G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

The Fighter Ace & Luftwaffe Ace IPC cost is 11 IPC for each unit.

There was a flaw in the IPC cost in the original text in the rules.

This has now been corrected and updated in the rules attached to the first post in this thread.

Captain

Hi Manstein,

Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing:+1:

Resource token values.
Worth 1 Icp each. Built in AA D@1
WHEAT
OIL DERRICK

Worth 2 Icps each. Built in AA D@1
COPPER
RUBBER
IRON
REFINERIES Built in AA D@2

Worth 3 Icps each Built in AA D@1
URANIUM
If you have an AA Gun in theses territories with tokens you can D@2 but not use both AA guns.

These all can be SBRed up to 3 damage each. Lose income for them until repaired
and refineries up to 6 damage. Don’t repair refineries
suffer a -1 movement for ground or naval or planes or nothing.
Have a chart for this.
Also all of these can be convoy raided up to 3 also.
This represents all transporting vessels at sea.
Remember most of these resource tokens are in normal territories too.

Start out slow with this. You don’t want to keep chasing it.

Pill box counter ? Can SBR them ?

Need to take this to a new topic thread for resource stuff.

I recommend using Charles de Gaulle’s neutral setup with this!

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

Well the idea was to take all the “at war” related NOs and just streamline them into a single simple to remember rule with a straight forward easy to remember bonus. G40 is poorly balanced to begin with. I wouldn’t suggest this as the sole corrective for game balance, since clearly, if you want a game balanced by side, you’re going to have to tweak the board in more ways than this. I just find it annoying how for example, Russia has no incentive not to declare on Japan immediately, or how there is no mechanism to support neutrality in so many instances with various powers. Even if the decision to declare is still fairly obvious,  at least this gives you something to consider,  and something that holds for both sides along a neutrality pact, instead of so many 1 sided DoW bonuses. There are a bunch of silly NOs that seem to exist for no other reason than to give certain nations +5 here and there. I’d just as soon ditch all of them in favor of a single rule that handles neutrality across the board.

I think it might be novel if this included a nod to the pro - side neutrals too. But again, I don’t see this as necessarily a balance driver, more something I prefer for rules consistency with all powers.

When you get down to it, I just don’t think the DoW bonuses +5, belong in the National Objectives list. They cannot be contested the way other NOs can, and the way they are worded OOB, these objectives don’t seem to drive the gameplay in a very meaningful way. I would seperate them off from the other NOs and provide a universal rule that can be handled in a line or two, applying to everyone equally. Then replace the existing Neutrality/DoW NOs currently in G40 OOB, with some NOs that are more interesting as gameplay drivers.

My usual approach for Axis and Allies, going back to AA50 and now with G40, is to replace specific National Objectives, with universal or general Objectives that accomplish similar gameplay effects whenever possible, since I believe the latter are better for the game flow and easier to remember. Basically if you can replace half a dozen Nation Objectives, with a single General Objective (that applies the same way for all nations) that is ideal.

Thus far I have used this neutrality bonus idea, in conjunction with a VC bonus idea, and a few others to more less strip G40 of “national” objectives altogether. Then if you wanted to bring NOs back into play, to do something more streamlined,  with just 1 or 2 high value NO per nation, on areas of the board where the gameplay/strategic interest would benefit from their inclusion.

Along these lines, for consistency and to provide additional income for Germany and Italy, it might make sense to include China in the neutrality rules. I gripe on China constantly, but in this case you’d have a potential +10 for both sides if G/I opt not to declare on it. Axis would have to decide if they want the extra in Europe, but only at the risk of a stronger China vs Japan. Which might have an interesting effect on balance. I’ll edit to the lead post to reflect this option.

@barney:

wow
I thought I could just read this and not have to think :)

Sounds way cool. I wonder how it will effect naval battles? In a good way I’m thinking
Yea I 'm gonna try it :)

Well I just read the whole thing! And yea sounds better.
Have you played any games yet?

I playtested this last one:
@Baron:

So, I tried with a better success this much more stable (and simpler) values for Fighter and Tactical on defense and only Tactical Bomber get bonus on attack for specific situations:

FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 7
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Attack to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with.

Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
**_Gain +1 Attack, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter .

Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4.
With these other units:

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4,  SBR @1
Defense 1
Move 6
1 hit
Cost 10

Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*): Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0

DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for all 3 types of aircraft:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory after first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.

a limited landing in a just conquered territory: 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as it can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

FLEET CARRIER G40
Attack 0
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 16
2 hits
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.
A damaged Aircraft Carrier still allowed flight operation for 1 plane unit.

FLEET CARRIER 1942.2
Attack 1
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 14
1 hit
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.

ESCORT CARRIER
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 9
1 hit
Hold 1 plane : 1 Fg OR 1 TcB.
ASV: Anti-Sub Vessel, same as Destroyer against Submarine.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 10
1 hit
1 Shore Bombardment @3.

BATTLESHIP
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2
Cost 18
2 hits
1 Shore Bombardment @4.

