB bomber (or one that is modelled on the basic c12 attack powerhouse, especially if it has an A1 in the dogfight.) But trying to make something universally accepted, by providing no alternatives kind of runs counter to the idea of flexibility for a customizable unit roster. Those dogfighting values assume an otherwise fairly standard OOB roster in the air. Right now it has OOB as the default, but I think A2/D2 would be a go to for pretty much everyone.
Any alternatives to the OOB AAAgun, should probably be explored. It’s surely the least popular unit in the purchase roster and among the most frustrating units in the game for many players. I’m fully down to explore alternatives including one that gets a different kind of shot than first strike.
:-D
Ps. As long as we’re thinking about those, a tech add for an oldschool style aaagun might be interesting (one that always fires during combat movement). Sure it received innumerable curses in it’s day, but I can imagine it being interesting with cheaper aircraft. It used to be a somewhat more effective counter purchase to the air war conducted by an opponent, since it could be used to close off air transits. Not that I’m chomping at the bit to go back, but it might not be bad to have as an option.
My ultimate goal for this idea would be a digital form of A&A where players can do essentially everything that a player on the table top could do. But on the fly, without having to learn how to hack apart xml files, or parse the deep inner workings of the machine.
Expanding the functionality of the Edit Mode or the Game Options remains the dream, this is clearly just a backdoor, still limited in terms of what can be done, but at least its a lot closer to the table top for a few HR ideas mentioned in this thread. I’m still thinking about it not necessarily for what is the best fit right now, but what might be fun to have on offer in the future. I still think it would be cool if we had a recurring income bonus in the game menu, the way we have one for the AI (but for players as well). It would be cool if that could go to individual nations the same way a bid can be awarded, but I think it would be better in general if more stuff could just be done with the Edit Mode alone. To cover pretty much everything that can be done from the launch screen as well. Ultimately it would be coolest if all of this stuff had a separate HR edit tab (with different categories for units, or map features), rather than using the existing Tech Add system. But it just seemed expedient for the moment, since that one was already in place, and I have no clue how to create anything similar to do the job in a more direct way or who to talk to about it anymore.
:-)
Zero complaints? The way transports defended battleships in classic was ridiculous!
A2D2 fighters in air raids should be universally accepted!I’m wondering why AA Guns have a first strike capability in SBR. What if the AA Gun shot simultaneously to the bombing? Isn’t it possible that bombers are shot down after they release their payload?
Once upon a long time ago, there was no Destroyer unit.
It is a totally different paradigm now.
Even more if your naval fodder unit is at 5 IPCs and Subs at 6 IPCs.
Ask the question the other way around:
do you still need all of these special rules to prevent taking an 8 IPCs TP as casualty at owner’s choice?
Do you really think it will change the game so radically?
Would you built an entire naval fleet around 8 IPCs fodder TPs and Carriers, instead of a more well rounded one with attack and defense capacity: DDs and Subs ?
With all the new possibilities, balance will be certainly affected anyway.
Adding this one, worth a try IMO.
At least from a tabletop and educational POV, KISS is always better.
On AA in regular combat, I played with it too. Simpler, but have to roll up to twice @1 each combat round against aircraft. But my aircraft was Fg A2 D2 C7, always hit aircraft first.
Can work but need to be a competitive defensive unit compared to an Infantry.
Something like allowing always two roll @1 per AAA unit, each combat round.
That way, even with no attack capacity, it would keep similar odds to hit as an Infantry.
It can be easier to pay 4 IPCs for it (similar to artillery)
Of course, it is much harder to change in Triple A. AA gun phase always precede regular combat is hard coded in engine.
But, if it becomes a feature that an AA unit can directly hit an aircraft in regular combat, then there will be no xml barrier to try my Fg hitting planes above and a TcB able to directly hit costlier ground units first (tank buster). To get an increase feel of aircombat above battlefield.
