G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

Thanks for the input, kid, that helps me understand what’s going on here.

Don’t forget, the rulebook wasn’t written for marines.  You made a new unit with new capabilities, and you need an explicit rule for allied marines vs. kamikazes the same way the regular rulebook needed a rule for allied amphibious assaults against scrambling (Krieghund had to answer the question - he couldn’t just cite the rulebook because if I recall correctly the rulebook didn’t anticipate the possibility).

My recollection of Krieghund’s answer, then, is the same as Simon’s - you have to actually scramble a plane to stop an amphibious assault by an ally.  Just having a functioning airbase and a plane doesn’t automatically prevent amphibious assaults from allies.  Just having a kamikaze in the bank shouldn’t prevent all allied amphibious assaults from marines, I don’t believe.

And no, of course I don’t mean Japan would spend a kamikaze for each marine.  It would be the same as stopping all bombardment with a single kamikaze or a single destroyer or a single scrambled plane.  Japan would spend one kamikaze to stop all allied marines from unloading from a single kamikaze zone, or better yet, you make the rule that kamikazes can’t stop allied landings at all.

OK, the rule doesn’t talk about a combat move by a ship in a kamikaze zone, it says a Japanese ship is being attacked or there is an amphibious assault in the zone (the latter being the case here).  However, if you re-read the kamikaze rules, a “kamikaze can target any specific enemy surface warship belonging to the attacking power”

This was not an issue with unloading from an allies’ transport because kamikazes can’t hit transports.  Now it is an issue, but the rulebook was never written with marines in mind of course.
But a strong argument can be made (without the Mod squad telling everyone what their rule is) that kamikazes cannot be used to stop allied marines because kamikazes can’t attack ships of allies because it’s not their turn.
Maybe the same argument can be made about scrambling, but if Simon and I are right that the defending player does have to scramble a plane to stop it, then your rule that Japan is automatically immune to all allied marine attacks in all kamikaze zones at all times for free as long as she holds 1 token, should be changed.

Krieghund answered this some time ago probably in the FAQ thread - the easiest thing to do would be to ask him again.  You might want to go ahead and tell him about your marine unit and how they work.  Tell me if you want me to do it because I would.

I wish the mod squad would think about what kamikazes actually are.  I highly doubt there is an instance of a kamikaze attacking a cruiser or a battleship that is trying to unload marines.
From what I’m reading now, they mostly attacked destroyers and carriers anyway

We do agree that an allied marine can make an amphibious assault off an allied cruiser/battleship if there is no scramble or kamikaze, right?

If I understood correctly, you propose that if 1 kami is used in a zone that all allied marines on cruisers/BBs can’t unload from that zone? Does the defender even roll for the kami since it can’t hit anything?

The problems with that are the fact that the use of edit mode is required to remove kamis (since you can’t assign them to friendlies, I think) and to reload the marines on the ships, and that now it’s actually better for marines to be on friendly BBs/cruisers instead of some of their own nation, which doesn’t make much sense.

You can go ahead and ask Krieghund about the rule. We just decided it was the same as the scrambling situation, but if it isn’t then the rule can be whatever is best and simple.

@Adam514:

@simon33:

@Adam514:

No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?

That’s not quite correct BTW. IIRC Kreighund has clarified that the scramble blocks the assault, not that it is illegal. So if the territory with the airbase is also attacked the assault could at least tie up a defending plane or the defender could chose to allow it.

Do you have a quote/link for that? Because my understanding that it was illegal came from what Krieghund said as well.

I might be thinking of this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37437.msg1507310#msg1507310

Although it isn’t exactly definitive. I still think the rule is as I said though. There is no rule that forbids moving an undefended transport on combat move into a square with a potential scramble, although there is a rule against moving an undefended transport into a hostile sea zone (I think). A square with no ships is not hostile.

I’m open to being corrected though.

@Adam514:

You can go ahead and ask Krieghund about the rule. We just decided it was the same as the scrambling situation, but if it isn’t then the rule can be whatever is best and simple.

Did Krieghund have any input into the marines? Why ask him if he didn’t?

Yes you are most likely right about the scramble rule. So time to decide what the rule is regarding marines unloading from friendly ships in kami zones.

@Adam514:

If I understood correctly, you propose that if 1 kami is used in a zone that all allied marines on cruisers/BBs can’t unload from that zone? Does the defender even roll for the kami since it can’t hit anything?

No, it would just be used up.  My favored proposal is actually that kamikazes can’t stop these landings at all - only a scrambled fighter/tac could.

