Disregard that last bit “particulalrly from folks who have played the mod.” That was for the League board discussion, since a lot of people have played it there.
3. Revised German National Objective: 5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in either London (the United Kingdom) or Egypt. (This modifies Germany’s “Presence in Egypt” objective).
The wording is better than I thought, this way Germany will need to invest a few more units other than just planes, or get real savvy using Italian transports. Thought it might be for Axis control of Egypt which would have been free money of course.
Good job.
I like them except #4, and now that I suddenly know 2.0 is a thing and is also imminent, I have a serious suggestion about Chinese guerrillas - I posted all the details on the league feedback thread http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0
Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.
@Young:
Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.
Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it. Below is the relevant portion of the XML, showing the values that can be edited:
<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”></attatchment>
There’s not an obvious way to make the “bombingBonus” value contingent on interception.
Also, why not have marines double as paratroopers?… 1 per strategic bomber, but both units must start in the same territory. In order to use paratroopers, there must be enemy unit/s on the targeted territory, and they must be supported by land units attacking from ground or by amphibious assault. Bombers used in this way surrender all attack capabilities for that turn, and they would be vulnerable to AA artillery before the drop.
This might be a good way to get a common tactical strategy into the game as well as giving more value to an infantry unit worth 5 IPCs, or if that’s too powerful… you could charge 6 for them. It would also go a lot further to justify adding a new unit like this to begin with… not that it needs more justification, but if only one unit is to be added… why not have it do more than just 1 thing. Another plus would be that it’s a great reason to finally bump strategic bombers to the 14 IPC value they should be at.
For table toppers, I’m thinking Marines could be represented by 1 common white infantry sculp for all nations, the same way AA guns and factories were the same common unit in earlier editions. The only way needed to recognize who owns who is by where the unit is… for example: a white marine unit on an American territory, or on an American ship would belong to the US. when multi national forces are on the same territory, roundels could be used to identify them. I have nice ivory standing army units I use for neutrals that would work fine if HBG has enough of them.
@Young:
Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.
Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it.
Oh right… I forgot you button rollers were limited by code :evil:
@Young:
Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.
This was conditional with keeping all planes fighting @1.
It improves the odds of damage in favor of attacker compared to Balanced Mode SBR (yet reduced the attrition rate of dogfight against StBs), but keeps odds near zero when fighting 1 StB A1 damage D6 vs 1 interceptor Def 1.
@Young:
G40b
Yep…
G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)
I would get behind that.
G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?
@Young:
Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.
Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it. Below is the relevant portion of the XML, showing the values that can be edited:
<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <option name=“movement” value=“6”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“canBeGivenByTerritoryTo” value=“British”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“airAttack” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option></attatchment>
There’s not an obvious way to make the “bombingBonus” value contingent on interception.
Cant you do something like this?
<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  <option name=“movement” value=“6”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“bombingMaxDieSides” value=“6”><if><then></then></if></option></attatchment>
@Baron:
@Young:
G40b
Yep…
G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)
I would get behind that.
G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?
Sure, the name is mostly for table toppers anyway as online players put many different things in the title of their gameplay threads.
@Baron:
G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?
I really don’t think you want to call it a BM… just sayin… :-D
Wolf, don’t poop on his acronym usage with your dirty mind.
haha. i’m glad i’m not the only one who saw the scatological implications of BM.
G40b it is.
Consider G40U, for ULTIMATE, or no, how about G40+
G40+ has a ring to it.
I like G40balanced cuz it immediately describes what it is, and cuz of the implied indictment of G40 second edition. :P. The fact that leagers can continue to use “balanced” in their game headings is just icing on the cake
or we can call it G40 Vichy because that sounds weak and effeminate
not that there’s anything wrong with that
If I heard of a G40 Vichy mod, I would think it just collaborates with what I had in mind.
