What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?

What would happen is, that Japan rushes through China faster with your rule, conquering most of it before USA can enter the war.

Additionally the Japanese fleet will position itself somewhere in the near of Philippines, FIC or whatever, forcing UK PAC to decide what to defend. This makes Japan’s life even easier, since it can and will attack the weak spot -> probably being India, since you’re reducing the factory there to a minor (why would you do that anyway? I’ve not seen anyone so far, who has a problem with that major).

And since Anzac is no playable power anymore, you’re additionally eliminating the option of another block-clearer. At the moment, USAAND UK can clear destroyers blocks for anzac landings.

Most of your propositions are reasonable, in a historic context. I understand and agree with the reasons you’re stating (flying tigers, chinese revolution etc), to all of the changes. However, you’re not compensating them nearly enough. At the moment the Axis have an advantage and you are even expanding that advantage.

There have to be some historic inaccuracies sometimes due to game balances.

And of course the rules have to be popular with most players first, and finalized, then play-tested several times to make sure it’s not totally out of whack.

Speaking of which, please don’t even comment too much on how these changes affect game balance, because we’re not ready for that yet.  I think this should be addressed toward the end after we’ve got all our desired changes and rules out there.  Many changes will obviously help the Axis, and many changes will help the Allies.  Again, this project is in its infancy, so please save game balance concerns until later, thanks.]And of course the rules have to be popular with most players first, and finalized, then play-tested several times to make sure it’s not totally out of whack.

Speaking of which, please don’t even comment too much on how these changes affect game balance, because we’re not ready for that yet.  I think this should be addressed toward the end after we’ve got all our desired changes and rules out there.  Many changes will obviously help the Axis, and many changes will help the Allies.  Again, this project is in its infancy, so please save game balance concerns until later, thanks.

Thanks, MrRoboto, I hear you.
I posted this in my “Rankings” thread where I am inviting discussion about a house ruled version of G40, but did not post it here.
I am merely in the brainstorming part of the development.  I know that these changes create a lot of ripples, but it is futile to try to resolve game balance issues while you are in the middle of feeling out changes, because there will be more changes.  Playtesting and balance fine-tuning should come at the end, which I am nowhere near.

I am currently thinking about removing a couple of Japanese infantry from the mainland China at game start, and I am strongly considering a minor complex in West India.

The reason I don’t like the major in India, and I know I’m the only one, is that India should not be able to produce that much.  They were not even a major player in WWII, correct?  I never heard any stories about the Indian army marching into Burma or into China or FIC or anything, and they never got invaded.  India being able to produce the same amount as a USA territory, Berlin, Moscow, or Tokyo is absurd to me.  A minor in West India compensates (production of 3 is not enough for UK India) and helps protect them from SBR since the major was some protection before.

And yes, it was by design that the new UK Pac will have a bit less income than UK and ANZ combined before.

You point out the can opening possibilities (which are majorly cheesy and a major factor in eliminating ANZ), but you neglect to acknowledge that with the 2 fighters in Australia that are now UK, the transport/destroyer off NSW that are now UK, that the UK has the powerful ability to attack together with the formerly ANZ forces.  Also, the ability to spend all income in Australia or India is very powerful, and an offsetting factor.

My ideas spreadsheet is posted here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

Please continue discussion in my league “rankings thread”, since this is not directly on Variance’s topic, thanks

For what it’s worth, the British controlled India + Anzac forces did invade and retake Burma and plenty of places in south east Asia (though I don’t think they actually entered china). And the Japanese DID make an attempt to invade India and take Calcutta. They failed miserably, but they did try.
India was a major, important player in the war against Japan.

Thanks, Chocolate!!

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

Toblerone’s comment, that I bolded above could not have been better said. I don’t understand, that IF, there is ever a new edition, that this would not be fixed. Which mean a significant reduction in all costs. Yes, it might require a change in initial setup, but it wouldn’t matter if done with a new edition.

The arguments for this have been said many times. It should be obvious.

With that said, the Japan 6VC rules is the cheesiest.

@eddiem4145:

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

When does UK ever build naval defense for sealion?

I was thinking the same thing.

And the UK shouldnt really need to build naval defenses ;-)
Because in the real war, the UK had (around, I am not 100% sure of the numbers) 10+ Carriers (CV), around 100 Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers (CA) and Light Cruisers (CL) combined. This doesn’t even include destroyers, Light Carriers (CVL) and a lot of other ships that are I won’t mention because they have no equivalent in the game.

The kriegsmarine had not even 20 of those shiptypes, so in game terms if the German BB and CA represent the surface warships of the kriegsmarine, the RN misses out at least 3BB/CA at set up.
But ofc A&A is more a game than a simulation, so it has to be tweaked and balanced.

As long as the current balance is not disturbed I wouldn’t care whatever the cost for ships is.
But I really think that if the cost is altered, in any way, the entire combat system has to be revamped, as ships in the current combat system DO affect land combat more than normal and more German transports DO influence greatly how the battle for London is played out, making it questionable if the UK would, even under lower costs, could afford to buy more warships. To mention just a few examples.

I find the most cheesy thing are the dice. Too much depends on the outcome/luck in a few battles. I’d like to see a more subtle combat system, where luck on the dice is allowed to average out. Rolling bad/good is too unforgiving as there is no such thing as averaging out in the current system.

The cheesiest thing about this game is the mythos surrounding the cost of items 1 IPC = 1 million production hours and what is a production hour worth in actual currency?

