G40 League House Rule project

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.

@Cmdr:

• 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!)

This inspired me … the Soviet should have a naval base in Amur (Vladivostok). They should also have at least 1 submarine to represent the Soviet Pacific fleet.

but you told me that increasing bombers by 2 was too much and to make little steps.  I reduce it to 13 and now you say that 2 difference isn’t enough.  I’m making changes that you suggest and then you’re criticizing them.

My suggestion was fighters/tacs at 10. and bombers at 13.  :wink:

@wheatbeer:

@Cmdr:

• 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!)

This inspired me … the Soviet should have a naval base in Amur (Vladivostok). They should also have at least 1 submarine to represent the Soviet Pacific fleet.

I’d maybe go a bit further, if we are going to represent the Russians in the far east:

*  Russia must have 3x the IPC value of units as they own territories on the far east of Japan can invade without Mongolia turning (so any territory north of Mongolia all the way out to the Pacific Ocean.)

• SFE is now worth 2 IPC (take 1 from Yakut SSR and make it 0 IPC.  The idea is to give Russia somewhere to put a minor complex if they want one.)
• +1 Naval Base in SFE
• +1 Destroyer (Pacific Fleet representation) in SZ 5

This all revolves around the fishing villages and military stations along the Kamatchka Peninsula.  None of this would be a HUGE hit to Japan, but they will have to take it into consideration.

Try it Gamerman.
Or how about Rusaia cannot DOW Japan until at least one Ground unit has left Manchuria?

@Gamerman01:

Yeah, I don’t think I’m too interested in buffing Russia to the East…
But speaking of east Russia, I am interested in adding a rule that USSR cannot DOW Japan on R1 (or longer??)

Thoughts on prohibiting R1 DOW on Japan on round 1?  I believe I’m in favor.  Stop the cheese of Russian air immediately going to Yunnan.
There’s already a split Russia for political conditions, and Russia is not allowed to attack G/I pre-emptively…

I am in favor of this

I’ve got no problem requiring Russia to have at least 1 ground unit in Amur (including AA Guns) for each Japanese ground unit in Korea before letting them declare war on Japan.  That will force Japan to hold back some units to offset the Russians (and keep the Russian units there to defend their eastern flank, maybe) and pull some pressure off India and China.

Keep in mind, I am thinking in a vacuum for this.  I am not taking into consideration any other rules we may or may not, determine to be necessary like more VCs, etc.

@Uncrustable:

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.

I know this is not the most recent post, but I just HAD to answer to this here.

This statement is incomplete. While you do get +1 attack, SBR and +2 range, you also get -3 defense, -scramble, -defense, -ability to place on a carrier, -combined arms with a tac (even if you didnt buy them, most powers do start with tacs).

So please, please, please: Don’t ignore half of the facts, just to prove your point.

And while it sounds like it’s just a very small investment to pay “2 more IPC”, 12 instead of 10, you could also say “pay 20% more”. Suddenly it sounds like a lot, if you ask me.
Bombers aren’t even that much better in pure combat strength. For 60 IPC you get either 63=18 attack power or 54=20 attack power.
So if they are well protected, bombers are slightly better (really not that much) and if not protected (like in an air-only attack), fighters even attack better, than bombers!

I didn’t follow your discussion, so I don’t even know who’s arguing that fighters are overpriced or underpriced or whatever.
But the post I am quoting, especially that part, shows me that you don’t look at all the facts/math and I had to step in here.