G40 League House Rule project

[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.

[gamerman01]

I also oppose making rules a lot more complicated.  I am in the brainstorming phase of the project.  Many of the ideas you’re seeing are just my first thoughts.  If I do flying tiger chits they will end up being no more complicated than kamikazes.  The convoy rules you were critiquing are actually very simple.  There would just be a second number for a few territories on the board that is smaller than the IPC value, and it is for max convoy damage.  This is unrelated to my desire to take the dice rolling out of it, and taking the dice rolling out of it is a simplification, I think, not a complication.

[wheatbeer]

I think you two (Gamer and Uncrustable) have incompatible design philosophies. You’re designing two different games for two different kinds of players.

If I understand correctly, Uncrustable’s primary focus is tactical gameplay changes (i.e. combat mechanics), while Gamerman’s primary focus is historical/strategic realism (setup, NOs, etc.).

[Derek]

Bomber price is not increased relative to fighters and tacs, so it is the same problem.
Bombers only got a SBR reduction of 1 IPC, this a hardly a nerf. And with the same cost disparity as OOB from fighters, they will continue to be over purchased.

Correction: you do not purchase tacs at 11IPCs (suggesting a cost reduction is needed)

Correction: what i mean is you are the only one who seems to think that fighters are overpriced, i said it in a nicer way tho. And it actually does hint that they do not need a price increase.
Fighters have cost 10 IPC for a very long time, and nothing in all this time to suggest they are in need of a price increase.

You cannot ignore math, think of this…
It is USA turn, what naval combo should they buy to protect transports and help in amphib assaults?
1 carrier and 2 fighters at 36 IPC?
or 3 cruisers and 1 submarine at 37 IPC?
The latter is a better buy in most cases

Did you ignore this?

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.

No offense Gamerman, but your responses to what i have posted, suggest a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality.

I do not feel the need to waste any more of my time thinking and responding to each point (as i have so far spent much time thinking and writing, all to help the thread you started).

thankyou

[Derek]

@wheatbeer:

I think you two (Gamer and Uncrustable) have incompatible design philosophies. You’re designing two different games for two different kinds of players.

If I understand correctly, Uncrustable’s primary focus is tactical gameplay changes (i.e. combat mechanics), while Gamerman’s primary focus is historical/strategic realism (setup, NOs, etc.).

My posts here have nothing to do with the G40 enhanced thread, i replied here as if i were to play the game right now OOB with gamermans changes.

[gamerman01]

You didn’t waste any time, you enjoy thinking about these things and sharing your thoughts.  The reason you are offended at my response is that you talk like your ideas are the best and can’t take criticism any better than I can.

I appreciate the ideas and the thought you put into your posts here.  Having seen a bit of your enhanced thread, I wasn’t sure how much I’d like your ideas because we are going in 2 different directions as Wheatbeer said.

I do not look at the game the same way you do, and that doesn’t make one of us right and one of us wrong.

I know fighters have cost 10 “for a long time” and for a long time before that, they cost 12 and bombers cost 15 and they were still purchased.  I do not ignore math, I am a math whiz myself.  I understand the game quite well, I think.  I rarely lose a game of Axis and Allies, which means I understand the effect that my tweaks will have.  I was making just as much effort “to be nice” as you were.  The way you talk comes across quite condescending, like how you keep repeating your points as if I didn’t understand them the first time.

Again, thanks for your contributions.  Good day, sir, and have fun with your big project.

Gamerman

[gamerman01]

It may be noted that while I have been aware of your project and have been skimming some of the posts, I have left very few of my opinions there on your thread because it is obvious you are trying to do something very different than I am.
It seems you are trying to take control of my project by basically telling me that half the stuff I am doing is wrong.  So yes, I think it would be a good time for you to exit stage left

[wheatbeer]

I think unit price changes are my least concern (at least so long as they remain moderate). I do think aa guns (4) and transport (6) are dead on.

Some other notes:
I think providing the Allies with something akin to kamikazes is a neat idea … but I don’t like the idea of targeting planes. If the motive is symmetry, how about a special Allied token in Europe?

How about partisans? Something like, Allies get 6 partisan tokens which can be used to add an infantry to any liberated territory in continental Europe (limit 2 per turn).

(also, let me know what you think about Panama as a possible VC, since that got buried a bit)

[Derek]

I do not see how my posts here had anything to do with the G40 enhanced thread.
If i had not started that thread, there would be no differences in my responses here.

I actually have a F2F G40 game coming up, and was thinking about using your adjustments. As i do like the direction you are going.

