G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

SS is going to play on week end.
And he was trying Fg vs TcB of my own HR but wanted to introduced StBs in the mix.
Since he has a lot of units in his Global War customized version, one thing call the other.
That is why I made a suggestion for relatively balanced Heavy Bomber. That way, Bomber A0 D0 C5, A0 D6 (in his game StB have A2 (D12) in SBR to balance for Fg A4D4 C7 targeting plane) damage remains play-testable without scraping units of his roster.

[General 6 Stars]

Thank You Baron for posting this. You beat me to it.

I will be posting results in the Global War thread in the Global War 1940 2nd Edition post.

[baron Münchhausen]

I throw the ball.
Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
@Black_Elk:

I’ll admit to being somewhat torn. On the one hand I think Baron’s unit interactions are excellent and very well thought out, and I also recall the development process over time in countless threads, so I’ve seen how its grown into a pretty complete overhaul. But I also know that people may be reluctant to adopt a series of sweeping changes to the roster. For those who want the familiar OOB combat system just with a different “campaign” dynamic (different NOs, incomes or starting unit distributions) a complete redux of the combat phase might put them off, since it requires you to learn a lot of new things.

I would say that threshold here for me is whether or not the unit interactions can be easily handled in tripleA, without requiring a bunch of new code, or the introduction of new phases and the like.

Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.

DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C5 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.

SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C6 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.

TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .20) ratio probably requires  changing a few warship cost.
CRUISER A3 D3 C10 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @3.

Battleship A4 D4 C18 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @4.

[Black_Elk]

Could work. I don’t see any major issues, beyond just the challenge of getting players to adopt it.

The main point I was trying to make in the quote above, is that I think there are some players for whom HR unit changes are no big deal to implement. Some other players will probably reject any HR unit changes out of hand, as just requiring too much mental gymnastics during the combat or purchase phase, and probably never be willing to try. But beyond this, I think there may be a middle ground somewhere too, where some players, who might not otherwise consider a new HR unit roster, would actually try it, provided it had some compelling printable materials to accompany it.

For example, if you had a custom battle board (describing the combat relationships) and a purchase crib sheet (describing all the ablities/costs/special rules), that players could print out easily for use in face to face games.

A reasonably well designed custom battle board, that looked at least as slick as the OOB battle board, would give any HR unit roster a degree of gravitas. It would suggest a sense of polish and finality, that you just can’t get with simple text. I think this would make the HR roster more compelling, because it’s a bit like a stamp of approval (indicating a certain air completion to the HR) like “hey, if they spent this much time designing a custom battle board for us to print out, that must mean these rules are set. Maybe it really is worth a try!”

Hehe I don’t know, my Photoshop skills aren’t the best, but I think it would help. This of course assumes a more concrete HR roster, that everyone can get behind, which is hard to achieve when so much is still in flux. But at some point, a printable battle board might ice it.

One reason why I think the defensless strat bomber idea (with OOB tacs) might actually work, is that it only requires you to ignore information on the boxed battle board, rather than necessitating a new battle board. Basically you just ignore the strategic bomber icons, but all the rest of the stuff is the same. With more comprehensive changes I think we’d need something more, like a new custom battle board.

In tripleA all this is a non issue, because the battle board is built into the game. But for face to face play, I think having a glossy printout would definitely help to sell some of these ideas you’ve put forward for HR units.

Another option (maybe simpler?) is to make something more generic out of the battle board. Like a universal template, or HR battleboard sheet, that can be printed on the fly…  with the attack and defense columns at hit 1-4, but the actual units in these columns left blank. In other words you fill in the values yourself. That way it’s easy to alter, or throw away and just print a new one, if you’re trying to add new stuff. In this case the HR battleboard would just be a template, with the critical unit information left blank, to be filled in by the player. I think it would be a useful tool to have, since it allows for easy modification.

That said, I think the most convincing approach would still be a fully realized battleboard, with the silhouette graphics and all the rest. Basically forces us to stand behind the final HR unit changes with a loud statement like “These values are best! Just look at the extra time we spent trying to make it look good.”
:-D

Not that we are necessarily at this point yet. But a custom card like that would be a self imposed restraint against constant revision.