For me, I think it would be hard to go back to the classic transport, just out of sheer force of habit. I am now used to writing them off. Not having to track that hitpoint and defensive pip does make it simpler to make faster calculations in my head. I don’t know what kind of fodder spam might result or not from using the C8 transport or how it would effect the composition of the USN or IJN over the long haul. But that said, I can’t see any reason not to include it as an option, if it’s only like a couple lines and one tech add. So that’s why its tossed in there.
Since I was recently reminded of CWO Marc’s list describing the political situation of the game map relative to the actual war…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.30
For anyone not really familiar with tripleA’s edit mode, this is an example of the sort of thing you can do with the map.
Here with a new color for Pro-Allies Neutrals, its simple to say, change Liberia to be Pro-Allies on the fly.
Or in South America, you could make Paraguay Pro-Axis on the fly, or Bolivia Pro-Allies, things of that sort, and its basically just a couple clicks.
Brazil shows the diagonal relief (which indicates which tiles are pro-side in the OOB game) but at least here, the colors are different, so it’s easy to tell all the neutrals apart, even without the reliefs.
Again for those who haven’t really used TripleA, here is another example of what you can do to the map via Edit by adding Convoy and Blockade zones. Shows the little flags we currently have at Medium size, indicating which additional sea lanes can be contested…
The HR stuff regarding units, VCs, capital capture, NOs etc, are similarly handled via an edit.
We might be surprised by this quatuor : StB A0 D0 C5, DD A1 D1 C5, Sub A2fs D1fs C6 and a TP A0 D1 C8.
At least, I say people to keep an open mind, eradicating auto-destroy of a TPs fleet might reveal an unforseen bonus.
Here’s the House Rule link
https://www.sendspace.com/file/1llm1x
Techs are explained on page 95 of this thread.
Reduces convoy image by 50%
Awesome! Thanks man!
Here is another sort of simple mod, which is more modest in scope. Similar to OOB just with a few unit tweaks, and a slightly expanded economy.
It only has A2/D2 Dogfighting, an A3 Strategic Bomber, and the new VCs +1 bonus. Otherwise it is the same as regular G40.
With the new VC centers, you can see Oslo is at least a bit closer to home now haha.
:-D
Just to reiterate the basic aim…
So instead of having to download Somebody’s ultimate G40 mod version 5.9 or whatever, with a new map every time, the idea is that you grab one comprehensive HR file with all the options available. Rather than a mapfile, you just use a gamesaves to create the mods to your playgroup’s tastes on the fly. This way it’s easier for the next person to come along and say for example “I like everything about that dude’s mod, except for x y z” and instead of creating a new map file that everyone has to download, they just switch the settings on/off until they get something they like better, and fire it up.
This I think is what would distinguish the HR package generally, from a pre-set mod, or an official game where all the decisions need to be made beforehand. Because you could change it on the fly, and everyone would only need the one file (updated periodically with new material) to play any of the possible mods. Ideally the more material that can be adjusted the better, so it is as adaptive as possible, and as close to the table top experience as we can make it.
Sweet! That method is going to save me like half a dozen steps over the way I used to do it in the past!
Excellent. Reminds me of the time when a colleague at the office saw me block (for copying purposes) several pages of text in a Word document by using my pointer and scrolling up through the document. He leaned over and pressed “CTRL-A” and got the same result instantaneously. I said, “Uh…you mean there’s a keyboard shortcut for what I’ve been doing all along?”
