Global 1940 Combat Engineer Unit

@shadowhawk said in [Global 1940] Changing AA in the game:

Well atm they are free hps. After the pre-combat shots they dont do anything in the fight except take a hit. So as a defender unless its clear im winning the first hits go to the AA, they are dead weight at this point.

When they can return fire every round against planes ( might want to keep the @1 because they target units ) then it might give the defender a reasonable choice.

I agree. I thought when you said that you were referring to the version with your house rules, not the out of box version.

IMO they represent flak88 batteries, a bit more specialised AA guns then the divisional version but a lot weaker then the static stuff that defends ports/airfields and the likes.

Agreed.

Mind you, you could pair your reduction of IPC values with a reduction in the number of units on the board at the start of the game. How much you would have to remove is something you would have to play out several times in order to get the balance right. I suspect this would start moving away from “easy fix” and moving towards “might as well be a different game”.

Such is gaming.

-Midnight_Reaper

Don’t tempt me SS.  You know that French swear words are not included in the forum censorship.

@Charles:

If you want to have the full experience, also use this neutral expansion ruleset along with the new powers:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.msg%msg_id%

All playtests of this addition of 11 powers used these new neutral rules, and I definitely recommend you play these two house rules together.  It allows for fun things like South Africa invading Portuguese colonies, Bulgaria and Italy invading Turkey etc.

We are currently working on implementing the 20-power ruleset for other Global setups.  If you would like to play this add-on in a Pacific/Europe solo game, I can post the theater rulesets on request.

Charles De Gaulle, has your group worked on any other setups recently besides 20 powers in 1940?  I am formally putting in a request (or fan vote) for 1936 with with 20 powers.  Maybe some of the smaller countries that weren’t conquered by Germany yet could act as pro-allied neutrals.  I just think 20 powers would work well from an early starting point.  More variables to “rewrite” history to some extent.  Anyways thanks for your efforts.

Axis gets full advantage in the early turns, this forces them to get more aggression there for no reason for them to use peace as a shield and if I am playing as the allies, I’d rather have them be aggressive at turn 1 than turn 4.

Well the proposal was for a single roll for the tech for all nations, not an individual roll for each nation separately. The turn order in this game is fixed, so even though the tech is activated for everyone at the same time, Germany would always get the initial benefit, since they go first in the turn order.

Basically it’s rolled for everyone on G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. On G 6 autotech shipyards for all is guaranteed.

Auto tech in round 2 would seem the easiest method, but for people who wand to add variety, the shipyards roll per round could provide it. It’s not a luckfest, the results are very predictable, since they mirror exactly a progressive 1d6 throw.

This would be a single die rolled for All nations (at once, together) to activate shipyards for all at the beginning of the round (together). The number which this die hits at is based on the game round.

Round 1 at 1 = 16.666%
Round 2 at 2 = 33.333%
Round 3 at 3 = 50%
Round 4 at 4 = 66.666%
Round 5 at 5 = 83.333%
Round 6 = 100% guaranteed Shipyard tech advance.

So you can see, the odds are no different for individual nations. Everyone is subject to the results of the same roll, it autotechs for everyone at the same time (the beginning of the game round.) This way there is no seeing “who gets it first” only seeing when everyone gets it, or seeing when the naval race begins in earnest for all players. This wouldn’t totally throw out the first round option, it would just drop the odds on it to about 16.67%.

I’m clearly cool with a round 2 auto activate for simplicity, but just wanted to offer another system that involves a roll for those who like to play it that way.  Under rolling conditions the more advantageous shipyards is to Axis per round, the more challenging the roll is. From the 3rd round on its 50/50 or better. In the 6th round, if it wasn’t already activated by then, there is no longer a need to roll, it autotechs for everyone at 100% 1d6 at a 6. Make sense?
So there is variability in the first 5 rounds, but always certainty during the end game. Eventually, after the 5th round, ships will be cheap for everyone, no matter what.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)