I’ve updated the XML for the Canadian Mod to include a universal scramble. Gets a lot of Java errors because it adds a unit “airstrip” to every territory which can’t be seen or bombed. I’ll attach the updated XML here in case anyone is interested.
Here’s a shot of the A-Bomb tech. It will be added in the future
Scarry :evil:
Cool! So I downloaded the new map. It wouldn’t run at first; I had to move it out of my tripleA/downloadedMaps folder, then unzip it, then copy the unzipped folder into tripleA/downloadedMaps. Maybe that’s normal; I’ve never gotten a map file from SendSpace before.
Mostly everything looks good. The Americans were able to place a Military Base in Southwest Mexico but not in Mexico proper, which was odd, because SW Mexico was worth 2 IPCs and Mexico was worth 1. I’m also not sure I understand the point of limiting Military Bases to territories with 1 or fewer production – seems to me that if the Germans wanted a military base in, e.g., Romania, they could have put one there. Hard to see why you would be able to put a training camp in Palau but not Romania.
I had Germany invade Greece with a tank (blitzing from Romania) and then back the tank up with “airborne” elite troops, but I did not send any planes to Greece, and the system still allowed the attack. On the other hand, the system did not allow an attack on Greece with just the elite troops; it said that I could only attack a territory that had already been invaded. Not sure if this is working as intended or not.
I landed a German fighter and a German strategic bomber (defenseless) in Belgium. I then attacked that group with a French fighter. The French fighter won, killing the German fighter, and I never retreated, but the German strategic bomber did not die. That seemed odd; if the strategic bomber is defenseless like a defenseless transport, then it should die when the defenders are gone. I also attacked a German fleet with a British strategic bomber (defenseless), and that time the bomber died properly the way I expected.
Playing with convoy zones and blockades and lend-lease national objectives seems a bit messy; I wouldn’t recommend using all of those options at once. It’s nice to have some economic effects at sea, but keeping track of all those different concepts while also trying to maneuver navies around straits and naval bases and enemy boats and also trying to load and unload transports is really a bit much.
I’m not sure how I feel about requiring naval bases to build escort ships like destroyers, and air bases to build ordinary fighters, especially since a minor factory can build elite troops, mobile artillery, and other high-tech goodies. I am also not in love with the “originally controlled factory” concept. If I control a territory, and I have a major factory and an airbase there, why can’t I build any kind of plane I like? I might prefer a system like this:
Military Base – 8 IPC cost, allows construction of 3 infantry – build anywhere – destroyed on capture
Minor Factory – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 infantry, artillery, tank, transport, destroyer, submarine, fighter – build only in territories worth 2 or more – downgraded to military base on capture
Naval Base – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 marines, transport, destroyer, submarine, escort carrier, carrier, cruiser, battleship – build only in territories worth 2 or more – suffers max. damage on capture
Air Base – 12 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 3 paratroopers, fighter, tac. bomber, strat. bomber, air transport – build only in territories worth 2 or more – suffers max damage on capture
Major Factory – 30 IPC cost, allows construction of up to 10 units of your choice – build only in territories worth 3 or more – downgraded to minor factory on capture
I was not sure how to enable the Canadian mod – is that a separate file that I missed?
In general I’m not sure how useful I’m going to be as a Global House Rules playtester; I found the whole experience pretty overwhelming. Having never played any version of Global before, trying to click and sort through the various new options on my own and then figure out how they work and whether there’s a bug was pretty challenging. E.g. if Russia can’t move into Northwest Persia without declaring war on Germany first, is that because of the normal G40 rules (whatever that means in the context of a game that had 3 alpha rulesets plus two semi-official balance mods) or because of something funky about the Spheres of Influence tech? I’m pretty sure Russia (as opposed to Britain) occupied Northwest Persia in the historical war, and I assumed that was the reason for splitting the territory up on the tripleA map.