On a battlecalc, these values gives similar odds of survival to a full Carrier with 3 TcBs against itself when 1 CV and 2 Fgs attacks 1 CV and 2 Fgs. You get similar odds about 1 CV, 1 Fg, 1 TcB against itself compared to 1 CV 2 TcBs and 1 Fg against itself (as far as I can put similar numbers in the calc).

The idea is that a full Carrier is better on defense than offense.
So, to keep this principle in line, TacB has been put to a single defense value of 3.
It is slightly higher than Fighter (keeping @2), but remember that Fighters always hit planes first.

The 3-planes carrier provides more units in a SZ and Fgs A2 D2 C7 can be a good fodder instead of loosing a costlier Carrier with the same defense @2.
So during combat rounds, usually owner’s will keep Carriers and sacrifice Fighters and it doesn’t change the defense factor.
That’s the main difference with OOB Naval Combat, often Carriers with lower Def @2 are sacrifice earlier because of the high defense value of Fighters (D4).

Also, 3-planes Carrier gives more strategy and flexibility on which units (Fg or TcB) you prefer to put on board.
All 3 cheaper Fighters (A2 D2 C7) but with lesser odds A6 D6 C21.
All 3 costlier TcBs (A2-3-4 D3 C8) better on defense but not good against an opponent defending with planes (A6 D9 C24).
The mix of both Fg and TcB is far better in combat 1 Fg & 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs & 1 TcB.

I also like to put small 1 plane-Escort Carrier (A1 D1 C9) (bought from HBG) in the roster.
Their relative strength toward 3-planes Fleet Carrier is better historically depicted.
In fact, a single Escort Carrier can carry around 27-33 planes while a Fleet Carrier is around 90-100 planes.

I also experimented a Fg unit attacking @1 with First strike and defending @2 but the very low value of 1 and specific First Strike ability similar to subs was slowing down the battle process.
That’s why I prefer the A2 D2 C7 Fighter.
(Combat values wich are also similar to 1914 planes. From a A&A game franchise consistency POV.)
In each combat round, you start by rolling both attacking and defending Fighters, then picking up casualties on planes.
After, you continue with regular combat unit rolls.

One historical objections I made to myself was about that Fighters were better defending than attacking.
I answered it by giving a special +1 defense bonus to 3 Fighters when an operational Air Base is present.
This could figure the alertness of interceptors and all the Radar and Survey system against incoming planes.
Also, defenders can also have AAA unit on their side to increase the casualty rates of attacking aircrafts.
That’s why I think it can still be acceptable from an historical POV.
(Also, don’t forget how G40 OOB SBR rules doesn’t care about it, giving all planes a roll @1.)

TacBs Attack 2-3-4 Defense 3 values were more dictated by the defensive capacity required for Carriers to keep the similar balance of their OOB counterpart.

Strategic Bomber are lowered to 10 IPCs and it is required because of the dangerousness of attacking defending Fighters. Each round they could shot it down, no matter the number of ground units for fodder.

Finally, Cruiser and Battleship’s cost are reduced by 2 IPCs, 10 and 18 IPCs to level them against a more dangerous Fleet Carrier at full strength and cheaper planes.
To fully compete with this new carrier (which is a bit better than the regular OOB), it is now a must from the Battlecalc POV that Battleship and Cruiser need a reduced cost of 2 IPCs :
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 should cost 10 IPCs while Battleship A4 D4 M2, 2 hits should cost 18 IPCs.
So, Cruiser will be at the same cost than Strategic bomber (A4 D1 M6 C10),
and the Battleship (18 IPCs) still compete against the Cruiser (10 IPCs) + Destroyer (8 IPCs) combo.

Example: 12 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are too powerful against 7 A3 D3 C12 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.8% D. survives: 4.7% No one survives: 0.5%

10 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are within acceptable margin against 7 A3 D3 C10 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 75.2% D. survives: 23.2% No one survives: 1.6%

All in all, the additional money made from this savings will be needed to replace for the increased rate of aircrafts casualties.

From my little experienced with 3-planes Carriers, it works well.

Also, if you really want to increase aircrafts combat interactions in contested land territory, you should allow attacker to land a single Fg or TcB, or even up to 2 aircrafts in a just conquered territory.
(I ruled that an additional movement point to land in this zone is required.)
Otherwise, your game would mostly relied on AAA to defend against attacking planes.

I will post something on AAA issue in another thread more sooner than later.
For now, just know that I put them at 3 IPCs to get the maximum incentive to buy them.

Hope you will try and enjoy it.

One little physical inconvenient about a fully loaded Carriers unit with 3 TcBs is that there is not much place on the sculpt to put them in a row.
To overcome the lack of room for this bigger sculpt, is to put a chip on a Carrier below a TcB sculpt for additional units.
On the brighter side, any mix with a smaller Fg sculpt fit well on top of a Carrier._**

its another house rule that I had dug up in another forum that allows artillery to “shell” or bombard an adjacent territory for 1 ipc per shot