G40 League House Rule project

[variance]

What if you made it so that unescorted transports can’t unload if there is a sub present OR if it is a kamikaze zone and Japan still has at least 1 kamikaze.  They can’t sink the transport with the kamikaze but a surface warship would be necessary for the transport to unload.

[Derek]

Could somebody update the OP with the house rule document?

Or possibly create a new thread?

Pretty confusing right now and a pain sifting through dozens of post trying to find the document.

[gamerman01]

Uncrustable, the problem is there is no edit access to this thread because it’s in the play boardgames section.
All you have to do is ask for it -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

I know it’s very different from what you’re doing, in most ways, but I would appreciate your general feedback

[gamerman01]

Actually, replies 1131 and 1132 contain the link to the project spreadsheet and also a statement about the intent of this project.  That’s only 17 posts ago  :-)

This thread was the Rankings thread for the league for a long time, and has been converted to the House Rule project thread.  So all of the older pages until the past few weeks are actually irrelevant to the House Rule project.

[Derek]

@Gamerman01:

Uncrustable, the problem is there is no edit access to this thread because it’s in the play boardgames section.
All you have to do is ask for it -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

I know it’s very different from what you’re doing, in most ways, but I would appreciate your general feedback

I like most if it, much if it needs explanations however.
Do France territories become pro allied neutrals that can be activated by the allies?
Or are they capturable by allies only after axis control?
In the rare event that Paris hasn’t fallen by F1, I believe France should be able to spend its cash and collect more. Or is this scenario a gg?

How do the flying tigers chits work?
How many does china get?

I really like the unit cost changes, except fighters and tacs. I would strongly argue against further increasing the cost of fighters to 12 along with tac bombers.
I think both at 10 is even better.
I wasn’t even remotely aware that fighters were too cheap, it seemed the condenses that tacs were overpriced.
A buff to battleships/cruisers and a nerf to carriers is too much anyhow.
Now carriers could be under purchased and this is worse than what we have now in my opinion.
Is +2 IPCs and -1 die bonus on SBR too much nerf for bombers?
I would suggest 10 IPC fighters and tacs with 13 IPC bombers. Start with minor adjustments and see how it works.
I understand the reason to reduce the dice bonus with current rules = automatic facility shutdown. But even with only +1 it’s only a 1/6 chance of the base being still operational

I think an even better solution to SBR is get rid of the dice bonus altogether for the bomber, and introduce a negative dice bonus for the tac bomber (-1 or -2) is this possible with tripleA?
So a tac bomber SBR will be 0-4 damage potential
Bomber would be 1-6 damage potential

[gamerman01]

Wow, that was fast, thanks.  Thanks for the thought you put into it.

@Uncrustable:

I like most if it, much if it needs explanations however.

Yeah

Do France territories become pro allied neutrals that can be activated by the allies?
Or are they capturable by allies only after axis control?
In the rare event that Paris hasn’t fallen by F1, I believe France should be able to spend its cash and collect more. Or is this scenario a gg?

French territories are French, and would just operate like the Dutch territories.  So Allies must wrest from Axis to control.  Yes, by keeping the 19 IPC’s in France and not being spendable, this prevents the ultra penalty of G/I failing on round 1 (it would still be very bad).  Also, this change prevents France from invading the Axis in 1940.  Thanks for the feedback.

How do the flying tigers chits work?
How many does china get?

This is in process - I don’t know yet.  Probably 3 to 5 chits.  I think they could actually be used in UK territories in Southeast Asia, maybe excluding India, maybe not.  I think they would work like AA, but each chit would be a single die roll, with a 1 hitting Japanese aircraft.  From what I’ve read on wikipedia about them, briefly, they went on attack raids too.  Perhaps allow spending multiple chits to roll an attack on Japanese aircraft in any adjacent territory to Allied controlled territory?  Spend 3, you get a single roll that hits on 3 or less, etc?  Brainstorming!

I really like the unit cost changes, except fighters and tacs. I would strongly argue against further increasing the cost of fighters to 12 along with tac bombers.
I think both at 10 is even better.

Actually, this is what I had originally.  But then I got to thinking that I think fighters are underpriced, given the increased importance of range and their utility with scrambling, carriers, airbases increasing range further, and ability to escort/intercept (tacs can’t intercept at all).  OK, I deleted my comment that maybe increase them to 12 and will just tick fighters up to 11 so they are the same as tacs.  Like you said, small changes.