[LHoffman]

I hate battle boards personally, but I can understand when dealing with HR they can be beneficial. I like the attribute charts showing cost, attack defense, etc… and a battle board is just a graphical representation of that minus some of the information.

I would put one of these together, though I would have to use a photoshop knockoff. This is something I have been menaing to do once I put together a HR set I am comfortable with. Who knows when that will be…

If you are looking for someone (at some point), Siredblood has been pretty active lately in Customizations in re-creating the G40 map and other items. His stuff looks very good and he would certainly have the talents for such a project.

[Black_Elk]

I find that I only use them when playing with new people, or people who are new to a given board. For instance, when introducing G40 to someone who is familiar with A&A but might get confused by some of the new units, or units that underwent changes from say 1942.2 or Revised. Otherwise most people I game with have all this stuff memorized by now. Though I think when you’re talking about a more significant overhaul, the utility of an easy reference card increases in proportion to the number of changes being made from OOB.

If all we are changing is the costs, or if the focus is narrow (changing a single unit, or adding a single unit to the roster), there is less of a need. Whereas if you want to create a whole new roster that departs from OOB quite a bit, I think it would be helpful.

When you get down to it though, the advantage of having a printable card would be more psychological than practical. It’s aim is more for initial persuasion than anything else. Like “why should we trust you, and use your unit ideas over anyone elses?” To which you could reply, “here’s a slick printable reference, and a tripleA map file, ready to go.”
:-D

I think most of us can be counted on to do some pretty elaborate things with our own boards at our own houses. But one of the reasons we come to places like A&A.org, is a desire to get with the larger group. To try ideas that are already in use among other playgroups, or to convince those people to try things that we do locally. It’s like a safety in numbers approach. Helps with the credibility if you can point to a popular thread or sticky on a semi-official forum. Helps even more if you can point to popular game file in tripleA, or wave a flashy printout around haha.

I think I might have ducked Baron’s specific questions above. But just to say that I know some people in my group who would try it. Others who would likely grumble and propose we just play by the book. Among those in the first category, they are always more receptive to an idea if I can demonstrate that it has some broader appeal among the A&A community writ large. Or has been tried before with such and such results. Makes a stronger case all around.

For example, they were pretty excited about Halifax up until the point when YG said his group was no longer using those rules. Then it was like, ‘do we really want to take the time to learn all this extra stuff, if other people have already moved on to something else?’ Similarly they were pretty interested in the balanced mod concept when I showed them the game file in tripleA. Though in that case there were questions raised about whether the gameplay was sufficiently different from OOB, to make the rules overhead worthwhile.

Bare in mind that when I say “my local group”, I’m really only talking about like 5 other people besides myself haha. And if I’m being realistic, probably only one or two other players besides myself who have a genuine interest in house rules. So personal predispositions are definitely a factor in what they’re willing to try. I’m not sure how representative they are, but I’m guessing it’s probably the same with many play groups. One or two people who like HRs, and one or two people who just want to play the way everyone else is playing.
:-D

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Just a quick follow up on why I like to prioritize tripleA.

In my case, I had a pretty solid face to face group about a year ago. 2 reliable opponents, one in particular who was always ready to play a multisession game with HRs till the sun came up. Then you toss in the “I have a cousin” or “my buddy is in town and wants to play too” so it wasn’t too terribly difficult to get a Global Game up off the ground.

More recently though, my main A&A playing friend got married. So he’s hitched up and basically out of commission for anything live, other than the semi-annual match ups. You know, like a game of G40 for the winter holidays, and maybe another one in the summer haha. But for all intents and purposes, my ability to reliably play test HRs face to face is shot.

That leaves me with tripleA as the most consistent way to maintain a play group, and to test HRs. But I still like the idea of ready compatibility between face to face games and tripleA, so that when those seasonal face to face matches do arrive, we can still play the same way we do on the machine.

This creates some basic parameters we like to stick to. Can the HR be easily edited into tripleA? Can it port from there onto the physical map with equal ease? If so, then its a good candidate. If not we scrap it and try something else. This has lead me to discount many HRs as impractical in tripleA, but which might otherwise be fun face to face (or vice versa). And then to end up trying other things which might not have seemed immediately obvious, just for a more simplistic implementation.