I also will be getting into G40 regularly (hopefully) on tripleA soon. As right now i play spring42 over at GTO.
I was under the impression that these changes are meant to be ‘standard’ for G40 in the future.
So i have no qualms about arguing ‘very’ hard.

Of all the units that possibly need adjusted (AAA, cruisers, battleships, tacs, bombers) ive always felt fighters are perfect.
And i do not recall ever reading anything on these forums (other than here), suggesting that fighters are too cheap.

I feel the reason that bombers are too cheap is because the cost disparity is only 2 IPCs.
“For 2 more IPCs i get +1 attack, SBR, and +2 range” - 2 IPC is very cheap considering all of that
Under your proposal you still get +2 range, SBR and +1 attack for only 2 additional IPCs.

Why give Germany a Freebie with Sweden? (no punishment if they attack it)

As far as Switzerland is concerned there is much history on both Axis and Allies intrusions on Swiss airspace. The Swiss even shot down several German planes at one point.
I do not see any reason why Switzerland needs this rule where all other neutrals can be invaded.

See: Operation Tannenbaum (A Nazi planed invasion of Switzerland that was put on hold after D-Day)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

Some quotes i pulled that show just how fragile relations were with the Swiss (both sides)
Had one side been a little nicer, so to speak, Switzerland may have chosen a side.

-During the Invasion of France, German aircraft violated Swiss airspace at least 197 times. In several air incidents, the Swiss, shot down 11 Luftwaffe planes between 10 May 1940 and 17 June 1940. Germany protested diplomatically on 5 June 1940, and with a second note on 19 June 1940 which contained clear threats. The Germans also sent saboteurs to destroy Swiss airfields, but the sabotage team was captured by the Swiss army before it could cause any damage.
-Allied aircraft also intruded on Swiss airspace during the war, mostly Allied bombers returning from raids over Italy and Germany that had been damaged and whose crews preferred internment by the Swiss to becoming prisoners of war. Over a hundred Allied aircraft and their crews were interned. They were subsequently put up in various ski resorts that had been emptied from lack of tourists due to the war and held until it ended. At least 940 American airmen attempted to escape into France after the invasion of Normandy, but Swiss authorities intercepted 183 internees. Over 160 of these airmen were incarcerated in a prison camp called Wauwilermoos, which was located near Lucerne and commanded by a pro-Nazi Swiss officer. The American internees remained in Wauwilermoos until November 1944, when the U.S. State Department lodged protests against the Swiss government and secured their release.
-Switzerland, surrounded by Axis-controlled territory, also suffered from Allied bombings during the war; most notably from the accidental bombing of Schaffhausen by American planes on April 1, 1944. It was mistaken for Ludwigshafen am Rhein, a nearby German town, 40 people were killed and over 50 buildings destroyed, among them a group of small factories producing anti-aircraft shells, ball-bearings, and Bf-109 parts for Germany. The bombing limited much of the leniency the Swiss had shown toward Allied airspace violations. Eventually, the problem became so bad that they declared a zero-tolerance policy for violation by either Axis or Allied aircraft and authorized attacks on American aircraft.  Victims of these mistaken bombings were not limited to Swiss civilians, however, but included the often confused American aircrews, shot down by the Swiss fighters as well as several Swiss fighters shot down by American airmen. In February 1945, 18 civilians were killed by Allied bombs dropped over Stein am Rhein, Vals, and Rafz. The most notorious incident came on March 4, 1945, when both Basel and Zurich were accidentally bombed by Allied aircraft. The attack on Basel’s railway station led to the destruction of a passenger train, but no casualties were reported. However, a B-24 Liberator dropped its bomb load over Zürich, destroying two buildings and killing five civilians. The aircraft’s crew believed that they were attacking Freiburg in Germany. As John Helmreich points out, Sincock and Balides, in choosing a target of opportunity, “…missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for.” The Swiss, although somewhat skeptical, reacted by treating these violations of their neutrality as “accidents”. The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, and their crews would still be allowed to seek refuge, while bomber formations in violation of airspace would be intercepted. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimize the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was “full of German sympathizers”, it deserved to be bombed. General Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured Allied planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory.

[wheatbeer]

Maybe Switzerland could just have it’s army boosted to represent their commendable readiness. In terms of gameplay no one should have reason to attack anyways.

The punishment for attacking Sweden is having to fight its army and thus delaying other objectives. With so many changes, the Axis advantage here may be countered elsewhere. Worst case scenario, the territory value of Sweden could be reduced to 2 IPC and/or its army boosted slightly.

I don’t believe Gamerman wants to achieve balance by lumping Sweden in with other nations in a historically implausible way.