I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download
-
Another possible, and very simple solution, is to disallow marines from boarding ally’s cruisers/battleships.
-
Another possible, and very simple solution, is to disallow marines from boarding ally’s cruisers/battleships.
I would disagree with this one though.
If USA attempts to come with a Marine on a battleship to SZ6, fight the navy and land the marine on an undefended Korea but two Kamikaze hits are scored on the BB, the marine should be lost. We aren’t thinking of changing this right?
I have to agree with Gamerman01 about the Iwo Jima example but I’m not sure I’d like to see the bombardment/Kamikaze rules changed. I would like to see the bombardment/marine rule changed though. Bombardments should only support units from transports. I don’t care much either way if a marine comes on a transport.
Regarding the purchase of extra Kamikazes - I wasn’t really thinking of that but yes that is even better! The maximum value on paper a Kamikaze can have is if it strikes a cruiser - 4IPC given that it only has a 1/3 chance of hitting. Ignoring onboard marines of course.
-
So with Simon’s idea added to mine, the proposed rule could be that kamikazes cannot be used by themselves against amphibious assault.
(There would have to be a defending surface warship or a scrambled plane)
Also a great idea to (leave starting kamikazes at 6) make kamikazes a purchasable unit. I’m not saying 5 is best, maybe it is, I haven’t thought about it.
So, in regard to Allied marines, kamikazes would no longer be an issue. Because if there is a Japanese defending warship or scrambled plane, then the allied unit couldn’t do an amphibious assault without that ally also having accompanying ships/planes. Now you’d still have the problem of the kamikaze not being able to hit the cruiser/battleship that the marine is arriving from, but it could target other ships by the attacking power…… If there are none it couldn’t, but this would be extremely rare.
Like you said in your last paragraph, there would still be the issue with kamis. It would just be rarer.
What would you propose to solve the single tp and inf being able to take a territory in a kami zone? Allowing kamis to also target transports would be too powerful. Perhaps make it so that kamis cannot target transports as long as there is something else to target?
Interesting ideas, I’ll reread them tomorrow and see if I can’t find something wrong or something better. I’m currently leaning towards the simplest solution, which is to prevent allied marines from loading on another nation’s cruiser/BB.
-
FYI, in the current version of the MOD, because of the way it is coded, Kamikazis DO NOT prevent marines from landing, even if the kamis are successful in destroying the cruiser/battleship. This is a totally separate issue from the “marine on allied cruiser/battleship” issue. . . there the problem is simply that you can’t take an ally’s unit as a casualty on your turn. Thats why it isn’t allowed in a contestable sz.
Also, the proposed rule requiring Japanese naval presence as a precondition of using kamikazes is problematic for at least 3 reasons. First, the main issue: its grossly ahistorical. Kamikazis were most commonly sent out on their own, with no other means to engage the enemy at sea. They were not deployed as part of a naval response. There was no naval response, and that is precisely why kamikazes were deemed necessary. The planes were “essentially pilot-guided explosive missiles,” and they were specifically designed/fitted for that purpose, as a last ditch means of protecting the home islands. I strongly recommend reading about the Kamikaze operations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
The second strike against the proposed rule is that it further weakens Japan, and would only exacerbate the Axis disadvantage in BM.
Finally, the rule is a dramatic departure from what people are use to. There would have to be a compelling justification for it. And simply basing it on a desire to avoid “allied marine on cruiser/bb” complications seems like the tail wagging the dog. There are simpler ways to address that issue that cleave more closely to the spirit of the original rule set–namely, don’t permit amphib assaults from alliy warships in active kami zones.
It’d also be PIA to code.
-
What would you propose to solve the single tp and inf being able to take a territory in a kami zone? Allowing kamis to also target transports would be too powerful. Perhaps make it so that kamis cannot target transports as long as there is something else to target?
Not a bad idea. Then the USA could send a destroyer and the landing would be guaranteed success though of course the destroyer may be attacked, but that reduces Japan’s kamikazes and the transport and cargo would be unmolested
Interesting ideas, I’ll reread them tomorrow and see if I can’t find something wrong or something better. I’m currently leaning towards the simplest solution, which is to prevent allied marines from loading on another nation’s cruiser/BB.
Cool -
I will just give you some time
I’m glad I brought this up and getting attention from two of the main mod squad members - much appreciated -
Thanks kid, I admit I looked up the wikipedia article before, when forming my responses, but didn’t read it thoroughly. Trusting you are correct, I was wrong in thinking that kamikazes were normally launched from carriers or when there was a fleet presence.
As far as ahistorical, what to me is ahistorical is that kamikazes can be used in 1940 or 1941 (If USA enters the war on US1, US2, US3) or 1942 (US4)
As you said, they were a last ditch effort when there was no naval response toward the very END of the war (1945). Were there even any significant numbers of them in 1944? See, I still haven’t read most of the info :-P
In 1st edition, there used to be a requirement that the Allies had taken certain islands before kamikazes could be used. Then later, for various reasons, one no doubt being simplicity, the requirement was simply removed. Now with the introduction of marines, the ability of Japan to kamikaze a cruiser with a marine from the beginning of the game is a bit of an issue, at least in my mind.
This could be solved by re-instituting a waiting period for kamikazes, which also makes it much more historical. Probably the best way (rather than a certain round) is to re-institute Harris’ rule that kamikazes can’t be used until the Allies have advanced to the point of taking a certain island chain (I could look up which ones those were).
