G40 League House Rule project

Ignore that weird last sentence, hit post while I was editing it :)

Could add 3 but make one of them hard to get. Like New Zealand, for instance. That would also bring the total number of VCs in line with the Europe map.

I mentioned this is a different thread, and it’s a little unorthodox, but how about Panama counting as a Pacific Victory city?

This is a tough territory to hold and had great strategic importance.

Gamerman:

How do the flying tigers chits work?
How many does china get?
This is in process - I don’t know yet.  Probably 3 to 5 chits.  I think they could actually be used in UK territories in Southeast Asia, maybe excluding India, maybe not.  I think they would work like AA, but each chit would be a single die roll, with a 1 hitting Japanese aircraft.  From what I’ve read on wikipedia about them, briefly, they went on attack raids too.  Perhaps allow spending multiple chits to roll an attack on Japanese aircraft in any adjacent territory to Allied controlled territory?  Spend 3, you get a single roll that hits on 3 or less, etc?  Brainstorming!

Seems complicated for little to no reason. If, historically, the flying tigers participated in both defense and offense; then does not current OOB rules best represent them?
What is your reasoning for wanting to do this?

I am pretty sure fighters are too cheap, and yes tacs are overpriced.  Fighters are better than tacs, when you consider everything.

I disagree, tactical bombers can SBR (fighters cant) and can attack at 4 (fighters at 3)
Fighters and tactical bombers should cost the same under OOB rules (what you have)
I just do not see any reason to why fighters are underpriced, nor i have read any post on this forum where others talked about fighters being too cheap. When there are many posts on transports, AAA tacbombers, strat bombers, cruisers, tanks, battleships, submarines. I have seen none on fighters.
More on what i think about 11 IPC cost below…

I disagree that reducing cost of BB to 18 is really a “buff”.  I think this modest change will have little effect on the # of BB’s actually purchased.  Reduction of cost of cruisers to 11 should also have almost no effect on # of carriers purchased, and still, few cruisers will be purchased.  Reduction to 18 and 11 just makes them a bit less over-priced.  They are still overpriced at 11 and 18 I think, and that’s OK given what we know about history.
Carriers are still ultra useful even with fighters at 11, cruisers at 11, battleships at 18, and transports at 6.  I’m sure of this.

Reducing the cost of a unit, along with no other changes, is by definition a buff.
Right now 3 cruisers cost the same as 1 carrier +2 fighters.
Right now 2 battleships cost 4 more than 1 carrier +2 fighters.
With your changes 3 cruisers cost 5 less than 1 carrier +2 fighters.
With your changes 2 battleships cost 2 less than 1 carrier +2 fighters.

The problem with naval purchases we have now, is not so much underused cruisers and battleships, but overused submarines and destroyers. Carriers are perfect.
I strongly feel that both buffing cruisers and battleships while nerfing carriers could lead to some very unwanted consequences.
And does nothing to fix the real problem (submarine spam)

It is my theory that changing submarines would go alot further to fixing naval purchases.
Increase submarine cost to 8 and increase its defense to 2, this along with reducing cruisers to 11, BB to 18 and carriers to 15.

Leave fighters alone, and decrease tac bombers to 10
Increase strat bombers to 13.

I think I’ll settle for now on 11 IPC fighters and tacs, and 13 IPC bombers

I fear that this fixes nothing, strat bombers will still be overpurchased.
Put both fighters and tacs at 10, and strats at 13. Leaving a greater purchasing disparity between them.

I think I would want to take dice rolling out of convoy damage again
1 IPC per DD, CA, BB, and 2 IPC per plane and SS
There needs to be a limit that is lower than total IPC value of territories adjoining.  I think a good way to do this is to have some territories with a second IPC value, for max convoy damage

I strongly oppose making complicated rules and map changes just to reduce convoy damage a little.
Would be alot of fuss for little change. Lets find simpler ways.
Here is a much simpler way to lower convoy damage without needing to remove dice from the factor.
Roll 1 dice per (DD CA, BB and 2 dice per plane and SS). All dice hit on 2 or less. All hits remove 1 IPC, follow OOB rules after this.

Switzerland’s neutrality may not be violated

Why?

Mongolia is just another strict neutral with no special rules
USSR or Japan gets 12 IPC’s if the enemy declares war.

I like this so much better than the complicated mess we have now.

Sweden stands alone

This would just give Germany a freebie, Sweden needs to be in a nuetral block to provide some repercussions.

Ireland will be strict neutral with 1 infantry, standing alone
The 3 Persia territories will be (true) neutral, tied together
Iraq will be true neutral, stand alone, and have only 1 infantry

Ok you have ‘true nuetrals’ and ‘strict nuetrals’
Is this just a typo?

I think you two (Gamer and Uncrustable) have incompatible design philosophies. You’re designing two different games for two different kinds of players.

