G40 League House Rule project

[Derek]

@Gamerman01:

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

[Jennifer]

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.

[MrRoboto]

@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.

[Derek]

@MrRoboto:

@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.

[MrRoboto]

@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.

[variance]

What would happen if you called tacs “medium range bombers” and gave them movement of 5?

[gamerman01]

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

[gamerman01]

@variance:

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.

[wheatbeer]

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

[Guest]

There are no markers on the current map to reflect the current Mongolia defense pact.

[gamerman01]

Not sure what you’re getting at, blighter…

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

Not sure what you’re getting at, blighter…

It is ok. There are times I don’t understand myself either.

[Jennifer]

@wheatbeer:

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

Or how about they get a special rule for one in the far east (despite the territory being 1 IPC) if Japan invades.  Further, Russia can only invade Japan if they have 2 infantry along the border for each Japanese 1 (and Mongolia does not join either side no matter what?)  Just make Mongolia impassible terrain like the Sahara or Himalayas.

[Guest]

@Cmdr:

@wheatbeer:

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

Or how about they get a special rule for one in the far east (despite the territory being 1 IPC) if Japan invades.  Further, Russia can only invade Japan if they have 2 infantry along the border for each Japanese 1 (and Mongolia does not join either side no matter what?)  Just make Mongolia impassible terrain like the Sahara or Himalayas.

C. is pointless. Once Axis captures Moscow, Moscow will fall within a couple turns. B. seems to be to arbitrary. That leaves A and that actually makes sense. However if Russia does get a minor ic for free, then the territory it is in should be worth 2 ipcs and not 1. Perhaps that could be changed the moment the Russians get the free minor.

[wheatbeer]

@Soulblighter:

C. is pointless. Once Axis captures Moscow, Moscow will fall within a couple turns. B. seems to be to arbitrary. That leaves A and that actually makes sense. However if Russia does get a minor ic for free, then the territory it is in should be worth 2 ipcs and not 1. Perhaps that could be changed the moment the Russians get the free minor.

I ranked them in the order I liked them, so I agree A is by far best. Changing the value of Novosibirsk to 2 IPC seems good to me as well, either from the event or from the start (since it was and is a resource rich region).

[gamerman01]

I do like the idea of a modest buff or 2 for Russia, and will keep mulling these things

[Guest]

I also think Italy deserves some love. Does anybody here know whether Sicily and Sardinia served any purpose in WW2?

[Guest]

What if the French units join the UK after France is defeated. This will solve the issue of any remaining french units standing around and doing nothing and given the fact that the free french army was mostly operating out of Africa and the uk and working alongside the allies it would make sense anyways.

[gamerman01]

@Nozdormu:

What if the French units join the UK after France is defeated. This will solve the issue of any remaining french units standing around and doing nothing and given the fact that the free french army was mostly operating out of Africa and the uk and working alongside the allies it would make sense anyways.

I agree - good point, and thanks

[gamerman01]

I changed my worksheet as a result
I can now delete “Fr DD in 71 is UK”
Decided not to add Fr INF to FIC at game start since it would become UK right away, and I don’t like that.  So that’s simpler too, thanks again