DK's Progressive Arms Research system…

Makes sense Charles DG.  General HG uses armored cars as artillery scouts.  Could do something similar.

@Bob77:

I would try a5 for tac bomber

I like it too.
Fighter A4 D5 vs TcB A5 D4 would be like mirror.
One is better for defense the other for offense.
Also, it keeps StB superior with A6.
My personnal taste would keep D1 for StB.
StB will still remain OP and an issue with Dark Sky.

All this is really about what you are aiming at and what is considered an issue in OOB roster.
Cruiser is slightly buffed considering how it is currently underpowered.

Someone suggested to me the idea of using Global War 1936 lend-lease paths instead of moving units for Tech. It would definitely cleaner on the board. I am just trying to think about the advantages and disadvantages to each method. What do y’all think?

Just to say again, that I like this solution for G40.

In the tripleA edit mode it only take a few moments.

Just enable edit mode
edit the “territory ownership” of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Chile to USA
click the neutral infantry and remove them, then “add units.” The default is American, since you already changed ownership.
then “Change PUs” of America from 52 to 60 ipcs.

Easy. It’s also fun to watch how the AI tries to make use of the new loot and the new units haha
:-D

@Der:

Hi Marc -

I put in the possibility of removal of the chips in case the player was faced with a huge attacking force and wanted to withdraw everything but did not want the enemy to capture and use all of his entrenchment. (kind of a scorched earth thing)

I put some entrenchment in the Causasus because on my map Stalingrad is located there. I didn’t put any in Hitler’s Atlantic wall because my map starts in 1942 and the player can always add some later. Plus the German player gets an automatic 3 entrenchment anyway when the Allies try to land from the sea.    Â

Okay, thanks for the clarifications.  About the scorched earth thing, the ideal technique (and I’m just kidding here) would be to wait until the attacking enemy infantry falls into the abandoned entrenchments, then to fill in the trenches by blasting their walls with pre-set charges of TNT.  Sort of killing two birds with one stone.  :-D  In fairness, U.S. troops sometimes used a variation of this technique in the Pacific.  When confronted with a particularly tough dug-in Japanese position that would cost a lot of American casulties to clear by conventional assault methods, the troops would simply use a bulldozer to fill it in or collapse it.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.

This is based on the assumption that if one nation gets an arms breakthrough, the odds are that it will be easier for other nations will get it too, by copying it. Â

We have done this before - at the start of the game pass out a “copy” card to each player.

Say your opponent gets something really good like heavy bombers, or the Atomic Bomb or some house rule thing that could wreck you. Roll for an arms breakthrough as normal. If you get a six, instead of rolling for which random breakthrough you get, you now have the option of playing your “copy” card and copying something that is already on the board.

This helps keep the game competitive and less luck driven. It also adds a bit of strategy. Do you want to use your card to copy those super subs now or hold onto it in case someone gets long range aircraft? Decisions, decisions…

For long lists of custom Arms Breakthroughs, pass out two cards each.   Â

if i had nukes tech i would build a stack of bombers and nuke every opposing territory within range,
for 45 - 50 I.P.C. i could build 3 -4 bombers and nuke territories with no opposition with the superfortress tech,
getting nuke tech needs a twist because of the damage that it can do,
simply getting lucky by rolling a tech that has nukes tech combined would be a game killer, i think that a cost for nukes that would force a player to factor the cost of nukes into the I.P.C. spend would make nukes plausable within a set of house rules,