If I understand correctly, Uncrustable’s primary focus is tactical gameplay changes (i.e. combat mechanics), while Gamerman’s primary focus is historical/strategic realism (setup, NOs, etc.).

Bomber price is not increased relative to fighters and tacs, so it is the same problem.
Bombers only got a SBR reduction of 1 IPC, this a hardly a nerf. And with the same cost disparity as OOB from fighters, they will continue to be over purchased.

Correction: you do not purchase tacs at 11IPCs (suggesting a cost reduction is needed)

Correction: what i mean is you are the only one who seems to think that fighters are overpriced, i said it in a nicer way tho. And it actually does hint that they do not need a price increase.
Fighters have cost 10 IPC for a very long time, and nothing in all this time to suggest they are in need of a price increase.

You cannot ignore math, think of this…
It is USA turn, what naval combo should they buy to protect transports and help in amphib assaults?
1 carrier and 2 fighters at 36 IPC?
or 3 cruisers and 1 submarine at 37 IPC?
The latter is a better buy in most cases

Did you ignore this?

The problem with naval purchases we have now, is not so much underused cruisers and battleships, but overused submarines and destroyers. Carriers are perfect.
I strongly feel that both buffing cruisers and battleships while nerfing carriers could lead to some very unwanted consequences.
And does nothing to fix the real problem (submarine spam)

It is my theory that changing submarines would go alot further to fixing naval purchases.

No offense Gamerman, but your responses to what i have posted, suggest a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality.

I do not feel the need to waste any more of my time thinking and responding to each point (as i have so far spent much time thinking and writing, all to help the thread you started).

thankyou

@wheatbeer:

I think you two (Gamer and Uncrustable) have incompatible design philosophies. You’re designing two different games for two different kinds of players.

If I understand correctly, Uncrustable’s primary focus is tactical gameplay changes (i.e. combat mechanics), while Gamerman’s primary focus is historical/strategic realism (setup, NOs, etc.).

My posts here have nothing to do with the G40 enhanced thread, i replied here as if i were to play the game right now OOB with gamermans changes.

I think unit price changes are my least concern (at least so long as they remain moderate). I do think aa guns (4) and transport (6) are dead on.

Some other notes:
I think providing the Allies with something akin to kamikazes is a neat idea … but I don’t like the idea of targeting planes. If the motive is symmetry, how about a special Allied token in Europe?

How about partisans? Something like, Allies get 6 partisan tokens which can be used to add an infantry to any liberated territory in continental Europe (limit 2 per turn).

(also, let me know what you think about Panama as a possible VC, since that got buried a bit)

I do not see how my posts here had anything to do with the G40 enhanced thread.
If i had not started that thread, there would be no differences in my responses here.

I actually have a F2F G40 game coming up, and was thinking about using your adjustments. As i do like the direction you are going.

I also will be getting into G40 regularly (hopefully) on tripleA soon. As right now i play spring42 over at GTO.
I was under the impression that these changes are meant to be ‘standard’ for G40 in the future.
So i have no qualms about arguing ‘very’ hard.

Of all the units that possibly need adjusted (AAA, cruisers, battleships, tacs, bombers) ive always felt fighters are perfect.
And i do not recall ever reading anything on these forums (other than here), suggesting that fighters are too cheap.

I feel the reason that bombers are too cheap is because the cost disparity is only 2 IPCs.
“For 2 more IPCs i get +1 attack, SBR, and +2 range” - 2 IPC is very cheap considering all of that
Under your proposal you still get +2 range, SBR and +1 attack for only 2 additional IPCs.

Why give Germany a Freebie with Sweden? (no punishment if they attack it)

As far as Switzerland is concerned there is much history on both Axis and Allies intrusions on Swiss airspace. The Swiss even shot down several German planes at one point.
I do not see any reason why Switzerland needs this rule where all other neutrals can be invaded.

See: Operation Tannenbaum (A Nazi planed invasion of Switzerland that was put on hold after D-Day)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

Some quotes i pulled that show just how fragile relations were with the Swiss (both sides)
Had one side been a little nicer, so to speak, Switzerland may have chosen a side.

