Posts made by JimmyHat

Wow, this thread has almost no discussion.  How disappointing.

Jenn will probably log on tomorrow and answer some other question besides looking at my reason why CoH is a bad idea.  That would take too much thinking.

The allies wouldn’t attack spain unless they could keep Saf safe as well.  Also I added 1 inf to Liberia so that the allies have to worry about that as well.

If Turkey seems like a weak spot, how about amending the force pools for the other neutrals in its block?  We can add 1 art 1 ftr to Arabia for instance.  Or perhaps a dd?  That seems much easier than having territories that can influence mutliple blocks.

Also I agree with adding an aa gun to Turkey, I think I did that.

It is cool thought that at least people are realizing that neutrals need additional units, especially if segregated into neutral blocks.  The only issue people had with my proposal was that it might be too tempting for the Axis to hit Turkey, if that is the case then negating the Caucusus NO would fix that, although I don’t think that will be necessary.  The additional forces added and the fact that the remaining territories in the block immediately join the other side will do the trick.

Since nobody can tell me why my proposal is bad I’m going to stick to it.  1C is great and all but the 10 ipcs the US has to pay is silly because its singling out 1 nation over the others.  Also it doesn’t include even rudimetnary force pool additions which I feel are going to be the simplest and also easiest way to balance the blocks.

Also this whole tech structure puts the corn cob to the minor powers.  Guess it might only be best in 2v2 games or less.

@Cmdr:

@JimmyHat:

@Cmdr:

Saving large sums of money has already been PROVEN to be a horrible idea!  No one is going to save the money required to get another die.  The ball is in your court, convince the jury why the idea we all voted for - twice - is bad and your idea is not worse.  (It is worse.  I can prove it’s worse.  I have proven it is worse.  It will destroy the reasons we brought free technology rolls into the game in the first place - which might be why you are trying to make these changes, to undo what we wanted to do in the first place.)

I agree, that’s not to say people won’t do it.  People will be more likely to save a few ipcs however if it means getting another free die roll next round. (going by CoH)

Then there is no problem.  It’s now everyone against Mantlefan in which case he is out voted and we may put this issue to bed.

Like grandpa peepap on Squidbillies, you got me again!

I guess I am confused as to what you two are arguing about, or more accurately the topic switches constantly so its impossible to track.  My problem is with going by CoH over income…for the reasons listed.  I also think you should be able to purchase 1 extra die if you desire instead of having to pay for 4 as a minimum, because then perhaps minor nations have a shot.

@Cmdr:

Saving large sums of money has already been PROVEN to be a horrible idea!  No one is going to save the money required to get another die.  The ball is in your court, convince the jury why the idea we all voted for - twice - is bad and your idea is not worse.  (It is worse.  I can prove it’s worse.  I have proven it is worse.  It will destroy the reasons we brought free technology rolls into the game in the first place - which might be why you are trying to make these changes, to undo what we wanted to do in the first place.)

I agree, that’s not to say people won’t do it.  People will be more likely to save a few ipcs however if it means getting another free die roll next round. (going by CoH)

@JimmyHat:

1. CoH can be adjusted by the player, by saving ipcs.  This cannot be disrupted by your opponents.
2. CoH adds another reward to the nation that captures a captial besides the large ipc infusion.
3. CoH rewards sloppy play and foolish land grabs.
4. CoH doesn’t provide an incentive for all nations to defend the front over defense in depth.  Look especially at France here, but really everywhere.

Yeah here are those amended reasons.  Have a crack at those Jen, I can provide clarity if needed.

@Cmdr:

There was a lot of talk about adding defensive firepower to neutrals.  JamesAmeman’s idea was a really good and well thought out idea on how to do that.

Ok, well its cool you like his idea.  I thought it was rather prohibitive because it did not specify neutral blocks, and therefore would punish an attack on neutrals even more than it is now by adding various units.

The only thing I did like about it was the availability to change the neutral force pool by deciding what units you wanted to add based on the incoming attack force.  However this was pointed out to be a failing because people could build aa guns if being attacked by air for example.