For the militarybase, I believe this is because allowing it to stack with regular factory units creates a situation where the militarybase produces 10 infantry rather than 3, which would require the limit of 3 infantry it to be player enforced (this is a tripleA issue as I understand it). But there is also a certain logic to the 1 ipc or less restriction, in that any land territory worth 2 or more ipcs can support a minor factory (which would produce 3 units at the same cost as an MB, but allows for units other than infantry) so in those cases the player would be better served by purchasing a minor than a military base. If there was no tripleA issue, then allowing an MB and a Minor in the same location would allow for potentially 6 hitpoints produced on a single tile worth 2 ipcs for a total investment of 24 ipcs in production. Not sure if that would be OP, but that fact that Barney couldn’t get it to work without overproducing beyond the proposed limit of 3 inf, made the decision simpler hehe.
I think what we are still missing is an HR that removes the island restriction for Minor Factories, allowing them to be placed anywhere on the map worth 2 or more ipcs.
The elite unit is a more generic all purpose infantry unit discussed at various points in this thread. It is airborne in that it can be lifted by the airtransport, but also has other abilities, one of which is +m1 when paired with a tank. It can also be transported on BBs and CAs in which case it is essentially treated like a marine. Not sure if Barney created the unit or ported it from another game, but its basically the jack of all trades type unit we kicked back and forth.
I think I ran into a similar issue with the defenseless bomber a few builds back, where I was seemingly able to capture the unit (as if it was infrastructure) when they were parked on the ground, but the bombers were then removed after the turn was concluded, so effectively auto-destroyed, just had to click through to the end for them to disappear. Which I agree was a little confusing.
The Factory Limited HR, which is the one you mentioned requiring bases to build certain units, is a little complex, I agree, but also kind of cool in that it makes bases much more significant to the purchasing potential of a given tile.
I also still like the idea of a base which doubles as a production unit for the given type (naval or air), but this one seems pretty interesting too, albeit pretty ambitious and fairly nuanced. I think Barney drafted it up.
The “all on” gamesave is a bit extreme. Just because we have the option to use an HR, or several HRs at once, doesn’t mean its necessarily the best thing for the gameplay. Personally I find that G40 is already quite involved, so I am more interested in limited modifications. Of the many HRs toggles currently available, there are really only a handful that would likely make it into my games on the regular (since my playgroup is more conservative.) But I still think the more options we have the better, so people can tweak it on the fly.
The Canada modification is currently in a separate gamefile that Simon put out (its linked a few pages back.)
But ultimately I think what would be cool is to have a single mapfile, that includes the materials to incorporate Canada into the game.
It is possible to change a lot about the game’s features simply with a new XML, provided that the gamefile package is extensive enough to allow for different things (like say adding a new player nation into the mix). Or similarly if you wanted more VCs or different VCs than the ones we have currently, that could be handled with a new simple text file. So players can do things with a simple files that wouldn’t require a redownload a 20+ mb map every time.
To that last point about playtesting, I think familiarity with the OOB rules is fairly important for being able to see which HRs are doing what, or similarly trying the HRs one at a time, instead of together, to see what they do. Otherwise it can be kind of overwhelming. And Global is already overwhelming to begin with haha. A similar system for 1942.2 would surely be a bit easier to parse, since the basic rules are less complex.
But this is like a dry run proof of concept, and G40 is popular, so I can see the advantage of trying it here. Probably the HR package we make for 1942.2 may be easier to get into, if you’re more familiar with that board than G40. I think 1942.2 is the game that probably needs it the most, though there is also something to be said about going big and trying to tackle some of this stuff for the more complex game, so we can see what is possible.
The restriction on Russian movement into Persia is indeed an OOB rule. Both Russia and the US have a lot of restrictions based on their initial political alignment (ostensibly neutral at the outset, though inevitably on the allied team once the Axis declare on them.) It’s probably all rather intense for a first time out. G40 is basically a big labyrinth of rules and exceptions to rules, and I imagine it would be kind of hard to parse the OOB stuff from what’s happening here with all these HR mods, if coming into it cold. That said, I think there are a few people still floating around, who may have been turned off by some aspects of G40 initially owing to its complexity, but might still like to play a more simplified type of A&A game on the big map.
