Pretty sure that’s right now.
G40 League House Rule project
-
@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 :)
You’re right, of course.
What made you think we wouldn’t play test it, though? Of COURSE we’re not going to dump a significantly changed game on the league for games that count! I envision a few months for coming up with all the changes, then the rest of the 2014 league year for volunteers to play each other and give feedback without the games counting. We should be ready for rollout for the 2015 league, but for those eager to play a new game, the good news is this should be ready in a few months to play (play test). -
For the record, there is literally no reason why we cannot have a house rule tournament in July. We’re just not importing untested rules into the league, this year.
-
Apologies if this has been discussed before, came a bit late to the thread.
Have you considered optimizing the turn order for PbF/PbEM games? The proposed turn order has a nice symmetry, but still means the turn switches sides six times per round, which is the main reason our games take so long to finish. If we keep the standard G40 turn order, but without ANZAC and France, it only changes four times per round. Plus it doesn’t change anything regarding who can can open for who, which might make it a bit easier to balance the game.
-
Yes, that is a consideration
It has huge effects on who can can open for who.
With USA between Italy and Germany, and Italy between UK and USA there are better chances to close up can openers (with USA/UK in 2nd edition, there is obviously no turn at all in between to try and stop the synergy)
Am I missing your meaning? -
Yes, that is a consideration
It has huge effects on who can can open for who.
With USA between Italy and Germany, and Italy between UK and USA there are better chances to close up can openers (with USA/UK in 2nd edition, there is obviously no turn at all in between to try and stop the synergy)
Am I missing your meaning?My point about can openers was just that if the relative turn order is the same as now (i.e. Germany/Russia/Japan/USA/China/UK/Italy), then the can open possibilities are basically the same as normal G40 (since ANZAC is rarely much of a force in Europe and ditto Italy in the Pacific). So as far as can openers go, the new game would be closer to standard G40 and therefore perhaps easier to balance. My thought was that this might be an added bonus to the improvement in lag time per round.
Of course, if one of the goals of the new rules is to shake up the can opener situation, then obviously this isn’t preferable :) However, that can still be done while minimizing the number of player switches per turn (by just swapping US and UK or similar).
-
OK, thanks for the clarification.
The current proposed turn order is old school:
G
R
J
UK
Italy
USAI actually do NOT like the back to back USA/China/UK move (too much to play at one time, for one thing, and no chance for the Axis to go in between is incongruent with all previous A&A) nor do I like the Italy/Germany move with only France/ANZ in between (now it will be USA)
So yes it will still be 3 turns per round, just as it was with AA50
-
I have some historically-based map changes to propose:
Ireland should be a strict neutral with a one or two infantry. They never joined the Allies due to their relationship with Britain, even after the outcome became clear and everyone dog-piled in.
Persia, Eastern Persia, and Northwest Persia should be strict neutral. Iran was absolutely not pro-Allied.
-
I have some historically-based map changes to propose:
Ireland should be a strict neutral with a one or two infantry. They never joined the Allies due to their relationship with Britain, even after the outcome became clear and everyone dog-piled in.
Persia, Eastern Persia, and Northwest Persia should be strict neutral. Iran was absolutely not pro-Allied.
Awesome! Thank you!!
What about Iraq? Is it pro-Axis? With 3 infantry? Would they have actually joined an Axis force and marched into other countries for their cause?
-
Iraq’s politics circa 1940 was pretty unstable, but I think it is fair to say that they would not be fighting for the Axis outside the immediate area.
Strict neutral might better represent Iraq. I would reduce them to 1 infantry though because their army was tiny and ineffective when Britain attacked.
-
Iraq’s politics circa 1940 was pretty unstable, but I think it is fair to say that they would not be fighting for the Axis outside the immediate area.
Strict neutral might better represent Iraq. I would reduce them to 1 infantry though because their army was tiny and ineffective when Britain attacked.
Great, that helps balance the area out
Do you think Ireland should be worth 1 IPC then, or does that just give UK reason to invade to break neutrality (if only 1 infantry there, they would have this incentive) and is that weird? -
I don’t know what the Irish economy was like in the 1940s for sure.
I don’t think the UK (or anyone else) would gain much if any economically since IRA damage probably cancels out whatever you could export.
While Britain was miffed about Irish neutrality, they were also extremely unlikely to invade. I wouldn’t give them an incentive.
-
Right, that confirms what I thought. Having one infantry there is not pointless, however, because it has locational strategic value.
-
Agreed
-
Albania isn’t in the war yet as of 1940. It is a pro axis country as its taken out from the inside using guerrilla forces.
-
Albania declared war in June 1940 before France surrendered (not that it had a real choice having already been invaded by Italy and made a protectorate).
-
You are correct. My initial source was incorrect.
-
Were you talking about the Chams when you mentioned guerilla forces?
I had never read about these guys before, but it sounds like they wreaked a lot of havoc.
-
I have some historically-based map changes to propose:
Ireland should be a strict neutral with a one or two infantry. They never joined the Allies due to their relationship with Britain, even after the outcome became clear and everyone dog-piled in.
Persia, Eastern Persia, and Northwest Persia should be strict neutral. Iran was absolutely not pro-Allied.
And it makes the game much more interesting since it blocks India - Egypt and Caucasus - Egypt land way.
-
I am suggesting that Gamerman01 creates a new thread for his rankings, so that it can start with a clean slate and have the link posted on the first page, so that we don’t have to remember which page it was last posted on.
Just a suggestion.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0
-
This is what I’m doing with that suggestion:
I am having Guerilla Guy change the name of this thread because this thread is now about the House Ruled game project.
I am having him insert a line in the league rules under #3 that provides the link to the standings, so there will no longer be a “rankings thread” as it is not necessary since I’m not continually uploading new spreadsheets and discussion about the rankings (since they had a subjective component before) is no longer necessary.
Suggested Topics
