@nikola1975 said in PTV L25 PlayOff: Surfer (Allies) vs Nikola1975 (Axis +9):
@surfer Yes :) Let’s see how you react.
Ok. Let’s try this. Scramble orders?
G40 League House Rule project
-
@Shin:
Just wanted to chime in that I agree with pretty much everything Noz has said here. More VCs are needed. I’d also add that the nerfing of the TT values in Asia is probably not necessary. Just leave it all the way it was. He’s right that India struggles to keep its head above water in this version - without HEAVY USA intervention, the Pacific falls fast. So let’s give them a fighting chance.
I disagree. I am positive that the UK India can do a little more to prevent the invasion of India. However it requires the help of the Chinese. I played the Chinese this time the way I played them previous times. However with the added chits, the Chinese can actually do a lot more then I did with them this time. I think we should test at least a couple more times with the changed transports. I also strongly believe that buying a medium facility J1, might be good as well. In fact it might even be better. Also the way it is now, it would actually favor a highly aggressive Japan. In the previous games this was punished to quickly. Most of the old games Japan would declare war on J3. In this version it might happen as early as J1/J2 as it is slightly more rewarding now to do so.
-
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
-
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.
On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.
-
@Nozdormu:
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.
On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.
Then again it makes Sealion slightly less viable then it already is. So perhaps it limits strategy to much.
-
@Nozdormu:
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.
On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.
I had wondered why you left India untaken. But that’s the same rationale for not retaking France, right? It’s not really a new thing. You just rarely see Japan flee Asia entirely. :P
-
@Shin:
@Nozdormu:
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.
On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.
I had wondered why you left India untaken. But that’s the same rationale for not retaking France, right? It’s not really a new thing. You just rarely see Japan flee Asia entirely. :P
The downside is that at some point it will be beneficial to the Chinese to retake India. I do have one question tho. Given the new house rules China and US are played together. Does this mean that taking India with China, mean the US can´t receive ipcs and place units in say Malaya. If the contrary is true, then retaking India with the Chinese would be ok.
-
The Chinese can’t walk into india, though - unless that changed with this ruleset.
-
@Shin:
@Nozdormu:
I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.As always, all feedback appreciated
I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.
On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.
I had wondered why you left India untaken.� But that’s the same rationale for not retaking France, right?� It’s not really a new thing.� You just rarely see Japan flee Asia entirely. :P
I prefer using European Axis to force a victory in the pacific as Germany working with Japan tends to work out well for the Axis. This requires some major investment in a fleet however. The other way around could work I suppose, but I don’t really see it. Japan needs to keep US occupied. The moment US can invest fully into Europe, European victory becomes a lot harder (most of the time).
-
@Shin:
The Chinese can’t walk into india, though - unless that changed with this ruleset.
Kinda silly tho. They depend on that route for ipc, but other then the flying tigers can’t fully defend it.
-
Right, China is still not allowed into India, but can defend it with flying tigers (After all, those were American)
-
Tweaks to the house-ruled game since playtest #1 started are incorporated in the spreadsheet and highlighted in yellow
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 -
Good point - adding 3 cities that are in proximity to Japan’s normal objectives and adding only 2 cities to VC conditions, makes it even easier for Japan to win. They wouldn’t need NSW or Hawaii.
But I was thinking mainly in terms of world prominence of cities, not game play, figuring game play would take care of itself.
Changing Sumatra to Java, after doing a little homework.
Thinking about changing Phillipines to New Zealand.
I don’t mind the idea of Japan having more trouble with China, though, and not having to get Sydney or Hawaii. If China is harder to hold down, then it’s harder to hold on to Manchuria, Kiangsu, Hong Kong, Malaya, Java, India, Japan, and Phillipines (New Zealand) all for one round.
Japan’s starting forces could always be reduced a little more. I’ve already taken away 2 infantry and 2 tacs… I’m just saying we don’t have to consider Victory City changes in a vacuum. Other things can be changed at the same time to keep Japan from winning too easily. Don’t worry, I hate Pacific victories as much as any other player
-
Sydney can’t get 3 for Malaya, but can get the NO for Hong Kong? Seems odd.
-
And what about Korea, Siam and FIC.
-
@Nozdormu:
Sydney can’t get 3 for Malaya, but can get the NO for Hong Kong? Seems odd.
Sydney can’t collect income from Hong Kong, therefore not the NO for Hong Kong either
Sydney can’t get the NO for Malaya, but can collect the 3 income if there is no convoy disruption. Can be disrupted for 3 damage if it’s Sydney collecting.
Siam, FIC, Korea can be collected by Sydney just as Brazil, Morocco, Berlin, or Persia can
It’s just the core territories close to India that can’t be collected by Sydney
-
Is there some way to see all your changes to the standard (official) rules?
I don’t want to read through 80 pages, just to give my 2 cents and contribute.
-
Yes there is! Here’s the link with the rule changes.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2
-
Added an intro page to the front of the spreadsheet that gives executive summary of the changes for players checking it out for the first time.
-
Gamerman, I wonder if you’ve seen these house rules made by Young Grasshopper. There’s some pretty good ideas here worth stealing in my opinion.
Making the win requirement 12 VCs (in both boards, naturally) for both Allies and Axis after round 5 is nice, if only because it gives the Allies an achievable win condition besides “Ugh, I give up. You win.”
-
Whoops! Forgot the link
Suggested Topics
