@Ghostglider 1abf671a-a258-4495-bc39-bccc1e136261-image.png
OOL for 113?
G40 League House Rule project
-
I would rather not add the NO for Turkey or Sicily/Sardinia
I think the location of Sardinia is incentive enough, and have seen it taken by the USA in at least two different games. It is a great location for aircraft landing or staging. After all, fighters based there can attack Northern or Southern Italy and return, and controlling it also allows a lot more Allied air to attack Z95 or Z97 potentially.
6 infantry in Sweden is deterrent enough, I think.
Why didn’t Hitler invade Sweden?
-
I would rather not add the NO for Turkey or Sicily/Sardinia
I think the location of Sardinia is incentive enough, and have seen it taken by the USA in at least two different games. It is a great location for aircraft landing or staging. After all, fighters based there can attack Northern or Southern Italy and return, and controlling it also allows a lot more Allied air to attack Z95 or Z97 potentially.
6 infantry in Sweden is deterrent enough, I think.
Why didn’t Hitler invade Sweden?
Fair enough. I am glad I did help to shape the house leage project a little with my earlier suggestion. Who knows I might have a similar good idea in the future.
-
Absolutely!
Thanks again - feel free to write here in the future
-
I do agree with Nozdormu.
In average, you’ll lose 2 infantry when attacking Sweden, that’s worth 6 IPC. So if you attack it in round 2 (after taking the Finland infantry), on average you will see profit after round 4.
Personally, I would take Sweden every game, if it doesnt affect other neutrals besides Switzerland.
-
But then your infantry are in Sweden after G2 and not Finland.
He didn’t answer my question - why didn’t Hitler invade it? Because that could give us the solution.
We could change the value to 2.
And don’t underestimate Switzerland. Maybe other people don’t get far into Western Europe, but I usually do.
-
Also, for it to cost “2 infantry” on average, you are assuming that you attack with enough to take out 6 infantry in one round with high probability.
Attacking Sweden has opportunity cost. And who says this rule change doesn’t help the Axis in the short term? Other rule changes benefit the allies.
The reason Sweden is coupled with Switzerland is because nothing else has come to my attention that makes more sense.
Noz was concerned about an NO involving Sweden, but I don’t see his point.
It’s great if you criticize my current idea, but please provide an alternative.
Breaking up the neutrals is an improvement. I don’t think it makes sense to have Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland all tied together.
If the combination of changes helps Germany too much, it’s no big deal to take a couple infantry or something off the board at game start. So the 6 infantry to kill vs. 3 IPC value isn’t a strong argument in my opinion -
Taking Sweden depends on g1. If g1 went really well and I have my planes to spare, I will go for Sweden. If I do need my planes, then Sweden is delayed and then it depends whether I want to make time for Sweden or not, but losing 1-2 infantry on average seems a good deal. For that same reason Yugoslavia is being targeted as well. In the long run it will be a benefit. Most games tend to go well past round 10 and probably longer.
The only reason I mentioned it, was because I can see Sweden being attacked more often on average and I wasn’t sure if this was the right idea. Given the fact that most of the suggestions benefit the allies, we should leave it as it is and simply test it and see when the time comes how important these changes are.
-
@Nozdormu:
Taking Sweden depends on g1. If g1 went really well and I have my planes to spare, I will go for Sweden. If I do need my planes, then Sweden is delayed and then it depends whether I want to make time for Sweden or not, but losing 1-2 infantry on average seems a good deal. For that same reason Yugoslavia is being targeted as well. In the long run it will be a benefit. Most games tend to go well past round 10 and probably longer.
Thanks for the reply. Couple thoughts.
Taking Sweden will lose 2 infantry on average if you take it in a single round. So it will cost 2-3 infantry on average AND position.
Sweden is not equivalent to Yugoslavia for a couple of reasons.
Yugo is on the way to Russia anyway, indeed, can even speed up the German advance with the slingshot retreat.
Yugo can easily be claimed by the Allies before long. Same with Greece. Actually, Sweden is more like Greece, except Greece is more important because of Italian NO. But it is sometimes not worth the German’s time and trouble to attack Greece - it takes away from their Russian offensive and delays the intensity. There are more infantry on Sweden than Greece OR Yugoslavia, too.The only reason I mentioned it, was because I can see Sweden being attacked more often on average and I wasn’t sure if this was the right idea. Given the fact that most of the suggestions benefit the allies, we should leave it as it is and simply test it and see when the time comes how important these changes are.