Here’s a save of what i’ve been using Elk. This is what’s on:
<techname name=“Attack0Cost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”><techname name=“AirfieldM2”><techname name=“SubsCanEvadeDestroyers_ChangerMustActiv ate”>techname name=“PacificIslandAndPU_Change”/>
<techname name=“ConvoyAndBlockade”><techname name=“RussianNationalObjectives”><techname name=“ChineseMilitia”><techname name=“PrimitiveTerrain”><techname name=“FactoryLimited_ChangerMustActivate”>techname name=“Mobile_Artillery”/>
<techname name=“Escort_Carrier_ChangerMustActivate”><techname name=“AAGunC4_ChangerMustActivate”>techname name=“Elite_GiveToAll” tech=“mechanizedInfantry”/>
<techname name=“AirTransport_GiveToAll” tech=“paratroopers”><techname name=“CloseAirSupport”><techname name=“FlyingTiger_ChangerMustActivate”><techname name=“GetCapitalCashOnce_ChangerMustActivate”><techname name=“MilitaryBase_Produces_3inf”><techname name=“AdditionalVictoryCitiesWorthPUs_Changer MustActivate”><techname name=“NormandyTurnsProAllied_ChangerMustActiv ate”><techname name=“SphereOfInfluence_ChangerMustActivate”>I add BB and CA AA rd2. Militia for all and Bunkers rd3.
Been using most of these rules the last 2-3 years. I find it to be fun anyway :)
Fixed placement with MBs
Global Mix One.tsvg</techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname></techname>
I’ve updated the XML for the Canadian Mod to include a universal scramble. Gets a lot of Java errors because it adds a unit “airstrip” to every territory which can’t be seen or bombed. I’ll attach the updated XML here in case anyone is interested.
Here’s a shot of the A-Bomb tech. It will be added in the future
Scarry :evil:
Cool! So I downloaded the new map. It wouldn’t run at first; I had to move it out of my tripleA/downloadedMaps folder, then unzip it, then copy the unzipped folder into tripleA/downloadedMaps. Maybe that’s normal; I’ve never gotten a map file from SendSpace before.
Mostly everything looks good. The Americans were able to place a Military Base in Southwest Mexico but not in Mexico proper, which was odd, because SW Mexico was worth 2 IPCs and Mexico was worth 1. I’m also not sure I understand the point of limiting Military Bases to territories with 1 or fewer production – seems to me that if the Germans wanted a military base in, e.g., Romania, they could have put one there. Hard to see why you would be able to put a training camp in Palau but not Romania.
I had Germany invade Greece with a tank (blitzing from Romania) and then back the tank up with “airborne” elite troops, but I did not send any planes to Greece, and the system still allowed the attack. On the other hand, the system did not allow an attack on Greece with just the elite troops; it said that I could only attack a territory that had already been invaded. Not sure if this is working as intended or not.
I landed a German fighter and a German strategic bomber (defenseless) in Belgium. I then attacked that group with a French fighter. The French fighter won, killing the German fighter, and I never retreated, but the German strategic bomber did not die. That seemed odd; if the strategic bomber is defenseless like a defenseless transport, then it should die when the defenders are gone. I also attacked a German fleet with a British strategic bomber (defenseless), and that time the bomber died properly the way I expected.
Playing with convoy zones and blockades and lend-lease national objectives seems a bit messy; I wouldn’t recommend using all of those options at once. It’s nice to have some economic effects at sea, but keeping track of all those different concepts while also trying to maneuver navies around straits and naval bases and enemy boats and also trying to load and unload transports is really a bit much.
I’m not sure how I feel about requiring naval bases to build escort ships like destroyers, and air bases to build ordinary fighters, especially since a minor factory can build elite troops, mobile artillery, and other high-tech goodies. I am also not in love with the “originally controlled factory” concept. If I control a territory, and I have a major factory and an airbase there, why can’t I build any kind of plane I like? I might prefer a system like this:
Military Base – 8 IPC cost, allows construction of 3 infantry – build anywhere – destroyed on capture
Minor Factory – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 infantry, artillery, tank, transport, destroyer, submarine, fighter – build only in territories worth 2 or more – downgraded to military base on capture
Naval Base – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 marines, transport, destroyer, submarine, escort carrier, carrier, cruiser, battleship – build only in territories worth 2 or more – suffers max. damage on capture
Air Base – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 paratroopers, fighter, tac. bomber, strat. bomber, air transport – build only in territories worth 2 or more – suffers max damage on capture
Major Factory – 30 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 10 units of your choice – build only in territories worth 3 or more – downgraded to minor factory on capture
I was not sure how to enable the Canadian mod – is that a separate file that I missed?