SO, lets see what we have here.  If we add James idea to Vances proposal we can see that SAmerica will probably never be attacked.  If US attacks Venezuela on US 4, then the SAmerican block would get what…20ipcs of units added?  24?  And so america will never attack SAmerica.

If German decides they want to invade neutrals, and head for Turkey G2 or G3, they are going to be facing 6 more ipcs of units to defend Turkey?  Scary.   At least UK gets an additional…6 ipcs of units to help defend from Arabia.

Oh and Sweden?  In James incantation (married with blocks) no one would be foolish enough to ever threaten it.

Its a bad plan.  It doesn’t go with the neutral blocks we have already ironed out, and its complicated.  Now you sell me on why its sooo hot.

@Cmdr:

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like it, you’re shutting out the little guys and then pouring on the options for the agressors who take capitals and get paid plus free tech!

Go back and read the rule.  It’s been fixed already.  Little guys can get 1 die free unless they have been crushed.  Some might even get 2 dice like the big boys.

However, money from capitols was already included - just because I was the only person to think of it and bring it up does not mean it was not always there!  It’s like the first guy who thought of the can-opener.

What?

I understand the ‘little guy’ gets 1 free die.  He doesn’t get anymore and he’s extremely lucky to get that one if he does.

I’ll try and see what the second part is about….Money from captials, right.  I don’t get it.  Money from capitals is included in CoH…

EDIT:  really I’m not following you Jenn, I don’t understand what this post of yours is even about.

@Cmdr:

@mantlefan:

YG clearly didn’t think that changing techs from 6 to 10 and having a player pick 6 for which to roll (a brilliant idea, IMO) was too big a change for the purpose of this thread, or he wouldn’t have posted it. My point is that since there is no fair way to say which ideas are too big and which are small enough, why try to do so?

Yes, but you were the only one to show support for it.  Not to mention, I don’t want to go through the effort of trying to work out 10 technologies that are all balanced, when I already had 6.  Stop lumping more work on me!  I already have to run a tournament, play the game for fun, deal with the holidays coming up and help out here!  Sheesh, give me a break man!  Leave my pet project alone!!!

Seriously, if you think it’s broken to have cash on hand and the only way to fix it is to change to collect income only, then please give us WHY it is broken the way we have it now, but not broken your way.  You seem to be stalling, hoping for someone to give you the answer.  Common man!  Tell us WHY, don’t just demand it be changed without reason!

I gave you 7 reasons it is not broken to keep it as is.  You have given us 0 reasons that it is broken.

Keep in mind, if you successfully argue that it’s broken, I have an argument that it should exclude ALL income that is not from control of territories.  So don’t shoot yourself in the foot by trying to win an argument that probably does not need to be won!

Hold on a sec YG, lets get through this first.  I got some reasons why CoH is inferior to Income.

1. CoH can be adjusted by the player, by saving ipcs.  This cannot be disrupted by your opponents.
2. CoH adds another reward to the nation that captures a captial besides the large ipc infusion.
3. CoH rewards sloppy play and foolish land grabs.
4. CoH doesn’t provide an incentive for all nations to defend the front over defense in depth.  Look especially at France here, but really everywhere.

My proposal for tech

I would like to see tech take effect at the end of the turn as opposed to the beginning right after the role.  Call it ‘reequipping time’ or something.  To be clear, you still R&D at the beginning, and then get the tech at the end.

@Cmdr:

The brackets are designed in such a way that it would be crippling for almost any nation throughout the game to try and save up for extra dice.  It may be plausible to see them saving up a few IPC a round for 12 rounds and get up a whole bracket, but even that is not too bad, that’s 12 rounds of a few units not being built, not getting in position and not attacking you.  Keep in mind, Mantlefan, it’s 40 IPC per bracket.  Most of these countries dont even earn 40 IPC, let alone would be willing, able and not punshed for saving that much money in any given turn.  
right.  No extra tech dice for minor powers, we get it.  They’re lucky if they can get 1 free die.  And remember this is a 6 player game. :roll:

Moreover, keep in mind you can get a “free” die for 15 IPC, instead of saving 40 IPC to get it.  So it would behoove you to buy a die or two, instead of trying to save up all this money.

