First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island, secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.
Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
This would save them and better promote some island hopping.
What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?
I would play with you uncrust, but for bidding, I don’t support bid placements in unoccupied territories (such as NG).
Il be online after the hollidays probably quite a bit, il look out for ya ;)
I think a better way for the 2 NAs
All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
Does not stack with artillery bonus
Mech are not considered infantry
I have no idea what rules or set up you guys play I play Alpha 3+ from Larry Harris not some 3rd party where some kidnaped up and posted his own Alpha 3 and also I play Table Top board game nothing Via computer. I’ll post a write up
Later as I’m off to work.
No idea where a Britsh sub comes from lol
I find your tone hilarious.
I play the official second edition (same as the alpha project I believe)
I think if were to come online and play a few games against some skilled opponents you would more readily see the flaws in you strategy.
12 IPCs is about the average bid for the allies right now.
Playing online or on the table makes no difference as far as rules/setup.
It is the same game, playing online however affords you more time to play and often you can play 3 games or so online in the time required to play one game F2F.
However I look forward to your write up.
Try downloading tripleA in the meantime, it will be much easier and more accurate way to do your write up.
And variance is right, you would enjoy tripleA.
It takes some getting used to, but as I said it’s the same rules, same setup and same map.
USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs
Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12
That is another criteria: original feature vs Larry OOB.
When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser
.
Not sure if this is just a statement or what…there has been loads of analysis on this subject, and 10IPC cruiser was proven to be the most logical, here and several other threads.
I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.
Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers? :lol:
Decision on transports should be easier. I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting. 7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.
Yes ;) but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lol
I think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA
SZ 109 (UK scrambles fighter from Scotland) Subs have less than a 50% chance of sinking the transport.
SZ 110 (UK scrambles 3 fighters from UK) You have a 45% chance of winning with an average 1-2 defending fighters surviving. Meaning UK can stack Britain against Italy round 1. And you just lost 6 planes.
Retreat after 1 round your not going to kill a single fighter most games while losing 3 of your own. This also means UK can stack France, meaning you can’t take Normandy, south France, Tunisia or FIC until round 3 (after Italy takes France round 2)
Meaning Germany loses 3 fighters and loses out on 28 IPCs round 1, and another 9 round 2.
That’s 37 IPC plus 30 IPCs in planes on average. 67 IPCs lol.
So UK loses 5 planes to hold France one round, it’s already ahead by 16 IPCs and the axis are severely delayed from anything in Russia or Africa and there is no sealion threat .
Again the more I look at this the more flaws become apparent.
Do yourself a favor and atleast post a game report, turn by turn. Otherwise I do not believe this has any merit.
@Uncrustable:
You also realize that in order for Italy to actually get 19 IPCs round 2 all if the axis must hold off from taking any France tts until France falls!
This includes Normandy and south France (5IPCs)
Meaning now 5 less IPCS less Germany on top of the 23 for not taking France G1IMO this strategy is so flawed it’s silly, and I’m beginning to wonder if we’re not just arguing with a couple noobs. (No offense but this has to he pointed out)
Try reading and answering this again white. ;)
First your G1 naval moves are risky, and statistically you are going to lose nearly all your planes round 1. So not only does Germany not take any France territories round 1 (28 IPCs or 23 if they take Normandy and S France) they also stand to lose a lot of their planes. Their also is a very good chance that enough UK planes survive to defend Paris until round 2. In that case Germany must send a very large amount of ground into France Again (because they just lost all their air) severely delaying any push into Russia. Italy wouldn’t get France until R2 and depending on what France territories the axis took they may not get more than 13 IPCs for it. With this UK can go 100% Africa buys with zero sealion threat, Italy doesn’t stand a chance without German and now Germany can’t even help them without even further delaying Russia invasion. Russia is going to be a monster ad USA is going to be 100% pacific as now Japan is the axis only hope.
The allies can afford to lose planes, as I stated earlier the game is a race for the axis. The more they piddle around the less likely their chances at victory. Even though your strategy at France May cost the allies some planes, it delays the entire axis by atleast 1 full turn if not more and allows UK to go 100% Africa.
I would love to play a game against you on tripleA sometime.
Low luck, best of 3, standard bid of 12 allies (sub 98, inf Sudan, inf New Guinea)
Yes 20 IPC BB is best.
No change from OOB.
Far more historical realism.
Still has a place in the game as a heavy hitter and with it’s staying power (2hit).
Your point about warships playing second fiddle to land units is both true and should be true IMO. I really fail to see what you are trying to say with regards to this.
What did naval do in the real war? What does control over water get you in reality? No direct income, but indirectly via convoy and troop transports. This is played out just as it should be in this game. I.e. Warships solely to protect transports and/or destroy them or to convoy raid/prevent enemy from convoy raiding.
Naval purchases are crucial, but a good player will punish you for overspending on it.
This is a very healthy game mechanic.
SS 6
DD 8
CA 10 *
CV 16
BB 20
Transports 6 or 7 ?
This is something that needs looked into a bit deeper…
Ok so we have 2 different conversations going on, and one I believe is definitely off topic.
Baron: Im not sure how many games of global you play, or how competitive they are, but G40 has no problems with warship buys. Many are purchased. I believe ship to plane to land costs are near perfect right now, any deviations could have balance implications.