Either way though, the threshold for G40 is pretty damn high, even if we’re just playing digitally. Which is why I really like rules that could have an application in 1942.2 as well, if only because it’s so much easier to play that one face to face, when friends are in town for a multi. It’s also a good stepping stone for introducing basic ideas, that could later be incorporated into the more advanced G40 game, once people have been exposed to it in 1942.2.

The  main issues I’m usually trying to address are…
1. Balance by Sides: to equalize the chances for a win.
2. General pacing: things that speed up the game.
3. Variety: ways to make each play through feel unique.
4. Historical realism: encouraging play patterns that feel sufficiently like WW2.

Trying to find simple rules that can achieve all of those at once can be daunting. But it’s still the goal to find the simplest tweak that fits the bill.

[LHoffman]

Yeah, the first problem with House Rules is gaining widespread adoption. People are reluctant to accept unofficial revisions for a number of reasons, but the hardest obstacle is simply overcoming the initial opposition or lack of acceptance/use. If you can get past that coefficient of friction to the point where many, even if not most, people are using it and finding it universally good, the success becomes easier to sustain and push into official-but-unofficial territory. I think of bids as being that way. Bidding is a widely accepted method to fix a perceived game weakness using an method not found int the rulebook. A bid is more of a pre-game handicap than a true rule though, so the analogy is not fully accurate.

Second problem with House Rules is permanence. As you mentioned, House Rules - especially entire rule sets with multiple OOB changes - are often completed only to be later further revised or abandoned. This gives the impression that HRs are unstable and unreliable. The unstable perception is one thing we can control based on our consistency, attention to detail and supporting evidence through playtesting. It will also take a lot of self-control on our part not to meddle with rules after they are introduced. Approaching each component HR in a measured manner with specific intentions for fixes will help to keep things organized and logical.

Playtesting is immensely important throughout the process for the sake of credibility. We need unbiased data which confirms that any changes made to OOB rules make for 1) more balanced gameplay,  2) more fun/user firendly gameplay and 3) more diverse gameplay than that which is achieved OOB. I am not entirely sure how to best represent that data. Maybe through TripleA game results/logs or probability calcs for specific units.

I am approaching this topic with the assumption that we who have been contributing here, and Black_Elk in particular, really want to see the changes we propose being used for more than simply some obscure House Rules on an internet forum. The best way to achieve more widespread recognition for them is to have hard data backing up whatever changes are made.

Kinda sounds like a mission statement, but I don’t know if everyone else is of the same mind.

EDIT: wrote all this as you were posting above Black_Elk… sounds like we are thinking along similar lines at least.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

Yeah, the first problem with House Rules is gaining widespread adoption. People are reluctant to accept unofficial revisions for a number of reasons, but the hardest obstacle is simply overcoming the initial opposition or lack of acceptance/use. If you can get past that coefficient of friction to the point where many, even if not most, people are using it and finding it universally good, the success becomes easier to sustain and push into official-but-unofficial territory. I think of bids as being that way. Bidding is a widely accepted method to fix a perceived game weakness using an method not found int the rulebook. A bid is more of a pre-game handicap than a true rule though, so the analogy is not fully accurate.

Second problem with House Rules is permanence. As you mentioned, House Rules - especially entire rule sets with multiple OOB changes - are often completed only to be later further revised or abandoned. This gives the impression that HRs are unstable and unreliable. The unstable perception is one thing we can control based on our consistency, attention to detail and supporting evidence through playtesting. It will also take a lot of self-control on our part not to meddle with rules after they are introduced. Approaching each component HR in a measured manner with specific intentions for fixes will help to keep things organized and logical.
Playtesting is immensely important throughout the process for the sake of credibility. We need unbiased data which confirms that any changes made to OOB rules make for 1) more balanced gameplay,  2) more fun/user firendly gameplay and 3) more diverse gameplay than that which is achieved OOB. I am not entirely sure how to best represent that data. Maybe through TripleA game results/logs or probability calcs for specific units.

I am approaching this topic with the assumption that we who have been contributing here, and Black_Elk in particular, really want to see the changes we propose being used for more than simply some obscure House Rules on an internet forum. The best way to achieve more widespread recognition for them is to have hard data backing up whatever changes are made.

Kinda sounds like a mission statement, but I don’t know if everyone else is of the same mind.

