G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

I think the tech post you saw may have been mine.

Rolls cost 2 x tier level

So tier 1 techs cost 2, tier 2 techs cost 4, tier 3 cost 6, tier 4 cost 8

Also, what exactly is the reason for unsplitting the UK economy?

If you keep that rule, then you can have the commonwealth power have a split economy (two capitals) Sydney and Ottawa, which is a lot better than Australia getting all the Canadian money an  spending it in the Pacific

Home Guard:
*  I’d say territories worth 0 or 1 IPC are too impoverished to have an organized resistance of any worth.  (besides, I think this would make people give up on playing the entire board)
*  Territories worth 2-4 IPC could be 1@1
*  W. USA and C. USA (which I think are the only territories on the board worth more than 4 IPC but are not capitols) could be 1@2. 
*  National capitols (ie territories where you surrender your treasury if captured) could be 2@1.

As for tiers, not sure I like the future techs, personally…but as for tier tech costs I think the prices are too low.
T1: 4 IPC
T2: 6 IPC
T3: 8 IPC
T4: 12 IPC

I prefer the split economies to be honest. It’s not that confusing, and keeps the allies inherently on the defensive for the first few turns, because each force alone is too small to attack.

You let them all move at once and it’s going to be the death of the Axis REAL quick.

Hello Friends

My thoughts to some of the ideas discussed here:

@Uncrustable:

3. Enhanced air units.
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and atleast 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operation friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR
Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:

Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense with an AB (See Battle of Britain), escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, needs fighters, deadly vs ground units when the skies are clear (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, needs airbase, poor defense

I see your attempt to introduce rules regarding aircombat into the game, but I don’t think they are working.

I don’t think those rules would function well. Let me explain why by first explaining the new situation at land, then at sea.

At land:
In small battles (South france in Round 1, reconquer Ukraine for the umpteenth time etc.), it’s all the same as before with cheaper and slightly weaker aircraft.
In a typical big battle (London, Moscow etc.), the defender will probably have at least 2 fighters. Let’s assume you attack with 3 Fg’s, 4 TcB’s and 2 StB’s (AFTER AAA) against 2 Fg’s, both with large ground armies. Then your fighters need 2 rounds in average to kill the enemy Fg’s so from the third round on, your TcB’s get their bonus damage. But the first two rounds are the most important and from experience, battles are decided within the first 3 rounds (fourth round is often only killing the few last survivors). So the bonus damage comes late and only when the battle is already two thirds over. And this is ignoring any TcB’s the defender may have (that would cancel the bonus) or the damage his Fg’s may have done the first two rounds. And it’s already heavily favouring the attacker (4 Fg’s, 4TcB’s against 2 Fg’s with one AAA hit on Fg)
So in those big fights, your TcB’s are fighting most of the time (if at any time) without the bonus.

Also, fighters with def 3 only at airbases means that if you want to strengthen a defense with your fighters, you almost have to build an airbase. This would be the case for instance at egypt.

At sea:
Here it’s the same argument as above plus:
no airbases means fighters defend always at 2. This, the high costs for ships in general (as normal casualties) and the high costs for carriers to start with means, that fighters are the worse choice than TcB’s in my opinion.
But see for yourself (given CV at 15 IPC):
A) CV+2Fg:  4A/6D/31C
B) CV+2TcB: 6A/8D/35C
Yea, in A) the damage has to be given to aircraft (cost 8-10),
while ind B) the damage can be allocated freely to any ship or aircraft (cost 6-10 except last hits on CV/BB).
On the other side, B) is doing 33-50% more damage at only 13% higher cost. And as all ships are almost as expensive as aircraft, the “hit only aircraft”-rule is of much smaller expense than on land.

All in one, I dislike the rules and would advodate the older rules:

Fighter: 2A/3D/8C (can scramble and escort)
TcB: 3A/3D/10C combined arms (tanks and fighters)

And as someone mentioned the problems with TcB’s beeing to strong on CVs compared to Fg’s, I propose the following addition:

Variant I) TcB: 3A/2D/10C combined arms (fighters and tanks)(both attack and defense)

So TcB’s alone defend quite bad but still as usual if paired.

With these rules, a Fg+TcB-combo has 6A/6D/18C whereas now they are at 7A/7D/21C. This seems reasonable.
With these rules:
Fighters are good defenders and ok at attack, can scramble and escort.
Tactical bombers are great at attacking if paired with Fg’s or tanks, only mediocre if alone.

So TcB’s are good and worth to build (the main criticism of OOB-rules) while the rules obey “the importance of simplicity, meaningfulness and logic” as stressed in the main post.
@Uncrustable:

4. Enhance naval units
Cruisers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs.
Aircraft carriers cost reduced to 15 IPCs.
Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs. When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the gameboard, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

I propose different submarines. I approve MrRobotos suggestion:

Submarines: 3A/1D/8C

This would weaken subs while underlining their attack power.
Let me explain why this is a good idea:

As yet, subs are by FAR the best choice for attacks and should be part of every defending fleet as MrRoboto highlighted so nicely a few pages ago. But I don’t want to open this discussion in this post, maybe in another.