In general I’m not sure how useful I’m going to be as a Global House Rules playtester; I found the whole experience pretty overwhelming. Having never played any version of Global before, trying to click and sort through the various new options on my own and then figure out how they work and whether there’s a bug was pretty challenging. E.g. if Russia can’t move into Northwest Persia without declaring war on Germany first, is that because of the normal G40 rules (whatever that means in the context of a game that had 3 alpha rulesets plus two semi-official balance mods) or because of something funky about the Spheres of Influence tech? I’m pretty sure Russia (as opposed to Britain) occupied Northwest Persia in the historical war, and I assumed that was the reason for splitting the territory up on the tripleA map.
For the militarybase, I believe this is because allowing it to stack with regular factory units creates a situation where the militarybase produces 10 infantry rather than 3, which would require the limit of 3 infantry it to be player enforced (this is a tripleA issue as I understand it). But there is also a certain logic to the 1 ipc or less restriction, in that any land territory worth 2 or more ipcs can support a minor factory (which would produce 3 units at the same cost as an MB, but allows for units other than infantry) so in those cases the player would be better served by purchasing a minor than a military base. If there was no tripleA issue, then allowing an MB and a Minor in the same location would allow for potentially 6 hitpoints produced on a single tile worth 2 ipcs for a total investment of 24 ipcs in production. Not sure if that would be OP, but that fact that Barney couldn’t get it to work without overproducing beyond the proposed limit of 3 inf, made the decision simpler hehe.
I think what we are still missing is an HR that removes the island restriction for Minor Factories, allowing them to be placed anywhere on the map worth 2 or more ipcs.
The elite unit is a more generic all purpose infantry unit discussed at various points in this thread. It is airborne in that it can be lifted by the airtransport, but also has other abilities, one of which is +m1 when paired with a tank. It can also be transported on BBs and CAs in which case it is essentially treated like a marine. Not sure if Barney created the unit or ported it from another game, but its basically the jack of all trades type unit we kicked back and forth.
I think I ran into a similar issue with the defenseless bomber a few builds back, where I was seemingly able to capture the unit (as if it was infrastructure) when they were parked on the ground, but the bombers were then removed after the turn was concluded, so effectively auto-destroyed, just had to click through to the end for them to disappear. Which I agree was a little confusing.
The Factory Limited HR, which is the one you mentioned requiring bases to build certain units, is a little complex, I agree, but also kind of cool in that it makes bases much more significant to the purchasing potential of a given tile.
I also still like the idea of a base which doubles as a production unit for the given type (naval or air), but this one seems pretty interesting too, albeit pretty ambitious and fairly nuanced. I think Barney drafted it up.
The “all on” gamesave is a bit extreme. Just because we have the option to use an HR, or several HRs at once, doesn’t mean its necessarily the best thing for the gameplay. Personally I find that G40 is already quite involved, so I am more interested in limited modifications. Of the many HRs toggles currently available, there are really only a handful that would likely make it into my games on the regular (since my playgroup is more conservative.) But I still think the more options we have the better, so people can tweak it on the fly.
The Canada modification is currently in a separate gamefile that Simon put out (its linked a few pages back.)
But ultimately I think what would be cool is to have a single mapfile, that includes the materials to incorporate Canada into the game.
It is possible to change a lot about the game’s features simply with a new XML, provided that the gamefile package is extensive enough to allow for different things (like say adding a new player nation into the mix). Or similarly if you wanted more VCs or different VCs than the ones we have currently, that could be handled with a new simple text file. So players can do things with a simple files that wouldn’t require a redownload a 20+ mb map every time.
