G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Hi kid

Updated previous post. Archangel was a pasting error. Soviet Far East and Caucasus are the TTs needed.

The 12 PUs for the NAP was just because that’s what it was originally. I’m only 3 test games in and yea it doesn’t look like Russia would spend the dough to do it, although she’s making extra dough so she might. Maybe lower it to 6 for Russia or scrap it. If she doesn’t it means Japan can move here forces out of Manchuria. However if you can get a Flying Tiger to China that makes them a lot more powerful (might want to limit them to 2 max) and Japan has had to send more dudes to keep them in line.

Increasing the NOs sounds like a good idea for keeping Japan from taking a DOW to lightly. I check in on the lobby once in a while but haven’t played in a long time. My schedule is a little erratic but maybe we can set something up in the future. I’ll pm you or look for ya.

Just trying to make as many ways as possible to try stuff out. Nothing concrete by any means.

It is a lot of good work, man.   :-)
Thanks!
I believe this provides the basic ground to test many things to improve Pacific actions.

About NB and IC, there is an historical issue about moving the Naval Base from Nova Scotia (Halifax) to Quebec. If absolutely needed to have in the same TT both IC and NB, then add 1 NB to Quebec but do not remove Halifax.
Maybe, if a 3 ships Cap apply to number of ship NB can repair, this SZ 106 would provides up to 6 repair points. There is Shipbuilding yards in both Nova Scotia and Quebec.

It seems that one Japanese NO is based on what islands Allied have, is this right?

“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.

“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam

You seems becoming more and more profiencient with TripleA software.
Do you know if it is possible to create a 4 PU AAA which fire at up to 2 planes per round, (1 shot per plane max) every combat round?

These two units worth the try:
**CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.

Escort Carrier
A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD.**

However, if Fleet Carrier is at 16 IPCs, I would have raise the Escort Carrier cost to 10 IPCs.
It is a balance issue, 2 CVEs at 9 (18 IPCs) and 2 Fighters at 10 IPCs for 38 IPCs will be more cost efficient in combat than a full Fleet Carrier at 36 IPCs, with no Anti-sub capacity.

Hi Baron

I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.

I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.

Oops another pasting error. Should be axis controlled for Japan. Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.

Barney:

Two things:

1. Just for shits and giggles, I had the AI run a couple of games with your mod to see how it impacts overall game economics (granted, AI is very different from human players, but you can glean some interesting things from a comparison of AI games among different mods). One thing I noticed right away is how quickly Japan matches (and soon exceeds) US income. In fact it is even faster than in the OOB version. Is this something you found as well? Probably has to do with making all the little islands worth money regardless of who owns them.

2. If you Jap minor factories on the mainland can only build slow units, is the primitive terrain effect necessary? Or, conversely, is there any reason to limit minor factories to slow units if you already have the primitive terrain there? Thoughts?

yes I found the same thing. The primitive terrain is somewhat redundant, but even though it would take longer Japan could still transport a fairly large force over. Also wanted to slow the Brits down out of Egypt a little and the Germans in Russia. The good thing is you can edit the primitive units anywhere you want, although keep them with the same TT owner.

Japan gets bigger but US is pretty close and they kinda pass each other depending on attacks. UKP and ANZAC also get a boost so I don’t think it’s a problem. If you use the militia it really helps China and if you can get a extra fighter it can give Japan some problems.

Went ahead and changed the NAP to 6 PUs for Russia and gave Mongolia back another dude for now. I think I’ll incorporate your NO boost in the future

I think I’ll make another factory unit restoring mech builds so people can have that as a option as well

If I had to choose between the limited factories and the primitive terrain, I probably would go with the privative terrain, and nix the limited factories altogether. Do you find that UK needs to be slowed down out of Egypt? I haven’t found that at all, but maybe i’m not playing right :)

Also, add a primitive terrain to Afghanistan, just cuz.

Have you ever tried playing with the paratrooper technology turned on? Wonder what impact that has.

