Fav country in g40 now that its out

I have played something like 80 games face to face and 7 on Triple A

How is this not pinned at the top of this thread?

YG, I haven’t seen Low Roller’s document (BGG requires a person to register in order to download files), so I can’t really comment on it – but here’s an idea that you might want to consider for your own rulebook project, since it may save you a lot of work and may perhaps also be safer from a legal point of view.

I imagine that your project to rewrite the entire Global 1940 ruleset as a combined document will require you, as a first step, to create an outline of the document that you want to create – basically, a plan for the structure of the whole document, arranged in whatever way you think will be best from the point of view of clarity and ease of use.  I also imagine that, as another preparatory step, you’ll need to make an inventory of all the parts of the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that you wll want to use, with page references to those parts of the two rulebooks.  One way to make that inventory would be to plug the page references into your structured outline, to give yourself a complete plan of where in the rulebooks you’ll need to go to write each section of your projected document.  (This may not necessarily be the way you were planning to prepare the project, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that this was going to be your methodology.)

Anyway, what occured to me is this.  Having prepared a detailed outline of the type I’ve described, and having inserted into the outline all the required page references to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks, you might not find it necessary to re-write anything at all.  The document I’ve described would serve as a kind of sophisticated index – a conceptual one, not an alphabetical one – to the Europe and Pacific 1940 rulebooks that treats them in a combined way and that provides access to their content according to whatever logical structure you think would be most convenient for use by players.  The players would still have to go from your document to the rulebook page to which you referred them, of course, but the point is that you wouldn’t have to spend any time actually rewriting the two rulebooks, which would save you an awful lot of work.  Furthermore, since you’d neither copying-and-pasting the rulebooks (which would be questionable from a legal point of view) nor re-phrasing the actual content of the rulebooks (basically trying to get around potential copyright problems by putting the rulebooks into your own language), you might be on safer legal ground.  Essentially, you’d be providing people with a structured and easy-to-use way of accessing official rules, rather than either reproducing or rephrasing the rules.

I don’t see a flight path on the map that would be shortened by being able to fly over the Pripet Marshes, so I suppose that it’s not particularly relevant from an A&A perspective whether or not planes can fly over them.

@ShadowHAwk:

Though the rules are nice it would become hard to play games with a lot more rules, and if you shift the combat abilities of units be carefull not to change the starting balance 2 much. Currently the game is fairly balanced in terms of setup. Changing 1 or even a set of units to be more or less powerfull changes this balance.

ISO giving attacking air units a combat value and a bonus maby only limit this to attacking dive bombers, they needed air support to work.

I finally develop something which can work for both 1942.2 and G40.2.
A 3 planes-Carrier was needed.
In addition, the G40.2 Carrier A0 D3 M2 C16, 2 hits have now an in-built AAA defensive capacity, thanks Wild Bill.  :wink:
By the way, this improved and slightly stronger Carrier on offense and defense will make a better weapon to counter a Dark Sky Strategy.

The cost are reduced for planes and for many units because the interactions will be much deadlier than OOB, here is the thread:
Baron’s simplified TcB (less combined arms), Fg & 3-planes Carrier, full roster
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35643.msg1393799#msg1393799

About the overall balance, here is the trick for planes:
Initial set-up must be change a little:
all full Carriers (1TcB and 1 Fg) received an additional Fg (or a TcB).
Half loaded Carrier with TcB received 1 Fg.
Half loaded Carrier with Fg received 1 TcB.

The overall ratio is for each 2 Fgs you can add 1 Fg and for every 3 TcBs you can put on the start-up board 1 TcB.
Good luck to find the better place to put them.
Usually, it must be added on a given TT which already have plane(s) on it.

Yeah, I have to admit that I have done that in the case of existing carriers. I say I will move the carrier to a certain spot so planes involved in a battle close by can land. Then the planes get killed (which I figured they would) so I leave my carrier where it is or move it to a “better” place.

USA only makes 17 on the pacific map alone.

I think Japan can take it.

when i wrote my original reply alpha was in its early stages. since then lh has gone to great lengths to balance the game. i now am very happy with the new set up and think it is balanced