G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[barney]

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

[barney]

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.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/68hn0r

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

However Barney must put an Anti-Sub & Aircraft Patrol @1 offense and defense.
So Fg and TcB will both have 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 win

5 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 win

8SS 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 win

This 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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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

[barney]

C’mon Elk you haven’t posted in a couple days, you should take us into page 100 :)

[Black_Elk]

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/

[barney]

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 :)

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[Black_Elk]

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[Black_Elk]

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.”

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

Seems a bit too early to change setup or built one.
Your suggested turn order to increase pace should be more seriously scrutinized, no experienced player provide any comment on that one. It should IMO, pros or cons, but usually pertinent comments always bring improvement one way or another.
Also, if StBs and DDs type are not clearly selected, it will change any opening.
It is already the case with less poweful DD C5 and always surprise strike on for Subs.
A few things need to be set.

However, it is interesting to think about making AB inoperative before bombing IC.
Or giving a bonus if bombing IC while AB is inoperative.
This mechanic can be explored.
But think about how far you are from OOB SBR which can never ask for such thing, you already played to much with C5 A0 D0 StBomber.    :-D
You are already thinking in this new paradigm…

Probably a good idea to make France Germans and Greece UK.
Is there any German player which insist playing after loosing a G1 battle of France?
Seems already very scripted for balance of play, IMO.

[General 6 Stars]

Probably a good idea to make France Germans and Greece UK.

I agree with this.

[Argothair]

Yup, I strongly agree. I have always said there is no point in having a French army on the board whose only purpose is to inflict a random number of casualties on the German army before dying. Either rewind to 1939, or fast forward to after the fall of France.

I like the idea of recreating the historical Battle of Britain, and I think you are on the right track eith examining airfield / factory defense interactions.

Imho, the key to making that work is a limit on the speed of repairs. Airfields, appropriately, only absorb six points of damage, which London can easily and fully afford to repair every turn. So if you want to simulate the German attempt to wear down Britain’s airfields faster than Britain can repair them, you need to cap the speed of repairs. Maybe limit each country to five points of repair (for all facilities combined) per turn? That way consecutive turns of max airfield damage would shut down the British airfields even with full repairs, and if Germany builds extra bombers, it could shut down the London factory after a while, too. At a minimum, this would deny Britain air superiority over the Channel (no scramble), allowing for an easier Sea Lion. If you wanted even more radical results, you could require an operational airfield to scramble fighters to defend against strategic bombing.

[CWO Marc]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

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?

And just to follow up on my previous question: I assume that I should be using the Global 1940 map as my reference point (since the 1942 map is too late and the 1941 map is too vague), but to what extent should I assume that set-up adjustments will be made to reflect the historical situation on the ground?  Should I mention, for example, the Franco-Thai War which started in October 1940?  Hungary’s signature of the Tripartite Pact on in November 1940?  The Italian invasion of Greece from Albania in October 1940 and Greece’s push-back of the Italians?

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I guess I’m already pretty committed to the C5 SBR only bomber. I don’t think a dual use combat StratB will ever give us a bombing game that actually works for modelling something like the battle of Britain or the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign in central Europe. A combat bomber will just be used to pad attacks in the opener. The idea to open up all TTs for raiding seems novel, but that doesn’t really get at the heart of it either. It makes sense to have certain TTs much more attractive for these campaigns, like England and Germany in particular.

The element that’s missing is that ABs don’t really do much for the defender facing down SBR. You have a coastal scramble, but that is for naval battles or to deter amphibious assaults. You have the movement bonus but that’s focused on the attackers turn. I’m thinking about ABs in terms of defense during raids. It makes practical sense that these would be first targets, but in the game it doesn’t really work that way. Even at C5, you’re still better off hitting a major that can be damaged for 20, before a base that caps out a 6 (or 8 or 9, of you want to raise the ceiling there.) It seems like any serious bombing campaign, would have the attacker doing the opposite, trying to break airbases first and foremost, in an effort to gain air superiority over the TT. So would be nice if the game modelled that somehow.

Args idea about timed repair limits seems like it might be interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of a sbr defense advantage that can be neutralized, so that the effect goes beyond just the economic incentive to raid ABs, but extends to making SBR vs factories somehow more attractive (even independent of the repair cost to the AB.) Though I admit, I’m still not sure what exactly that might look like in specific gameplay terms.

As for a set up change, I don’t know what player experience can really reveal about a revised turn order sequence. Seems to me that if one is willing to entertain a set up change, or starting income adjustment, that A&A could support any sequence.  I can’t see any real objective advantage for singling out Anzac and France for their own slot, for example. It stalls the PBEM exchange, and isn’t a very meaningful turn to try and stick another player on it FtF. Just seems like an unnecessary anti-climax to have these two closing out the gameround. Seems like an artifact from the separate Pacific game, that should have been reworked to streamline the Global game.

I think we have a lot if HRs in here that work for the current Global game. To carry it forward for the next 100 pages, it would be fun I think to think about what a full set up change might look like. For every TT that houses starting units, we could have a footnote (at least in this thread, if not the actual gamenotes) describing what forces they are meant to represent.

I like a game that builds on the historical situation as opposed to an alternate history, and which mentions anything of interest in the immediate prelude. Then use that as a guide to the unit set up.
For tripleA, I’d consider ditching the relief tiles for pro-side neutrals, and for FtF just using control marker adjustments where necessary.

I’d think about including a special mention for each minor power. Italy China and Anzac in particular, France too (or Canada, if they make the grade.) Just so each player nation has some kind of blurb to set the scene round the globe.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I like a game that builds on the historical situation as opposed to an alternate history, and which mentions anything of interest in the immediate prelude. Then use that as a guide to the unit set up.
[…]
I’d think about including a special mention for each minor power. Italy China and Anzac in particular, France too (or Canada, if they make the grade.) Just so each player nation has some kind of blurb to set the scene round the globe.

Okay, that gives me a good start to work on a first draft.  I’ll aim for a text that combines a general overview of the war situation in December 1940 with some specific details about the situation on various active fronts and maybe also in areas that will see some notable action very soon (meaning in the first few months of 1941).  And for game powers that might otherwise not get mentioned because the time frame for their involvement is still too far way, I might throw in a couple of “Meanwhile, country X is watching with growing apprehension as…” types of lines.  I like your idea of mentioning each of the game powers, and it should be easy enough to do given how much was going on internationally at that time.  I’ll try to keep the text broad enough so that it won’t hinge on any specific map or set-up adjustments; if there should end up being a few such cases of local situations, however, then the two options would be to either make map/setup adjustments to fit the text or to simply edit those references out of the text.

[baron Münchhausen]

You got the honor CWO Marc, to break the 100 pages wall of this thread!!!
😆😃☺
I would really like to get a real accurate overview of major events late 1940, early 1941.
It would provide an interesting and compelling guideline for any 1941 setup.

[barney]

For ABs I’ve found using the “Limited Factory” tech gives the incentive to go after it before a regular factory. At least in UK at the start. The UK can’t build planes with an inoperative base. Raising damage from 6 to 8 would help as well.

With “Airfield M2” on there is additional incentive to go after ABs. It may not do quite what you’re looking for Elk, but it does make ABs a more attractive target