Not sure how popular it would be, but in the future we might consider a toggle that just turns off certain OOB features of the game. For example a toggle that eliminates OOB Objectives, or the OOB convoy raiding vs coastal territories. Clearly that would tank the balance of the game, but if you wanted to replace those features with something meant to substitute rather than compliment the existing rules, it might be nice to have a way to just turn stuff off, and strip the game down.
For a first time out, if you just want to try playing an HR G40 mod that keeps pretty close to OOB, you might want to do something like only adding the extra VCs (edit add tech to changer). This doesn’t really introduce any new mechanics that might lend themselves towards confusion, just ups the economy somewhat. It might be more satisfying than learning how to play with the OOB file, which requires a substantial bid to the Allies.
Good action Argothair.
Yea you have to open the zip and put the folder/file in your downloaded maps one. You obviously did that :) The MB placement was so you couldn’t put them in territories with factories to boost their production. Not sure If that’s what Elk was thinking, but that’s how they are for now. Must’ve messed up placement restrictions for Mexico/SW Mexico.
MB’s are kinda problematic because they allow up to 10 infantry builds as well as your normal stuff at factories. So it takes some PE, Player Enforced. I found it the most troublesome of all the techs from that standpoint. Busting out 3 dudes where you normally can’t is a nice feature though.
Not sure about the Greece thing. You don’t need Air Transports for Elite to attack/defend or anything. The transport just allows you to use them as paratroopers or air lifted in ncm.
Yea the defenseless bomber should have died. Not sure what’s up there.
Convoy zones can be a little confusing at first. It’s like trying to learn new national objectives. Basically if you can control one when your enemies collect their PUs, you’ll do at least -2 PU damage. You can also look in the lower left of the screen and it will say if the SZ is worth any PUs.
Yea one of the factory thing’s is so you can’t bust out high dollar units in newly built minor IC’s. Some people didn’t like the fact you could build BBs and Bombers in Norway for example. The main reason imo is to make bases more valuable. I’m not sure if it’s earlier in this thread or “The Worst National Objective Ever” one ( don’t have the link handy ), but there’s quite a bit of discussion on it there.
Having a minor factory being downgraded to a MB on capture seems pretty cool :)
Your playtest was good info Argo :). I found it quite useful. Yea, if you’ve never played G 40 before, I’m sure it was a bit of a mind trip. :) Russia can’t move into Persia unless they’re at war with Hitler or Mussolini.
Anyway, keep on Rock’in it. I imagine Elk will jump in soon. You guys should Rock a game :)
I see he already has :)
yea the elite thing I got the idea from Midnight Express in his '39 setup. It was also discussed here ( I think it was here ) quite a bit. Japan had "SNLF"s and US had USMC. They were limited by amount. I gave them to UKP and ANZAC and then the kid suggested them for everybody. Tried hard to make them work as marines with artillery boost as well, but never quite worked. I always wanted paratroopers with a plane, don’t really dig the AB only thing, so they can jump too.
Also wittman wanted the US to be able to transport two mechs or a tank and a mech ( not sure on that ) and this allows two M2 units on one transport. At a cost but…:)
Yea MB kinda screws up how much you can place. Really gotta pay attention when it’s on. I think there’s a way to make it more efficient but would take a while to do.
Yeah I think of all the HR adds, the MB is the most challenging right now, since it seems to mess with the production profiles of TTs with the other factories.
Maybe we should just nix it for now, until we get something that does the trick? Player enforced for the HR setting is one thing, but if just having it in there means you have to PE the normal factories that creates issues for the package.
As an alternative, maybe we just have a minor that can go anywhere worth 1 ipc or more. Could be a stop gap so we at least have one new production unit, and use the MB image for it. Or try the 3 tier option mentioned in Halifax.