I think the odds of “ludicrous and asinine” levels of saving for a free die are pretty low, and when it occurs, it’ll be so devastating to the fool who tried it that they’ll lose the game - even if they were winning before.
I disagree, people will save ipcs if its just a few to make it to the next free die.  They won’t save alot…of course I’m talking about the major powers here, cause the little guys get the shaft.

I don’t like it, you’re shutting out the little guys and then pouring on the options for the agressors who take capitals and get paid plus free tech!

@Cmdr:

Let’s be clear, however.  Switching from a Cash on Hand situation (which is what was voted on twice before we got here) to an Income Only situation is akin to changing when you collect income from at the end of your turn to the start of your turn.  It’s huge!  A massive change and one that was never voted for!

I don’t follow you Jenn, but perhaps that is because I don’t usually play with tech.  Like near never.  R&D happens at the beginning of the turn, that would be when you would logically count the income +NOs.  It would require keeping track of a number to do it from the end of your last turn.  That is what CoH is doing, it is rewarding the ‘paper thin tiger’ as you put it for land grabs.

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

@Cmdr:

@Vance:

I would say the answer to that is No because that’s not what people voted for.  There are no setup changes specified.

I said to have another vote, take rule 1C as the base.  Then allow people to vote on adding armies to those neutrals that are attacked.  It’s a simple binary vote:  
A)  Yes - If a true neutral is attacked, then the side that did not initiate the attack may purchase extra units in the amount of the territory value times the number of rounds before the territory was attacked in the territory.  
B)  No.  They get what’s printed on the board, nothing more, nothing left in perpetuity.

umm, I don’t like this but it is at least a direction.

How do we know option 1C needed troops?  If we are considering adjusting force pools for neutrals, then who is to say one of the other options isn’t better?  Layering rules is going to end up with page upon page of little exceptions and rule addendums.

If the issue is that neutrals need a force pool adjustment,(which I believe they do) then perhaps we should look at that when voting for proposals?  Only reason I suggest this is because it seems my proposal is simple, clear, and has precedent if not in other Larry Harris games than at least Xeno.  Perhaps we should vote on which version of neutral force pools we want to add.

Blocks to be decided but are considered essential
1.  Listed force pools in the index after nation setup.
2.  Have force pool adjusted by multiplying the ipcs of the territory by the number of turns.
3. Have force pool adjusted by adding inf equaling the value of the territory in ipcs.
4. Random roll for unit additions.
5.  Assign force pool additions based on the value of the territories name, where A=1 inf, B= 1 art, C= 2 inf…etc.
6.  No addition to neutral force pools.

France should be Cognac or perhaps champagne.

That is the same way I feel about CHina in Korea.  Its not complicated, lets not make it so.

FYI my current submission for consideration is back on page 7.

@Young:

I’m not really a fan of all that, my suggestion is to keep things simple, free dice if elegible + your choice of purchasing additional dice for $10 each.

Gotta have your capital
Gotta be at war
Can only gain 1 tech per turn
Pick 6 from from a chart of 10, than roll.

That’s the sum of what I will be pushing for.

I also don’t like the 4-6 limit, because it is going to be prohibitive for poorer countries to buy extra research dice.  They may only be able to afford 1 die.  I agree with mantlefan that we shouldn’t have limits for limits sake.  The less we add the better our additions are.

One other factor to consider.  I bet we see tech researched after the fall of a capital.  Flush with ipcs, Germany is best poised to throw ipcs at tech after the fall of France, UK and Russia which would have a big effect on their tech rolls if going by CoH over territorial income + NOs.

i like that idea YG but we’re still working on how rolls are achieved.  Gotta go to work