G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.

Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.

@Argothair:

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.

Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.

I would say that giving around 10 IPCs to create a minor country is about making this power something interesting to purchase and make something to do, based on ANZAC and Italy.
Maybe on mid-end game it can better coordinate with UK and US, but probably UK will miss these 7 IPCs in Egypt. I can not say.

However, for me it remains very theoretical. I still believe Canada needs at least 10 IPCs to be fun to play.

Increasing the max damage and adding Canada is easy enough to add to the xml.

@Argothair:

I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40.

For me it comes largely from the illogic of a sea lion also taking Canada as an active allied power.

British Columbia should have 2IPC income so you could put an IC on the Pacific coast BTW.

@barney:

yea a 9 dollar hit for minors and bases seems good to me. I always thought 6 was kinda weak. No need to steal guam/midway/wake or the lend lease lanes. They were all discussed here 70 or so pages ago. :) Don’t get me wrong plenty of good stuff go’in on with BM

Why 9 instead of 10 which is half a major IC at 20?

Do you want to affect bases also?

@simon33:

Increasing the max damage and adding Canada is easy enough to add to the xml.

Really? It is easy to add another power?

Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.

Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.

I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.

Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0

Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.

@simon33:

Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.

Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.

I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.

Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0

Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.

And does it change something about it if Strategic bomber are cheap as 5 IPCs and can bomb for D6 damage only?

I’ve updated the download to contain another map with that. It has a few annoying features like prompting you for an attack and even when you say bomb, you still get a warning about “units will die”. Defense is zero too. Not sure if that’s what you want.

I’m not convinced of that idea but it’s good enough for playtesting.

Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.

Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?

@simon33:

Just tried playing myself. I think Sea Lion is hard to stop with a 3inf 1ftr buy UK1 and Taranto with the Canadian Mod. Might need to be a 7inf buy to have a strong chance of defeating SL.

Regarding the bombers, I don’t see why you’d have 0/0/6 bombers. Why not 2/1/6? Perhaps 9IPC and reduce tacs to 10IPC?

Does canadian can bring some help in UK or too poor to early add relevant Infantry or Canadian Fg for G3 SL?

About StB A0 D0 M6-7 C5 D6 damage, it is because it is THIS unit which is at the total overhaul of redesign combined with Triple A package options.
It is the origins of all that is happening that fast.

If there is no fear to maxed out on first bombing raid, would you still require that minor IC and base rise to 8 or 9 damage?

Simon, somewhere around page 70, we analyzed 2/1/6 bombers that deal 1d6 damage to factories and agreed that they would be used as naval spam (if cheap) or not used against factories (if expensive) or overpowered (if they still bomb at the full 1d6+2). There doesn’t seem to be any price point that would balance them.

If you can think of a way to balance them, I’d love to hear it. Please include proposed stats for fighters, bombers, destroyers, transports, aa guns, and factories.

Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.

2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.

Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.

@simon33:

Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.

2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.

Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.

At high cost like 12 IPCs, using StBs on SBR when near maxing out bases or ICs is not an optimized choice.
Playing with StBs A0 D0 C5 D6 is so cheap that you can risk bombers on almost maxed out bases or IC.
No more an issue and no risk for Naval units anymore. Dark Sky strategy is no more possible with this bomber.  TacBombers with only M4-5 moves are used in a different ways than StBs but can act like StBs on Bases. This create a much more realistic projection of power for bombers in regular combat and naval combat. StBs have a dedicated role “strategic bombing” but it allows to see TcBs being use according to their name “tactical” revealing their own potential strategy when you cannot reach fleet 3 SZs away from air bases.

Can’t say I like the C5 bomber. Totally historically inaccurate! Those things were real expensive. I also don’t like the attackless bomber much. If there is a change, I would say 2/1/6 C10 would be fine. Probably also change TTs to A0 D1 but still taken last as casualties.

What is the need for change though? They are hardly a huge problem as is unless you are referring to the dark skies strategy.

@simon33:

Can’t say I like the C5 bomber. Totally historically inaccurate! Those things were real expensive. I also don’t like the attackless bomber much. If there is a change, I would say 2/1/6 C10 would be fine. Probably also change TTs to A0 D1 but still taken last as casualties.

What is the need for change though? They are hardly a huge problem as is unless you are referring to the dark skies strategy.

One issue is about depicting their historical activity and accuracy against moving targets, including an incredible attack factor A4 vs Fg D4, and an impossible projection of power for the era.  Even in naval combat they were not the radical flying weapon which the OOB describes. It is a remnant of the classic game which is now put on its due place because TcB was introduced. It gives the room to make StB specifically for SBR. It is simpler to play with them that way. No ambiguous role. Now it is TcB which can do both regular combat and bombing raid, but at a more reasonable range and which keep the dilemma of this dual function. This is also historically accurate about TcB.

Cost comparative between real historical weapon and game unit is always a stretched because you can never really say how many individuals each game unit represents. You may say that 1 C5 StB is a squadron of them while fighter unit may be 10 squadrons. Or each StB is 50 while 1 Fg is 250. There is a wide space to stretch in one direction or the other.

What remain true is how there is a similarity between how you use them now in play and what was there main function in WWII. There is still some distortions but for sake of simplicity, it increases so radically the game experience that you can hardly overlook them.

On Transport, a toggle to try a kind of TP A0 D1 C8, carrying 1 Inf + any 1 ground has been added.
So, it can be players enforced to take as last casualty or to play with owner choose its own casualty order of loss with TP.
So, all variants on TP can be playtest.

@Black_Elk:

C5 bomber discussion kicked off on page 43.

I’m not opposed to including more bomber options beyond what we have already in there, though I still think anything with a combat and hitpoint value at m6-7 is going to remain primarily combat focused, rather than SBR focused. 0/0 C5 represents the extreme, purely SBR oriented.

I don’t know if people want to try alternative intermediates you could always have separate toggle or upGun.

Almost back from this San Diego bachelor party haha. Catch you guys in a few

Also, there is many toggle to try various SBR dogfight values between StB, TcB and Fg.
There one I believe is better but other might reveal more interesting to play with.
StB A0 vs Fg A1 D1, vs Fg A2 D2, vs Fg A1 D2
StB A1 vs Fg A1 D2
TcB A1 D0 or A1 D1

I suggested A0 vs Fg A2 D2 and TcB A1 D1, but maybe Fg A1 D2 with StB A1 may reveal more challenging to play even if it is stronger from attacker POV.

Nothing is decided, you will have all the options to test and make your opinion on the specifics of dogfight.

I can’t speak to historical accuracy but adding two Canadian infantry to London would mitigate at least a little the UK’s diminished first turn purchasing power for a Sea Lion defense. Unlike France, Canada could put those infantry to use later on with no need for an Allied transport piggyback.

Adding a Canadian fighter in the proposed Newfoundland air base would help mop up German subs (if the destroyer survived) and make it’s way to London.

A Newfoundland airbase! Why, that would never be used in the whole game. Did you mean a Quebec airbase?