The problems with that are the fact that the use of edit mode is required to remove kamis (since you can’t assign them to friendlies, I think) and to reload the marines on the ships, and that now it’s actually better for marines to be on friendly BBs/cruisers instead of some of their own nation, which doesn’t make much sense.

Alright, well what I really think is that kamikazes shouldn’t be able to be used against cruisers/battleships in amphibious assaults at all, solving this concern as well.

@Adam514:

Yes you are most likely right about the scramble rule. So time to decide what the rule is regarding marines unloading from friendly ships in kami zones.

Great!!

I actually propose that kamikazes can only be used when there is a defending Japanese surface warship.  I know this would be actually taking away an ability that they have in the official 2nd edition game, but it would be the cleanest solution to this little problem.  Perhaps you could compensate Japan by adding more kamikaze tokens at game start, which would also tend to make the game more interesting I think.  8 or 9 instead of 6?
I also think it would be nice if the Allied player didn’t have to consider kamikazes when there isn’t a single Japanese surface warship in a zone.

So this would take away Japan’s ability to use a lone kamikaze to stop bombardment.  A destroyer or better, or scrambled plane would be necessary just like it is for everyone else.  I also think it is somewhat punitive that a single kamikaze can target a cruiser that has a marine on it and destroy them both, and there would be fewer opportunities for this if you require a defending Japanese surface ship.  Kamikazes could still sink cruisers and battleships that have marines on them, but only if there is a destroyer or better defending.

Just a suggestion for the mod squad.  I would love to see what you guys do with these suggestions, but if you all stick with your previous practice of just not allowing allies to amphibious assault in a kamikaze zone if Japan has kamikazes, I won’t make a stink.  But whatever is decided, it would be great if it were added to your mod rules

@Gamerman01:

Alright, well what I really think is that kamikazes shouldn’t be able to be used against cruisers/battleships in amphibious assaults at all, solving this concern as well.

Interesting. So the Kamikaze would only be triggered by the sea combat. Although I’m inclined to think that Kamikazes should be allowed for amphibious assaults under normal situations, mostly to assist scrambled fighters.

@Gamerman01:

I actually propose that kamikazes can only be used when there is a defending Japanese surface warship.

I think this is a stretch too far. Kamikazes should be usable where there is a sea combat, even one induced by a scramble.

regarding adding more Kamikazes, my suggestion is rather than having a fixed number of Kamikazes per game, expend an IPC cost, say 5IPCs for a kamikaze.

I have been editing my post, so you might want to scan it again

Good ideas, Simon, if you require a scramble then that still prevents just a lone kamikaze from stopping unlimited bombardment, and prevents drilling every cruiser that comes in with a marine.

For example, it is extremely perilous for the USA to take an undefended Iwo Jima with a marine and a cruiser because of kamikazes.

Talk about not making sense, Adam,
You can take Iwo Jima with a transport and an infantry totally uncontested, but you can’t do the same with a cruiser/ battleship and a marine because of kamikazes.  I would love to see this fixed.

So with Simon’s idea added to mine, the proposed rule could be that kamikazes cannot be used by themselves against amphibious assault.

(There would have to be a defending surface warship or a scrambled plane)

Also a great idea to (leave starting kamikazes at 6) make kamikazes a purchasable unit.  I’m not saying 5 is best, maybe it is, I haven’t thought about it.

So, in regard to Allied marines, kamikazes would no longer be an issue.  Because if there is a Japanese defending warship or scrambled plane, then the allied unit couldn’t do an amphibious assault without that ally also having accompanying ships/planes.  Now you’d still have the problem of the kamikaze not being able to hit the cruiser/battleship that the marine is arriving from, but it could target other ships by the attacking power…… If there are none it couldn’t, but this would be extremely rare.

Another possible, and very simple solution, is to disallow marines from boarding ally’s cruisers/battleships.

@Gamerman01:

Another possible, and very simple solution, is to disallow marines from boarding ally’s cruisers/battleships.

I would disagree with this one though.

If USA attempts to come with a Marine on a battleship to SZ6, fight the navy and land the marine on an undefended Korea but two Kamikaze hits are scored on the BB, the marine should be lost. We aren’t thinking of changing this right?

I have to agree with Gamerman01 about the Iwo Jima example but I’m not sure I’d like to see the bombardment/Kamikaze rules changed. I would like to see the bombardment/marine rule changed though. Bombardments should only support units from transports. I don’t care much either way if a marine comes on a transport.

Regarding the purchase of extra Kamikazes - I wasn’t really thinking of that but yes that is even better! The maximum value on paper a Kamikaze can have is if it strikes a cruiser - 4IPC given that it only has a 1/3 chance of hitting. Ignoring onboard marines of course.