I still think a 3 inf MB that can go anywhere is a cool idea, but it seems to be difficult to pull off.
yeah might just bag it for now. Don’t think I got enough time to fix it. Should be able to have MBs still purchaseable/placeable/bombable. You’ll have to edit the dudes though. Or could make it another minor (with the MB image) and you’d have to PE infantry only. Would probably be the best for now
Ok got the Military Base placement thing fixed. Works just like a minor so it will allow placement of 3 of any type units. So you’ll have to PE the infantry only.
Also they can still only be placed in 1 or 0 PU value territories.
@Baron:
However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
SoFg andTcB willbothhave part in attack and defense.Group 2 DD A1 D1 ADC1 DDC1 vs SS A2 D1
SFR OOB
6 DD C5 vs 5 SS C6 77-79% DD win 60-63% DD win5 SS C6 vs 6 DD C5 61-64% SS win 90% Sub win
6 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 8SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 60% DD win
12 DD A2 D2 C8 vs 16SS A2 D1 C6, it will be: 63% DD win8SS A2 D1 C6 vs 6DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 88% Sub win
16SS A2 D1 C6 vs 12DD A2 D2 C8, it will be: 95% Sub winThis would be much simpler to test (and be in line with intended simpler SF rules):
This roster can work and is pretty near the OOB cost structure and remains probably much balanced within himself. Considering that weaker Subs (compared to this cheap 5 IPCs DD unit) have much survivability than ever.
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1
Here is the actual values of most basic units of G40 Redesign.
Do you think it can work on tabletop games?
Do you believe people can accept an anti-sub phase in naval combat, the same way AAA phase works in regular combat?
ASA and ASD: Anti-Submarine Attack and Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack @1 or defense @1
Destroyer
A1 D1 ASA1/D1 M2-3 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2-3 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after ASA or ASD. 2D in Convoy SZ.
Transport (variant M3-4)
A0 D0 M2-3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Transport (reg combat variant)
A0 D1 M2-3 C8, 1 hit, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Cruiser (variant M3-4)
A3 D3 M2-3 C12, 1 hit, shorebombard@3, 1D in Convoy SZ
(Variant #2: AA @1 vs up to two planes, whichever the lesser)
Even if playing M3-4 Cruiser, AA variant is strongly suggested to balance with DD low cost and Sub unblocked capacity.
Carrier, fleet
A0 D2 M2-3 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes, no air operation if damaged
Battleship
A4 D4 M2-3 C20, 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ
Variant, carry 1 Marines A1-2 D1 M1 C3, +1A in amphibious assault,
for tabletop: may load 1 Infantry A1-2 D2 C3, +1A but forfeit shorebombardment.
(Variant #2: AA @1 vs up to two planes, whichever the lesser)
Even if playing BB with Marines carrying capacity, AA variant is strongly suggested to balance with DD low cost and Sub unblocked capacity.
Fighter (variant A2 D2, recommended unless play-tests proved otherwise)
A3 D4 M4-5 (M6 from AB as escort) C10, 1 hit SBR A1 D1, 1D in Convoy SZ,
Combined arms: gives +1A to TcB
Needs no DD to hit Subs
Tactical Bomber (variant C10, A1 D1 with Fg escort/intercept A2 D2)
A3-4 D3 ASA1/D1 M4-5 (M6 from AB for TBR only) C11, 1 hit, TBR A1 D0 dmg 1D6 on AB & NB, 1D in Convoy SZ
TcB with Fighter or Tank 1:1 received +1A
Needs no DD to hit Subs
Strategic Bomber (variant A1 D0 in SBR dogfight, not recommended)
A0 D0 M6-8 (M8 from AB for SBR only) C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A0 dmg 1D6
Air Base
Giving +1M, +2M on SBR or TBR only,
up to three scramble units either Fg or TcB
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
A0 D1 M1 C4, roll 2@1 vs up to two aircraft, 1 roll max per aircraft
Defense 1 in regular combat, move as any ground unit in CM and NCM.
Here is additional units which are optional and require new sculpts to play with:
Militia
A0 D1 M1 C2, 1 hit
Marines
A1-2 D1 M1 C3, +1A in amphibious assault,
TP can carry 2 Marines, can load 1 on Battleship
Bunker
A0 D3 M0 C5 2 hits, requires 1 Inf, MI, Art, Elite, Marines or militia to work.