With the new subs on the other hand, destroyer, (new) cruisers and carriers would be the ships of choice for a defensive fleet while the subs remain the best attacking ships. Although not as powerful as before, everyone doubting this can start the battle calculator:
3 now subs hitting at 3  versus 4 old subs hitting at 2 (which can be simulated by 3 tanks attacking 4 infantry): the old subs would win with 57% versus 38% (5% draw).

So this new rule would weaken subs in the defense (where they should never have been in the first place) while (almost) preserving their attacking power.
@Uncrustable:

6. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1 or 2, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 3 or 4. On a roll 5 or 6 the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.

As I said before, this rule must be tweaked considerably or will break the game by making russia unbeatable.
@Uncrustable:

9. Home Guard/Garrisons. (homeguard/volksturm/partisans/militia/headhunters,etc)
Anytime a land territory is attacked, one die is rolled for its Home Guard defense in addition to the dice for any units occupying it. This die is rolled for every round the battle continues. Home Guard will never roll more than 1 dice per round of combat. A Home Guard will never extend a battle (Once the defending units are destroyed the battle is over) An empty territory would roll 1 dice before falling to the enemy, in the case where 1 unit is attacking and that unit dies to the Home Guard, the territory does not change ownership. Home Guards do not stop a blitz, but if a lone tank attempts to blitz through an empty territory and the Home Guard hits, the tank fails to take the territory; it dies right there and does not proceed into the second territory.  If a tank blitz is accompanied by at least 1 other tank or mechanized infantry and the Home Guard hits, then the territory is taken but one of the mobile units dies and the remaining units continue the blitz.
Home Guard die roll is determined by the IPC value of the territory.
Use the following chart to determine the Home Guard’s defense die:
0-2IPC territories - @1
3-5IPC territories - @2
6+IPC  territories - @3

I don’t see the point in this rule. Do you think the defender is to weak as of now?
This would make it far more dangerous (or “lucky”) to capture undefended with a single tank or infantry. Is this deliberate? Or did you just add this rule due to “style” and “realism”? Because I still think of this game as primarily a game, set in WW2 and not a historic simulation. And shouldn’t it in any case only apply to your own original territorys? Don’t see no Volkssturm to defend the ukraine.

So far, see you araound
Kion

@KionAAA:

Hello Friends

My thoughts to some of the ideas discussed here:

@Uncrustable:

3. Enhanced air units.
Fighters-cost 8 A2D2. On all hits an air unit must be chosen first(choose your own casualty applies)
-Fighters defend at 3, if there is an operational friendly airbase present
Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 if there are no enemy aircraft, and at least 1 friendly fighter is present (Air supremacy bonus)
Strat bombers -cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1 D6
-Strat bombers attack at +1 if launched from an operation friendly airbase
-Strat bombers receive +1 to SBR die if launched from an operational friendly airbase
-No changes to range or carrier rules of any air unit.
-Only strategic bombers may SBR, only fighters may intercept/escort on SBR
Now we have 3 air units with a distinct role for each:

Fighters: Cheap, strong on defense with an AB (See Battle of Britain), escort and intercept SBR
Tac bombers: Best combat air unit, needs fighters, deadly vs ground units when the skies are clear (no SBR)
Strat bombers: Long range, good on offense, SBR, needs airbase, poor defense

I see your attempt to introduce rules regarding aircombat into the game, but I don’t think they are working.

I don’t think those rules would function well. Let me explain why by first explaining the new situation at land, then at sea.

At land:
In small battles (South france in Round 1, reconquer Ukraine for the umpteenth time etc.), it’s all the same as before with cheaper and slightly weaker aircraft.
In a typical big battle (London, Moscow etc.), the defender will probably have at least 2 fighters. Let’s assume you attack with 3 Fg’s, 4 TcB’s and 2 StB’s (AFTER AAA) against 2 Fg’s, both with large ground armies. Then your fighters need 2 rounds in average to kill the enemy Fg’s so from the third round on, your TcB’s get their bonus damage. But the first two rounds are the most important and from experience, battles are decided within the first 3 rounds (fourth round is often only killing the few last survivors). So the bonus damage comes late and only when the battle is already two thirds over. And this is ignoring any TcB’s the defender may have (that would cancel the bonus) or the damage his Fg’s may have done the first two rounds. And it’s already heavily favouring the attacker (4 Fg’s, 4TcB’s against 2 Fg’s with one AAA hit on Fg)
So in those big fights, your TcB’s are fighting most of the time (if at any time) without the bonus.

Also, fighters with def 3 only at airbases means that if you want to strengthen a defense with your fighters, you almost have to build an airbase. This would be the case for instance at egypt.

