G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Re: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37319/canada-s-distinct-ownership-icons

We did create Canada as a distinct power and the extra ally does create imbalance- we took the money from UK so they are slow to do much. But my son was geeked up to order some UK troops and paint them cherry red.
We haven’t quite found a counter balance for the axis. Maybe we shall try Vichy France.
I lose more than win but my kid knows his ww2 history and world geography pretty well, so…

@The-Captain

Great way of putting it. It applies to pretty much all Axis and Allies games.

@gen-manstein great, I look forward to see it.

Hi Manstein,

Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing:+1:

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

That would work great.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

ok so i reivised it a bit.

#1 is now called -  Deck Guns: Your Transports now defend at 1. If a sea-zone that is under attack is left with only defending transports, all transports are destroyed instantly.

2 - ( OK so i got a couple questions. if a cruiser engaged in sea combat during an amphibious assault, can it also bombard? <- i dont think so. Also, if it bombarded would it be able to deploy infantry during the assault? <- i dont think so either. thats the problem with having the cruiser carry the infantry. I want the cruisers to carry infantry because more people will buy them but i think that ability would go unused unless they just want the cruiser to ignore combat and just drop 1 infantry.) if i am wrong and they can drop while bombarding then i would love to have cruisers be able to carry inf. rather than destroyers. what would this be called if it just allowed cruisers to carry an infantry.

3 - ( basically an offshore bombardment ) but i can see what you mean by it being too complicated and possible overpowered…. what would replace this? how about:            Operational Major Industrial Complexes located on your capital have no deployment limit?

4 - i like this. this would be a thrid research chart so you can get more Mech. infantry researches and then they would be a great unit!

5 - what about triple the amount? quadruple? or take the roll you got, and triple/quadruple it?

6 - yes. Example: planes move into a territory, that territory contains 5 AA guns, a major IC, an airbase and a naval base. Before interception the AA guns fire on all planes, then interception ( air combat ) then the surviving bombers are assigned to the bases and the bases fire.        i just found it wierd that AA guns do noting against a SBR. if i dont use this reseasrch chart then i might make this my house rule. i dont know how big of an effect it would have… especially if i had radar lol.