G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[LHoffman]

Thanks for the clarifications Marc.

[CWO Marc]

Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of what the map would look like with a “joint Commonwealth roundel” on the territories of (and controlled by) Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, have a look at my customization of the G40/1 map here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of what the map would look like with a “joint Commonwealth roundel” on the territories of (and controlled by) Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, have a look at my customization of the G40/1 map here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0

Nice. I like it better that way. Although if I do something similar it will probably be dominion roundel for ANZAC/Canada and UK roundels for everywhere else, just to be easily distinguishable counting IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

Just throwing this out there early, so we have plenty of time…

Any thoughts on a name for the whole Mod?
:-D

[barney]

Global 40: Advance and Proceed
a nod to the new rules

or

Global 40: Justified Warrior
acknowledges more realism

Something other than revised anyway :)

[Jennifer]

@CWO:

@Cmdr:

If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?

I think the idea was to address the fact that the rules artificially treat the British-roundel territories as two separate economies, not to address the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth is divided into British-roundel territories, ANZAC-roundel territories and Canadian-roundel territories.

I was kind of going, if you unify UK-A and UK-P why not just toss in ANZAC too since they are also UK…

TBH, I’d rather split the US like the UK is.  Territories in US-P would have to spend in US-P and territories in US-A would be spent in US-A.  (And don’t tell me it’s overly cumbersome for the US, you could very easily build warships in one zone and planes in the other and just fly out to meet the ships.  Or tanks in W. USA, Infantry/Transports in E. USA and not have a long “add time” to your shuttle of troops.)

That would split the US at the start of the game to: 35 IPC for Atlantic USA and 17 IPC for Pacific USA before War even starts, and not including any National Objectives which you could put in either economy.  Maybe you could exempt the US until they are at war - so they still have a few rounds to “catch up” to Japan?

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Just throwing this out there early, so we have plenty of time…
Any thoughts on a name for the whole Mod?

You may want to wait until the redesign is almost finished before settling on a name.  Picking a name at this early stage creates the danger that people will try to make the game fit the name, thus warping the redesign process.  You’ll be in a much better position to pick a good name once the design is complete because the perfect name might become obvious from the finished product.  The shape of the finished product is still very hazy at this point, so why take the risk of pre-selecting a name that may prove unsuitable?  If a working name is considered necessary or convenient, my suggestion would be to use a completely meaningless code name, just as some companies do when they’re working on a major development project.

[LHoffman]

@Cmdr:

I was kind of going, if you unify UK-A and UK-P why not just toss in ANZAC too since they are also UK…

TBH, I’d rather split the US like the UK is.  Territories in US-P would have to spend in US-P and territories in US-A would be spent in US-A.  (And don’t tell me it’s overly cumbersome for the US, you could very easily build warships in one zone and planes in the other and just fly out to meet the ships.  Or tanks in W. USA, Infantry/Transports in E. USA and not have a long “add time” to your shuttle of troops.)

That would split the US at the start of the game to: 35 IPC for Atlantic USA and 17 IPC for Pacific USA before War even starts, and not including any National Objectives which you could put in either economy.  Maybe you could exempt the US until they are at war - so they still have a few rounds to “catch up” to Japan?

Sounds fair to me. I don’t like the idea of splitting it, but this is at least equitable. As you said, it doesn’t mean the US-P has to send all their stuff to the Pacific. They could just ship it East if the want to.

The only area it becomes annoying, if not exactly cumbersome, is having to keep track of what are now two separate bank accounts. Instead of having to track two incomes or recalculate the amount that needs to go one place or the other, you could just give a flat number that must be spent in US-P. Such as 17 or perhaps an even 20. Anything beyond that may be spent anywhere. This could, as you said, be effective only once the US is at war.

[LHoffman]

@barney:

Global 40: Advance and Proceed
a nod to the new rules

or

Global 40: Justified Warrior
acknowledges more realism

Something other than revised anyway :)

Axis & Allies: Megazord

[Black_Elk]

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.

As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies.

Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.

If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?

Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.

Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle.  :-D

[Black_Elk]

ps. As far as splitting the US economy Pacific/Atlantic, wouldn’t this create the same kind of weirdness that we’re trying to eliminate with UK? I wonder if there are other approaches we could take?

I might be a fan for example, if we want the USA to play a split theater game, to do this with starting units already in position. Or perhaps through purchasing as a special “bonus” (rather than as a spending restriction.) Just as an example, if the Americans received a special Naval War Chest, dedicated to each theater or operation, something like +20 ipcs Pacific but that can only be spent on ships, +20 ipcs Atlantic that can only be spent on ships and tie that to a national objective. Call it “Liberty ships” and just be done with it.