I wasn’t even remotely aware that fighters were too cheap, it seemed the condenses that tacs were overpriced.

I am pretty sure fighters are too cheap, and yes tacs are overpriced.  Fighters are better than tacs, when you consider everything.

A buff to battleships/cruisers and a nerf to carriers is too much anyhow.

I disagree that reducing cost of BB to 18 is really a “buff”.  I think this modest change will have little effect on the # of BB’s actually purchased.  Reduction of cost of cruisers to 11 should also have almost no effect on # of carriers purchased, and still, few cruisers will be purchased.  Reduction to 18 and 11 just makes them a bit less over-priced.  They are still overpriced at 11 and 18 I think, and that’s OK given what we know about history.

Now carriers could be under purchased and this is worse than what we have now in my opinion.

Yeah, I don’t think so.  Carriers are still ultra useful even with fighters at 11, cruisers at 11, battleships at 18, and transports at 6.  I’m sure of this.

Is +2 IPCs and -1 die bonus on SBR too much nerf for bombers?

Good question.  Maybe, but again, what I have in mind is the massive utility of range in G40.  Bombers being able to move 6 or 7 is amazing, compared to everything else.  Someone on the site made a pretty good case that bombers are significantly overpowered.  JamesAleman I think it was.  I tend to agree, and what I have in the back of my mind is that bombers used to cost 15 and fighters cost 12 in previous versions, and they are much more valuable now the way the map is, and all powers have significantly higher incomes than earlier games.

I would suggest 10 IPC fighters and tacs with 13 IPC bombers. Start with minor adjustments and see how it works.

Another good point - I think I’ll settle for now on 11 IPC fighters and tacs, and 13 IPC bombers

I understand the reason to reduce the dice bonus with current rules = automatic facility shutdown. But even with only +1 it’s only a 1/6 chance of the base being still operational

Another good point, but I would remind you that they have to get by AA first.  So it’s only 69.4% chance of 1 strat bomber disabling a base that has no damage on it.  5/6 * 5/6
With Larry’s latest +2 rule it is 83.3% chance of disabling (just have to get by the AA)

I think an even better solution to SBR is get rid of the dice bonus altogether for the bomber, and introduce a negative dice bonus for the tac bomber (-1 or -2) is this possible with tripleA?
So a tac bomber SBR will be 0-4 damage potential
Bomber would be 1-6 damage potential

Yeah, thanks for the idea, but I think this is nerfing them too much.

Thanks, uncrustable, and keep those ideas coming.  You have influenced the project significantly with this single post.

[gamerman01]

Uncrustable, did you notice that there are multiple tabs to the spreadsheet?  It seemed all your comments were on the first sheet, and I would love to hear what you think about the NO changes, true neutrals, etc
Thanks

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

Any discussion yet about throwing in a few more victory cities?  Seeing lots of complaints it’s too easy with 6 in the Pacific, so what if Japan needed 8 and we made 3 more VCs on the board?  Sikiang maybe (I don’t have the map in front of me, thinking of the one that is SW China in 2 spaces from Volgograd and would not screw up Mongolia if Russia reinforced), Alaska or at least Aleutian Islands since they really were invaded and I cannot think of one that would have been a historical target right now, but I am sure we can think of a 3rd one for the Pacific.

Jennifer has a very creative and possibly useful idea, here

[variance]

malaya (singapore)?

[Jennifer]

I had thought of Malaya or the Dutch East Indies area, but aren’t those already prime targets for Japan?

I guess if they needed 8 to win, and one of those would just be the 7th so they still had to move out of their comfort zone for the 8th.

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

I had thought of Malaya or the Dutch East Indies area, but aren’t those already prime targets for Japan?

I guess if they needed 8 to win, and one of those would just be the 7th so they still had to move out of their comfort zone for the 8th.

Taking the DEI and holding all of them are 2 totally different matters :)

[bmnielsen]

For kicks I looked up the most populated cities in 1950 (oldest data I could find). In order of largest population to smallest, here are all of the cities on the Pacific map with more than a million inhabitants that don’t overlap with a current VC territory. The territory they would geographically be in is in brackets. In some cases there are multiple cities to a territory so I bundled them together.