I’m sure you play just fine. I’m no expert by any means. :) IDK that the Brits need slowing down, although I’m interested to see how it plays out. So far they seem to be doing ok. Depends on how bad the Italians get their ass kicked rd 1. Was trying to keep the rule consistent is all.

Yea there’s a lot of places the primitive unit could go. I’ll add another factory that allows mech builds tomorrow.

Yea Iv’e used paratoopers. They can be pretty devastating. I think it’s best to limit them and/or do like DK I think it is and have them dropped from transports so they don’t get the bomber hit on the attack as well.

@barney:

Hi Baron
I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.

It is a good news because I really believe this AA rolling each round as any other units becomes competitive with Inf and Artillery. So this need a full play-test to break the old convention about AA gun.
Adding NB to Quebec and keeping Nova Scotia Halifax NB would not change the movement bonus.
It would keep history without changing much to game balance.
Your restricting built with IC worth a try and you gives us a tool for testing.

@barney:

I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.

You are right. After a few tests on battlecalc, on the same IPCs basis, the Escort Carrier at 9 IPCs is still slightly weaker on defense in direct combat against Fleet Carrier. Even costlier 2 Fgs 2 CVE (38 IPCs) vs 2 Fgs 1 CV 2 hits (36 IPCs) is weaker for 2 IPCs higher.
So you have the right place for this ASW warship. Good call.

Probably the 10 IPCs CVE is balanced with 1942.2 Fleet Carrier A1 D2, 1 hit, C14.

@barney:

Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.

Glad to see it increase action in PTO, with 2 IPCs bonus per invasion.
Instead of an arbitrary rnd4, what about allowing to the following Power turn, once Japan makes a DOW on USA as the starting point? That way, after Japan turn, all Allies would be the firsts to get this bonus and Japan last.
Or it activates when all money islands are taken by Japan, retrieving them will first benefits Allies.

Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB. No boost when paired with fighter or tank.

What is the cost of this Tactical Bomber?

Interesting ways to add Lend-lease via NO for USSR.
It rise up to 8 IPCs for USSR, helps deals with Germany in a better ways than the + 10 ☺ for reaching Berlin.

Hi Baron

Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.

Good idea on when the bonus should kick in. Maybe US’s turn after Japan DOW. Although you only get the bonus when you attack. So walking in won’t activate it. IDK we’ll have to think on it some more.

Yea I like the idea of the NO changing for the NAP. I’ll put out a updated version later today.

@barney:

Hi Baron

Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.

If StB was OOB, it seems a correct price at 11 IPCs.
But with StB A3 D1 M6 C12, +1A paired 1:1 with 1 Fighter, I would really put TcB A4 D3 M4 at 12 IPCs.

I always feel that highest attack value is costlier.
IDK if a playtest can be decisive to help choosing between 11 or 12 PUs for TcB.

Updated the previous post. Added XMLs that remove the build restrictions on mechs and armor. Added a 12PU TB. Changed the NAP for Japan/Russia:

Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. Mongolians are same as OOB. When at war with Germany and Japan, Russia receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus for SZ 4.

@ regularkid Decided to only boost SZ 4. Thinking being Russia might be more tempted to attack if Japan can only cork the one zone. Germans can take care of the other and she might get to SZ 80 late game but…Russia already has a extra Lend Lease zone in 124 so… I see the logic in doing a boost for all zones, but decided to give this a try for now. The NOs make the Aleutians a pretty Fat target (potential 13 PU swing) so I expect more action in that theatre. Also thought I’d give them a little 3PU sting just to make them think about it a little more. Nothing to prohibitive. :)

US can open up the route if she has forces in place but Japan can make it harder by amphib landing from zone 5 to SFE. It forces her to go north, which she normally doesn’t want to do, but with the aforementioned Aleutian Boost it might be a more viable option for her.  And if you can wack the Aleutians you might as well dust the soviet NO too.

Went with SZ 4 so Russia must use carrier air or mainland bomber to reach. Anyway should be worth a playtest.

@Baron I’d probably still go with the bomber instead of TB at 11 but I understand the thinking and can see situations where you’d want to go TB. Anyway the TB12 will give us the option to test.

