Oh I forgot the walk to Alexandria. I will add that on NCM.
G40 League House Rule project
-
I like it! +2 is a GUARANTEE when a strat bomber gets by the AA of the base, and Larry himself apparently hates guarantees (see rolling for convoy damage).
+1 fixes that, if you roll a 1 and get 2 damage, the base is still operational!
-
+1 rather than +2 makes makes me happier (hopefully it isn’t an over-correction) … It might seem a silly part of the game to take issue with given that SBR may not be terribly popular, but I think that SBR’s simply underrated.
The repair/mobilize mechanic requiring up to 11 IPC to be spent on repairs to mobilize a single unit still makes no sense to me, but I can live with that I suppose :lol:
-
This new and improved game is getting better and better
-
Soulblighter, I am thinking a decrease in cost to 18 for Battleships. Do you really think that’s going to sell many more - I do not.
I also think tacs are inferior to fighters generally, and favor having them cost the same
Bombers are overpowered at a mere cost of 12, so I think they should cost 14 (which is still less than they cost before AA50)
On a huge map, bombers are the premier unit for eating up space and delivering maximum attack power. Also, with the +2 to SBR damage (which is cool) that is overpowered when the bomber only costs 12.I could be talked into making bases cost 13, but I think 15 is too high. Keep in mind that when Larry first priced bases at 15, airbases provided UNLIMITED SCRAMBLING!!! (although only from islands)
I think it’s a bit elegant if fighters/tacs cost the same and bases cost the same as Minors.
As I type this, though, I am reminded that fighters/tacs are also more disproportionately powerful than in previous games because of their range and utility (especially fighters).
I would also like tanks to seem a tiny bit less expensive at 6.
So I think fighters and tacs should both cost 11 or maybe even 12 (they were 12 before AA50, after all)Actually when I was lying in my bed I was thinking cruisers should cost 10 and battleships should cost 18. I made some calculations and this seemed about right. This way submarines still give the most hp and offensive punch, but all the other units have slight improvements. Fleetcomposition will be slightly more important this way. You might be right about bombers being to cheap. As for naval bases and airbases. By all means lower the cost to 12. I am fine either way.
There is however 1 thing I never really understood and thats why we can’t scramble from AC. This would make carriers a lot stronger, but it makes sense if that could be made possible. The downside is that it would make Japan really strong as Japan starts with a lot of planes, but I see no reason why carriers shouldn’t be allowed to support nearby areas. This may or may not result in an increase in icp cost of carriers tho.
-
I like it! +2 is a GUARANTEE when a strat bomber gets by the AA of the base, and Larry himself apparently hates guarantees (see rolling for convoy damage).
+1 fixes that, if you roll a 1 and get 2 damage, the base is still operational!
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
-
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
Ah, yes! I thought the same thing but it was a long time ago and I have long since been resigned to the Larry rule.
This would be a huge change, actually, and now the suggestion about interceptors hitting on a 2 becomes much more important.
I need to hear more discussion on this topic. Just thinking about the Axis hitting the Gibraltar naval base (for one example) and stopping not only the USA but also the UK from going 3 spaces….Another option is to leave the rule as is, that you can repair and then use immediately, BUT you must fully repair to 0 damage to use.
-
Looks like Cow and Ziggurat will be promoted to the official playoff, now that rgp has pulled out, and Zhukov still hasn’t said anything.
-
I accept.
-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE#gid=0
For Gamerman’s playoffs and the official playoffs.
Make sure you’re signed up and confirmed if you want to play.
-
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
Ah, yes! I thought the same thing but it was a long time ago and I have long since been resigned to the Larry rule.
This would be a huge change…I see a couple issues cropping up here. First, I feel that the “repair and use” part of the rule is just a continuation of the instant cost rule, before damage markers were even used.
