That went perfectly!
G40 League House Rule project
-
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.
-
Not sure what you’re getting at, blighter…
-
Not sure what you’re getting at, blighter…
It is ok. There are times I don’t understand myself either.
-
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 MoscowOr 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.
-
@Cmdr:
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 MoscowOr 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.
-
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).
-
I do like the idea of a modest buff or 2 for Russia, and will keep mulling these things
-
I also think Italy deserves some love. Does anybody here know whether Sicily and Sardinia served any purpose in WW2?
-
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.
-
@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
-
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 -
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 againI will post some more suggestions tomorrow or the day after that. I had several more ideas. Do you have a link for the sheet and when will the first testing games be approximately?
-
Unfortunately I am in my busy season which is why the project is on hold for now.
The link to the sheet is, I think, on the first post of this thread? It’s view only… -
Several more suggestions and a question.
First of all. Germany has a NO that involves Sweden. However given the fact that Sweden will only be tied with Switzerland after the changes, this would mean Germany or another axis power could invade Sweden and Germany would still get the NO. This might be unintentional. I don’t think it will be an issue, but it might be something to consider.
I am glad you like my suggestion about the french units, but what if the Germans don’t invade France (because France doesn’t get a turn anyways and instead go for Normandy and Southern France T1 and take Paris T2. This will slow down the Germans, but depending on the strategy it might be worth it. I am still in favor of my suggestion, but this situation might be undesirable.
Then the suggestions. First of all. Sicily was an important beachhead for the allies during WW2. The allies landed there in order to prepare for the invasion of Italy. Currently neither the allies nor Italy has a NO that reflects this importance. The only NO that remotely reflects this importance is the NO that involves having no allied ships in the Mediterranean. But that NO only implies the importance of Sicily indirectly. Perhaps a NO involving the two Islands (Sicily and the other one) could and should be added.
Secondly I read that Turkey was pro allied before the war, neutral for most of the war and pro allied near the end of the war, but interestingly they also supplied a material called chromite to the axis and the allies. Yet there is no NO reflecting this. Turkey was the only source of chromite for the Germans (at least as far as I am aware off anyways).
So basically I advice at least two more NO’s based upon the above.
-
Thanks, Nozdormu!
You are probably a good A&A player - it would be great to have you involved in the league. If that’s something you’re interested in at all, let me know and I can help you get involved.
Without double checking, isn’t the NO that involves Sweden just that Sweden must be either neutral or Axis controlled along with Germany controlling Denmark and Norway? I just woke up so I might be missing something obvious, but I’m not sure what the issue is that you’re raising. Germany doesn’t get +5 for controlling Sweden alone
You raise an excellent point about France not being able to attack, one that another player has also warned me about. This is an issue that I need to think about more, but have put this project on the back burner for a few months… I would like to eliminate France and ANZAC as separate playable powers, but I could see myself giving that up, too. Still, if Germany doesn’t invade Paris G1, there is a UK artillery and tank that can move, and the French fighter can get away. Of course, G would be delaying the +19 and also the +4 per turn, not to mention the strategic importance of the location and facilities. I think attacking Paris G1 is still the way to go… but if we decide that it may be a problem that Germany ignores Paris and just goes for Russia, some change may need to be made. Maybe barring a G1 attack on Russia.
A stack of Frenchies on Paris would sure make the Allies want to get to Paris, though.Recognize that taking France out as a playable power means a couple of other things as well.
Once Normandy/South France are captured by the Axis they can never be French again.
Allies don’t have to lay off liberating Paris because France won’t collect a bunch of income only to be taken back by Germany every time.
Allies can collect the 4 for France and also build on Paris.
If Paris is liberated, other territories the Allies control that were French will not revert to France.So I’m not sure even barring a G1 DOW on Russia is necessary. Germany’s western front is more problematic with France not being a playable power.
-
and the French fighter can get away.
Doh - never mind this - it’s been a couple months since I thought about my changes.
Perhaps both French fighters could be changed to UK
Suggested Topics
