G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Sounds good

Philadelphia! sounds totally apt haha. Who needs sleep
:-D

Killer

I suspect that San Francisco will be a bit simpler to implement in face to face play, where you are more reliant on memory and go more by the gut for fast calculation, based on experience and habit. I think there is enough in here with SBR and M3 ships to be pretty entertaining. But it’s still pretty easy on the player at least in terms of no new complex relationships to track or additional phases. Pretty grab and go once you get the hang of the defensless bomber.

The Philadelphia experiment strikes me as particularly well suited to tripleA testing. Because here all the new values are presented clearly in the UI and all the new phases and combat interactions are enforced by the engine. And you have a Calc to help parse combats, and built in game notes for all the stats.

ps. I think the SF M3 cruiser/transport will be interesting especially in 1942.2. From G1 on things start to look rather different. There is a potential attack option for the Baltic Fleet now, vs sz 4 and Archangel if Russia allows it. If Germany takes both Arch and Karelia on G1, then there is perhaps another way to keep the Baltic Cruiser alive into the second round, even without a naval purchase in sz 5, or a link up with the med. At there very least such a move would put presure on the red october and soviet airforce in the second round. I think Russia would have a much higher incentive to just park fighters in Arch now to cover this tile, rather than deal with the possible fallout. Alternatively G can go south toward Gibraltar, also now in range of the Baltic Cruiser/Transport. This combined with the SBR only bomber, puts a new spin on the first round both for Russia and UK vs Germany. I think the German player will feel more pressure to do something creative or experiment with their starting fleet, since this is something they don’t usually get to do. This might keep G somewhat more oriented vs the West, rather than just plowing headlong towards the center the same way each and every game. The UK situation around Egypt is somewhat less precarious for Allies at least at the very start (again because of no StratB in combat). The British fighter lives to fight in the first round (without gamey Russian assistance, or just counting on a conservative Axis player hehe), and UK has a few more options with their India and Aussie fleets as a result. In the Pacific more broadly the M3 transport is a total game changer, which makes that theater much more active for the Americans (even just launching transports on the sacrifice distraction). Japan in turn has to face a whole new transport calculus vs India and the money islands, vs Tokyo itself. The cash in Europe and Scandinavia is much closer to sz 11 too, so I think the US still has some difficult decisions to make about where to throw their weight. Not sure what the overall balance will shake out to be, might still end up needing something like the an A0 turn or a bid or something else in the end, who knows, but I’m intrigued.

G40 I’m sure will be more intense, with much more to ponder.

I think the full naval expansion experiment for either board is certain to be entertaining, because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable. Kind of offsets any complexity for the subs when you can buy more of everything in exchange. I look forward to checking it out.

Alright it sounds like we are putting together a battle plan here.
:-D

I say we float the SFR game files for G40 and 1942.2, so players can take a crack at it and start making balance assessments. In a perfect world, we might hope for it to be balanced by sides right out the gate, but when you’re dealing with A&A things rarely go so smoothly. I’d be interested to hear feedback, or suggestions. If people think it’s unbalanced in favor of one side or the other, what they might recommend for a bid range, or if they like to try it under A0 or China0 conditions etc. Also if it might have applications with other Mods, or integrated HRs that people enjoy.

Give that one a little time to shine, while we put our best scientists and conspiracy theorists on the Philadelphia experiment to create a new roster/unit cost structure for use in these games.
We can keep the working game files for that one cloaked in the shipyard for a time, if need be, while we run the numbers and consider tweaks. Since the overhaul here is certain to be extensive, I think we should feel free to go mad scientist with it haha.

I think the only things I would try to keep sacred are the principle combat ground units and the core stats for the fighter at A3/D4/C10. I feel like those are key touchstones, and units that I’m not too comfortable messing with. But otherwise I think we should go all in. If we need to add abilities or revise costs on a unit by unit basis to make the system better, then that’s what we should do.

Since the experiment will build on the SFR ideas, those initial gamefiles can serve as primers, and might help raise new questions or recommend new solutions we haven’t fully considered yet, once we see it in action. That ruleset should also be fairly simple to playtest FtF too, which is why I like it for the physical table.

When we get to the point where we have a complete roster ready to materialize. I’d like to make some printable materials (battle board, and unit chart) to accompany it, so its a bit easier to get going around the table face to face.

I can edit the lead post in this thread, with a brief synopsis and an internal link to an SFR thread for specific balance feedback on that project. While we continue to charge ahead with the experimental stuff here.

