HBG units "Custom" Rules question (Global game)

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

If you can build rail centers, players get a risk/reward thing going on that develops player options. They buy something and it benefits them, the enemy can negate them and it costs them using as bomber which in turn costs the enemy the use for another purpose he did not intend.

If i did this “stop land units moving two spaces” you disrupt all currently known strategy…basically invalidate it with one sentence, then you make combat moves problematic because tanks are usually behind the front lines because they move two and they are protected behind the front lines ( in the case of the German-Russo conflict). With your idea the whole panzer army needs to be on the front line and have lost the options to move north or south two spaces, and just have to fight whats next to them. You with that rule ruined the game. thanks.

It appears you never played global 1940?

Just please stick to the actual rules and find a pretty idea that adds to what players can do in the game that was not already accounted for.

How about an idea regarding neutrals? or Tech changes to alter SBR raids ( perhaps jet fighters taken in as escorts fire at 2?)  ?  ?

Something from that mind, that generally smart mind you have…

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

@knp7765:

I think the other nations would welcome such a development. “Oh, you have a bunch of paratroops and transport planes? Good! Now I’m going to invade you with my stack of tanks and mechs.”

Yes, this would echo the principle of unequal force ratios stated in the proverbial Law of the Sword, which says “The guy with the gun usually wins.” Â

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

Probably quite a bit, since heavy stacks of infantry can be nuked out of existance instead of slowely killed through attrition.

I just have a problem sinking a piece without even rolling a dice.
Same thing here.
You must rolling die to sink a warship escorted or not.

The only long range sortee by unescorted battleships that I have ever heard of are the German convoy raiders of WW II. I just feel that there should be some penalty for a player doing such a foolish thing in AA. Maybe a one shot attack and then submerge is enough.

Either subs attacking unescorted capitol warships get 1 roll, if a 1-2 ship sunk on 1st hit. if sub misses,sub is considered submerged,breaks off attack,but if it stays in sea zone to try again next turn or follows same shipsinto another sea zone to try again next turn, destroyer and cruisers detection roll is upped to 1-4 becouse sub is known to be activly prowling area.

Well if a player let his warship alone, it could be destroyed.
Sub must continue his attack after the first round of combat or warship alone can escape after the first round. - But I prefer the first option-.

Yes but the volume in numbers of these can contribute to some measure of success. Its the key plane ( the JU-87) that gutted some many early war cities engulfed by war. It had a psychological effect on the population employed by how it was used.To me this is also strategic because its destroying the morale and producing chaos. So i put fighter-bombers into the classification of light bombers, with medium level bombers as the 12 IPC unit and heavy bombers as late war bombers of superior payload.