Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

I have found the use of submarines in Global pretty underwhelming. While the Axis don’t need any help in the OOB game, I did want something that would provide the desired flavor, within the scope of A&A (and understandably balanced by some benefit to the Allies).

German Submarines (U-boats)
Cost: 7
Attack: 2
Defense: 1
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
German submarines, commonly known as u-boats, benefited over their opponents with advanced tactics. Except the characteristics above and where mentioned below, they are treated as submarines for all other purposes, including Surprise Strike, Submersible, On Station, Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly, Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement, Can’t Hit Air Units, and Can’t Be Hit by Air Units.
Limited Nationality: Only Germany can purchase German submarines.
Wolf Pack: German submarines can be combined with other German submarines. A matched pair of two German submarines increases the attack value of both submarines from 2 to 3.
Condor Spotting: Strategic bombers can be combined with German submarines. A matched pair of a strategic bomber and a German submarine increases the submarine’s attack value from 2 to 3.

@doomer1940 I agree with you I’m working on fixing it

The split sea zone in the Adriatic is a good idea for both reasons you mentioned.

While the convoy any territory is interesting I wouldn’t be a fan of adding NO’s to convoy ability of the territories. Probably a better approach would be to add a few more convoy zones or just add to convoy ability to zones that contain a capital. Change the die roll to 1-4 or keep the same value and add a die in a capital convoy zone.

There’s always options.

@Baron:

Young Grasshopper has made a video on YouTube  Cliffside Bunker Channel which explains clearly how it works in Global game.

Then you should read my thread on Convoy Disruption for 1942.2.
There is two mechanics invented to try.

Thanks again, took a look at YG’s YT channel and found the explanation for CD.  That clears it up nicely and now we can add that to the game as well.  Should be quite interesting to add this tactic.  He mentioned that it’s the responsibility of the player to point out to the other players where he can be CD’d.  Only thing I don’t necessarily agree with.  Should be the other person’s responsibility to keep an eye on the board for when/where they can CD.  Other than that it looks pretty straight forward now that I’ve seen it explained.

Taking a look at your thread as well.  :-)

@Black_Elk:

For what it’s worth I still think this HR mod is entertaining.

Which options did you play test YG?

Given all the input and ideas in this thread, I think its still worth kicking around.

I would submit than any balance issues could surely be corrected through National Objectives. Perhaps your suggested NOs for UK, did not provide enough to compensate for the inclusion of the Commonwealth?

Did you play option 2 (with South Africa)? Or just option 1?

I also like the limited cash haul concept

I have played both options and I have found that much of the Allied income is pushed to the outside on spawning locations far from the fighting. I now perfer a system where the UK Europe economy is it’s own nation separate from the UK Pacific economy… I also like combining ANZAC income and territories with UK Pacific (with Calcutta as it’s capital) in the same way Canadian income and territories are combined with UK Europe.

@Daedelus:

Maybe this would unbalance the game, but Franco’s Spain had been a close ally of Germany in the 1930’s and this could represent Germany’s constant nagging to repay the favor.
[…]
Thoughts?

It could be an interesting game option.  Historically, though, Hitler did try nagging Franco but got nowhere with him, for instance in the discussions over the projected Operation Felix (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix).

@Cmdr:

@Raeder:

@Cmdr:

Ever consider Super Carriers that could hold 3 fighters?  (3 is good because you can physically put three fighters on the carrier model!)

For crying out loud… I posted exactly this idea in the New units thread like months ago… no answers, and now you post the exact same thing here. I’d like to be credited.  :wink:

I was doing that in 1993 though. :P

But yea, figuring out 3 fighters fit on a carrier doesn’t exactly take brain surgery. hehe

Using it without my permission… hmm, you owe me royalty then.  :-D