Most of all, even more important than any specific balance by sides, is whether people like the gameplay. Whether fleet movement and SBR in particular under the new ruleset help to shape enjoyable patterns of play. If it succeeds in that basic aim, then set up changes for starting balance are pretty easy the way I see it. Many solutions are on offer there, from a suggested bid range, to starting cash or additional objectives bonuses, even balance modding of the starting unit distribution. Turn order, or new political situations. But the important question is whether the basic rules are fun with the defenseless bomber and m3 transport/cruiser situation.

Ok dropped a testing thread in the main section below, and edited a link into the lead post of this thread. I’ll format it and flesh it out a bit more tomorrow if I can.

Right now I’m kind of lazy at the keyboard and more interested in messing around in TripleA haha.
I did throw some red up in there for San Francisco, like YG often uses. Cribbed his font technique, since I always like how it looks. But tried to keep it short, since I usually ramble like a madman.

Should be cool for now, unless anyone catches something we missed. Should keep us busy for a little while at least, waiting on bomber and M3 transport results, while we tease out the rest of the roster overhaul.

depth Charging ahead!
:-D

I haven’t tried it myself, but I had buddy who’s a big d12 enthusiast, and we once tried to get something up off the ground for revised way back when. He was a big fan of space tactical wargames, and made one that was a bit like Master of Orion for the tabletop, so we were pretty used to using d12 for crits and such in that game. And being a D&D geek myself, I still have the dice, but haven’t attempted anything other than d6 for G40.

I think sometimes I am kind of an abnormal Global player, mainly because everything I want to do with the game (in HR or redesign terms) trends towards simplifying it, whereas many others tend to move it in the opposite direction haha. To me the promise of d12 would be to somehow streamline the game at the tactical level, so that you could maybe chip away at some of the rules overhead, by having more raw numbers to work with. Not sure if that makes much sense. But I prefer an easy read where the mechanics and desirable play patterns or purchasing/production patterns make clear sense at a glance, without having so much nuance or so many specific conditionals in the rules. I think there is a definite brilliance to the A&A combat system (just in abstract gameplay terms) at d6, and I really enjoy it at the foundational level. But as the desire to build more and more complexity on top of that foundation increases, while still retaining d6 structure for everything, I think there may be a point where it might just be easier to jump up to d12. But yeah, I’d be a total neophyte here, since I haven’t really made a serious attempt at d12 for an A&A game at this scale. Perhaps others have given it more serious thought?

Ok guys I think we have just discovered a winning method for including many of these HR ideas in a tripleA standard package.

The idea is to replace the game’s built in tech system (which is largely unpopular and rarely used anyway) by a standard HR system. Essentially it is a way to make an “a la carte” menu of optional rules that are unlocked via Edit Mode, and then assigning the “techs” = new rule, from the drop down screen. Basically the active rules are assigned to all players via a quick auto-tech edit, so it can all be adjusted easily on the fly once the game is launched. You pick and choose the HRs you want to use in that game from the grab bag. Think of each “tech” as a toggle that can be turned “on/off” on an individual basis. My thought is that we could make one of these for each of the standard games, so…

1942.2 v5 Redesign
1941 v6 Redesign
Global 1940 Redesign

Some things that we make available using this method of tech replacement…

-Tactical Bombers or Mech in 1942.2, or Artillery and Cruisers in 1941.

-Medium Factory for G40, or Scorched Earth factories  (autodestroyed)

-AAA fire for Battleships and Cruisers.

• Marines or Battleships that can transport 1 infantry.

-1 Role bombers at C5 (with the various dogfighting values.)

• Airbases +2

• M3 naval units

• New Sub/Destroyer interactions

• Alternate cost structures, such as for naval or air units.

-Rail bases or military outposts

• 2 Hit units, such as heavy tanks, or bombers or whatever. Or a way to use the G40 2 hit carrier in 1942.2, things of that sort.

-Warbonds for All
Etc.

In addition to these, or other like rules which could be hacked in using the tech method, we could also use the game notes to describe how to do other things via the edit mode. For example…

American Zero Turn 1942.2, or Chinese Zero turn, or Anzac Zero Turn in G40 (restricted opening.)

Create the Commonwealth, or different UK economies, by editing territory ownership and starting cash.

Ways to use a different capital capture dynamic, or provide standard VC bonuses, or introduce alternative liberation rules, via edit mode.

In other words, all purpose gamefiles that play as OOB (no tech) by default, but which contain within them the tools and instructions necessary for using popular HRs via the tech menu and Edit mode.

We can start with the basic files, and update them with more material as time goes on. But this way everyone would be on the same page. They’d have access to the same “players handbook” with established popular options, easily described/referenced in the game notes.

I think these would instantly eclipse the OOB game files in popularity, since they would give you a built-in way to mod the game on the fly with your favorite optional rules.