G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

I think it might make more sense to just return Australia to a single territory rather than two.

I have tried games before testing the idea of splitting islands across sea zones (basically a reverse definition) it has the effect of making bombardments more significant, and fleets less likely to engage on attack (they tend to camp defend  relying instead on amphibious.) Splitting islands also increases fighter movement in a somewhat overpowered way, so you have to be careful. I think with an interesting starting unit placement you can accomplish a lot. Australia as a single territory would have greater reach for any fighters landed there, and the scale of the territory warrants it a bit more then solomons.

I think the best approach is to tilt Japan slightly counter clockwise at the southern tip of the island to make more room for ships. And then put the alignment for the smaller islands based of the relative distance between Australia Hawaii and the three major island territories (East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines). I will play up the focus on the key islands (though some of those chains were involved Palau and the Marianas and such. On the whole though I think the stepping stones out of W. USA would be the most interesting way to change the Pacific dynamic. Force both players to defend their coastlines instead of drop south so easily with everything.

Will redraft it sometime on Tuesday when I get a break from work.

Have a nice memorial day

http://www.triplea-game.org

The best solution to the problem is to download TripleA. The above link will let you do exactly that. Not only will this engine allow you to play Larry Harris maps, it also allows you to play a good selection of player-created maps. Some of them are significantly better than any of Larry’s maps, at least to me. (Including New World Order, Rising Sun, and Domination 1914 No Man’s Land.)

Cards

sheet 1
http://www.mediafire.com/?gzydjjijzjr

Sheet 2
http://www.mediafire.com/?zmzut2rqn5n

Sheet 3
http://www.mediafire.com/?xj05mtmdyni

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

Da Komrad.

Just remember that if you are attacking German and Japanese submarines you have to roll to detect each group of submarines.  Not only if you are being attacked by Kaitens and regular submarines.

for the most part I like 'em - except it adds A LOT of complication & new stuff to the game. (Stalinist paranoia and the China rules, for example). Being sort-of opposed to IC’s in general and the somewhat long-ish ranges that fighters can potentially have, I gobbled up those rules pretty quickly. …mostly though, I borrowed a lot of the ideas to make simpler versions of these rules.

we play alot of 3 person games with one person as allies and one as germans, the other japan. games usually last around 6 hours or so.It sounds alot more complicated than it really is, if overwhelmed then just try some of it.such as random turnd or pregame spending,or just event cards.