At sea:
Here it’s the same argument as above plus:
no airbases means fighters defend always at 2. This, the high costs for ships in general (as normal casualties) and the high costs for carriers to start with means, that fighters are the worse choice than TcB’s in my opinion.
But see for yourself (given CV at 15 IPC):
A) CV+2Fg:  4A/6D/31C
B) CV+2TcB: 6A/8D/35C
Yea, in A) the damage has to be given to aircraft (cost 8-10),
while ind B) the damage can be allocated freely to any ship or aircraft (cost 6-10 except last hits on CV/BB).
On the other side, B) is doing 33-50% more damage at only 13% higher cost. And as all ships are almost as expensive as aircraft, the “hit only aircraft”-rule is of much smaller expense than on land.

Kion

You seems to have a concrete experience on the game overture and bring a very precise and details examination of consequence inferred from the rules.

Would you please take a look at this other version of Fg/TcB?
I’d like to see if there is the same problems in it, as you saw for the first.

It is a very different version of 1940e but try to keep the same inspirational goals (bold above in Uncrustable’s quote).

Your contribution will be greatly appreciated.

Fg A3D3M4C8, on a roll of “1” destroy an enemy aircraft (owner’s choice).

When defending an AB territory, up to 3 Fgs in it gain +1D and on a roll of “1” or “2” destroy an enemy’s aircraft.

TcB A3D3M4C10, when paired 1:1 with Fg get +1 A/D (max A4D4).
It can also get +1 A/D (max A4D4) via Air Supremacy (no enemy’s aircraft present, no need of any Fg).
No more pairing bonus with Armor, because Air Supremacy bonus is enough.

� Reply #25 on: Today at 05:01:12 pm �
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32328.msg1213502#msg1213502

@Cmdr:

Home Guard:
*  I’d say territories worth 0 or 1 IPC are too impoverished to have an organized resistance of any worth.  (besides, I think this would make people give up on playing the entire board)
*  Territories worth 2-4 IPC could be 1@1
***  W. USA and C. USA (which I think are the only territories on the board worth more than 4 IPC but are not capitols) could be 1@2. 
*  National capitols (ie territories where you surrender your treasury if captured) could be 2@1.**

I agree with you.
This Home Guard can imply much more hindrance to slow down the game than create a more historically accurate aspect in the game.

These two criterions must be balance.

I think Cmdr Jen, you have formulated the compromise solution.  :-)

@Uncrustable:

Im tending to agree now aswell
except:

W. USA and C. USA (which I think are the only territories on the board worth more than 4 IPC but are not capitols) could be 1@2. 
*  National capitols (ie territories where you surrender your treasury if captured) could be 2@1.

These 2 together will only create confusion for no reason. Roll 1 die at 2, then 2 dice at 1. Why lol

Just go with:
2-4 IPC tts roll 1D @1
5+ IPC tts roll 1D @2
All capitals roll 1D @3

Or can just scrap it altogether.

I’m fine with this, simpler.
Is there many occasions that a capital has no unit on it?

@Uncrustable:

Is there many occasions that a capital has no unit on it?

No, but the Home Guard gets one roll regardless if the territory is empty or not.

Sorry, I missed to read the post.
I thought it was only for empty territory.
Otherwise, it is adding something “invisible” with stack of units.

And are they permanently resurrectable?

That’s why I was just thinking about no army territory.

How is going down to 9 techs from the OOB 12 an  “enhancement”?

Q:  Do we really need rules for interceptors and escorts?  I know it’s part of the game now, I just wonder if they are really necessary or if they just overly complicate things?  (no wrong answer, just a question.)

Q:  If we need rules for interceptors and escorts, wouldn’t it just be easier to say all attacking fighters/bombers are @1, all defending fighters are @2 and limit it to 1 round of battle?

As for costs I like:

• Fighter: IPC 10, Attack 3, Defend 3
• Tactical Bomber: IPC 10, Attack 3, Defend 2 (Attack 4 if paired with fighter or tank.)
• Strategic Bomber: IPC 12, Attack 4, Defend 0 (SBR @ 1d6+2, can detect submarines - it was a use for them in the Atlantic) (NOTE: detect submarines, cannot attack them.  But cruiser + strategic bomber could attack submarines even without a destroyer since the sonar buoys would guide the cruiser in for the kill.)

Also, had a thought in another thread might work:

Improved Naval Yards:

• Battleships now take 3 hits to kill (after two hits the attack/defense value of the battleship goes to 0/1)
• Aircraft carriers now take 2 hits to kill (after first hit carriers cannot carry aircraft)
• Submarines have first strike, FIRST ROUND, capability of attacking at 3. Each subsequent round attack goes back to 2.

Normal units:

• Battleship: 22 IPC, Attack 4, Defend 4
• Aircraft Carrier: 12 IPC, Attack 0, Defend 1
• Cruiser: 12 IPC, Attack 3, Defend 3, AA Gun
• Destroyer: 10 IPC, Attack 2, Defend 2
• Submarine: 8 IPC, Attack 2, Defend 0, CRD 1-6 dmg per submarine on station in a convoy zone. (up to 6 damage if available land territories permit - no dice!)

Speaking of CRD, no more surface ships doing it.  Submarines only, in my opinion. (goes for planes too.)

My opinions of course, I won’t be offended if you don’t like them, just let me know if you don’t like them.