1 such unit must share same TTy to repair damage.
Mobile Artillery
A2 D2-3 M2 C5, can blitz but cannot give blitz to MI,
gives +1A to Inf or MI, paired 1:1
gets +1D paired 1:1 with Tank
Elite Infantry unit
A2 D2 M1-2 C5, can load 1 on Cruiser or Battleship, or 2 on TP,
gets +1M paired 1:1 with Tank and blitz with it,
Can load 1 on Air TP during move CM or NCM,
Air Transport
A0 D0 M5-6 C7, 1 hit, can load 1 Elite unit NCM or CM.
Escort Carrier
A1 D1 ASA1/D1 M2-3, C9, 1 hit, carry 1 Fg or TcB
Military Base
Cost 12 Allows to built up to three Infantry and can be built on 0 or 1 IPC TT or Island.
Has 6 damage points, not operational if 3 or more damage.
Built-in AAgun.
If still trying to work with a 3 IPCs incremental cost structure, it could be interesting to keep DD A1 D1 C5 and Subs A2fs D1fs C6 and makes Cruiser C9, Carrier C12 and BB C15.
Adding no special ability like AA, it would be better balanced compared to DD and Sub.
So, from Triple A POV tests, it would require no big modification, just a single toggle with these 3 lower cost units. That way, it might easily recreate the Philadelphia Experiment roster.
Even more, it can be combined with M3 to CA and TP to give a special ability to Cruiser.
One good aspect of it is with no AA warship no need for AA phase in water, it is less complex to only focus on Anti-Sub rolls during this special pre-combat phase.
And, from Tabletop POV, pre-combat phase will be vs air on land, and vs Sub at sea.
Which makes sense and an easier contrasting concept to catch.
That way, it would be easier to observe if C10 TcBs and Fgs are becoming too weak compared to these other 3 warships. Compared to Advanced Shipyard tech, Cruiser is same cost, Carrier is 1 IPC cheaper (13 IPCs) and BB is 2 IPCs cheaper (17 IPCs).
Escort Carrier A1 D1 ASA1/D1 may then cost 8 IPCs to keep with 5…+3 incremental structure.
Another less radical possibility to still get easy 3 IPCs increment or 5, can be:
Cruiser C10, Carrier C15 and BB C18. However, it makes Cruiser and Battleship too much sub-optimal compared to DD A1 D1 ASA1/D1 C5.
Also, BBs at 15 IPCs will have no need to load Marines on board to be a competitive purchase.
TP will then be the only way to travel C3 Marines. Another simpler functionality which will please to many ones.
Damned, I really like such scaled cost for warship:
DD C5, SS C6, CA C9, CV C12, BB 15, TP C7 or C8, CVE C8 :-)
StB C5, Fg C10, TcB C10
Inf & Ms C3, MI C4, Art C4, AAA C4, MArt C5, Bunker C5, Tank C6
C’mon Elk you haven’t posted in a couple days, you should take us into page 100 :)
Haha the 100 mark already? Guess we crept up pretty quickly there in the past couple weeks.
I’ve been taking a lazy weekend and re-watching the World at War during the downtime.
:-D
This tune seems somehow apt…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxvVrQ_44R4
I think we should all download the latest tripleA pre-release and take it to the new site for a game.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/
Ha Ha ! Doreen has some lazy eyes that’s for sure :) F yea lets rock the new site ! I’m gonna try and git up tomorrow and put us on the experimental list. Odds are against me but wtf might as well try :)
I will add my little contribution to reach 100 pages:
Thinking deeper about it, it should include Escort Carrier reduced cost too, in case it is also activated in Triple A option.
This single toggle would put this 4 warships at these cost:
Escort Carrier at 8 IPCs (5+3 IPCs)
Cruiser at 9 (33 IPCs)
Fleet Carrier at 12 (43 IPCs) see below***
Battleship at 15 (5*3 IPCs)
TP remains unchanged.
