That went perfectly!
G40 League House Rule project
-
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.
-
Great stuff, thanks again guys
Uncrustable, at best this houseruled version of the game will be an alternate G40 league down the road - I would be surprised if it made it beyond the league, but who knows.
Wheatbeer, I’m thinking about Panama along with the whole victory conditions in the Pacific issue. I saw on Uncrustable’s thread that he likes Jenn’s idea of adding VC’s and VC’s needed to win to the Pacific as well. Whether that’s adding 2 or 3 cities and their actual location will take a lot of mulling.
I probably should keep price changes on units to a minimum. Where exactly they’ll land, I don’t know, that’s why it’s up for discussion. Uncrustable thinks fighters and tacs are good at 10, and I’d like to hear from others. I know Boldfresh agrees with me that fighters and bombers could stand to be a bit more expensive.
Uncrustable raises a good point about subs and destroyers. One thought I have is that they should be purchased a lot - I don’t have a problem with that. They are the cheapest warships, and with all those sea zones and convoy zones and fleets needing fodder, I don’t think they’re too cheap, not even subs.
I’ll probably stick with BBs down to 18 (it’s the principle of the thing - can’t imagine they’ll be purchased significantly more) and cruisers at 11 (everybody has always agreed since AA50 that cruisers at 12 are too expensive)
AAA obviously needs to be less than 5, and I think transports being 1 IPC cheaper would make the game better. They need to be a bit cheaper than they were because they have no combat value anymore and can’t be taken as casualties and are autokilled when alone. Slightly more transports in the game = more action and excitement.Uncrustable, my statement about you “arguing hard” was made because I didn’t think you would ever actually be playing this version of the game, so couldn’t understand why you would be so adamant about your viewpoint. Now that you’ve explained that this project actually might affect you, that helps explain.
I agree with Wheatbeer that the number of infantry on Sweden is a high enough price to deter invasion. I thought I already said that.
I really appreciate you writing about Switzerland - I think it makes sense to bloc it with Sweden then.
-
What do you think on increasing the cost disparity between fighters and strategic bombers?
Right now its 2.I feel 3 would be better.
Bombers with +2 range, +1 attack and SBR. At only +2 IPC, will alot of the time be purchased more than fighters.
This is especially true for Germany and USA. (It makes sense to almost always purchase bombers for them)
Air cannot land in newly acquired territories anyway, so the poor defensive value of bombers is diminished. -
When I was looking for extra VCs for the Pacific map, I specifically looked for harder to get ones.
If we want logical ones, then definitely we need to go Borneo and Malaya. Borneo had the resources and Malaya had access to the Indian Ocean. For a third, if we look only at importance, Manchuria comes to mind - again for resources. My only qualms are, these are already important targets for Japan and ones that are not that hard to hold (compared to other territories in the grand scheme of things.)
If we go for semi-important ones that are harder, we get the following list, best I can imagine (and feel free to disagree!)
- Aleutian Islands - were actually invaded by Japan. Easy for America to liberate, but they cannot just walk troops there.
- Sikiang - to me, the permanent or semi-permanent loss of Sikiang signals the death of China. It feels like such a milestone. This is probably due to how easy it is for Russia to send in reinforcements down here.
- Solomon Islands - major naval engagement, one of the turning points of the war I believe.
- Midway - the major turning point in the war, personal opinion here.
- Soviet Far East - I know there are no ports or air fields there at the start of the game, but there are/were some there. Just not major ones. Not to mention the food production for the Japanese people. (Yes I’m reaching for options. I said feel free to disagree!)
I’d also like a Japanese NO:
+10 IPC for any round in which the United States has no Aircraft Carriers in the North Pacific Ocean. (Sea Zones: 28 to 36 and above - which includes the coast of W. USA so it should be super easy for the US to stop Japan from getting the NO.) This was the primary reason for Japan going to war in the first place! If the American carriers were in, say, Virginia then they would not have attacked Pearl Harbor, I believe. Without that, Roosevelt could not convince the people to declare war on Japan (and thereby gateway a DOW on Germany.)Unattainable? Yes, but it is much easier to attain this NO than the one for taking W. USA (C. USA or E. USA) for Japan.
-
@Cmdr:
- Soviet Far East - I know there are no ports or air fields there at the start of the game, but there are/were some there. Just not major ones. Not to mention the food production for the Japanese people. (Yes I’m reaching for options. I said feel free to disagree!)