-During the Invasion of France, German aircraft violated Swiss airspace at least 197 times. In several air incidents, the Swiss, shot down 11 Luftwaffe planes between 10 May 1940 and 17 June 1940. Germany protested diplomatically on 5 June 1940, and with a second note on 19 June 1940 which contained clear threats. The Germans also sent saboteurs to destroy Swiss airfields, but the sabotage team was captured by the Swiss army before it could cause any damage.
-Allied aircraft also intruded on Swiss airspace during the war, mostly Allied bombers returning from raids over Italy and Germany that had been damaged and whose crews preferred internment by the Swiss to becoming prisoners of war. Over a hundred Allied aircraft and their crews were interned. They were subsequently put up in various ski resorts that had been emptied from lack of tourists due to the war and held until it ended. At least 940 American airmen attempted to escape into France after the invasion of Normandy, but Swiss authorities intercepted 183 internees. Over 160 of these airmen were incarcerated in a prison camp called Wauwilermoos, which was located near Lucerne and commanded by a pro-Nazi Swiss officer. The American internees remained in Wauwilermoos until November 1944, when the U.S. State Department lodged protests against the Swiss government and secured their release.
-Switzerland, surrounded by Axis-controlled territory, also suffered from Allied bombings during the war; most notably from the accidental bombing of Schaffhausen by American planes on April 1, 1944. It was mistaken for Ludwigshafen am Rhein, a nearby German town, 40 people were killed and over 50 buildings destroyed, among them a group of small factories producing anti-aircraft shells, ball-bearings, and Bf-109 parts for Germany. The bombing limited much of the leniency the Swiss had shown toward Allied airspace violations. Eventually, the problem became so bad that they declared a zero-tolerance policy for violation by either Axis or Allied aircraft and authorized attacks on American aircraft.  Victims of these mistaken bombings were not limited to Swiss civilians, however, but included the often confused American aircrews, shot down by the Swiss fighters as well as several Swiss fighters shot down by American airmen. In February 1945, 18 civilians were killed by Allied bombs dropped over Stein am Rhein, Vals, and Rafz. The most notorious incident came on March 4, 1945, when both Basel and Zurich were accidentally bombed by Allied aircraft. The attack on Basel’s railway station led to the destruction of a passenger train, but no casualties were reported. However, a B-24 Liberator dropped its bomb load over Zürich, destroying two buildings and killing five civilians. The aircraft’s crew believed that they were attacking Freiburg in Germany. As John Helmreich points out, Sincock and Balides, in choosing a target of opportunity, “…missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for.” The Swiss, although somewhat skeptical, reacted by treating these violations of their neutrality as “accidents”. The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, and their crews would still be allowed to seek refuge, while bomber formations in violation of airspace would be intercepted. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimize the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was “full of German sympathizers”, it deserved to be bombed. General Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured Allied planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory.

Maybe Switzerland could just have it’s army boosted to represent their commendable readiness. In terms of gameplay no one should have reason to attack anyways.

The punishment for attacking Sweden is having to fight its army and thus delaying other objectives. With so many changes, the Axis advantage here may be countered elsewhere. Worst case scenario, the territory value of Sweden could be reduced to 2 IPC and/or its army boosted slightly.

I don’t believe Gamerman wants to achieve balance by lumping Sweden in with other nations in a historically implausible way.

What do you think on increasing the cost disparity between fighters and strategic bombers?
Right now its 2.

I feel 3 would be better.

Bombers with +2 range, +1 attack and SBR. At only +2 IPC, will alot of the time be purchased more than fighters.
This is especially true for Germany and USA. (It makes sense to almost always purchase bombers for them)
Air cannot land in newly acquired territories anyway, so the poor defensive value of bombers is diminished.

When I was looking for extra VCs for the Pacific map, I specifically looked for harder to get ones.

If we want logical ones, then definitely we need to go Borneo and Malaya.  Borneo had the resources and Malaya had access to the Indian Ocean.  For a third, if we look only at importance, Manchuria comes to mind - again for resources.  My only qualms are, these are already important targets for Japan and ones that are not that hard to hold (compared to other territories in the grand scheme of things.)

If we go for semi-important ones that are harder, we get the following list, best I can imagine (and feel free to disagree!)

• Aleutian Islands - were actually invaded by Japan.  Easy for America to liberate, but they cannot just walk troops there.
• Sikiang - to me, the permanent or semi-permanent loss of Sikiang signals the death of China.  It feels like such a milestone.  This is probably due to how easy it is for Russia to send in reinforcements down here.
• Solomon Islands - major naval engagement, one of the turning points of the war I believe.
• Midway - the major turning point in the war, personal opinion here.
• Soviet Far East - I know there are no ports or air fields there at the start of the game, but there are/were some there.  Just not major ones.  Not to mention the food production for the Japanese people.  (Yes I’m reaching for options.  I said feel free to disagree!)

I’d also like a Japanese NO:
+10 IPC for any round in which the United States has no Aircraft Carriers in the North Pacific Ocean.  (Sea Zones: 28 to 36 and above - which includes the coast of W. USA so it should be super easy for the US to stop Japan from getting the NO.)  This was the primary reason for Japan going to war in the first place!  If the American carriers were in, say, Virginia then they would not have attacked Pearl Harbor, I believe.  Without that, Roosevelt could not convince the people to declare war on Japan (and thereby gateway a DOW on Germany.)

Unattainable?  Yes, but it is much easier to attain this NO than the one for taking W. USA (C. USA or E. USA) for Japan.