G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[barney]

sadly you must player enforce a rule of 1:1 movement boost as it will boost any that are in the same zone as it is. Not really a big deal as that’s what you would do playing ftf.

The reason it is called AA3 is it originally had AA capability. I didn’t want to go through and change the name everywhere as it’s time consuming. If it’s decided to use it in the final version it can be tidied up then. Personally I’m not real big on the cruiser move 3 thing but I haven’t tried it either.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Here’s the latest update:

Returned Tac Bomber to OOB abilities. Since TBs are rarely bought and slightly weaker due to fighters now having the option to boost bombers instead of Tacs, they now provide Close Air Support for infantry, elite and mech infantry units by giving +1 attack. May only support 1 unit per attack. Does not stack with any other bonuses. This promotes some tac buys and makes for some fun counterattacks and amphibious landings.

What are the abilities of redesigned Tactical Bomber now?

Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
Gets +1A when paired with Tank or Fighter ?
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry

And the issue about previous Tactical Bomber, is that this one was too costly to be interesting?
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 12
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry

and also because revised Strategic Bomber abilities was like this, always in need of Fg bonus?
Attack 3-4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Gets +1A when paired with Fighter

[barney]

@Baron:

What are the abilities of redesigned Tactical Bomber now?

Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
Gets +1A when paired with Tank or Fighter ?
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry

These are the current abilities. What little feedback I saw 4A seemed too powerful. OOB my experience was Tacs were rarely purchased. So far this seems to be working good. Using them as flying artillery has been a lot of fun. They get purchased a little more often now as well.

[baron Münchhausen]

From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg:  1D6

And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2

It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

[barney]

yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.

I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.

I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.

My minimal POV on SBR combat is this one:
St Bomber should get preemptive AA attack @1 vs up 2 Fighters, whichever the lesser.
D6+2 damage

Tc Bomber gets 1 preemptive attack @1.
D6 damage

Fighter gets Attack @2 and Defense @2.
But Fighter interceptors always hit bombers first, either  StB or TcB, owner’s choice.

The main programming issue is to give StB this combat values.
It balance things out for interceptor D2, which in itself is  too big deterrent if STB have only A1.
And a swarm of STBs is also a deterrent against few Fgs unless StBs attack like AA, so cannot roll more than 1 dice per defending Fg.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg:  1D6

And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2

It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.

StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.

In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.

That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.

[barney]

Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.

[CWO Marc]

@barney:

Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.

Leaving aside the fact that the OOB rulebook concept of “pro-Allied neutrals” (and of neutrals in general) is one of G40’s problematic mechanisms, I’m wondering what such a situation would be supposed to reflect.  Why would Normandy change into a “pro-Allied” neutral (whatever we define that to be) from the status it has before the change?  That starting status theoretically has three possible values, and I can’t imagine how Normandy would convert to a pro-Allied neutral stance from any of them: Normandy as part of a France which is an Allied power, Normandy as part of a France which is under Nazi occupation, or Normandy as part of a France which is under collaborationist Vichy control.

[regularkid]

agree with Marc. There’s no reason for such a change. The conceit of keeping Normandy French to prevent allies from using the factory is rarely done, and never for the whole game. Personally, I love it when Germany fails to take Normandy. That makes it all the harder for them to prevent a landing in Norway.

[barney]

It would reflect that germany not taking normandy is a gamey move done to deny the allies the use of the factory there.

[Black_Elk]

I’m not a huge fan of the rules regarding French territory. I think it would be better for the gameplay if the vanquished player (capital captured) could have their remaining territory occupied by the first belligerent to send troops in. This would resolve much of the weirdness that surrounds “liberating territory or ignoring it” after a nation loses their capital. I’d approach the Dutch the same way.

[regularkid]

Black Elk, that is more or less the central idea of the “Vichy France” rule set, part of G40 Balance Mod (and I think Barney incorporated the ruleset into his as well). Game notes follow.

VICHY FRANCE RULE SET

The G40 Balance Mod may be played with or without the following rule-set, which is included for historical interest and fun.

Game Conditions for Franco-German Armistice

At the beginning of France’s turn, if the following conditions are met, the Franco-German Armistice will occur:

1. Axis must control both France and Normandy Bordeaux;
2. France must control Southern France; and
3. There must be no non-French, Allied units in Southern France.

Game Consequences of Franco-German Armistice

French Territorial Control: At the beginning of France’s first turn in which Armistice conditions are met, all originally French territories not already under Axis control immediately change ownership to Pro-Axis Neutrals, except: (1) French Equatorial Africa; (2) New Hebrides; (2) any French territories containing non-French allied units.

With the exception of Southern France (see discussion of “Zone Libere” below), Vichy French territory works the same way as other Pro-Axis Neutral territory–i.e., an Axis player may capture Vichy French territory and commandeer its forces by moving a land unit into the territory during the non-combat phase of his turn.

Fly-over restrictions applicable to other Neutral territories do not apply to Vichy French territory.