This inspired me … the Soviet should have a naval base in Amur (Vladivostok). They should also have at least 1 submarine to represent the Soviet Pacific fleet.
-
@Uncrustable:
What do you think on increasing the cost disparity between fighters and strategic bombers?
Right now its 2.I feel 3 would be better.
I don’t know yet
Bombers with +2 range, +1 attack and SBR. At only +2 IPC, will alot of the time be purchased more than fighters.
This is especially true for Germany and USA. (It makes sense to almost always purchase bombers for them)
Air cannot land in newly acquired territories anyway, so the poor defensive value of bombers is diminished.You must play different than what I’ve seen in my 25+ games this year. Fighters are king, they are the ultimate versatile unit. Bombers don’t defend at 4, can’t intercept, can’t scramble, and can’t land on aircraft carriers, for starters.
Actually, I DID have it at 3 difference (11 and 14 with 12 for fighters being followed by 3 question marks), but you told me that increasing bombers by 2 was too much and to make little steps. I reduce it to 13 and now you say that 2 difference isn’t enough. I’m making changes that you suggest and then you’re criticizing them. :?
Bombers and fighters have VERY different functions - they are more different than, say, cruisers and destroyers are from each other. I don’t see them so much as competing for each other.
-
but you told me that increasing bombers by 2 was too much and to make little steps. I reduce it to 13 and now you say that 2 difference isn’t enough. I’m making changes that you suggest and then you’re criticizing them.
My suggestion was fighters/tacs at 10. and bombers at 13. :wink:
-
@Cmdr:
- Soviet Far East - I know there are no ports or air fields there at the start of the game, but there are/were some there. Just not major ones. Not to mention the food production for the Japanese people. (Yes I’m reaching for options. I said feel free to disagree!)
This inspired me … the Soviet should have a naval base in Amur (Vladivostok). They should also have at least 1 submarine to represent the Soviet Pacific fleet.
I’d maybe go a bit further, if we are going to represent the Russians in the far east:
* Russia must have 3x the IPC value of units as they own territories on the far east of Japan can invade without Mongolia turning (so any territory north of Mongolia all the way out to the Pacific Ocean.)
- SFE is now worth 2 IPC (take 1 from Yakut SSR and make it 0 IPC. The idea is to give Russia somewhere to put a minor complex if they want one.)
- +1 Naval Base in SFE
- +1 Destroyer (Pacific Fleet representation) in SZ 5
This all revolves around the fishing villages and military stations along the Kamatchka Peninsula. None of this would be a HUGE hit to Japan, but they will have to take it into consideration.
-
Yeah, I don’t think I’m too interested in buffing Russia to the East…
But speaking of east Russia, I am interested in adding a rule that USSR cannot DOW Japan on R1 (or longer??)Thoughts on prohibiting R1 DOW on Japan on round 1? I believe I’m in favor. Stop the cheese of Russian air immediately going to Yunnan.
There’s already a split Russia for political conditions, and Russia is not allowed to attack G/I pre-emptively… -
Try it Gamerman.
Or how about Rusaia cannot DOW Japan until at least one Ground unit has left Manchuria? -
Yeah, I don’t think I’m too interested in buffing Russia to the East…
But speaking of east Russia, I am interested in adding a rule that USSR cannot DOW Japan on R1 (or longer??)Thoughts on prohibiting R1 DOW on Japan on round 1? I believe I’m in favor. Stop the cheese of Russian air immediately going to Yunnan.
There’s already a split Russia for political conditions, and Russia is not allowed to attack G/I pre-emptively…I am in favor of this
-
I’ve got no problem requiring Russia to have at least 1 ground unit in Amur (including AA Guns) for each Japanese ground unit in Korea before letting them declare war on Japan. That will force Japan to hold back some units to offset the Russians (and keep the Russian units there to defend their eastern flank, maybe) and pull some pressure off India and China.
Keep in mind, I am thinking in a vacuum for this. I am not taking into consideration any other rules we may or may not, determine to be necessary like more VCs, etc.
-
@Uncrustable:
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.I know this is not the most recent post, but I just HAD to answer to this here.
This statement is incomplete. While you do get +1 attack, SBR and +2 range, you also get -3 defense, -scramble, -defense, -ability to place on a carrier, -combined arms with a tac (even if you didnt buy them, most powers do start with tacs).
So please, please, please: Don’t ignore half of the facts, just to prove your point.