Beijing & Tianjin (Jehol)
Shenyang & Haerbin (Manchuria)
Chongqing (Kweichow)
Zibo (Shantung)
Jakarta (Java)
Bangkok (Siam)
Melbourne (Victoria)
Wuhan & Xiantao (Anhwe)
Rangoon (Burma)
Ho Chi Minh City (French Indo China)
Seoul (Korea)
Singapore (Malaya)

Like half of them are Chinese, which obviously wouldn’t work :) But any of I have no idea what the various cities’ importance to the war was, however.

[bmnielsen]

Ignore that weird last sentence, hit post while I was editing it :)

[gamerman01]

I am really liking Jenn’s idea.

It makes sense to make it 8 victory cities on the Pacific map, which is congruent to the Europe map then!

It just never occurred to me to add victory cities that weren’t already on the map.

Not easy to choose from that list.  Thanks for doing the research, nielsen.

My short list would be Malaya, Korea, Manchuria, FIC, and Java.  2 of those.
What do you guys think?  In my first 24 hours of considering this idea, I think it does the trick.  It would be significantly harder to hold 8 cities for a round than 6, especially if only adding 2 cities to the map and not 3 to choose from (adding 3 cities and a requirement for 8 effectively means Japan does not have to take Hawaii or Sydney either one, so that’s no good)

[bmnielsen]

Could add 3 but make one of them hard to get. Like New Zealand, for instance. That would also bring the total number of VCs in line with the Europe map.

[wheatbeer]

I mentioned this is a different thread, and it’s a little unorthodox, but how about Panama counting as a Pacific Victory city?

This is a tough territory to hold and had great strategic importance.

[Derek]

Gamerman:

How do the flying tigers chits work?
How many does china get?
This is in process - I don’t know yet.  Probably 3 to 5 chits.  I think they could actually be used in UK territories in Southeast Asia, maybe excluding India, maybe not.  I think they would work like AA, but each chit would be a single die roll, with a 1 hitting Japanese aircraft.  From what I’ve read on wikipedia about them, briefly, they went on attack raids too.  Perhaps allow spending multiple chits to roll an attack on Japanese aircraft in any adjacent territory to Allied controlled territory?  Spend 3, you get a single roll that hits on 3 or less, etc?  Brainstorming!

Seems complicated for little to no reason. If, historically, the flying tigers participated in both defense and offense; then does not current OOB rules best represent them?
What is your reasoning for wanting to do this?

I am pretty sure fighters are too cheap, and yes tacs are overpriced.  Fighters are better than tacs, when you consider everything.

I disagree, tactical bombers can SBR (fighters cant) and can attack at 4 (fighters at 3)
Fighters and tactical bombers should cost the same under OOB rules (what you have)
I just do not see any reason to why fighters are underpriced, nor i have read any post on this forum where others talked about fighters being too cheap. When there are many posts on transports, AAA tacbombers, strat bombers, cruisers, tanks, battleships, submarines. I have seen none on fighters.
More on what i think about 11 IPC cost below…

I disagree that reducing cost of BB to 18 is really a “buff”.  I think this modest change will have little effect on the # of BB’s actually purchased.  Reduction of cost of cruisers to 11 should also have almost no effect on # of carriers purchased, and still, few cruisers will be purchased.  Reduction to 18 and 11 just makes them a bit less over-priced.  They are still overpriced at 11 and 18 I think, and that’s OK given what we know about history.
Carriers are still ultra useful even with fighters at 11, cruisers at 11, battleships at 18, and transports at 6.  I’m sure of this.

Reducing the cost of a unit, along with no other changes, is by definition a buff.
Right now 3 cruisers cost the same as 1 carrier +2 fighters.
Right now 2 battleships cost 4 more than 1 carrier +2 fighters.
With your changes 3 cruisers cost 5 less than 1 carrier +2 fighters.
With your changes 2 battleships cost 2 less than 1 carrier +2 fighters.

The problem with naval purchases we have now, is not so much underused cruisers and battleships, but overused submarines and destroyers. Carriers are perfect.
I strongly feel that both buffing cruisers and battleships while nerfing carriers could lead to some very unwanted consequences.
And does nothing to fix the real problem (submarine spam)

It is my theory that changing submarines would go alot further to fixing naval purchases.
Increase submarine cost to 8 and increase its defense to 2, this along with reducing cruisers to 11, BB to 18 and carriers to 15.