To that last point about playtesting, I think familiarity with the OOB rules is fairly important for being able to see which HRs are doing what, or similarly trying the HRs one at a time, instead of together, to see what they do. Otherwise it can be kind of overwhelming. And Global is already overwhelming to begin with haha. A similar system for 1942.2 would surely be a bit easier to parse, since the basic rules are less complex.
But this is like a dry run proof of concept, and G40 is popular, so I can see the advantage of trying it here. Probably the HR package we make for 1942.2 may be easier to get into, if you’re more familiar with that board than G40. I think 1942.2 is the game that probably needs it the most, though there is also something to be said about going big and trying to tackle some of this stuff for the more complex game, so we can see what is possible.
The restriction on Russian movement into Persia is indeed an OOB rule. Both Russia and the US have a lot of restrictions based on their initial political alignment (ostensibly neutral at the outset, though inevitably on the allied team once the Axis declare on them.) It’s probably all rather intense for a first time out. G40 is basically a big labyrinth of rules and exceptions to rules, and I imagine it would be kind of hard to parse the OOB stuff from what’s happening here with all these HR mods, if coming into it cold. That said, I think there are a few people still floating around, who may have been turned off by some aspects of G40 initially owing to its complexity, but might still like to play a more simplified type of A&A game on the big map.
Not sure how popular it would be, but in the future we might consider a toggle that just turns off certain OOB features of the game. For example a toggle that eliminates OOB Objectives, or the OOB convoy raiding vs coastal territories. Clearly that would tank the balance of the game, but if you wanted to replace those features with something meant to substitute rather than compliment the existing rules, it might be nice to have a way to just turn stuff off, and strip the game down.
For a first time out, if you just want to try playing an HR G40 mod that keeps pretty close to OOB, you might want to do something like only adding the extra VCs (edit add tech to changer). This doesn’t really introduce any new mechanics that might lend themselves towards confusion, just ups the economy somewhat. It might be more satisfying than learning how to play with the OOB file, which requires a substantial bid to the Allies.
Good action Argothair.
Yea you have to open the zip and put the folder/file in your downloaded maps one. You obviously did that :) The MB placement was so you couldn’t put them in territories with factories to boost their production. Not sure If that’s what Elk was thinking, but that’s how they are for now. Must’ve messed up placement restrictions for Mexico/SW Mexico.
MB’s are kinda problematic because they allow up to 10 infantry builds as well as your normal stuff at factories. So it takes some PE, Player Enforced. I found it the most troublesome of all the techs from that standpoint. Busting out 3 dudes where you normally can’t is a nice feature though.
Not sure about the Greece thing. You don’t need Air Transports for Elite to attack/defend or anything. The transport just allows you to use them as paratroopers or air lifted in ncm.
Yea the defenseless bomber should have died. Not sure what’s up there.
Convoy zones can be a little confusing at first. It’s like trying to learn new national objectives. Basically if you can control one when your enemies collect their PUs, you’ll do at least -2 PU damage. You can also look in the lower left of the screen and it will say if the SZ is worth any PUs.
Yea one of the factory thing’s is so you can’t bust out high dollar units in newly built minor IC’s. Some people didn’t like the fact you could build BBs and Bombers in Norway for example. The main reason imo is to make bases more valuable. I’m not sure if it’s earlier in this thread or “The Worst National Objective Ever” one ( don’t have the link handy ), but there’s quite a bit of discussion on it there.
Having a minor factory being downgraded to a MB on capture seems pretty cool :)
Your playtest was good info Argo :). I found it quite useful. Yea, if you’ve never played G 40 before, I’m sure it was a bit of a mind trip. :) Russia can’t move into Persia unless they’re at war with Hitler or Mussolini.
Anyway, keep on Rock’in it. I imagine Elk will jump in soon. You guys should Rock a game :)
I see he already has :)