EDIT: wrote all this as you were posting above Black_Elk… sounds like we are thinking along similar lines at least.

• Cost can be the same as OOB or keep similar ratio structure.

• Transport is treated as any other surface vessel when allocating casualty: each elligible transport unit worth 1 hit and can be chosen according to owner’s choice, whether before or after a combat unit has been selected as casualty.
  OPTIONAL (nearer OOB): Still worth 1 hit and Transports are taken as last casualties.

• If one or more friendly Transport units share the same SZ, it gets a single defense die roll value of 1 per combat round. (Special Convoy Escort Defense)

• Since Submarine and Transport cannot control SZ, they can ignore each other in combat or noncombat move.

• Submarine unit cannot hit, or be hit by, another submarine.

• **Destroyer does not block Sub’s Surprise Strike.**This one may changed depending on which ratio DD can block Sub or is unable to.

• But planes don’t need Destroyer presence to hit unsubmerged Submarines.

So, no defenseless Transport: no no combat value, no taken as last casualty rule; unless this last option is preferred. Taken last is probably nearer original balance too.

No combat value changes for Submarines or aircrafts with/wo friendly or enemy Destroyer presence.
Aircrafts act the same as Cruiser, Carrier, Battleship when making attack or defense rolls against Subs, except Subs cannot hit aircrafts.

Since Subs cannot harm enemy Subs, no fleet padding can rely solely on this cheapest unit, Destroyers remain a must against them (and to provide defense rolls against aircrafts).
Submarines full Surprise Strike is counter-weighted by Transport elligibility as casualty and its inability to stop amphibious assault from lonely TPs.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

Totally agree, I would like to say it the way you wrote it.  :-)
My actual struggle is how to get ride of something which depends on game mechanics more than unit combat values. Without TripleA play-test even if I think one HR is good, it is doomed to non-credibility files.
Here I’m thinking about planes-sub-DD-TP complex interactions. Which I know can be simpler and more accurate. But TripleA modifications on software or codes is hardwork.

For instance, TripleA changes are much more about units values than anything else.
Except, Barney still managed some extra good upgrades on Cruiser, adding a single preemptive AA capacity, carrying 1 Marines/ Infantry.

It should be mentionned as a solid improvement from ordinary modifier like giving M3 to Cruiser (or making StB A3, Barney still goes further by adding combined arms with Fg to get A4).
All these feats allow for a real play-test for Cruiser balance and interest inside roster.
Not a small step, for sure.
But Redesign is more ambitious.

Another issue is to about not asking too much for too little impact. For instance, StBs A0 D0 C5, was more easily develop than another SBR I promoted, mainly using OOB 1942.2 mechanics.
But now, I’m actually happy that Barney didn’t work too much on that one since I rather find StB C5 D6 a more elegant unit and keeps all other Fg A1 D1 C10  OOB SBR features while being somewhat balanced.

How to be sure an improvement is really one and worth time invested to change a Triple A feature?

My intent is to find somehow an easier way to get a glimpse of a HR change, without requiring a time-consuming works on xml files.

Great!

I do recognizing the issues facing us regarding TripleA modifications, though I cannot claim to understand them fully. However, all of this talk is tempting me to play TripleA again if only to help the cause. I am sure that modifying code is time consuming work. My limited experience in doing so made me want to shoot the computer.

Prioritizing our efforts at what the most important and impactful HRs are is challenging also. There are a lot of little things here and there which sound fun and interesting, but they can’t all be equally important.

[baron Münchhausen]

The  main issues I’m usually trying to address are…
1. Balance by Sides: to equalize the chances for a win.
2. General pacing: things that speed up the game.
3. Variety: ways to make each play through feel unique.
4. Historical realism: encouraging play patterns that feel sufficiently like WW2.

Trying to find simple rules that can achieve all of those at once can be daunting. But it’s still the goal to find the simplest tweak that fits the bill.

Making things simpler is probably part of 2.
1. Balance, is a more general umbrella. But balance by sides is an essential aspect.
IDK if these things are to be prioritized in that order, but all 4 aspects should be considered.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

The  main issues I’m usually trying to address are…
1. Balance by Sides: to equalize the chances for a win.
2. General pacing: things that speed up the game.
3. Variety: ways to make each play through feel unique.
4. Historical realism: encouraging play patterns that feel sufficiently like WW2.