Really the only units that tie you to a theater as the Americans are the naval units, everything else can be shifted rapidly shifted around. Even naval units can be shifted quite fast, but at least by having a cap in place and approaching it as a kind of bonus rather than core income, and I think players might adapt to the split theater game.

Use it as a way to put some a midway point between potential Axis navies and US navies.

This way instead of collecting or purchasing for two economies, its just like “here’s a 20 for your Pacific ships” and “Here’s another 20 for your Atlantic ships.” Pretty easy to count, like a flat rate bonus attached to some high value target. Like for Allied control of Hawaii and Midway hehe. That’d give Japan some reason to move forward.

Could do the same on the Atlantic side, I don’t know with Iceland maybe? Or you could make it more of an aspirational Objective. if Americans control some target territory, like Morocco hehe.

Maybe 20 is too high? What about 10? You know you give +10 ipcs in Ships in that theater, for doing whatever main thing we want them to do. Like battle over some pacific islands, or invade islands around North Africa/Med.

The exact amount doesn’t matter really, but the idea is that it has to be spent on ships. And then you attach the money to specific islands, naval bases, or coastal factory territories to put them in play.

The USA already collects a lot of loot OOB in normal Objective/At War Bonuses, (as pointed out by others here), but instead of giving them bonuses for holding their core territories, we should give them bonuses for holding the peripheral territories.

Make these high prestige high value objective bonuses, with the caveat that the money has to be sunk into the Liberty ships. Ships like a new suped up cruiser.
:-D

It seems easy enough if its just being approached like a rule. USA has to do “such and such” related to the map split. You could just tweak the average income directly through the bonus and say its gotta be used for a navy, or the bonus won’t apply. Then players will have every reason to build ships in both theater.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.
**Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.**

As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies. Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.
If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?

Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.

Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle.  :-D

About AA guns, here is the link to a thread which explains my most recent idea and showed many quotes from other people in various thread. Food for thought. :)
Two simpler and balanced ways to handle AAA unit (Antiaircraft artillery)?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36277.msg1433338#msg1433338

[barney]

@Black_Elk:

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

I’ve found reducing the bmbr attack to 3 really makes a difference.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Can you describe the problem here more specifically. I have never dealt with this personally. Who does it affect most (whose navy gets attacked by whose bombers?).

As it stands, the bomber is the best hit-for-cost versus any naval units.

My suggestion for a more simple fix would be to increase bomber cost. Bombers used to cost like 15 or something. Unit cost should be roughly analogous to roll value power and I would have little issue increasing cost to 13, 14 or 15 IPCs. Strategic Bombers should be more expensive to manufacture than simply 1 IPC more than a tactical bomber.

Barney’s suggestion of reducing the bomber attack would have to be accompanied by compensating measures elsewhere. Price of a bomber would need to be lowered. And you would then need to revise both tactical bomber and fighter roll values. Why buy a A3 D1 bomber at 12 IPCs when you can get a A3 D4 fighter for 10 IPCs? Speaking of which… doesn’t anyone have this issue with Tac Bombers also? They roll on a 4 providing you have accompanying fighters.

Unless… you reduced the bomber’s attack to 3 only when attacking in a sea zone. This actually has a lot of merit and would simply be a matter of adding a clause to the bomber rule; no other modifications needed. Strategic bombers were very poor at attacking vessels underway at sea. Dropping unguided bombs from 10,000 feet on a moving ship is very ineffective. That is why carrier based tactical bombers (torpedo and dive bombers) were used for such missions. The only example I know of during the war in which large bombers attacked ships underway was B-17s at Midway. They scored no hits on the Japanese ships.

@Black_Elk:

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.

What is the desired result? Do you want them to have attack and defense values, separate from their AA shot? Do you want to bring them into combat for AA shots against defending air units? (I don’t really like the latter option)

[barney]

to elaborate on the reduced bmbr attack, which I first heard from Baron

bmbr A3 +1 with fighter on1:1 basis
Tac A4 gives +1D to tank on1:1 basis

I’ve been playing with these rules for a while and find them to work well. The extended range is what gives the bmbr it’s value over a tac. I just suggested 3A change for simplification.

One of the places it is discussed is here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.0

also use escorts/interceptors hit at 2 bmbrs 1 on sbr

[LHoffman]

@barney:

bmbr A3 +1 with fighter on1:1 basis
Tac A4 gives +1D to tank on1:1 basis

I’ve been playing with these rules for a while and find them to work well. The extended range is what gives the bmbr it’s value over a tac. I just suggested 3A change for simplification.