@Gamerman01:

So with Simon’s idea added to mine, the proposed rule could be that kamikazes cannot be used by themselves against amphibious assault.

(There would have to be a defending surface warship or a scrambled plane)

Also a great idea to (leave starting kamikazes at 6) make kamikazes a purchasable unit.  I’m not saying 5 is best, maybe it is, I haven’t thought about it.

---

So, in regard to Allied marines, kamikazes would no longer be an issue.  Because if there is a Japanese defending warship or scrambled plane, then the allied unit couldn’t do an amphibious assault without that ally also having accompanying ships/planes.  Now you’d still have the problem of the kamikaze not being able to hit the cruiser/battleship that the marine is arriving from, but it could target other ships by the attacking power…… If there are none it couldn’t, but this would be extremely rare.

Like you said in your last paragraph, there would still be the issue with kamis. It would just be rarer.

What would you propose to solve the single tp and inf being able to take a territory in a kami zone? Allowing kamis to also target transports would be too powerful. Perhaps make it so that kamis cannot target transports as long as there is something else to target?

Interesting ideas, I’ll reread them tomorrow and see if I can’t find something wrong or something better. I’m currently leaning towards the simplest solution, which is to prevent allied marines from loading on another nation’s cruiser/BB.

@Adam514:

What would you propose to solve the single tp and inf being able to take a territory in a kami zone? Allowing kamis to also target transports would be too powerful. Perhaps make it so that kamis cannot target transports as long as there is something else to target?

Not a bad idea.  Then the USA could send a destroyer and the landing would be guaranteed success though of course the destroyer may be attacked, but that reduces Japan’s kamikazes and the transport and cargo would be unmolested

Interesting ideas, I’ll reread them tomorrow and see if I can’t find something wrong or something better. I’m currently leaning towards the simplest solution, which is to prevent allied marines from loading on another nation’s cruiser/BB.

Cool -
I will just give you some time
I’m glad I brought this up and getting attention from two of the main mod squad members - much appreciated

Thanks kid, I admit I looked up the wikipedia article before, when forming my responses, but didn’t read it thoroughly.  Trusting you are correct, I was wrong in thinking that kamikazes were normally launched from carriers or when there was a fleet presence.

As far as ahistorical, what to me is ahistorical is that kamikazes can be used in 1940 or 1941 (If USA enters the war on US1, US2, US3) or 1942 (US4)

As you said, they were a last ditch effort when there was no naval response toward the very END of the war (1945).  Were there even any significant numbers of them in 1944?  See, I still haven’t read most of the info  :-P

In 1st edition, there used to be a requirement that the Allies had taken certain islands before kamikazes could be used.  Then later, for various reasons, one no doubt being simplicity, the requirement was simply removed.  Now with the introduction of marines, the ability of Japan to kamikaze a cruiser with a marine from the beginning of the game is a bit of an issue, at least in my mind.

This could be solved by re-instituting a waiting period for kamikazes, which also makes it much more historical.  Probably the best way (rather than a certain round) is to re-institute Harris’ rule that kamikazes can’t be used until the Allies have advanced to the point of taking a certain island chain (I could look up which ones those were).

This would weaken Japan a bit, but it’s not hard to compensate her in some other way.  Maybe that Iwo/Okinawa NO you guys were talking about or something

I found the original Pacific rulebook

I am now vindicated - in the original rulebook, it says “If an Allied player has moved ships into one of the above sea zones, the Japanese player can announce during this phase that he or she intends to launch a kamikaze attack.”

That’s why I originally thought allied marines should be able to do amphibious assaults and kamikazes would not be able to be used, because of the requirement of moving ships into a sea zone, but this wording was changed by the time 2nd edition came.

Anyway, the original official rules were that “Kamikaze attacks can only occur after one or more of the following islands are captured or re-captured by the Allies – Philippines, Marianas, Okinawa, and/or Iwo Jima”

See, that ensured that kamikazes could only be used late in the war.

Hm, well that was June 1942.  Interesting

Of course, it takes time from instituting the program, til it’s used at a significant level

What do you think about Harris’ original rule?

Speaking of old, subsequently changed, rules,

I wish we had the automatic convoy damage of 1 per destroyer/cruiser/battleship, 2 per sub/plane that it was originally.
I don’t like the dice being added and the ability of a single sub to do 6 damage  :-(

Dominion’s not gonna be happy if my lucky surviving UK sub in 97 does 4 damage to Germany this turn (after doing 2 to Italy) and I don’t blame him