Trying to find simple rules that can achieve all of those at once can be daunting. But it’s still the goal to find the simplest tweak that fits the bill.

Making things simpler is probably part of 2.
1. Balance, is a more general umbrella. But balance by sides is an essential aspect.
IDK if these things are to be prioritized in that order, but all 4 aspects should be considered.

I prioritized my 3 point list, such that balance is first priority. If you can balance the game you have satisfied the ultimate purpose of this HR list anyway… in my opinion. For example, the only reason for revising StratBombers is because their abilities have been shown to skew the game. Not just because we want to revise them.

Truthfully, historical accuracy was the last item on my list, but I bumped it out to keep the list at three. Otherwise, Black_Elk’s priority list and my own we identical and written simultaneously. That convinces me we are on the same page.

[baron Münchhausen]

Mine would be like 1,2,4.
But 4 is not an all cost criteria.
3. Variety is more a flavour addition, for me. If it is more better, otherwise not a disaster.

Anyway, it remains general guidelines. Usually, historical aim is more an help to provide a direction in which I try  to twist HR while keeping balance and simplicity as much as possible.

[baron Münchhausen]

Actually, I’m inside a catch 22 cunundrum.
To simplify  interactions with DDs, Subs, Aircrafts and TP I need to test this rule:
Submarine unit cannot hit, or be hit by, another submarine.
This make Sub a useless fodder against Sub, but not against other units.

I do not know how it impacts G40 combat. And to know it it should be added to core codes.
But if it creates aberration in naval combat with large number of units, I will probably looking elsewhere.
So, no need to try to implement in Triple A.
You see.

In large combat, with a lot of units variety, the possibility to take Sub as casualty is still present and can somehow imbalance things if one side is gambling on Subs to do naval fodder.
Thinking about 2 full Carrier, 6 Subs and a single DD compared same fleet on defense.
If only attack Subs (A12) make for example a lucky 5 hits, then DD, 2CVs are sunk.
2Fgs 2 CVs DD (A8) making no hit, for instance.
On the defense side, Subs (D6) doing very good 2 hits goes on DD or CVs, but all other defense 2 Fg D4, 2 CV D2, DD D2 (D14) will be taken on attacking Subs fodder.
So, attacker can better use Subs A2 and fodder capacity, than defender can rely on Sub D1, and fleet padding possibility.

So, on a same fleet basis, Sub keeps enough of their fodder capacity so attacking core warships will be saved while on defense, there is more possibility that core fleet will be destroy and a few Subs can survive.

Is this an acceptable combat dynamics or not?
IDK. Any other way to find out, beside Triple A?

Having DDs near similar cost to Subs is another way to make DDs a better fodder and fleet padding units.
Hence, I suggested DD A1 D1 C5, 1 hit.
Clearly, in combat situation, most of time saving a Sub 1 IPC higher with more combat capacity (Surprise strike, A2) will be better.

It can be possible to make DD A1 D1 cost 6 while Sub A2 D1 cost 7.
Just to keep lower IPCs unit to be better fodder.

There is also DD A1 D1 C6 or 7 vs Subs A2 or A3 D1 C8 as other possibility. You see where it can goes.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

Yeah, the first problem with House Rules is gaining widespread adoption. People are reluctant to accept unofficial revisions for a number of reasons, but the hardest obstacle is simply overcoming the initial opposition or lack of acceptance/use. If you can get past that coefficient of friction to the point where many, even if not most, people are using it and finding it universally good, the success becomes easier to sustain and push into official-but-unofficial territory. I think of bids as being that way. Bidding is a widely accepted method to fix a perceived game weakness using an method not found int the rulebook. A bid is more of a pre-game handicap than a true rule though, so the analogy is not fully accurate.

Second problem with House Rules is permanence. As you mentioned, House Rules - especially entire rule sets with multiple OOB changes - are often completed only to be later further revised or abandoned. This gives the impression that HRs are unstable and unreliable. The unstable perception is one thing we can control based on our consistency, attention to detail and supporting evidence through playtesting. It will also take a lot of self-control on our part not to meddle with rules after they are introduced. Approaching each component HR in a measured manner with specific intentions for fixes will help to keep things organized and logical.