Leave fighters alone, and decrease tac bombers to 10
Increase strat bombers to 13.

I think I’ll settle for now on 11 IPC fighters and tacs, and 13 IPC bombers

I fear that this fixes nothing, strat bombers will still be overpurchased.
Put both fighters and tacs at 10, and strats at 13. Leaving a greater purchasing disparity between them.

I think I would want to take dice rolling out of convoy damage again
1 IPC per DD, CA, BB, and 2 IPC per plane and SS
There needs to be a limit that is lower than total IPC value of territories adjoining.  I think a good way to do this is to have some territories with a second IPC value, for max convoy damage

I strongly oppose making complicated rules and map changes just to reduce convoy damage a little.
Would be alot of fuss for little change. Lets find simpler ways.
Here is a much simpler way to lower convoy damage without needing to remove dice from the factor.
Roll 1 dice per (DD CA, BB and 2 dice per plane and SS). All dice hit on 2 or less. All hits remove 1 IPC, follow OOB rules after this.

Switzerland’s neutrality may not be violated

Why?

Mongolia is just another strict neutral with no special rules
USSR or Japan gets 12 IPC’s if the enemy declares war.

I like this so much better than the complicated mess we have now.

Sweden stands alone

This would just give Germany a freebie, Sweden needs to be in a nuetral block to provide some repercussions.

Ireland will be strict neutral with 1 infantry, standing alone
The 3 Persia territories will be (true) neutral, tied together
Iraq will be true neutral, stand alone, and have only 1 infantry

Ok you have ‘true nuetrals’ and ‘strict nuetrals’
Is this just a typo?

[gamerman01]

Flying tigers -

Did not exist in 1940 and most of 1941
Did not defend Chinese ground forces, and did not attack Japanese ground forces.
These are the main reasons the Chinese fighter in the game is a “fail”

[gamerman01]

True neutrals is interchangeable with the term strict neutrals in my mind

Reduction of SBR damage to bombers along with increased cost will make them less attractive/overpowered

Just because no one talks about fighters being underpriced doesn’t mean they’re not.
And yes, tacs CAN attack at 4 but they often attack at 3, or you go out of your way to make them attack at 4 many times.  Yes tacs CAN strat bomb but they rarely do, because it’s only bases, they get no bonus, and it takes 3 damage to disable a base and the max damage is 6.  I disagree with you that tacs are as valuable as fighters.  I NEVER buy tacs, I buy fighters.  Bombers are better at bombing and attacking, and fighters are much better at defending.  Tacs are just stuck in the middle.  Even at the same price as fighters, I think they’re over-priced.  One part of my thought of increasing fighter cost is to make tanks comparatively a tiny bit cheaper.

Do not understand why you say carriers are “nerfed” when I left them alone.  Also disagree with analysis that includes “5 of these costs the same as 3 of these” etc etc because this does not reflect actual play.  Nobody buys 3 cruisers, so why would you say 3 cruisers cost 5 less than a carrier and 2 fighters?  This is total apples and oranges.  2 fighters can attack and defend on land at any time, and switch back to sea.  Fighters are the ultimate versatile unit.  Carriers can pick up planes and make attacks with planes legal that would otherwise not be legal, without ever having to pick them up.  I REALLY don’t think reducing cruisers to 11 and battleships to 18 will have much of any effect on fleet purchases at all.  They are going from grossly overpriced to slightly overpriced, in my opinion.

[gamerman01]

Switzerland’s neutrality can’t be violated because they are the quintessential neutral country, I thought.
I am trying to avert needless, totally unbelievable scenarios.  I thought there is no way Switzerland would have been a part of WWII.  Tell me if I’m wrong, please.

I do appreciate your feedback, but I don’t see some things the same way.  As far as I can guess, you will probably never play my version of the game anyway, so I don’t think you should argue with me TOO hard  :-)

Sweden is stand alone because I don’t know that they would ally with one side or the other if another neutral were invaded (like Spain).  Tell me if I’m wrong.
It’s worth 3 IPC’s and has 6 (I think it is) infantry defending it.  I think that’s enough price to pay for any nation who wants to control Sweden.