I don’t think it will radically change the game.
It will help put some aircrafts in SZ, making it more competitive vs DDs.
But, in essence, to compare combat values, it only allows to somewhat purchase in bulk what you can already purchase per each 5 IPCs Destroyer. So, even after such reduction, purchasing DDs will remain the best choice if there is enemy’s sub.
All my combat simulations never considered the Anti-Sub a/d@1, on the basic regular combat, Destroyer C5 is still better than Cruiser C9 and have similar combat power against Battleship C15.
So, when we first test Destroyer and Subs, I thought AA boost might help but this is less important due to no StB in reg combat.
Destroyer C5 is very cost effective against planes, Cruiser and Battleship. That was not really addressed.
So, IMO, if warships get no cost reduction, it will be more broken than OOB is actually compared to DD C8 vs CA C12 and BB C20.
No sound strategy will need to buy them anymore.
Reducing to C9 and C15 will make them just slightly sub optimal compared to DD C5.
For instance, 4 DD C5 can be split in 2 groups and be very effective against unobstructed Subs while 1 Battleship (C20) cannot split and 2 Cruisers (C24 near 5 DD C5 !!!) may split but remains very vulnerable to Subs attack.
Also, C9 and C15 with no need of AA capacity makes naval combat simpler for both Triple A (on one play-test you said, Barney, that you were not sure about where was coming and going AA and AS rolls making you think it was broken) and tabletop game: only AS pre-regular phase in naval combat, only AA pre-combat phase in land combat (more elegant and symetrical mechanics). In addition, you won’t feel the need to not change AA for BB and CA until round 2 or 3 because you know how it can makes G1 on UK’s BB and Cruiser unpredictable for Luftwaffe. So, the opening moves would not be affected by CA9 and BB15.
Also, three IPCs increment simplify the purchase process decision in tabletop games.
Also, by keeping TP at the same cost, this cost reduction is just an incentive about changing what kind of escort vessels you might bring in; less Destroyers but a few more Cruisers and Battleships to get a less crowded board map. :)
Otherwise, willing to keep OOB C12 and C20 open critics about this C5 feature and Subs unblocked being OP and broken because of DDs and Subs spamming feature.
On Carrier, I’m not sure about 12 IPCs, maybe it can also be put at 15 IPCs instead, because planes are quite useful both in naval and amphibious assault. Higher cost will not deter buying compared to Cruiser or BB. In addition, TcB also get an Anti-Sub feature and both Fg and TcB are able to hit Subs without DD, making them more useful than OOB planes.
So, probably that one would be more balanced with this 3 IPCs increment structure for G40:
Escort Carrier at 8 IPCs (5+3 IPCs)
Cruiser at 9 (33 IPCs)
Fleet Carrier, 2 hits, at 15 (53 IPCs) ***
Battleship at 15 (5*3 IPCs)
and 1942.2 better should be :
Escort Carrier at 8 IPCs (5+3 IPCs)
Cruiser at 9 (33 IPCs)
Fleet Carrier, 1 hit at 12 (43 IPCs)
Battleship at 15 (5*3 IPCs)
Hope I made the best case for this change on cost structure.
Anyway, with all the added VCs bonus and NOs, balance will be affected.
So why not adopt a clear and simpler cost structure right away?
After all, it was one of intended goal of Redesign.
I like those numbers on the water. Haven’t looked at the likely TUV trade if using those for the opener with OOB starting units, but seems workable on their own.
Hard to say how much of the OOB opener can be preserved with adjusted costs, but I think for the most part you can derive a similar feel.
I think the SBR only bomber is pretty key to actually modelling the Battle of Britain as standard. The main idea there is that (at least if you have 2 starting German strat bombers that can’t do anything else) you will get raids on England in the opening round as a matter of course.
I’m not sure that alone is enough though, to keep it going over multiple rounds. Assuming that a game round is 1 year at the Maximum, and really more like 3-6 months, when imagining how time is compressed.