I agree that there’s often a temptation to keep tinkering with house rules, and that this tinkering in turn gives people the impression that HRs are unstable, and that this impression is part of the resistance factor that works against the adoption of HRs.  The counterbalancing argument could be made, however, that the OOB rules of OOB games have the opposite problem: they’re too static.  OOB rules only undergo official evolution in a major way when a given game gets published in a new edition (like the 1940 second edition games that followed their first-edition counterparts).  Other than that, they either never change officially or they only get officially tweaked to a small degree by such mechanisms as the publication of errata.  The point, in other words, is that the dynamic nature of HRs isn’t entirely a bad thing, at least in contrast with the largely-cast-in-cement nature of OOB rules.

Your reference to bids is a good example of the concept you mentioned of an HR achieving “broad acceptance in practice” within the community.  The details of specific bidding practices will still vary greatly from play group to play group, but the basic concept of bids in and of itself is one that is broadly understood and broady accepted.  A rough parallel, based on an article I read recently about languages, would be to equate OOB rules with French and to equate HRs with English.  The French language – by which I mean its vocabulary and grammar – is in principle regulated by an official body located in France, the Academie francaise, which is very fussy about what is and is not “proper” French.  English, by contrast, has been described as an “open source” language which has no central regulating body; this doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as “proper” English, but it does mean that the parameters of proper English are set by common convention rather than by a central authority.  In other words: if through the process of day-to-day usage a new (or changed) element of English achieves broad acceptance, it comes to be regarded as proper (or at least tolerable) English rather than a fleeting novelty or (worse yet) as an error.  Your “push into official-but-unofficial territory” embodies very much the same idea in an A&A context.

[baron Münchhausen]

Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
Hoping to balance slightly Cruiser and BB in the proces would be:
Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.

Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.

Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.

TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .17) ratio probably requires  no change cost. Only AAA maybe needed.
CRUISER A3 D3 C12 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @3.

Battleship A4 D4 C20 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @4.

10 DD A1 D1 C6 vs 3 BB A4 D4 C20, 2 hits gives 50% vs 50% odds of survival. Balancing itself.
Since 7 IPCs Subs is costlier it makes a better odds for BBs, 20 Subs vs 7 BBs = 98% vs 2%.
Before 20 Subs vs 6 BBs = 99.8% vs 0.2%
6 Subs C7 vs 7 DDs A1 D1 C6 = 77% vs 22%
OOB 8 Subs C6 vs 6 DD A2 D2 C8 = 88% vs 11%

[Black_Elk]

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

Yeah, the first problem with House Rules is gaining widespread adoption. People are reluctant to accept unofficial revisions for a number of reasons, but the hardest obstacle is simply overcoming the initial opposition or lack of acceptance/use. If you can get past that coefficient of friction to the point where many, even if not most, people are using it and finding it universally good, the success becomes easier to sustain and push into official-but-unofficial territory. I think of bids as being that way. Bidding is a widely accepted method to fix a perceived game weakness using an method not found int the rulebook. A bid is more of a pre-game handicap than a true rule though, so the analogy is not fully accurate.

Second problem with House Rules is permanence. As you mentioned, House Rules - especially entire rule sets with multiple OOB changes - are often completed only to be later further revised or abandoned. This gives the impression that HRs are unstable and unreliable. The unstable perception is one thing we can control based on our consistency, attention to detail and supporting evidence through playtesting. It will also take a lot of self-control on our part not to meddle with rules after they are introduced. Approaching each component HR in a measured manner with specific intentions for fixes will help to keep things organized and logical.

I agree that there’s often a temptation to keep tinkering with house rules, and that this tinkering in turn gives people the impression that HRs are unstable, and that this impression is part of the resistance factor that works against the adoption of HRs.  The counterbalancing argument could be made, however, that the OOB rules of OOB games have the opposite problem: they’re too static.  OOB rules only undergo official evolution in a major way when a given game gets published in a new edition (like the 1940 second edition games that followed their first-edition counterparts).  Other than that, they either never change officially or they only get officially tweaked to a small degree by such mechanisms as the publication of errata.  The point, in other words, is that the dynamic nature of HRs isn’t entirely a bad thing, at least in contrast with the largely-cast-in-cement nature of OOB rules.

