G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

The G40 Waffen-SS Assault Pioneer unit rule is now available at the top of pg. 1 on the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion thread.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Go to https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/

Click on the latest version (the top post).

Under “Assets” there should be a set of links. Click on the one that fits your computer (if you use Mac, click on the link with the macos, Windows, the one with windows in it, etc.).

Click on the file in Downloads. It should open up a TripleA downloader similar to the one you used when you first downloaded TripleA. It should open (if there’s an error, it’s probably on your end).

It’s a vast improvement over 2.5 but is very easily navigable.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

This rule allows players to move a specific number of land combat units in order to reinforce front line units, build up forces for future offensives or simply as decoy to confuse the enemy, etc.

Paratroopers and Soviet Partisans can both become handy in order to disrupt enemy Strategic Rail Movement.

G40 Strategic Rail Movement.pdf

These rules are part of the Axis & Allies 1940 Global 2E, House Rules Expansion.

These elite combat units bring a new dimension to the game, especially to the fighting on The Eastern Front.

Soviet Guards, Waffen-SS Infantry & Waffen-SS Panzer.pdf

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in When USA not at War:

@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.

Completely true! The ANZAC declaration following a UK Pacific ship move is a classic! I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with that.

However, you’re ignoring the second half of that…

It’s taking the Carolines after initiating a war that leaves the US out of the fight that is the issue, leaving the transports vulnerable and stripping defenses from ANZAC itself. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be wise.

But other than that I haven’t seen any errors so great work! They’re especially good for newbies since it has the NOs and Political situations

@Young:

1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.

Here is one of my post with links to historical depictions of the Aircrafts and Anti-Subwarfare relations.
Exploring this subject lead me to the other direction than OOB on planes against Subs.

About your HR, I can add that I was influenced by your DD vs Sub pairing when I develop some game mechanics on Convoy Raiding for 1942.2 first, then G40 with the help of Black_Elk.

@Baron:

Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)

I was curious to look what was the historical background and basis of this assumption about TacB against Fg vs Subs.
I was surprised that my intuitive thinking have some truth behind:
I just discovered that the Fighter F4F Wildcat was part of Antisubmarine Warfare and was able to sink 21 Submarines U-boats but never by itself. All of them were credited to another aircraft also.

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

Best known for their contributions in the Pacific, the Wildcats and Martlets also gave reputable service in the Atlantic. This usually took the form of operating from an escort carrier attached to a convoy or a hunter-killer group. These Wildcats were responsible for intercepting German bombers and, in conjunction with other types, finding and attacking U-boats. The six-gun armaments of the F4F-4, Martlet II, and Martlet IV were particularly effective in suppressing the anti-aircraft guns of the U-boats so that larger, slower bombers could more safely attack with depth bombs or homing torpedoes. The threat of strafing by a Wildcat would often persuade a U-boat to submerge, reducing the chance of catching a convoy. Additionally, the Wildcats could summon bombers and surface escorts to engage U-boats. Known to be rugged and forgiving, the Wildcat’s performance limitations were not a significant handicap in the Atlantic, where there were no enemy fighters to contend with.

U-boats lost to Wildcat/Martlet aircraft

(When fighting U-boat Wildcat normally shielded her larger sister the Avenger while the latter dropped depth charges or acoustic torpedoes. Both planes were given credit in such cases.)

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm

On the contrary, TBF Avenger were clearly part of Submarine killing:

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

In the Atlantic, the Avenger was the obvious choice for use aboard British and American escort carriers in screening convoys and hunting down U-boats. Avengers would sight surfaced U-boats, and swoop down on them in a glide bombing approach, releasing multiple 250-pound, 325-pound, or (most often) 500-pound depth bombs. If the U-boat put up accurate flak, the Avenger pilot might choose to circle out of range wait for other aircraft to assist. Grumman Wildcat fighters, with either four or six heavy machine guns, were often effective at subduing the U-boat’s flak battery so that the Avengers could more safely make their attacks. Later the Avenger’s arsenal included rockets for use on surfaced U-boats and, after mid-1943, a super-secret anti-submarine homing torpedo known as the Mark 24 Fido (also called Zombie). Various versions of the Avenger were fitted with radar for finding submarines or surface ships, with sonobuoys to track submerged submarines, and with flares and searchlights for illuminating potential targets at night. Avengers were known to carry combinations of these devices, such as two 500-pound depth bombs, one Fido, radar, flares, and sonobuoys.

American escort carrier air groups sank, or assisted in sinking, 35 submarines in the Atlantic. Most, perhaps all, of these kills must have been made by Avengers. To this total must be added the achievements of British Avengers. Additionally, Avengers flew anti-submarine patrols from land bases, and laid mines.

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/avenger.htm

This means to me that, from an historical POV, against submarine unit, a TacB unit should be better over the Fg unit.
So I think there is room to improve the historical representation of TcB and Fg units in A&A G40.

Maybe TacBomber unit should have (along with StBs) a specific capacity against Submarine unit.
Or
While giving Fgs an Anti-aircraft capacity, at the same time, making them unable to destroy Submarine unit.
This could better reenact somehow the historical difference amongst these 2 G40 sculpts and sharpen the role of this new TcB unit, given each a more clearer identity, even with a strategical game level such as A&A G40.

As a side note, here someone talking from first hand:

Here is a canadian !!!  :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 4min. 40s. the captain of this Light Carrier unit says:
He had 2 types of planes on board:
anti-submarines aircrafts ASW (Avengers) and
fighters aircrafts against planes to protect the carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.