@Caesar:
What was the purpose behind this? Is this just to make naval battle play a larger role or did it seem like sea invasions were slow?
I wanted to balance the value of both bases…
An Airbase can extend movement and scramble up to 3 air units in defence of an adjacent sea zone. Both these abilities are strong and used quite often during a game. However, a Naval base a side from it’s extend movement capabilities, very rarely uses the repair capital ships ability. Loading 3 units onto a transport would be a strong ability on par with the strength of an Airbase and the value of 15 IPCs.
Great idea. Even without the NB, the transports would be more dynamic if they carried 2+1. The ticket cost to cross the oceans is too high, too much $$ is spent on worthless transports. US benefits most, then Japan, and Russia the least.
Only possible problem here is that it makes SeaLion or Egypt too easy for the Axis, though Ger+Ital have and use fewer transports overall than USA or Japan. May also make asia factories less appealing for a japan since TTs become more flexible.
I don’t know about adding more units.
I agree adding 3 units might make some situations too overwhelming for the defender, as the attacker has to spend less on transports. Maybe just changing the loading options would be better so the initial investment cost of transports is still there for the attacker.
In my old 1999 Europe, the rules were 2 of anything (just not 2 tank)… 2 artillery was fine, 2 AA, etc.
I like that better, maybe leaving a base, you can do 2 of anything (still agree NOT 2 armor, this as well can be too overwhelming)… but 2 mech, mech+artillery, tank+mech, etc.
Only possible problem here is that it makes SeaLion or Egypt too easy for the Axis, though Ger+Ital have and use fewer transports
Perhaps…but I notice on triplea that many UK players are not being “honest” and really guarding London UK1 with the standard 6 infantry/1 fighter. And a Sea Lion investment still puts Germany behind against a Russia building tanks on R2. Sea Lion doesn’t always guarantee ultimate Axis victory anyways. I read on the forums here that experienced Allied players welcome a Sea Lion, though I’m sure deep down inside no likes the “advantage” of losing their UK country’s income for several turns. But still, like you mentioned, the ticket price would be much cheaper for the US to cross the ocean (and therefore liberate). So maybe there would be no actual change to the balance of the game (or change to the imbalance if you will).
@Young:
@Caesar:
What was the purpose behind this? Is this just to make naval battle play a larger role or did it seem like sea invasions were slow?
I wanted to balance the value of both bases…
An Airbase can extend movement and scramble up to 3 air units in defence of an adjacent sea zone. Both these abilities are strong and used quite often during a game. However, a Naval base a side from it’s extend movement capabilities, very rarely uses the repair capital ships ability. Loading 3 units onto a transport would be a strong ability on par with the strength of an Airbase and the value of 15 IPCs.
Makes sense. Naval Bases are rarely purchased. Sometimes a US player puts one on Panama or Japan on Hainan. But that’s about it.
I agree the NB unit is kind of a bust. The NBs already in place certainly shape the play patterns, but as a purchase option it’s not very attractive.
I’m not sure what is possible in tripleA with respect to the above, though something tells me it would have to be player enforced via edits, but it wouldn’t be too difficult to playtest. Basically you just edit move the extra infantry where it is supposed to go, in the case of non com. In the case of amphibious that follows a naval combat, you could edit in a ghost transport (which wouldn’t effect the battle since the unit is defensless) then edit remove after the move is concluded. Would take a bit of tracking but not impossible to simulate using the machine. A third option would be to just edit the transport unit so it carries 3 by default, and then leave it as player enforced, where you can only load 2 normally, unless departing an NB. Would still need to be tracked but eliminates the need for edits. We used to do something similar with transport bridging, before we figured out how to make the engine enforce only unloading into a single territory per transport, so I think players can be relied on to enforce the rules in most cases, even if the machine might let something slip. FtF clearly it’s much easier to implement.
Do you have any more one off rules like these that you’re using?
I’m trying to make a list of interesting ideas for simple reference. I know some of the Cliffside Bunker stuff is already stickied, so pretty easy to find. But sometimes the one offs slip through the cracks, and can be hard to search out after a few months have gone by. My goal at some point is to gather all the cool one offs together, so players can just scan down a big list, and try whatever concepts jump out at them. If it’s cool with you, I’ll put this one in the section that deals with HRs for Bases in G40.
