I like a few of the ideas that have been presented so far.
-
I like how WILD BILL organized his thoughts, so I will copy his method. (Imitation is the best form of flattery)
-
First I’ll say that I have no experience playing any tournament rules, and I feel like 2 move units could seriously throw off game balance with too many other changes, but I’m open to 2 movement and the unit set up changes (although I really don’t like the African ones, really just removes almost all the action from that theatre and adds a lot of luck into it (i.e. the 50/50 possible battle in South Africa would have massive implications on IPC values depending on how it went) and it also removes a lot of possible early earnings for the Germans. I understand that the movement change necessitated removing all those troops though. I also don’t really like the addition of the brit cruiser into sz 9 because it basically means that the only safe German strategy in the Atlantic is to send everything possible to sz 9 on turn 1, and the results of that battle would majorly impact the game. While some kind of change was needed in the Atlantic to partially make up for the loss of the French Battleship, I like Colonel Carter’s setup change of adding a German sub to sz 3 and a brit cruiser to sz 8 instead of sz 9. This would give the Germans even more round 1 naval options, and also help preserve more subs to convoy in the future. In case Germany proves too strong in the Atlantic, I would add an American Cruiser too. This would go with the idea of Germany doing much better at sea until the Americans really got involved. I do think that the extra movement from the tournament rules will help our goal of adding more strategies to this game, and the other setup changes (besides the naval one that I talked about above) are necessitated by the new movement. I would still say no to the naval base movement because this almost entirely favors the Allies (the US only needs 2 transport fleets to drop every turn into Picardy which is ridiculous, and it also does things like allowing the UK to get extra transports to India in 3 turns).
2a) I really like the idea of expanding USW as WILD BILL describes it, so that it includes the Med (sz 16,17,19) and all sea zones bordering Canada and the UK. The total list of sea zones for convoying the UK: sz 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,16,17,19; and for convoying the US: 1,2,7,8.
2b) I might have been a little ambitious with two phases of Submarine Warfare. Instead I agree with bolstering USW by making submerging subs more difficult to destroy as suggested by Colonel Carter and WB. I think that requiring a 1 would be too much, but requiring a 2 or less to hit would be pretty good. I would also add that subs shouldn’t be able to hit submerging subs because as is was mentioned subs were pretty much blind underwater, and undersea sub to sub combat would be pretty ridiculous. These changes would make Cruisers much more enticing for the Allies, because they would be the most cost effective way of destroying subs (which would also make historical sense, because I don’t think the dreadnoughts were going out on sub-hunting expeditions).
2c) I would definitely favor doing 1 damage for a roll of 1-2 or 2 damage for a roll of 3-4 for every sub. The tournament rules way is just too weak to make a major impact.
2d) I really like the idea of Germany being able to mobilize 1 sub per turn in the Adriatic. There is a historical basis for this and it would give the Germans more options with sub purchases.
2e) I think plane scouting for submerging subs is also a good idea. Planes can use their normal movement to move into a sea zone, and use their scouting ability to allow naval vessels to hit submerging subs at their normal combat values (so Cruisers can fire at a 3 and Battleships at a 4, but subs still can’t hit enemy submerging subs). This could encourage the UK (or USA) to spend a little bit of money on planes to hit the subs more easily.
2f) As far as early US entry due to USW, I like the 3 strike approach. Once 3 damage has been done to the US, it can declare war. The US can also declare war if 10 IPC damage has been done to the UK, which would reflect the unavoidable loss of US life or goods that would result from many UK ships being sunk.
2g) WILD BILL I also like the idea of adding convoying to the victim’s (US or UK) purchase/repair phase. This would ensure that subs would get to do at least one round of convoying to the power before said power had a chance to destroy them. This would also open up more choices for the Allies because as you say France would have to think about clearing sea zones for the UK and UK/France for clearing for the US.
3a) I find the idea of 1st round neutrality interesting, but I think it is just making the game a little too complicated and would necessitate more set-up changes (such as moving navies around in the Med) . 1st round Italian neutrality (until their turn) would really help Italy out, which might be necessary if 2 round movement causes the capture of Italy to happen too easily, but I think we should try playing a few games before making such a big balance change (because Italy would be able to get every single one of their troops on the Italian peninsula into Venice before it could be attacked). IMO 1st round neutrality for the Ottomans makes them a little too strong since the Trans-Jordan attack is pretty much a must for the UK round 1 to protect Egypt.
3b) Adding minor powers is really unnecessary and makes little sense regarding the scale of the game. How would Bulgaria be worth the same as Ruhr? Italy feels minor enough and they start with 14 IPCs, let’s not make any powers weaker than that.
-
Changes to the India rules are unlikely to be needed with the new USW rules that we have proposed in both this thread and the India one, but if we need them I like WB’s idea of limiting the number of units produced to the value of UK territory touching sz 29 with a minus 2 if the Suez is lost, but a minimum production limit of 4. With all the other balance changes I doubt it will be necessary to raise the cost of units in India, and as I said in the India thread, India had at least as much industrial capacity as the Ottomans and really more since the UK could ship in heavy equipment. If you want to remove India’s ability to build certain units, you’d really have to do the same to the Ottomans.
-
If the CP are still too weak on the ground in Europe, then I would start by adding an inf+art to Hanover. If more is needed then add another combo to Berlin. I don’t think these extra units will be needed because of 2 movement, but if the CP need more units, these two territories are the best place to add them.
Summation of my proposed changes from FAQ and OOB:
1. Expansion of USW in the amount of damage it can do, the sea zones it can be conducted in, and the time that it is conducted (during the purchase phase rather than the collect income phase).
2. PTR 2 unit movement, as well as most of the setup changes stated except…
3. Change the Atlantic by adding a German sub to sz 3 but a Brit Cruiser to sz 8 (instead of sz 9) and an American Cruiser in sz 1
4. Allow the Germans to mobilize 1 sub per turn in sz 18 (off of Trieste)
Possible other changes if needed:
1. 1st round neutrality of some kind for Italy or the Ottomans (who must declare war on their respective turns in the first round)
2. Limiting India’s production to the total value of UK territories touching sz 29 and the negative bonus for losing the suez.
3. Adding inf+art combos to Hanover, Berlin, or both.
Please feel free to comment on my ideas, I’m really trying to get a good balanced game for everyone to play without turning the game into something radically different.