Players arguing over hard facts about what any given unit in the game reperesents. Nobody knows and the fact is there are no hard facts. At this level of gameplay realistically the should be only 3 units land, air, sea. We know though that’s not fun or we all would just play risk.

Time. There really is no solid representation of time even Larry says he sees time like a rubber band in A&A. Technically everything in a round happens at the same time. However simulating realtime would be extremely difficult.

Still love the game but constantly trying replicate history or justify things we’d like to see in the game or series doesn’t need to be so serious.

@eddiem4145:

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

Toblerone’s comment, that I bolded above could not have been better said. I don’t understand, that IF, there is ever a new edition, that this would not be fixed. Which mean a significant reduction in all costs. Yes, it might require a change in initial setup, but it wouldn’t matter if done with a new edition.

The arguments for this have been said many times. It should be obvious.

With that said, the Japan 6VC rules is the cheesiest.

For the record eddie I agree with some of the principals of your statement. I would support a set of house rules or variant but I DO NOT agree with this being an official rule. I still would suggest that if you are going to do this you need to run a session and give an after action report. Then post in a more appropriate forum such as House Rules or A&A Variants.

Back to NOs: If the Russian “spread of communism” NO can be abused, the British Empire NO hardly sees the light of day. Can’t it just be kept to major Commonwealth cities and strategic territories? Ontario, Union of South Africa, Egypt & Gibraltar? The Axis can still grab Gibraltar to cancel it but Italy holding British Somaliland is not exactly a massive blow to national prestige.

This is also a map nitpick, but since there was so much room on the Arabian Peninsula, why didn’t they throw Aden in there? Could give the UK an extra landing spot when things get hairy in East Africa. Turkey probably should have been divided since it is such an enormous shortcut to the Middle East for the Axis (or the Balkans for the UK).

Good points, General

I wanted the Azores. It had strategic value as an unsinkable carrier to fight German subs, but for the axis with long range aircraft a base to SBR the eastern coast which was the value to Germany. The Maldives would also be useful.

Good point rjpeters.
Italy having even 30 IPCs is a joke. I think most of think their NOs are too generous.

@wittmann:

Good point rjpeters.
Italy having even 30 IPCs is a joke. I think most of think their NOs are too generous.

Yeah, I kind of agree with that. On the other hand, without the NOs, Italy really can’t accomplish much. It does seem kind of ridiculous that half or more of Italy’s income is from NOs. With all of the big countries, the NOs are just a nice little boost to their income. Not counting the three $2 NOs from the Middle East, if Italy gets all three of the $5 NOs they could still only have $9 in territory income. (S Italy, N Italy, Albania and Libya).
$5 for NO Allied surface warships in the Med. – That requires no territorial acquisitions.
$5 for AXIS control of 3 of 4, Gibraltar, S France, Greece and Egypt. It’s possible for Germany to control any or all of those territories for Italy to get the bonus, plus Gibraltar is worth $0.
$5 for AXIS control of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk and Alexandria. Again, Germany could control the three French territories, Libya is already Italian so no gain there and Tobruk and Alexandria both worth $0.

So, assuming Italy lost Ethiopia by this time, which is very possible, Italy would only be making $9 in territorial income and $15 in NOs. While Italy really needs the money, it just doesn’t seem right that any nation get more money for NOs than they have in territories. Perhaps the difficulty of Italy getting going is meant to have Germany help them out which definitely happened in the real war many times. Still, perhaps the NOs should be dropped to $3 each.
By the way, ANZAC is in almost the same boat. They only have $10 in territorial income but once they are at war and snatch Dutch New Guinea, they double their income. Maybe those NOs should be cut down too.

I agree about Anzac. The only reasoning to keep those two for them, is because UK get none most of the time.
It is messed up.
I have always thought the US should get more than its paltry 20. The reason Japan does so well is they start very strong and can stay ahead of the US if played aggressively.
I believe the US should always have the economic edge and 20 in NOs is not enough, if the conquest of  Asia can almost triple Japan’s starting income.

I am sure it has been said, but a victory turn limit in Global may have worked more sensibly.

@wittmann:

I agree about Anzac. The only reasoning to keep those two for them, is because UK get none most of the time.
It is messed up.
I have always thought the US should get more than its paltry 20. The reason Japan does so well is they start very strong and can stay ahead of the US if played aggressively.
I believe the US should always have the economic edge and 20 in NOs is not enough, if the conquest of  Asia can almost triple Japan’s starting income.

I am sure it has been said, but a victory turn limit in Global may have worked more sensibly.

I like this line of thinking.
And it is not only the USA that has a paltry bonus, Russia also has too little economic power. Or perhaps in this case it has to be called manpower…

This is of course again due to game-balances but I’d be very pleased if the same balance could be reached with a more historic feel.
For example Germany could have a greater punch, destroying the entire Red Army at least once on their way towards Moscow. Russia on the other hand must then be much more able to rebuild.
I also ‘have problems’ with the Royal Navy being such a complete and utter walk-over on the European map. I understand game-balance but the UK receiving nothing in return for this, is bad. Or have they received something in return that I may have missed?

A victory turn limit seems sensible indeed but not an arbitrary one. I’d like the allied economic power to grow more over time, making it an urgent matter for the Axis to win before the allied economies have come to full power. More urgent than it is now at least.

Still, the game balance must ofc remain at around 50-50 for each side to win, otherwise it makes no sense to play. It is still a game and we like to win ;-).

I don’t think it really a cheesy thing but I would have liked to see more involment with France. I know there were historical  timeline considerations but I would have liked some mechanic that made them more playable. Even as Vichy and or free France.