Oztea's 1942 Global Setup

@SEP said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee said in [Global 1940] House Rules..:

@barnee
Air Transport is a A0 D0 M5 +1 w/AB C6 unit.

I like the stats for the Air Transport. Have you considered having it operate like a Transport Ship i.e. carries one infantry plus one other ground unit?

How are you differentiating between light, medium and heavy tanks and what’s your A/D/M/C ratio?

2/5/8/9000
sorry couldn’t help it

@Bob77:

Would this be at the beginning of game turn or each players turn?

Each players turn.

@all-encompassing-goose Sounds good - hope you have lots of fun with it!

Here’s a link to some. Although these are made for triplea you can obviously play them on the board as well. You might want some custom ipc markers for the TTs with different values though. I’m in the process of revamping these so they have their own zips. You won’t need to replace the whole global zip that way.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35578.0

Here’s one that changes Russia’s NOs

Russian NOs.zip

I guess ill get to work on a 1941 and 1940 setup for the 1942 2nd edition……

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

Anyone tinker with the setup, in order to make the game less linear?

We’re finding  that G1 and J1 pretty much open the exact same every game, decimating allied navies then G going heavy armor.

My buddy has come up with an interesting house rule which we are going to try out next time.  Its a bit complex, but in a nutshell the setup is kinda “Risklike,” in that you alternate unit placement.  Each county has so many IPC’s to spend and you can purchase and place what/where you want; with limitations of course.  You cant just place crap randomly all over the place.  You’ll need to start in countries controlled a the start and adjacent sea zones.  This gives players the option to go heaveir navy or air, or whatever.

I know, it pretty much takes away from historical accuracies, but thats alright.  The idea was to change the opening setup, allow for new strategies and make the game a bit less linear for us.

JA 15:  Is this a persistent NA or only used once?

e.g., Capture India on Turn 3 - double Income for India Turn 4
      Capture Persia on Turn 4 - double Income for Peria Turn 5
      Capture Trans-Jordan on Turn 5 - double Income for Trans-Jordan Turn 6

–-------------only once per game. the first time Japan takes these places.