Your reference to bids is a good example of the concept you mentioned of an HR achieving “broad acceptance in practice” within the community.  The details of specific bidding practices will still vary greatly from play group to play group, but the basic concept of bids in and of itself is one that is broadly understood and broady accepted.  A rough parallel, based on an article I read recently about languages, would be to equate OOB rules with French and to equate HRs with English.  The French language – by which I mean its vocabulary and grammar – is in principle regulated by an official body located in France, the Academie francaise, which is very fussy about what is and is not “proper” French.  English, by contrast, has been described as an “open source” language which has no central regulating body; this doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as “proper” English, but it does mean that the parameters of proper English are set by common convention rather than by a central authority.  In other words: if through the process of day-to-day usage a new (or changed) element of English achieves broad acceptance, it comes to be regarded as proper (or at least tolerable) English rather than a fleeting novelty or (worse yet) as an error.  Your “push into official-but-unofficial territory” embodies very much the same idea in an A&A context.

I love the analogy. I guess in that sense, what we’re hoping for here, is that our new slang eventually make its way into Websters or the OED haha. Certainly much simpler and more expedient than a petition to some national academy. Use the “words” this way enough with your friends, and maybe it takes off.
:-D

Just out of curiosity, since I often lean on you for insights in the history to gameplay arena, do you have any thoughts on the recent strategic bomber proposal? I tried to give a basic summary in the HR list thread.

Defenseless Strategic Bomber (SBR Only):
for G40 and 1942.2

Rule: The Strategic Bomber is now defenseless with the following stats…
Attack 0, Defend 0, Move 6, Cost 5, SBR damage at 1d6, with no hitpoint in normal combat.

These bombers are now used exclusively for strategic bombing raids, and no longer have a role in regular combat. Outside of SBR they are treated much like the defenseless transport, placed to the side of the battle board. Optional intercept rules recommended.

Purpose: as corrective to the air umbrella or “dark skies” approach, where players use Strategic Bombers primarily in combat vs navies, and to streamline the SBR process to encourage more raids.

Global implementation: in addition to the above, the Airbase unit’s movement bonus is increased to +2 total for all aircraft. This is intended to maintain a degree of mobility for combat aircraft, while simplifying the movement count for air units, and increasing the range of fighters and tactical bombers to support the strategic bombers on escort duty. The damage bonus for SBR is removed. Strategic Bombers now roll damage at 1d6 (not 1d6+2).
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1624810#msg1624810

The last part in particular, regarding the Airbase unit, is something that developed out of discussions we had about zero ipc Pacific Islands. The thought being that airbases on such islands would be much more useful, and strategically interesting with the movement bonus at +2.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

Supposed we don’t want anymore Submarines used as naval fodder and fleet padding.
And more naval presence around the globe.
And we must stay within Triple A parameters, and cannot change core mechanics, such as planes vs Subs or DDs vs Subs.
Hoping to balance slightly Cruiser and BB in the proces would be:
Do you think this cheaper and weaker Destroyer can be a better escort and naval fodder unit?
No more DD A2 D2 C8.

Cost 6
DESTROYER (Escort) A1 D1 M2 C6 IPCs,
1 DE blocks any number of Submarines’ abilities:
Surprise Strike,
Stealth Move in CM and NCM, and
Submerge.

Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M2 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.

TRANSPORT
A0 D0 M2 C7 IPCs, no hit, taken as last casualty.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against surface warships, aircrafts, submarines.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

Such increase in hit/IPCs (from .125 to .17) ratio probably requires  no change cost. Only AAA maybe needed.
CRUISER A3 D3 C12 M2, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @3.

Battleship A4 D4 C20 M2, 2 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @4.

10 DD A1 D1 C6 vs 3 BB A4 D4 C20, 2 hits gives 50% vs 50% odds of survival. Balancing itself.
Since 7 IPCs Subs is costlier it makes a better odds for BBs, 20 Subs vs 7 BBs = 98% vs 2%.
Before 20 Subs vs 6 BBs = 99.8% vs 0.2%
6 Subs C7 vs 7 DDs A1 D1 C6 = 77% vs 22%
OOB 8 Subs C6 vs 6 DD A2 D2 C8 = 88% vs 11%

Such 6 IPCs unit will be a more acceptable cost for a blocker unit, too.

