Nearly a catastrophic mistake there.
G40 League House Rule project
-
I’ll throw in Liberia with the other Africa neutrals, tied to Spain/Portugal, for simplicity. I doubt this territory has ever come into play anyway.
-
I don’t know much about Liberia other than it being settled by some freed American slaves, but I found more relevant info on wikipedia.
Quote from wiki page,
“In World War II, Liberia signed a Defence Pact with the U.S. in 1942, and assured the Americans and their allies of all the supply of natural rubber (a strategic commodity in wartime) that they needed. It also allowed the U.S. to use its territory for military bases, and as a bridgehead for American transports of soldiers and war supplies”wiki’s source:
William R. Stanley Trans-South Atlantic air link in World War II
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00806430
interesting quote from the abstract,
“A few existing and numerous newly constructed airfields between Liberia and Khartoum served as the emergency landing, refueling, maintenance and housing sites … American-supplied warplanes played an important role in the pivotal Egyptian battle of El-Alemain in October, 1942.”Might be worth making it US territory for game purposes, though I don’t see how it would have the strategic relevance that it may have had during the real war since French West Africa works better as an entry point to Africa already.
Maybe Liberia ought to be added as a territory requirement to the NO for controlling Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America, and West Indies to reflect the importance of rubber.
-
I don’t know much about Liberia other than it being settled by some freed American slaves, but I found more relevant info on wikipedia.
Quote from wiki page,
“In World War II, Liberia signed a Defence Pact with the U.S. in 1942, and assured the Americans and their allies of all the supply of natural rubber (a strategic commodity in wartime) that they needed. It also allowed the U.S. to use its territory for military bases, and as a bridgehead for American transports of soldiers and war supplies”wiki’s source:
William R. Stanley Trans-South Atlantic air link in World War II
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00806430
interesting quote from the abstract,
“A few existing and numerous newly constructed airfields between Liberia and Khartoum served as the emergency landing, refueling, maintenance and housing sites … American-supplied warplanes played an important role in the pivotal Egyptian battle of El-Alemain in October, 1942.”Might be worth making it US territory for game purposes, though I don’t see how it would have the strategic relevance that it may have had during the real war since French West Africa works better as an entry point to Africa already.
Maybe Liberia ought to be added as a territory requirement to the NO for controlling Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America, and West Indies to reflect the importance of rubber.
Never underestimate the importance of condoms.
-
Or make it worth 1 IPC! Then it can be convoyed
-
On a more important note: have you talked to Veqryn about how some of these changes could be made an option in tripleA?
Or is there someone else on the forum who knows enough to be able to change turn sequence and unit costs in a G40 mod for tripleA?
cant we get the problems with 2nd ediion fixed first?
-
@Infrastructure:
cant we get the problems with 2nd ediion fixed first?
Just to clarify, I never suggested that house rules options should be a priority over standard Rev. 2 fixes. Veqryn certainly doesn’t answer to me anyways :lol:
I only wanted to note that it could be helpful to consider what can and can’t easily be implemented in a G40 mod for tripleA (in case returning to abattlemap is a difficult sell), and who would be willing to do the implementing.
-
wheat,
sorry if that came off douchey. Was more pointed at the problem with tripla we all face.
Maybe if we held a fund drive for the site we could get some action on the fixes…
-
No worries.
I’m not sure, but perhaps tripleA development has been focused on 1914 instead?
-
Things like changing turn order, territory ownership, unit prices, etc. is all fairly easy to change, as all of that is configured in the game XML file and doesn’t require any code changes. It’s only where game mechanics are changing that it gets tricky.
-
That reminds me, I would prefer to see bases cost 12 like a minor IC, I think
bmnielsen, do I have any changes on the table right now (in my spreadsheet) that would be difficult to change in Triple A without Veqryn?
National Objectives?
Depending on what we do for convoys…. Maybe can just be edited when necessary
Mongolia rules…
Neutral blocs, but this could be edited or enforced by players…Otherwise, so far, I think bmnielsen is right - it will all be fairly easy to change, or if nothing else can be edited by players as they go along, when necessary, which is already necessary for various rules that Triple A does not follow (like convoy damage against China, for example)
-
Wheatbeer, I imagine it will be at least 6 months (or a year) before the league’s house rule game will be ready to be rolled out and played competitively….
But I am pretty excited about the prospect of a (basically) new game to play, and hopefully many of us will prefer it.
-
That reminds me, I would prefer to see bases cost 12 like a minor IC, I think
bmnielsen, do I have any changes on the table right now (in my spreadsheet) that would be difficult to change in Triple A without Veqryn?