You point out that you must build land to actually get money, transports to move your land and warships to protect said transports and/or destroy them.
What are you saying?
This is how it is meant to be yes?
This best illustrates some form of realism yes?
From these twos criterias, and if there is no historical accuracy goal,
I would add that
1- like having more buying options and
2- being able to put more variety of units on the board.
More units is most of the time not a good thing.
It can water down the game, and would increase time required if anything.
Cruiser v BB is a great example of too many units.
However if there is a niche to be filled then …
I do not wish to abandon historical realism, only that gameplay should be more important.
G40e in my mind is first a balance adjustment.
There are flaws in the current OOB ruleset.
Cruisers are a flaw, the 6VC system for Japan is considered by many a flaw.
G40e should enhance the overall experience.
Cruisers at 10 is an enhancement, it is more balanced with the other units.
It adds more strategic depth, giving nations another viable option.
It also is by nature more historically accurate relative to its current OOB price of 12.
At the same time it has a very minimal effect on overall game balance.
No setup changes required, no other changes required.
The same can be said of 10 IPC tacbombers.
I’m not sure about 12 IPC bases as far as overall balance implications.
At 12 IPCs it is simpler, as now bases and minor ICs all cost the same. (12)
It also is very clear I think that 15 is too much.
AAA are another problem in current OOB rules. They are never worth purchasing and are confusing to new players.
I would be in favor of returning to classic AA, but this would require setup changes.
Making AAA a normal unit (A1D1) is both simpler and gives them a little more strength.
They maintain current OOB AA shots. (Defense only)
Current neutral block rules are very stale, they severely punish any neutral play.
Adding neutral blocks is definitely an enhancement. It would add some depth without adding too much complexity.
I think YGs version is simplest: South America, Mongolia and the rest. 3 blocks.
As far as BBs are concerned i think the solution is to leave them at 20 with cruisers at 10.
Let them be overpriced as they were in reality. They still would serve a unique role (staying power) and would be purchased however sparingly.
This game should be more a ‘do over’ rather than a reenactment. BB should be an option, but cruisers should always be the better buy. (They are not OOB)
Technology is very stale OOB and rarely used.
All the major powers pursued technological advances during the war.
Rolling for tech based on income, without worrying about cost, is a quick and simple method of ensuring technology will play a part in every game.
Breaking the existing techs into 4 categories (OOB has 2) also gives the player a little more choice while maintaining some luck factor.
Adding rail and keeping it simple would both speed up the game and add more importance to VCs.
Each home allied VC gives +1 movement to friendly units during noncombat move. Same for axis. This is neither OP or over complex, requires no additional playing pieces and makes sense. VCs would have the most extensive transport systems anyhow, and you would never rail from a captured territory.
Il add thoughts on scorched earth later…
Why I think the best costs are:
Just change cruiser to 10, leave the rest OOB
Also much easier to implement.
BB would be slightly weaker, but not much when you consider they are purchased for their 2 hits with OOB prices, only unit to go down is the cruiser.
You also realize that in order for Italy to actually get 19 IPCs round 2 all if the axis must hold off from taking any France tts until France falls!
This includes Normandy and south France (5IPCs)
Meaning now 5 less IPCS less Germany on top of the 23 for not taking France G1
IMO this strategy is so flawed it’s silly, and I’m beginning to wonder if we’re not just arguing with a couple noobs. (No offense but this has to he pointed out)
However, my biggest problem is USA being forced to split it’s IPCs between Europe and the Pacific theaters. What? Since when did the United States do an even split? You’re disabling the American ability to flexibly respond to crises as they arise? I.e., “looks like UK is going down due to Sea Lion and Russia is in deep doo doo. Too bad we can’t spend more in the European theater, even though the Japanese fleet is destroyed… Got to build more Carriers in San Francisco” That’s crazy.
I agree here, I’ve since changed my mind about this.
Not to mention most bids feature a Brit sub in 98
There is no way Italy gets into Africa with this strategy.
First it delays the axis for an entire turn, and they do not even stand to benefit from it.
With zero sealion threat Britain can build an IC in Egypt turn one.
With this you cannot afford USA entering early, forcing japan to wait to Dow, meaning both Britain and ANZAC get rich in the pacific.
Britain PAC could then fly its planes from India to Egypt, get an airbase there and Africa is secure for the entire game.
What you really fail to realize is this would delay the Germans not one turn, but 2 entire turns as they are going to need a good amount to take France turn 2.
For one it’s safe to say that anyone playing as Germany will Clear out the Atlantic as best you can. I personally like to clear out the two destroyers and transports as manditory, and the English Channel and off Scotland. Then do the standees opening kvements and attacks I like to take Southern France cause it gives me the ability to have a port as Germany in the meditranian.
This is not possible barring really lucky dice.
The most standard play is taking out English Channel, Scotland an transport off Canada. Leaving the gib cruiser and 109 transport.
During Britain’s turn Italy cannot scramble against Taranto, as losing fighters would mean Britain needs less to defend France meaning less air lost for Britain.
I liked the game itself but hated a lot of the components in that game. It has a really cheap feel but the game is fun. The board some people didn’t care for but I actually like the art quite a bit.
Revised came with paper money, aircraft range markers and marshaling cards…
Think the only game since to come with extras like that was 50th.
Hainan cant be captured by the chinese, and serves the same sz.
I’m assuming you don’t watch much southpark :P