And while it sounds like it’s just a very small investment to pay “2 more IPC”, 12 instead of 10, you could also say “pay 20% more”. Suddenly it sounds like a lot, if you ask me.
Bombers aren’t even that much better in pure combat strength. For 60 IPC you get either 63=18 attack power or 54=20 attack power.
So if they are well protected, bombers are slightly better (really not that much) and if not protected (like in an air-only attack), fighters even attack better, than bombers!I didn’t follow your discussion, so I don’t even know who’s arguing that fighters are overpriced or underpriced or whatever.
But the post I am quoting, especially that part, shows me that you don’t look at all the facts/math and I had to step in here. -
@Uncrustable:
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.I know this is not the most recent post, but I just HAD to answer to this here.
This statement is incomplete. While you do get +1 attack, SBR and +2 range, you also get -3 defense, -scramble, -defense, -ability to place on a carrier, -combined arms with a tac (even if you didnt buy them, most powers do start with tacs).
So please, please, please: Don’t ignore half of the facts, just to prove your point.
And while it sounds like it’s just a very small investment to pay “2 more IPC”, 12 instead of 10, you could also say “pay 20% more”. Suddenly it sounds like a lot, if you ask me.
Bombers aren’t even that much better in pure combat strength. For 60 IPC you get either 63=18 attack power or 54=20 attack power.
So if they are well protected, bombers are slightly better (really not that much) and if not protected (like in an air-only attack), fighters even attack better, than bombers!I didn’t follow your discussion, so I don’t even know who’s arguing that fighters are overpriced or underpriced or whatever.
But the post I am quoting, especially that part, shows me that you don’t look at all the facts/math and I had to step in here.Good post here, I still feel that for offensive powers (Germany and USA) they are better off a lot of the time with bombers.
But honestly I think I’d rather just make tacs cost 10, and leave fighters and bombers alone. Rather than increase fighters and bombers.
What does MrRoboto think about change prices to: 11,11,13 (what gamer man has now) or 10,10,12. Keeping in mind that BBs and CAs are getting cost reductions aswell (-1,-2)
And as far as BBs and CAs are concerned, i feel both should be lowered by either 1 or 2.
Do the math here, cruisers get screwed at 11 with BB at 18.
DD still beats CA (barely) even at 10.
But at 11 CA loses to SS, DD and gets mauled by BB at 18.If I get time il post the percentages sometime.
-
@Uncrustable:
Good post here, I still feel that for offensive powers (Germany and USA) they are better off a lot of the time with bombers.
That’s true, bombers are very strong especially for Germany UNTIL the allies get superiority in the Atlantic/English channel.
But that is not, because the pure combat strength of bombers is better. It is because another “resource” is often ignored.
Threat
If you have a lot of bombers, you do threat many places at once. The opponent can’t place or produce navy at different places or spread it. It has to always be built in a safe and far distance and be moved as one big fleet.
As long as your bomber squad is so big, that the opponent can’t freely move, the bombers are great. As soon as they’d survive the bomber attack, however, the bombers lose value very fast cause you’re starting to need defense.I will look into your two proposed plane costs later.
-
What would happen if you called tacs “medium range bombers” and gave them movement of 5?
-
Re cruisers vs. battleships
You are not mentioning the very real fact that spending 18 IPC’s on a single ship is a bigger commitment than 11. Merely comparing cost, attack, defense is to ignore important qualitative factors…
Advantage of cheaper units over more expensive ones also is that they can be divided up - have more options. Cruisers remain the most efficient bombarder… I don’t expect many more cruisers or battleships will be purchased at 11 and 18, they will just be a bit less over-priced than before -
What would happen if you called tacs “medium range bombers” and gave them movement of 5?
I have to admit I don’t know much about “tactical bombers” from WWII. I am aware of stuka dive bombers, and torpedo bombers in the Pacific, but that’s about it. Shouldn’t they have the same range as fighters?
The only thought I had had about range changes in the past, is I have thought about reducing bomber range from 6 to 5. Of course I would have to revisit cost and SBR damage modifications if I went with this.
-
Not married to this idea, but how about creating a condition where the Soviets gain a free minor IC in Novosibirsk (like the US upgrade) to reflect Stalin’s moving industry far beyond the lines.
The condition could be something along the lines of:
A. The Axis capture any Soviet industrial complex
B. The Axis control x (?) IPC of Soviet territory in Europe
or
C. The Axis capture any territory bordering Moscow -
There are no markers on the current map to reflect the current Mongolia defense pact.
Suggested Topics