Checked into the aagun and I think you might need to use v2 rules. I’m not sure. I’ll look into it some more. Any future changes I’ll make different versions so we don’t get too confused :)

Updated earlier post. Fixes Mongolian placement to OOB.

@ Baron I agree having the money islands kick in after Japan conquers them is the way to go. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. I looked at the aagun some more and haven’t found a way to do it. It seems like I remember that being an option somewhere.

@ Elk Yea this should make for some good play testing. Do you think restricting the builds for capital ships and strats is too much ? I could add oob builds back but don’t want to overamp with too many xmls. Gonna do some more testing :)

Here’s the new update

https://www.sendspace.com/file/ftahv8

it’s the light blue dl button

@Baron:

It is a lot of good work, man.   :-)
These two units worth the try:
CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.

Great thing this added AA to Cruiser.
You probably work harder to get this.

Thinking about the cost.
Within DD at 8 IPCs and Battleship at 20 IPCs, I believe that AA Cruiser should be balance at 12 IPCs though.
The increase AA ability can easily make for the higher cost at 12.

For playtest, I guess 10 IPCs can be try.

For playtest, I would also make it a A3 D3 M3 unit. No bonus from NB.
If this still possible.
Shore bombard @2 or @3 is minor aspects.
For historical purpose, it is fine @2.

@barney:

@ Baron I agree having the money islands kick in after Japan conquers them is the way to go. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. I looked at the aagun some more and haven’t found a way to do it. It seems like I remember that being an option somewhere.

Glad we are on same page for the Pacific NO.

What you are looking about AA is probably always active AA gun.
This is not the same ability.
It was 1 single shot done by all AA guns from different TTs in which planes are passing by during Combat Move and Non-Combat Move.

This is very different from what I asked about an AAA able to act like all units which fire each round.
If it is too complex to modify, at least the AAA at 5 you created is able to defend @1 against ground units when no enemy’s plane are attacking. And move like any other units in CM. This is already an improvement.
Thanks for your dedication Barney.

@ Baron I saw something called classic rules that might do aa every rd. Not sure though. I’ll keep checkin on it. I’m gonna add a A3, D3, M3 bombard 2 no NB bonus C10 or do you think 12 ? I’ll also add the 12PU AACruiser bombard at 2 and a OOB cruiser bombard 3 at 10 next update. Sound good ?

I’ll combine some of the XMLs so we don’t have so many maps.

Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?

@barney:

Just reread your post. Give the 12 PU AACruiser M3 bombard 3 but no NB bonus correct ?

Correct.
Cruiser Cost 12 A3 D3 M3, no NB bonus, bombard @3, preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
With all these additional capacities, even if not directly optimized on AAcalc vs other warships, +1 move and AA would be a test to see if people want to buy it at 12 IPCs.

@barney:

@ Baron I saw something called classic rules that might do aa every rd. Not sure though. I’ll keep checkin on it.

Classic rules probably imply 1 AA gun gets 1 preemptive  roll @1 per plane against an infinite number of planes.

Actually, no AA rules ever gives a roll each round.
Such AAA would be similar to the one you develop on the AACruiser, but without the limitation to first round only.
If your able to create a Cruiser with Defense 0 but able on defense to fire each round (preemptive or not, that is not so important) against up to two planes, 1 roll max per plane. You could be able to transfer such code on AAA unit A0 D0 Cost 4.

If you succeed, then it will open a wide range of possibilities for transport able to gets defense against planes but not against warships.

Bailey, Question, since u seem to know a lot more about this javascript business than I do.

I’d like to try to incorporate a house rule whereby the conquest of France (all three territories) by Germany/Italy results in France’s remaining territories becoming Neutral_Axis (i.e., Vichy French).

I’ve managed to code a trigger that turns the French territories to Neutral_Axis once France is under Euro-Axis control, but I cannot for the life of me get the French UNITS in those territories to turn Neutral_Axis as well. Tried to model it after the Mongolia thing, but that doesn’t seem to be working. Also tried the “ChangeOwnership” option. . . no luck.

Any ideas on how this could work?