If a change is made to pay start, use end as Variance mentioned, the owner of the base could conceivably never get to use it, especially in a harbor. Using Gib as an example, Axis bomb it, allies fix it, Axis bomb it over and over. That is too much of a penalty for a 15 IPC facility.
I do think that max damage should be roughly half of the purchase cost, especially for a major facility.
-
Good point
Although it won’t be a 15 IPC facility, it will be 12 (actually the ones you start with cost 0) :-D
-
Regarding any difficulty in doing flying tiger chits in Triple A - no big deal. They can easily be accounted for by the players, and dice rolls can be done on the forums to resolve.
-
Good point
Although it won’t be a 15 IPC facility, it will be 12 (actually the ones you start with cost 0) :-D
Out of interest, how will final decisions be taken? Majority, a chosen representative, League admins?
-
I would like the allies VC conditions changed for this tournament.
Hold Rome Germany OR Japan for one full round AND 14 VCs.
-
It is still super hard to achieve that… but trust me… it is better than waiting to conquer all 3!
-
Alex, it will be me
-
Cow, don’t worry about Allied VC’s - the Allies always win once the Axis fail to win
Alex, I am hoping that when the New and Improved G40 is finished that many league players will want to play it over and over again. I will be very receptive to ideas and suggestions from everyone, that I think will be popular.
Keep in mind that we are in the brainstorming phase. Don’t get too excited (I’m writing to everyone, not just you) about any certain proposed change at this time - most everything’s on the table.
For example, I am flexible on what price we end up listing for bases, between 12 and 15. If a lot of players want it to stay at 15, or if 1 or 2 players give really compelling reasons why it should stay at 15, then I would keep them at 15.Remember. Brainstorming. None of the changes are really final until we are actually rolling this puppy out after play testing.
-
Cow, don’t worry about Allied VC’s - the Allies always win once the Axis fail to win
Alex, I am hoping that when the New and Improved G40 is finished that many league players will want to play it over and over again. I will be very receptive to ideas and suggestions from everyone, that I think will be popular.
Keep in mind that we are in the brainstorming phase. Don’t get too excited (I’m writing to everyone, not just you) about any certain proposed change at this time - most everything’s on the table.
For example, I am flexible on what price we end up listing for bases, between 12 and 15. If a lot of players want it to stay at 15, or if 1 or 2 players give really compelling reasons why it should stay at 15, then I would keep them at 15.Remember. Brainstorming. None of the changes are really final until we are actually rolling this puppy out after play testing.
What new and improved G40?
-
Everything on the table, I am sure it will be a wealth of ideas to be discussed. There is, already. I am only concerned of one thing: There will be no playtesting to see if all changes together are balanced. We have our experience that shows us what can be improved, but we never tried it out. As far as I understand it, all changes will be implemented at the same time, directly for League play. Look at the (comparatively few) changes from the different alpha versions, and how unhappy people have been. With the mass of changes, untested, I hope it will work out better.
Of course, the community is both eager to improve and adaptive when something does not work, but I cant shake the feeling that too many changes at so many levels are a difficult thing to get right. But no, Bold, I am not against progress :)
-
@alexgreat:
Everything on the table, I am sure it will be a wealth of ideas to be discussed. There is, already. I am only concerned of one thing: There will be no playtesting to see if all changes together are balanced. We have our experience that shows us what can be improved, but we never tried it out. As far as I understand it, all changes will be implemented at the same time, directly for League play. Look at the (comparatively few) changes from the different alpha versions, and how unhappy people have been. With the mass of changes, untested, I hope it will work out better.
Of course, the community is both eager to improve and adaptive when something does not work, but I cant shake the feeling that too many changes at so many levels are a difficult thing to get right. But no, Bold, I am not against progress :)
:wink:
I am right there with you alex. once you start changing things, there are most likely going to be all kinds of unintended consequences. playtesting/tweaking of the new version will most likely be done over the course of a remaining league year - it will not just be dumped on the league. i hope.
Suggested Topics