@Young:
Transports may now carry an extra infantry beyond it’s maximum capacity when all units are loaded from a territory with an operational naval base.
Have you tried to extend the repair range 2SZs from Naval Base?
Like to pretend that BB or Carrier went for repair and turn back to their home fleet later, in the same 4 to 6 months for game turn.
Just throwing an idea out there, how about a “naval scramble” of up to two non-capital ships from a NB to an adjacent seazone? This would force the German player to make harder decisions on attacking SZ 110 and 111 but on the flip side the Italy could properly defend Taranto.
I don’t know if this would encourage players to build more NBs in the Pacific but they would get some added value at least.
YG I can agree with you that there is an imbalance between the abilities of the 2 bases. I’m not so sure that giving the transports this extra ability is the right way to even them out. It would be a fail if the German player didn’t conquer London on turn 3 every single game like they do with Paris in the first round. There would be absolutely nothing that the UK could do to prevent that short of rolling nothing but ones.
I’ve always thought that naval bases were greatly overpriced. Maybe a good idea would be to lower the cost of a naval base instead of giving it more ability. I would say somewhere around 12 IPC’s would be a fair cost when compared to a 15 IPC air base.
All it takes is a commitment to attack by Germany.
Germany buys 2 transports on turn one and 5 on turn 2. Turn 3 they put 16 infantry and 8 tanks plus the air power on London. They will already have that many tanks without having to purchase any so they still have money left over to commit to the eastern border. They take UK’s income and drop the ground units in the east that they didn’t on turn 2 or reinforce London with the transports they already have and infantry they purchase with UK’s money.
If they don’t get it turn 3 they can hit them again turn 4. Every single game.
All it takes is a commitment to attack by Germany.
Germany buys 2 transports on turn one and 5 on turn 2. Turn 3 they put 16 infantry and 8 tanks plus the air power on London. They will already have that many tanks without having to purchase any so they still have money left over to commit to the eastern border. They take UK’s income and drop the ground units in the east that they didn’t on turn 2 or reinforce London with the transports they already have and infantry they purchase with UK’s money.
If they don’t get it turn 3 they can hit them again turn 4.� � Every single game.
GHC, just friendly debate here :) Buying 7 transports is a lot of IPCs in the critical 1st few turns.
If London has to be hit again on turn 4, I really don’t know how the Axis could win at all. The US will have to be kept of the war through Japan’s turn 3 which means India and ANZAC have enough time to build sufficiently to take care of themselves for a long time. Maybe only China is destroyed during this time, which I believe very critical. The US can fully concentrate on liberating London.
Yes, GHC, don’t get me wrong. Just saying…I like pulling off Sea Lion, even if I lose the game :)
It’s fun to sack London! I know how to execute a Sea Lion. I’ve done it successfully in 2 games (taken London a total of 4 times). In the 2 games London was taken, but not successfully, Germany could barely hold Russia back in both of them; planes had to be taken as hits just to get 1 tank on London. In the successful games, Moscow eventually fell, but in all 4 games London was liberated. The US can easily liberate London regardless.
I agree and already wrote in a previous post that no matter what, London can be taken. Have you ever experienced sacking London against a fully defending UK? If the UK player is able to put 16 infantry on London plus a fighter (UK 1 and UK2). Germany can still take it like you said. But Germany having to drop lots of ground while losing a whole turns worth of purchases is very taxing. The sacked treasury is often barely enough to stabilize and push Russia back. I go for Sea Lion only if everything goes right G1 and then the UK player gets too aggressive. Some people less experienced think a G1 purchase of 1 bomber and 6 infantry signals Barbarossa.
In the situation you describe, an experienced Russian player is going to get bonuses in Hungary and Romania, maybe Russia gets pushed back to their original borders, but Germany won’t be going much further for a very long time. A smart Russian player will have more tanks on the board than Germany and stacked on E. Poland.
Therefore I’m arguing that the HR idea of this thread is still not overkill for the Axis or at least in the situation of Sea Lion as you describe. This will mean though that a smart UK player will have to place 6 infantry/1 fighter on London UK1.
“Germany could spend every penny on executing Sea Lion and still successfully do it, even if the UK is putting everything on London, but at that point it’s too expensive; especially if Germany has to take plane hits to conquer London…”
