Small but impactful balanced changes. Global 1940.

@Krieghund

Oh…

I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???

:disappointed:

Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.

@gen-manstein yea i’d almost go at it the other way and make the CAs and fast BBs go 3. But that will create it’s own issues. Besides 19 knots is over 20 mph anyway

But other than that I haven’t seen any errors so great work! They’re especially good for newbies since it has the NOs and Political situations

It is more realistic to move warships from one SZ to another.
But, would you retreat more than 1 TT to repair your Tank?
(Land movement are much slower and falling back damaged Tanks while staying in position with Art and Inf make such delay an issue. You also have to compare between planes for the cost. Aircraft mobility and versatility is way more interesting than 2 hits units which have to return to IC for repair.)

IMO, it is easier to consider that such unit are repaired right on place with spare parts.

A different procedure I suggested a while ago is that you can only repair one and have to pick a damaged Tank as casualty before allocating a hit to damage another Tank.

So, instead of 10 Tanks staying on battle until the 11th hits.
A second hits eliminates a first Tank.
This becomes far less effective, but it is easier to follow a single damaged Tank per stack.

However, I did not search on how to calculate such way of allocating damage.

Thank you kind sir. If you get the chance, try it out and give me the results. I am adding Romanian today. :wink: I am changing a few things for Finland as well.

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

OH my poor memory… nevermind… :oops: