The Cliffside Bunker House Rules

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

@Young:

In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get fighters available for an escort mission when they’re needed back home for maximum scramble defense. Also, you’d have to be pretty savvy to position those escorts close to the front in order to get the range needed. You would have to give up help for other battles so you can get your fighters in on escort missions, and the defender always has the choice to stay grounded. That always fustrates me when I’m looking for an air battle, because now you’re fighters did nothing but scare off the enemy when they could have been doing something else important. However, I do remember 1st edition… and nobody was doing SBRs back then, so I’m glad they fixed it a little, but it’ll never be perfect.

That is how it adds to the game. OOB, SBRs are just awesome even if unprotected. That’s ridiculous. B-17s did shoot down fighters sometimes, particularly when the fighters were outnumbered 3 to 1, but it is hardly realistic to think that there’s an even match one on one.

It is a thin line between SBR with no interception (OOB G40) or no SBR because of too much frightening  Fgs on IC TT (OOB 1942.2 SBR optional). As YG noted, even when you bring along escort it is often an opportunity lost to use this Fg elsewhere because defender choose to duck in instead of intercept.
So the defender must see an advantage to risk his precious Fgs when the attacker has an overwhelming forces of StBs, or simply a clear advantage.

There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.
1942.2 with Fg A1 first strike Defense @2 and bomber A1 first strike but damage D6 is not very good incentive for the attacker. And the first strike attack can be scarry for the defender when only 1 or 2 Fg can intercept. Net result, no intercept or rarely. And when there is not enough bomber, StBs stay on regular combat acting like long range tactical bomber attacking @4.

However, if you rise damage to D6+2, you get something in between G40 and 1942.2
which have some merits.

But what YG is trying can probably work better (even if the odds are less appealing to the attacker). Blocking a +1 bonus cannot be enough for a few StBs but in large number,  reducing 5 or more damage to IC can worth the risk to intercept. And as counterweight, when 6 or more StBs attack, an interceptor is likely to be destroyed (6 times 1/6 = grossly near 1 odds).
The attacker lose some damage on bombing but he gains an opportunity to shot an interceptor.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.

I wouldn’t limit our imaginations, all it takes is some trouble shooting…here’s a problem with SBRs…

A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.

By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.

[simon33]

@Young:

A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered

Isn’t this part already the rule?

Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

There is only a few conditions which provides attractive ingredients to get more action during SBRs.

I wouldn’t limit our imaginations, all it takes is some trouble shooting…here’s a problem with SBRs…

A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.

By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.

Why do you see it as a loophole?

It is only 1 IPC cheaper than StratB or cost 1 more than Fg unit.

At least, it can bomb Bases for D6 damage.
And being fodder for StBs is not very different than Infantry protecting Artillery.

Also, during Battle of Britain, a lot of German TacBs were shot down.

[Young Grasshopper]

@simon33:

Isn’t this part already the rule?

No… oob rules state that bombing targets are announced by remaining air units after the single round of dog fighting.

@simon33:

Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.

This would be balance mod rules you’re referring to, I’m still 50/50 on whether or not I want to adopt them. oob rules have all air unit combat value @1… so BM does help with the loophole.

[simon33]

Hmm, ok. But Tacs can only attack airbases and Naval bases anyway. Doesn’t seem a big problem. You’re hardly going to bomb a base unless you think the IC will be maxed out.

@Baron:

Why do you see it as a loophole?

The part I see as a loophole is that Tacs are effectively escorting the Strat bombers, about as well as a fighter would.

It’s a bit like the way transports effectively defended battleships in classic.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

A loophole in the role of Tactical bombers during SBRs has been exposed and abused.

By not announcing targets during raids, tactical bombers are being brought in for the sole purpose of escorting even though they are not permitted in this role. However, because there is an eligible target with 1 or 2 bases present… a loophole is created. A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered, and have the posibility of multiple air battles triggered, the defender would divide their interceptors among each separate raid, and than the attacker would divide their escorts last.

Why do you see it as a loophole?

It is only 1 IPC cheaper than StratB or cost 1 more than Fg unit.

At least, it can bomb Bases for D6 damage.
And being fodder for StBs is not very different than Infantry protecting Artillery.

Also, during Battle of Britain, a lot of German TacBs were shot down.