I get that bomber paired with fighter gives the bomber +1 on attack (@4). Makes sense.

Does the Tac always attack @4? That seems pretty darn powerful. Not to mention it would just defeat the purpose of reducing the strategic bomber attack. Tac giving a tank +1 on defense is really powerful also.

[General Veers]

I think the idea to reduce bomber’s attack power at sea makes a lot of sense LHoffman. It’s an easy change to implement and keep track of. Also makes Dark Skies a little less powerful.

[LHoffman]

@General:

I think the idea to reduce bomber’s attack power at sea makes a lot of sense LHoffman. It’s an easy change to implement and keep track of. Also makes Dark Skies a little less powerful.

Thanks! It was a brief moment of genius motivated by someone else’s concern. Ha.

What is Dark Skies? Too many planes blocking out the sun?

[General Veers]

That’s the German player buying a ton of bombers to either pound Russia with or to scare off Anglo/American invasion fleets.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

This is a different roster (at 2 IPCs lower than OOB, on average) which provides better (IMO) and simpler interactions between units without being too complex.
Watch for special and revised abilities of Submarines (the main tactical combat change from OOB: Subs cannot hit each others), Transports (almost like Classic Transport but with a Last Strike defense), Destroyers (reduced cost to be the best all-around sea-fodder), planes, Cruiser and Battleship and AAA.

INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3, as OOB
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery

MECHANIZED INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4, as OOB
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank

ARTILLERY A2 D2 M1 Cost 4, as OOB
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY A0 D1 M1 Cost 4, 1 hit,
Each round, up to 1 preemptive defense @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser, works similar to OOB AAA but can defend each combat round.
Stop any blitz, and defend itself @1 against enemy’s ground units, if no attacking air unit is present.
Can move during combat move phase, can be taken as casualty (owner’s choice).

TANK A3-4 D3-4 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz
Allow Mechanized Infantry to Blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gets +1A/D from Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with
Both abilities can apply. (1MI:1Tk:1TcB basis)

---

SUBMARINE A2 First Strike D1 M2 Cost 6
Submerge, instead of rolling for a First Strike Attack or a regular defense, blocked by ASV (DD) on a 1:1 basis for the first combat round only,
Stealth Movement: No Hostile Sea-Zone (except ASV (DD) can block Submarine Stealth movement on 1:1 basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Cannot hit or be hit by other submarines,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an Anti-Sub Vessel.

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 6
Anti-Sub Vessel:
each ASV cancel Sub’s Submerge on 1 DD:1 Sub basis for the first combat round only
(When it occurs, defending Subs rolls a Defense @1 in the first round, and any surviving Subs can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round.)
Cancel Sub’s Stealth Movement on 1 DD: 1 Sub basis for Combat or Non Combat Move, all additional Sub units can perform a Stealth Movement as usual.
ASV can no more block First Strike Attack capacity of enemy’s Submarine.

TRANSPORT A0 D1 Last Strike M2 Cost 8, 1 hit
Last Strike: Transport units taken as casualty cannot roll for defense and are discarded immediatly.
Each transport unit can be taken individually as casualty, owner’s choice.
As long as their is still 1 Transport remaining, it can roll this single defense @1.
Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.

CRUISER A3 D3 M2 Cost 10 9 Edit (OOB Cruiser cost is 3/2 OOB DD cost)
Shore bombardment @3, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense: each Cruiser gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

G40.2 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 14 12, 2 hits (Edit : 2 OOB DDs cost=  1 Carrier cost)
Carry 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier cannot carry plane.

BATTLESHIP A4 D4 M2 Cost 16 15, 2 hits (Edit: DD cost + Cruiser cost = BB cost)
Shore bombardment @4, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense : each BB gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

---

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” or “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.
SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel (Destroyer).

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 10
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Combined Arms bonus with Tank, Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:
Gives +1 Attack or Defense to any 1 Tank when paired 1:1.
SBR/TcBR Attack @1 First Strike,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Bombers (StBs or TcBs) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

STRATEGIC BOMBER A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
All “1” rolls on attack are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA above.
SBR/TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Bombers (StB or TcB) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
If destroyed by IC’s, AB’s or NB’s AA gun, a minimum SBR damage apply: 2 IPCs.
No damage if destroyed by Fighter interceptor.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

SBR/TBR escort and intercept combat values:
Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 first strike Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 first strike , as AA gun against up to 2 Fgs, Defense 0
Bombers (StB or TcB) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Strategic Bombers hit by IC’s AAA fire get a 2 minimum damage result.

---

I would allow two defensive maneuvers for aircraft.
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed:

• Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

• Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.