Fleet at Toulon: In addition to the change in French territorial control, the Armistice changes control of the the French fleet in sz 93, from French to Pro-Axis neutral. The Vichy French fleet maintains a strictly defensive posture. It may not be moved. It may not be captured by the Axis. The fleet is immediately destroyed if any power, other than the Free French, occupies Southern France

“Zone Libre”: Any Axis occupation of Southern France following the Armistice results in a disbandment of the Vichy French forces and a scuttling of the Vichy French fleet in sz 93. The “Zone Libre” army and fleet will revert back to Free-French control if either: (1) France is liberated by the Allies; or (2) Free-French land forces enter Southern France during the combat-movement phase of France’s turn.

Armistice’s Effect on National Objectives: Vichy French territory is considered “Axis” or “Pro-Axis” controlled for purposes of Italy’s “North Africa” and “Roman Empire” Objectives. Any direct takeover of French Indo China by Japan still negates Japan’s “Trade With America” Objective, even if the territory was already Pro-Axis Neutral.

Liberation of France: The Allied liberation of France effectively terminates the Armistice. Any territory and forces still under Vichy French control (including any surviving fleet in sz 93) revert back to Free French control.

[barney]

Elk are you saying treat France like the DEIs ? After France falls axis would have to attack to take control of French TTs where as Allies could take control during ncm. Or the French put up resistance to all comers ? Maybe a dice roll per TT to determine if they resist or not. Depending on the outcome either the axis or Allies would get to walk in or fight. French units remain French if Allied controlled and turn into w/e axis power controls them.

The Vichy rule provides the option for the Allies to take control of some of the French TTs but at the discretion of the axis. I like the Vichy rule as it provides more options but it is limiting compared to treating the French TTs the same as the Dutch.

I don’t have a hard opinion on Normandy the way it is now. It’s not the only “gamey move” in the game. Strafing Army Group South and moving it to Romania is another. Also not liberating France so the Allies can continue to use French factories and collect French income is one as well. The axis pay a price in lost income by not taking Normandy. It also allows the Allies to make a landing uncontested, although at the expense of not being able to reinforce the landing with use of the factory. Provided they could hold it of course. Southern France provides a precedent of Germany not taking complete control of France, until after Operation Torch began anyway. Still if there wasn’t a factory there, there would be no reason for the axis not to take control.

Allowing the Allies to take “Custodianship” of French TTs would further encourage them not to liberate France. Right now the US gets 5 bucks every turn for having a dude in France after its liberated. Maybe expand that to include the UK ? Probably still wouldn’t be enough of an incentive to liberate France. Perhaps some sort of negative incentive ? If the Allies have control of Normandy X number of consective turns, they have X number of turns to liberate France before a PU penalty is imposed on them ?

The capital liberation rule regularkid’s playgroup uses seems like a good idea. While it’s nice to get the dough for a capital takedown, being able to take a capital back without fear of giving the enemy another crack at the bank would promote more counterattacks it would seem. You still lose your dough if you lose your capital.

@regularkid
How often are you seeing Japan DOWs on Russia ? I have yet to see it as Russia usually declares first to help China or India. Not always though. This seems to work really well as it encourages certain behaviour but doesn’t eliminate the possibility of certain events happening. Curious as to what your results have been.

[regularkid]

Barney, since our last discussion, we increased the lend-lease bonus from a Japan DOW on Russia by 2 PUs (per route). So now, if Japan declares war on Russia, Russia gets 4 PUs for each end-lease lanes that is open. Presumably Japan would immediately close the Pacific Route, so this would be simply the allies sending more aide through other available routes and/or increasing overall to assist Russia in a two-front war.

As for Russia making unprovoked DOW’s on Japan (negating the possibility of the +2 PU Bonus), it is a infrequent occurrence, though it does still happen in unique cases where other strategic considerations become more important. What you don’t see, happily, are the kind of DOWs between Russia and Japan “just for the heck of it” that you often seen with the OOB game.

[barney]

Thanks for the reply. That was my conclusion as well. I find it a big improvement.

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Barney,
a few questions:
Q1, Do you think it is possible to make a Destroyer unit which cannot block Submarine’s Surprise Strike?
Q2, Is it possible to erase that part of the code without erasing the other part which is blocking Submarine’s Submerge and Stealth Move?

Q3, Is it easier to add a 1 combat round only blocking on DD against Sub’s submerge to the TripleA code?
I’m just asking.

[barney]

Hey Baron
I would imagine all things possible but I wouldn’t know how difficult they would be. I’ll be meeting with my computer mentor soon and will ask him to take a look at the triplea code. Maybe he will explain some basic things for me and more importantly I can try and get him to focus on one area: one DD effecting all subs. I have no idea what it will take time wise to change it, but it won’t hurt to ask.

I have low expectations for success but if I don’t try I am guarranteed to fail.

[regularkid]

If none of these modifications every gets played, whats the point? Seems like as soon as one concept is implemented, another is proposed, and then another, and another (often self-contradictorily), without taking a breath to see what you have. Lord knows, Barney, you’ve poured enough time and effort into your xml trying to keep up with ever-changing, multiplying ‘ideas.’ Now, lets play!

[barney]

I play every day. Whether others play is up to them.

Yes suggestions are easily proposed but IDK how many try them. A lot are by ftf players and I know they try different things frequently. I see nerquen and your guy’s vichy mod being played. If you want to give it a go lets try a forum game. Been a few years for me but should be able to figure it out w/o too much trouble. We can give your Vichy mod a run as well if you want. I know you got a few games going on currently so we don’t have to do both at the same time if you don’t want too.