I see it as a loophole because tac bombers used as fodder greatly favors the attacker, and why would I remove a more expensive tac bomber instead of a fighter during air battles?.. so that I won’t have to subject my tac bombers to built in AA guns from bases. So if I’m afraid my tac bombers will be lost to facility guns, why am I bringing them in?.. to increase my odds in the air battle by essentially using them as escorts for the planes that I really want saved, who are bombing the targets I really want bombed.

There’s something very cheesy about this move IMO, and I’ve seen it done many times. By splitting bombing units into different air battles, they are forced to bomb the facilitates they were briefed on while further defining the roles each air unit was designed for. The biggest problem with G40 SBRs is… everyone wants the benefits of having air units, but don’t want to lose any… therefore you get a lot of overkill attackers which results in turtling interceptors.

[Young Grasshopper]

@simon33:

It’s a bit like the way transports effectively defended battleships in classic.

Exactly.

[nicbizz]

I think the American and Soviet war effort rule is cool, but what happened to the random aspect of it? Now it’s set in stone what unit you get each subsequent round after the USA/USSR is at war? Wouldn’t the random roll out of the pool be a little more fun?

[WoodyWanKenobi]

Great new twist to your house rules by speeding up gameplay. Love it.

So just to confirm, for example you could be a few rounds into the game and you will have scenarios for example, where a german force and a japanese force can enter a Russian territory in Combat movement and combine their attack rolls during Combat phase?
Cheers

[Young Grasshopper]

@nicbizz:

I think the American and Soviet war effort rule is cool, but what happened to the random aspect of it? Now it’s set in stone what unit you get each subsequent round after the USA/USSR is at war? Wouldn’t the random roll out of the pool be a little more fun?

I agree that the random aspect is more fun, however, there were a few reasons for doing it this way…

1. It’s now meant to represent an increasing war effort that’s consistent with military progression as war rages on. Therefore, getting a superior unit before a cheap unit can not easily be explained.

2. The decline of unit types late in the game better represents a decrease in civilian and military moral if the war has not yet been won.

3. It’s only fair to the Axis players to know what is about to be placed on the board.

4. It allows the Americans to better prepare ahead of time for what unit they will get.

5. Many were asking if the 6 unit chart would reset, I thought it best to layout 12 without resetting.

[Young Grasshopper]

@WoodyWanKenobi:

Great new twist to your house rules by speeding up gameplay. Love it.

So just to confirm, for example you could be a few rounds into the game and you will have scenarios for example, where a german force and a japanese force can enter a Russian territory in Combat movement and combine their attack rolls during Combat phase?
Cheers

No, the order of play is still to be obeyed… when units from 2 nations interact due to close proximity… players must be mindful of who goes first and play accordingly. Therefore, Germany could attack Stalingrad and take control… however, Japan goes next and can only reinforce it on their non-combat move.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Young:

@Baron:

you still keeping interceptors @2?

No… I removed the modified air battle values until further testing, but what do you think about restricting interceptors to air bases.

I don’t think it is a necessity.
Keeping interception as it is may increase SBR action.
Forbidding +1 bonus damage is cool and not OP.

@simon33:

@Young:

A possible solution would be to have bombing units (tactical and strategic bombers) announce their targets before an air raid is triggered

Isn’t this part already the rule?

Of course, this loophole is also resolved moderately well by having fighters A2 D2 with both types of bombers A1.

Maybe there is something which can be added to increase interception and make Fighter better than attacking TacBomber:
What do you think about a +1 defensive air bonus coming from an operational Airbase?
Up to three intercepting Fighters get +D1 bonus, making them defending @2 against incoming bombers and Fighters @1 during dogfight phase.
This is in addition to the +1 damage per StB negated if there is at least one intercepting Fg.

Also, to simplify Tacbomber use, what do you think if it can make a single 1 point of damage against IC and factory, and keeping D6 vs bases, including military base ?
That way, Tactical can always be part of any bombing run and always submit to facility’s AA guns.
This remains very sub-optimal for the attacker but it allows more flexibility with air units.

[baron Münchhausen]

Axis Powers

• Global Economy
  All 3 Axis powers have a combined total of 136 IPCs on the income tracker
  (R&D) *The nation that controls the most

This should be a comparative between initial economy and final stage when 136 IPCs is reached.
Germany: 30 IPCs (45= 150 %, 60= 200%, 75= 250%, 90= 300%)
Japan : 26 IPCs (39= 150%, 52= 200%, 65= 250%, 78%= 300%)
Italy: 10 IPCs (15= 150%, 20= 200%, 25= 250%, 30= 300%)

Otherwise, Italy player have little chance to get this victory award.