Exactly
-
@Nozdormu:
In the long run it will be a benefit. Most games tend to go well past round 10 and probably longer.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have very few games go past 10 rounds. Most are decided by round 5-8 (they may be played to round 10 or 12 or 16 but those games were foregone conclusions by round 8)
The only reason I mentioned it, was because I can see Sweden being attacked more often on average and I wasn’t sure if this was the right idea.
I’m not either, because I don’t know much about the history here. I guess I could look it up. Again, why was Sweden neutral, and why weren’t they attacked? The answer to these questions would help a lot in deciding. Even so, I don’t see the problem with the rule change. Yes, it’s potentially favorable to Germany. My approach is not to make sure every change is neutral, but that after all the changes combined, the game is even, dynamic, and fun.
Given the fact that most of the suggestions benefit the allies, we should leave it as it is and simply test it and see when the time comes how important these changes are.
I want to agree with this again :lol:
-
In the long run it will be a benefit. Most games tend to go well past round 10 and probably longer.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have very few games go past 10 rounds. Most are decided by round 5-8 (they may be played to round 10 or 12 or 16 but those games were foregone conclusions by round 8)
Should say round 8
8 then close parentheses gives you 8-) -
I just wanted to say that I’ve been following this project, and I’m a huge supporter of it. Were it not for the fact that I basically suck at this game, I’d be happy to help playtest. Maybe if someone out there is at a similar level?
Really, if all we get out of this is a more efficient turn order, it would be a major success. Right now, having to go back and forth so many times to finish one round causes games to draaag on when played online.
-
Thanks for the post, Shin Ji!
I am sorry that the project has been on hold for awhile - I will not forget about it
I appreciate your comment, and I really think I need to simplify what I have on the document at this point.
-
I have an idea in response to the good points raised, that the France rules give too much incentive for Germany to just not attack France.
After round 1 (after USA1), all French units on the board turn UK. France still doesn’t have a turn, can’t move, and can’t buy.
So now Germany has to attack Paris round 1 like before, but if Germany and then Italy fail to capture Paris in round 1, you don’t have France buying 19 IPC’s worth of units.
With the house ruled G40 game, you can liberate France without penalty, the Allies will collect income from it, and can use the minor factory there. You won’t have all original French territories reverting back to French control.
I think we are actually close to testing this ruleset. But for testing, it might actually be best to use ABattlemap. I don’t expect Veqryn to program Triple A for all of these changes for testing, and then keep changing it a few more times.
-
I can’t recall where the document containing all the rules for this was linked. I remember you couldn’t edit your earlier post. Maybe a new thread, to increase visibility?
Anyway, I am happy to playtest these rules (using abattlemap) with anyone tier 3 or 4. If they’re better than that, you won’t get much useful data.
-
Right, this thread was converted.
I’d start a new thread but I would need someone to sticky it.
I’ll just provide the link again now
I made a few edits and changes since your post.When I find the time, I should play it with someone because a lot of things will no doubt become obvious and then they can be fixed
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2
-
You know, one very minor tweak that occurs to me is to apply the 3 IPC Russian NO to Sweden as well, since this ruleset give more opportunity to attack strict neutrals. Historically, Russia would have been happy to have that, right?
I see where you’re coming from historically with the convoy rules (limiting the damage), but wasn’t part of the original idea to simplify the game a bit more?
-
Yes, part of the idea was to simplify, but another part of the idea is to reduce ridiculousness. You should not be able to convoy EUS/CUS for 22 damage a turn (extreme example).
Agree about NO for Sweden, will add
-
If anyone can tell me why Sweden was never attacked or involved in WWII, that would be helpful, thanks. I guess I can do an internet search.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II
OK, I have a new thought.
Maybe Switzerland and Sweden should just be out of play - they cannot be invaded or occupied and do not have armies or IPC value.
Thoughts?
-
OK, I have a new thought.
Maybe Switzerland and Sweden should just be out of play - they cannot be invaded or occupied and do not have armies or IPC value.
Thoughts?
That would remove a German NO. So the question then would be what would you add for the Germans to counter this or what would you remove from the allies to make life a little easier for the Germans. Personally I would leave the NO alone. At this point the NO is more beneficial to the axis, but tying Sweden to Switzerland, means the Allies can go for Norway-Sweden, two US minors there can be a nightmare for the Axis.
Also I am more then happy to help testing :lol: I don�t care about who it is I am facing either.
On a side node I am still unable to post links :?
Suggested Topics