Much as I’d like to find HRs that enhance the OOB set up, at some point I think it’s also worth thinking about how such rules could work for the 1942 game or Ozteas 41, or a new set up designed from the ground up.
Earlier we kicked around the idea of +1 movement from an operational AB (for escort or SBR only) and I think that would help towards dogfighting. But I wonder if something similar could be considered from more of a defensive perspective too? Like perhaps you split the targeting of Airfields from the targeting of Factories during SBR, in a more significant way, where if the AB is damaged it somehow improves the chances of success for damage against Factory? Or some way to draw out the AB, and really give the player an incentive to at least try to damage them as a first priority in any SBR campaign.
Just as a thought experiment it might be fun to imagine what the first 5 rounds of a 10+ round game would look like if the game script could truly accommodate the historical war. Like what needs to happen in the first 3 rounds, especially round 1 and 2, where the 3rd round is generally total war conditions.
Thinking of possible set up changes for a simpler game, it seems like it might be more fun to model the opening round itself on the Battle of Britain and the Balkans, instead of the fall of France and just give Vichy to the Axis, and Greece to the Allies outright.
Oztea already has 41 pretty much handled. And you can see in that set up how a simpler path to total war, allows for more starting units, but a faster overall game pace. The 42 tournament mod is even faster still with fewer units than 41.
If you went more late December 1940, you maybe still have a way to do a total war start (signal a delayed entry for Russia or Japan just with turn order and unit positioning). Have less starting units on the board, less of a swing battle on G1 in France, more for the British and Italians to do in the opener. Like something half way between OOB G40, and G41/42 and just throw in Canada for good measure.
41 uses the OOB turn order, 42 uses RUS-JPN-USA-CHN-GER-UKE-UKP-IT-ANZ-FR.
I still think there is a simpler turn order out there that should be explored, with less total exchanges in PBEM game, and more meaningful turns for each block in the sequence.
Maybe an Italian opener set up would fun for a game set in 1940, but after the fall of France?
Like forget the Spring and just go with a Winter War for the start? Might really simplify things.
:-D
Designing the opener around the fall of France is kind of rough, since it requires such a large swing battle on the first turn. Probably easier to design an opener where that battle is already over. It also messes with the timeline a bit to have the Russians already in the Baltic states and Bessarabia, when the opener for G still has Paris standing. Really compresses the first round.
I wonder what an ideal turn order and round 1 script would be for Dec 1940, if you went post battle of France? But kept it early enough in the overall timeline that 1941 still doesn’t happen until the 3rd game round?
Another interesting possibility, about the more balanced 3 IPCs increment structure for G40 and 1942.2 is that it can include 1941:
Escort Carrier at 8 IPCs (5+3 IPCs)
Cruiser at 9 (33 IPCs)
Fleet Carrier, 2 hits, at 15 (53 IPCs) ***
Battleship at 15 (5*3 IPCs)
and 1942.2 and 1941 :
Escort Carrier at 8 IPCs (5+3 IPCs)
Cruiser at 9 (33 IPCs)
Fleet Carrier, 1 hit at 12 (43 IPCs)
Battleship at 15 (5*3 IPCs)
OOB 1941 Carrier are already at 12 IPCs while BB is 14 IPCs.
Reducing DD to C5 and allowing Cruiser C9 as another possibility makes for more naval actions and keeping the same cost structure for all game series, just making a 3 IPCs increase for a 2 hits Carrier in G40. It is another simple way to make player’s aid basically the same, growing from core game in 1941, then expanding in 1942.2 and adding more complex units last.
Even more, it can be simpler to provide the same purchase table for both 1941 and 1942.2.
The same way as VCs 40 includes 30 VCs which includes 20 VCs.
Keeping the same list, with more or less according to the game.
Also, for 1941, changing bombers into TcB with shorter range might be more accurate (or less gamey) than showing how StBs can travel half the map in one shot.