[SouthsideCH]

We have been playing with the VO’s for a few months now and love them. We played one 1942 scenario recently and could not wait to get back to the VO’s.

We really like shooting for something meaningful and the reward system of the R&D makes it very interesting. The system makes for a much better game.

Playing for 12-15 hours with Japan is limited to their home territory and still won’t concede can be taxing. This eliminates that. We have tied before which is fine.

We will try the other house rules soon.

Chris

[Faramir]

Have you thought about putting a Minor Factory in India and a Military Base in West India to better reflect India’s production capacity?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Faramir:

Have you thought about putting a Minor Factory in India and a Military Base in West India to better reflect India’s production capacity?

Well I have a Major factory in India to start which would produce 5 units, and it would get upgraded to a IC when at war allowing them to build 10 there. I suppose adding a military base in West India would be fine if it would help accurately represent their contribution to the war, besides… Military bases only produce infantry and transports, so it shouldn’t be to overpowering.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

First time poster here so forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere.

I am intrigued by your modified rules regarding research and development. I have been playing the game since 1983 and the one house rule that we used that has remained consistent all these years through various versions of the game is our rule regarding r&d. In the classic version all five powers rolled a die at the beginning of the game to acquire a weapon. After all five had one then Germany and Japan decided between themselves who would get a second weapon to even the number of weapons between the opposing sides and then they would roll a second die (usually Germany). Play would begin at that point and there was little need to purchase dice for r&d since everyone already had a weapon.

The purpose of doing this was to make each game unique. Every game had exactly the same starting point and after a while became quite predictable to experienced players. The only thing that made each game unique before this rule adaptation was the level of experience of the players and how much you could take advantage of that as an experienced player as well as the luck of rolling in key battles.

When you consider the number of combinations you could possibly have in the Global40 edition each and every game would be truly unique to any other game you have ever played. The level of skill that you need to play this way would increase as you would have to develop new strategies each time to both counter the weapons combination you face and utilize the weapons combination that you have to work with. It makes the game more fun as well. When you think back on all the games that you have played over the years the ones that probably stick out the most are the ones in which you had at least one weapon to work with because that game was out of the ordinary for you. With this rule you would have a weapon every single game you play.

In the Global40 game you would roll the die in the established order of play. It would be a waste of time to give France and China a weapon since China wouldn’t be able to use it anyway and lets face it France isn’t much of a factor in the game. Realistically you would think that their ability to develop a weapon would be severely hampered in the political situation of the 1940’s as well. After ANZAC (or Pacific UK as your rule exists) rolls then the axis would get one more roll and must decide which nation gets a second weapon before the roll.

I would recommend that you roll the die and then decide which breakthrough chart you want to choose from based on what your roll is. I can’t tell you how many times that one side would surrender a game before it has even began because of the bad luck when rolling weapons. We would have to re-roll for all weapons again or be stuck with with wasting hours of our time chasing a forgone conclusion. For example if Russia gets super subs and US gets rockets while the axis powers all get weapons that they can actually use then the game would be horribly skewed for the axis. If each country had 2 choices based on their roll then you could avoid this situation.

I do really like your incentive based r&d rule though. I will give it a try on it’s own and then maybe combine both our rules to give each power their initial weapon and provide the incentive to acquire more as the game progresses.

I also want to thank you Young Grasshopper for your videos on YouTube. All of the players that I used to play with have moved away from the city where I live and I haven’t found anyone else to play against yet. I have been trying to learn how to play Global40 on my own and it’s been very helpful to me to have someone explain the rules because, as you know, the rulebook can be hard to follow as you pointed out in your videos. I’ve only been able to play 3 games of G40 against other players to this point (with some confusion between our interpretations) so I’ve had to interpret the rules on my own and I’ve learned an lot over the last week from watching your videos. I’ve also downloaded your map which will be ready from the printer tomorrow. I went with the laminated paper finish. Cheers!

[Young Grasshopper]

Many of these ideas are no longer being used by our group, I’ve decided to unstick the thread.

[eladimir]

Are you still using the modified turn sequence? The looks very interesting at least for the first turn. Could save our game and hour or two!  Only balance question is about the Japanese getting a free shot at the spread out russian east infantry.  No concerns due to the replacement mongolian troops one gets instead?