[G40] Looking for more techs.

We expect to release the latest Global 1940 Expansion Rule: Naval Task Force Commander no later than 16th December 2025.

This rule concerns:

More will follow soon…

The Captain

@hengst said in [G40] Hengst's Standard Rule Simplifications:

A bombardment may be declared at any time; it need not be in support of an amphibious assault.

This is interesting. Do you think maybe BBs hit @2 and CAs 1 would be better for Bombard if no Amphib ? Regular 4 and 3 if the Marines going in ?

Nice that you’re testing :)

I’m with CWO Marc here – I think at the point where you are trying to run a balanced March 1943 scenario, you’re not talking about a few minor revisions to history for game balance; you’re talking about totally re-writing history. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do, but you’ll have to be bolder about your edits.

It’s a little hard for me to read your scenario setup from a wall of text; a graphic or illustration of some kind would be helpful. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made in interpreting your scenario. That said, the problem with your scenario, as I see it, is that there is no credible Axis path to victory. The Axis have to simply wait around and hope the Allies make a mistake. Maybe the Germans can press on to Moscow and get lucky there, but they have no time to build up additional reserves, no way to wear down the Russian economy, and no ability to threaten London, so there aren’t really any strategic choices to be made – just march every man east to Moscow, and hope you get lucky. Similarly, Japan is earning much less than the USA, is not in position to do devastating damage to the US Navy, and is not in position to capture enough of China, Siberia, or ANZAC in time to achieve parity against the US. They can fight over the Dutch East Indies but not hold them, which means that’s a losing strategy for Japan, because it will cost them more in lost transports and destroyers than they earn by holding the islands. Maybe Japan can get lucky against India, but, again, Japan has no real options in this scenario – they have to just send every man west and hope they roll well.

So, if you want a balanced March 1943 scenario, consider some or all of the following changes:

Germany controls and can hold Leningrad

German battles in Stalingrad were inconclusive; Germany still has significant forces in Rostov and Caucasus

Britain lost the Second Battle of El Alamein, resulting in Italian control of Alexandria and Cairo; British forces are defending in Sudan and Trans-Jordan

Italian navy was warned of the Taranto raid, and so more Italian navy survives, maintaining local naval superiority for now in the central Med

America was slow to recover from Kasserine Pass, and holds Morocco but not Algeria

Japan won a bloody victory at the battle of Midway, and so Japan currently has four carriers to America’s two, as well as control of Midway, Wake, and the Aleutian islands

Japan won the battle of Guadalcanal, and so Japan currently has control of the Solomon Islands and both territories in New Guinea

The goal of these changes would be to give the Axis additional (any?) strategic options so that the Axis have multiple credible long-term paths to victory and feel like they are somewhat in control of their destiny, instead of just serving as a punching bag for the incoming Allied invasions. I like the idea of a balanced 1943 scenario very much, but you’re not going to get there by starting with historical 1943 borders and tweaking the unit counts a bit. Contrary to popular belief, the war was lost for the Axis by March 1943; after the Axis failed to knock any of their opponents out of the war and the Allies secured naval lines of supply to France, Africa, and Indonesia, an Axis defeat was just a matter of time. This dynamic, unfortunately, will be well-captured by OOB A&A rules, and will result in your Axis side getting defeated 19 out of 20 games unless you make drastic edits.

@Baron:

1942.2 SBR Black Elk hypothesis

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

Down below here is a different values doing SBR for 1942.2 and G40

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 0
Bombard IC damage: D6 or 1D6+2

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defend 1

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber

1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/6 = 6/36 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/6 = 5/36 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*5/6 = 25/36 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 25/36* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.819 IPCs *3.5= 2.431 *6.5=+4.514
StB killed 11/36 *-5 IPCs = - 1.528 IPCs

D6: + 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903
D6+2: + 3.819 - 1.528= + 2.291 IPC damage/SBR

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

11/366/6 = 66/216 1 StB killed by Fg
25/361/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*5/6 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 125/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.183 IPCs *3.5= 2.025 *6.5=+3.762
StB killed 91/216 *- 5 IPCs = - 2.106 IPCs

D6: + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
D6+2: + 3.183 - 2.106 = +1.077 IPC damage/SBR

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Fighter roll/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/366/6 = 6/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fgs vs 1 Fg
1/610/361/6= 10/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/610/365/6= 50/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/625/361/6 = 25/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
1/625/365/6 = 125/1296 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/620/366/6 = 600/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/616/361/6 = 80/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/616/365/6 = 400/1296 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 1050/1296 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.456 IPCs 3.5= +2.836 6.5=+5.266
Killing 1 Fg: 216/1296 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed: 300/1296-10 IPCs = - 2.315 IPCs
StB killed: 150/1296 -5 IPCs = - 0.579IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 96/1296 -15 IPCs = - 1.111 IPCs

D6: +4.503 - 1.690 = +2.813 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.123 - 1.690 = + 4.433 IPC damage/SBR

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Fighter escort taking the casualty.
Fighter roll/interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/61/6= 1/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/61/65/6= 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/65/61/6 = 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/65/65/6 = 25/216 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/61/61/6 = 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/61/65/6 = 25/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/65/61/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/65/65/6 = 125/216 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 180/216 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.583 IPCs 3.5= +0.833 6.5=+5.417
Killing 1 Fg: 36/216 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed:30/216-10 IPCs = - 1.389 IPCs
StB killed: 30/216 -5 IPCs = - 0.694 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 6/216 -15 IPCs = - 0.417 IPC

D6: +2.500 - 1.111 = +1.389 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.250 - 1.111 = + 5.139 IPC damage/SBR

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptor Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/3636/36= 36/1296 2 StBs killed by Fgs
10/366/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg

25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
25/3610/36 = 250/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*25/36 = 625/1296 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 625/1296* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +5.305 IPCs *7=+3.378 13=+6.269
1x Bombard on IC 550/1296 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.334 IPCs 3.5=+1.485 6.5=+2.758
2 StBs killed 121/1296 -10 IPCs = - 0.934 IPCs
1 StB killed 550/1296 -5 IPCs = - 2.122 IPCs

D6: +4.863 - 3.056 = +1.807 IPCs
D6+2: + 7.639 - 3.056 = + 4.583 IPCs damage/SBR

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/36 = 6/216 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
1/630/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
5/610/36 = 50/216 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*25/36 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 125/216* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +6.366 IPCs *7=+4.051 13=+7.523
1x Bombard on IC 80/216 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.037 IPCs 3.5=+1.296 6.5=+2.407
2 StBs killed 11/216 -10 IPCs = - 0.509 IPC
1 StB killed 80/216 -5 IPCs = - 1.852 IPCs

D6: + 5.347 - 2.361= + 2.986 IPCs
D6+2: + 8.403 - 2.361 = + 6.042 IPCs damage/SBR

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

With the political exile option for the UK, our group has decided to give Germany a 10 IPC NO for control of London.

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.