Why not adding an independence factor from fleet movement for Subs to compensate for 1 IPC increase?
Why not just gives M3 to both Subs and Cruiser to emphasized their increase autonomy and, for Subs, a credible way to acknowledged they can be able to be refueled in open Ocean?
Naval Base still giving +1 bonus Move to all warships, including Cruisers and Submarines.

CRUISER
A3 D3 C12 M3-4, 1 hit, gets
First strike 1AA @1 against up to 2 plane, whichever the lesser
Shorebombardment  @3.

Cost 7
SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 first strike M3-4 C7 IPCs
first strike when no enemy’s DD present, same for first strike roll on defense
blocked by DD on 1: x basis Surprise Strike, Stealth Move and
Plane cannot hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit aircrafts.

That way, Sub may get more mobility, to pass by some blockers and be less vulnerable to attack.
And all this can stay within Triple A easy modifications. Right?

[Black_Elk]

Sorry Baron, I did mean to reply directly, but got somewhat sidetracked in the broader discussion.

The main thing I see as desirable is a submarine with a unique role in the game, and not primarily for fleet padding. The 1:1 rule goes some way towards accomplishing that aim. It means that a player is not so heavily penaltized for buying only subs, when the opponent boxes them in with the purchase of a single destroyer as they do OOB. For example, there is a definite disincentive for Germany to purchase subs for fear that they just get rocked by a bunch of Allied aircraft and a single destroyer OOB. The second they try to move out of the baltic past the safety of the straits. You imagine a situation where Germany buys 6 subs, tries to “strangle UK” with them, only to see all 6 subs immediately sunk, by a single destroyer accompanied by 6 allied fighters.

One potential issue (which doesn’t really matter for a full redesign with new set up cards, but still worth thinking about) is just how many first round battles involve subs.

The same issue was raised by barney with defensless bombers, but in that case I contented myself with the thought that the trade off there might actually be a better balance by sides, via no stratB influence in the opening combats, and more raiding throughout.

I guess my question is, do you think such a broad redesign of naval units has good chance of still working with the OOB unit set up cards?

I see moving away from the boxed set up cards, to create a new distribution of starting naval units across the map, as particularly challenging for G40. In other words, if a new custom unit roster introduces a large disparity due to messing with opening battles, my preferred strategy for dealing with that would be to use cash.

Rather than trying adjust the starting units, to accomodate the new system, I say better to leave the opener as is, and just deal with the fallout (whatever it ends up looking like), by using starting cash adjustments. Then let the player solve the problem through purchasing.

I don’t know what kind of battles the proposed unit alterations might suggest, or if they fit with the desire for those to emulate the situation in 1940. But honestly, I think anything on balance is easy to address with starting ipcs.

It’s way simpler for me to come up with an abstracted justification for more money at the outset for a nation, than to advance the argument that we need to change the units in sz A to such and such. I feel like doing that puts us kind of off in the deep end.

Do you guys have thoughts on this? Other mods and the bid, rely on this idea that the boxed set up needs adjustment to starting unit placement. But when I do that I feel like it violates an idea that would otherwise be simple to retain, that the unit set up is the concrete part, and only the rules need change, or have extras layered on top.

Then if someone wants to introduce new units (expanded roster) into the mix, you can let then be introduced through normal purchasing. I think this kind of solution is particularly well suited to a game set in 1940, since it’s meant to be more about build up anyway.

[Black_Elk]

I’d also be interested to hear if CWO Marc has any thoughts on the M3 idea.
Do you think G40 can handle an additional movement point for all ships?
I feel like it works for the period, in terms of the distances ships might move in kind of time frames that a game round is meant to suggest.

3 Movement for Ships (M3):
For all games

Rule: the base movement rate for all ships is increased to 3.

Purpose: to increase the range of all naval units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes to cross oceans and speeding up the play pace for naval powers. Opens up more shucks, and essentially resets the map from a naval perspective. This HR is largely untested at the moment, so it is difficult to say what the balance implications may be, but it has the advantage of a very simple implementation.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625814#msg1625814