National Objectives?
Depending on what we do for convoys…. Maybe can just be edited when necessary
Mongolia rules…
Neutral blocs, but this could be edited or enforced by players…Otherwise, so far, I think bmnielsen is right - it will all be fairly easy to change, or if nothing else can be edited by players as they go along, when necessary, which is already necessary for various rules that Triple A does not follow (like convoy damage against China, for example)
I haven’t looked too much at the XML format, so I can’t say for sure, but I think only the Chinese rules would definitely need code changes (at least the AA chits).
NOs depend on what you want to do, since they depend on the conditions being available in the code. So if they are just variations on the current themes (ownership of a territory, units in a territory, etc.) then there will be no problem. It’s only if you want to introduce completely new conditions that code changes would be needed.
I’m not sure what the split is for the Mongolia / neutral logic between the XML file and the code, but I would think that at least some of it could be done without code changes. Same thing goes for convoys.
-
So are you our guy?! :mrgreen:
The new NO’s are indeed variations on the current theme, so sounds like they will be easy.
-
Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:
I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?). The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.
-
That reminds me, I would prefer to see bases cost 12 like a minor IC, I think
bmnielsen, do I have any changes on the table right now (in my spreadsheet) that would be difficult to change in Triple A without Veqryn?
National Objectives?
Depending on what we do for convoys…. Maybe can just be edited when necessary
Mongolia rules…
Neutral blocs, but this could be edited or enforced by players…Otherwise, so far, I think bmnielsen is right - it will all be fairly easy to change, or if nothing else can be edited by players as they go along, when necessary, which is already necessary for various rules that Triple A does not follow (like convoy damage against China, for example)
holy SMOKES - are we saying bmnielson is able to modify TripleA code in order to bring TripleA up to the a current reflection of the ruleset and possible to reflect the new ruleset being devised?
-
Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:
I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?). The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.
YEAH! I love agreement :-D
And there is PLENTY of time to talk ideas. This is going to take time.
-
holy SMOKES - are we saying bmnielson is able to modify TripleA code in order to bring TripleA up to the a current reflection of the ruleset and possible to reflect the new ruleset being devised?
I’d love to be, but I barely have enough free time to keep one league game going right now, unfortunately. The code base is huge and supports lots of games I don’t know (having only ever played G40), so I can’t just dive in and start changing things. However, I do feel qualified to estimate how difficult a specific change is to do.
As for the stuff not requiring code changes, I’d be willing to have a go at it. Once you guys finalize an initial list of changes you want to start playtesting, I’ll whip something up.
-
Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:
I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?). The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.
I think you pay the price for the strategic value, not only the construction cost. With your logic, it can also not explained that a small factory can either put out just a few hundred men with guns, or three ACs. A facility that can build ACs should be more expensive than 12. And throwing up a pier….a BB would not be happy with that. A lot of logistics, defense etc necessary for a harbour in war time…we would need maintenance per round to reflect cost and offset the strategic gain that stays until game end. 15 is not that much if I consider all things.
What I am saying is, you can argue 10, 12 or 15, but with a game like this its useless to tansfer reality into it too much. Every suggestion should be brought forward, but I’d not change too much in the end.
-
The cost of airfields and harbors should stay the same. Otherwise it would be to easy to place a harbor or airfield somewhere. Now you actually need to consider carefully were to place one. I think that if the cost of a harbor and-or an airfield would be lowered to much, then players might start spamming them.
As for other unit costs. The cruiser is the only unit that desperately needs its cost to be lowered (10 or 11). Battleships are fine at 20. Take the following calculation as an example. If you can spend 26 ipc. You could buy a carrier and a fighter or a battleship and a submarine. The carrier and the fighter would offer more defense (6 vs 5), but the battleship and the submarine offer more offense (6 vs 3). On average the battleship and the submarine are slightly better. If you can spend 36 ipc, then you could buy 1 carrier with 2 fighters or a battleship and 2 destroyers. Again the carrier with fighters has more defense (10 vs 8), but the battleship and the two destroyers offer more offense (8 vs 6). Both times each buy had the same amount of hp.
-
Wheatbeer, I imagine it will be at least 6 months (or a year) before the league’s house rule game will be ready to be rolled out and played competitively….
But I am pretty excited about the prospect of a (basically) new game to play, and hopefully many of us will prefer it.
I hope so too. I am all for eliminating some of the cheese as variance put it.
Is there a way to make a google doc more interactive? Like a side bar for comments (but not allowing just anyone to spam or delete)?
Suggested Topics