Here is the little preamble for the Europe 1940 game:
It is spring 1940. Since the invasion of Poland nine months earlier, the United Kingdom and France have been at war with Germany. The Soviet Union and Germany have signed a secret protocol splitting Eastern Europe between them. In November of that year, the Soviets, using some false pretext, attacked Finland. The Russians didn’t fare well in this war. 200,000 Finns managed to hold up a Soviet army of 1,000,000 troops. Eventually, the Finns had to sue for peace and several disputed territories were annexed by the Soviets. The weakness and humiliating defeats suffered by the Red Army didn’t go unnoticed by the watching eyes of Nazi Germany. Before long, these two great powers would be caught up in a life-and death struggle for their very existence. Before that day, however, the rest of Europe had to be dealt with. First, Norway and Denmark were invaded. Then, with an objective of nothing less than the total destruction of the British and French armies in northern France, Belgium and Holland were quickly overrun. Outflanking the Maginot line, to the great surprise of the Allied armies, the German army poured into the Low Countries. The Allied Expeditionary Force soon found its back to the sea and was forced to evacuate. During Operation Dynamo, the Allies, being forced into an ever-shrinking perimeter, made a desperate withdrawal from Dunkirk. More than 300,000 Allied troops evacuated back to England. However, much of the BEF’s equipment had been lost or left back on the beaches of Europe. During those desperate days, more than half of the French armor had been lost in Belgium.
Now, with what was left and supplemented by some remaining Allied units, France is facing not only a larger German army, but an army whose tactics and way of conducting war are all too new and too effective. It’s at this point that you take command of one or more of the major powers and rewrite history. As an Allies player, can you stop this Axis momentum? As an Axis player, can you defeat France and/or Britain? Can you defeat the bear in the East? How are you going to deal with the awakening giant, the arsenal of democracy, the United States? Your task will not be easy, but world domination never is.
Here it is for the Pacific 1940 game (Rather less exciting than the blurb for the Europe game):
It is spring, 1940. Japan is at war with China, but not with any other country. Any attacks on British, Dutch, ANZAC (Australian-New Zealand
Army Corps), or American territories or ships by the Japanese will be considered an act of war by all of the remaining Allied powers. A British or ANZAC attack on Japan, however, would not bring the U.S. into the war. The Japanese player can elect to go to war with the Allies immediately. If Japan does, the United States will automatically kick into its wartime economy. With tensions already high due to Japan�s occupation of parts of China, any further
conquest in the Pacific will force the United States to go to war with Japan. Should Japan not attack immediately and use this time to better prepare and position its forces? This is the question that the Japan player must answer.
Here is the opener in the tripleA game notes for Oztea’s 41:
Great Britain stands alone, struggling to hold together its Empire, beset by the European Axis. Victories for the Allies have been far and few between. France has surrendered to Germany and Italy, the Greek campaign has ended in failure, the Royal Air Force has suffered heavy losses as British cities are bombed daily, and the gains made in North Africa are in jeporady as German reinforcements arrive. Yet worse still, the German Battleship Bismark and a myraid of U-Boats are marauding the North Atlantic and threatening to starve the United Kingdom of supplies and into submission. But a whole new war is on the horizon as Operation Barbarossa is set to begin in earnest, German forces are poised to cut deep into the Soviet Union. And in the east, the Japanese Empire is poised to launch a series of surprise attacks on the colonies of the West and the forces of the United States, plunging the world into a truly global war. The year is 1941, battles have been fought, but the war has just begun.
I highlighted a couple errors in red, in case anyone wants to clean those up, now that it’s in the standard DL package. They were already corrected in the set up thread posted in this section, but not in the game notes for tripleA.
Anyone want to take a crack at something that starts out more like this… Then build out a game around it?
“It is December 1940.”
Anyone want to take a crack at something that starts out more like this…
“It is December 1940.”
I’d be happy to give it a shot. Just to make sure I don’t head off in the wrong direction: are you looking for a paragraph similar to the ones you quoted and which describes the actual situation in December 1940, or does the concept involve some kind of alternate version of 1940 that’s built around certain house rule assumptions?
