Avoiding Infantry blobs. Change their Cost to 3.2!

Hey, this looks very interesting, BUT I think the Allies stand little chance since the UK cannot put any units on the table in time. They start first, granted that, but having to build an IC first will just spell disaster on India. Japan has 5 transports, 10 units in total, and using all their fighters, India should fall turn 2 or 3.

But I will gladly try this one out and maybe I will be proven wrong!

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

@Midnight_Reaper

NWO is the “New World Order” game on triplea. I just added them for house rules for global 40. So yea digital. Idk who did the artwork for them. Here’s Germany:

bunker.png bunker_hit.png

I seem to remember one of the gaming sites offering them for the physical board but i couldn’t say for sure. I think maybe @vodot may have made one with a 3d printer but idk

Research is super fun, but can seriously unbalance the game if a player gets lucky with their first couple rolls. Therefore, we play that the player chooses which tech to research, however better techs have a lower chance of being successfully researched.

The mechanism of researching is the same, you buy research tokens (dice rolls), roll for success, if none hit the tokens are banked for next turn and can roll again at no cost, if successful the tech is gained and the tokens are removed and must be rebought to do more research . The cost of each token (die roll) is increased to 8 IPC (normally is 5). But, tier 1 techs will be successfully researched with a roll of 3 or lower, tier 2 with roll of 2 or lower, and tier 3 with roll of 1:

(3/6 chance) 1. adv artillery, inc factory prod . || mech infantry, war bonds
(2/6 chance) 2. long-range aircraft, radar . . . . || paratroopers, rockets
(1/6 chance) 3. heavy bombers, super subs . . || jet fighters, improved shipyards

To balance out how multiple techs are gained, we separated complimentary tech into opposing groups to prevent them from easily being researched too quickly back-back and becoming OP. To research a tier 2 or 3 tech at least one tech from the tier below must be already obtained from WITHIN the branch. Note, the techs are separated into left and right branches.

So to get heavy bombers (left, tier 3), you could research adv artillery or factory prod (left, tier 1) then radar or long-range air (left, tier 2). Then, to get jet fighters (right, tier 3), you’d have to also research 2 corresponding lower tier techs in the right branch, because adv artillery/radar/etc. don’t count towards the necessary lower tier techs for the right branch.

Thoughts?

Yes Dorowar my token system works really well. It adds a mission based element to the game that probably can’t be duplicated with any other type of house rule. It is such a game changer that you don’t need to put in a bunch of other house rules. Rolling the D6 first and then choosing the chart takes more chance out of WD than you might think and everyone should give that a try no matter how they play R&D. My guess is your play group will want to adopt that for sure.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played the 1914 Tournament Rules, but they have something there that is a specified threshold for each nation that puts them in economic collapse. Perhaps an idea for you might be to determine an IPC level for each nation that must be met in order to develop weapons in lieu of NO’s. That is kind of the same thing as what I do - force a nation to be worthy of developing a weapon. That combined with your research token and some cash and you start rolling for a weapon.

Whatever you decide to do let us know how it works. Some of the best ideas are the ones we get from others here.

If an airbase has more than 2 damage points would therefore be 3 or more which means it’s not functional at all.

I think 3 is too restrictive.

I would be ok with trying a house rule that requires:

1. Air Base is completely damage free for any extra movement range period.

2. 3 plane types could move an extra movement point; not unlimited… So, 3 bombers, 3 tacs, 3 fighters…ect.

Combine Venezuela/Colombia/Ecuador, Chile/Bolivia/Peru, and Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay together. No need to change IPC values.

From a playability standpoint it makes no sense to have 9 little countries across the continent.

I play it like this and things can get interesting.

ammend the NO’s
give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game