This would weaken Japan a bit, but it’s not hard to compensate her in some other way. Maybe that Iwo/Okinawa NO you guys were talking about or something
-
I found the original Pacific rulebook
I am now vindicated - in the original rulebook, it says “If an Allied player has moved ships into one of the above sea zones, the Japanese player can announce during this phase that he or she intends to launch a kamikaze attack.”
That’s why I originally thought allied marines should be able to do amphibious assaults and kamikazes would not be able to be used, because of the requirement of moving ships into a sea zone, but this wording was changed by the time 2nd edition came.
Anyway, the original official rules were that “Kamikaze attacks can only occur after one or more of the following islands are captured or re-captured by the Allies – Philippines, Marianas, Okinawa, and/or Iwo Jima”
See, that ensured that kamikazes could only be used late in the war.
-
Actually the Wiki article reveals that there instances of lone Japanese pilots electing to go kamikazi throughout the war, including, for example, one pilot during the bombing of Pearl Harbor (who knew?) cuz Japanese be cra with their samurai codes and what not. But it wasn’t instituted as an official program until after the devistating defeat at midway.
-
Hm, well that was June 1942. Interesting
Of course, it takes time from instituting the program, til it’s used at a significant level
What do you think about Harris’ original rule?
-
Speaking of old, subsequently changed, rules,
I wish we had the automatic convoy damage of 1 per destroyer/cruiser/battleship, 2 per sub/plane that it was originally.
I don’t like the dice being added and the ability of a single sub to do 6 damage :-(Dominion’s not gonna be happy if my lucky surviving UK sub in 97 does 4 damage to Germany this turn (after doing 2 to Italy) and I don’t blame him
-
Naw. I didn’t mean to suggest it started in 1942. Kamikaze as an oraganized program apparently didn’t happen til 1944. As for your concept of delaying kamikaze til certain islands are taken, my gut reaction is “leave well enough alone.” Also it doesn’t address the fundamental issue of allied marines coming off cruisers/battleships. I still think the answer of "you can’t do it while kamokaze is possible " is the simplest, most elegant solution, which involves the least work for me.
This issue hits close to home for me, cuz I have been kamikazing J@p fighters into infantry all game with Simon. I do it for historical interest.
Convoy idea: maybe.
-
Although I wouldn’t be happy about that, especially considering how depressed I am already about your basically perfect round on me, I definitely like the variability of the convoy just the way it is. I think it makes it much more interesting, is more consistent with the rest of the game’s rules like with SBR, and i also like how it forces the attacker to add more subs to increase the odds of max damage.
Speaking of old, subsequently changed, rules,
I wish we had the automatic convoy damage of 1 per destroyer/cruiser/battleship, 2 per sub/plane that it was originally.
I don’t like the dice being added and the ability of a single sub to do 6 damage :-(Dominion’s not gonna be happy if my lucky surviving UK sub in 97 does 4 damage to Germany this turn (after doing 2 to Italy) and I don’t blame him
-
Also that there’s no guarantee that any convoy damage would result, giving a nation dominated navally and heavily seized by subs some hope of a break now and then.
Although I wouldn’t be happy about that, especially considering how depressed I am already about your basically perfect round on me, I definitely like the variability of the convoy just the way it is. I think it makes it much more interesting, is more consistent with the rest of the game’s rules like with SBR, and i also like how it forces the attacker to add more subs to increase the odds of max damage.
Speaking of old, subsequently changed, rules,
I wish we had the automatic convoy damage of 1 per destroyer/cruiser/battleship, 2 per sub/plane that it was originally.
I don’t like the dice being added and the ability of a single sub to do 6 damage :-(Dominion’s not gonna be happy if my lucky surviving UK sub in 97 does 4 damage to Germany this turn (after doing 2 to Italy) and I don’t blame him
-
Convoy damage could be a whole new, huge, discussion.
In response to your observation of “a nation dominated navally”
I’ll just throw this one thing out there for now - the convoy zones are generally in zones where you wouldn’t want to park your fleet. Even Z6, where you normally don’t have a naval base and is not normally the strongest position for your fleet to sit.Z110, for example, isn’t a convoy zone probably because the UK has a naval base and air base of London right there, so it’s already a very strong location for the fleet.
In most cases, to carry out convoy disruptions is to sacrifice other opportunities or better position for those units
So to get skunked by the dice and do 0 damage really sucks.I will repeat, this is the way the original rule was (and, kid, also the kamikaze rule to which you say “leave well enough alone”), so it was the brain child of Mr. Harris and Mr. Chapman, et al
-
In most cases, to carry out convoy disruptions is to sacrifice other opportunities or better position for those units
So to get skunked by the dice and do 0 damage really sucks.But I’m sure not as bad as getting shot down in a bombing raid! Ugh that’s gotta be the worst feeling in this game. Especially when it happens to you like 5 out of 6 times in one game, as is happening to me in my current game vs abh!
-
As far as Triple A coding, it’s already far from perfect and doesn’t cause trouble -
For example, the USA fleet restrictions while not at war. That’s not coded into Triple A - I almost accidentally illegally floated the Philippines destroyer into the Europe map - so don’t worry about coding every rule into Triple A.
If Japan can’t use kamikazes until after Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, or the Marianas, the players simply select 0 kamikazes when prompted until Japan is eligible to use them.
Again, this was the rule for some time, printed right here in my 1st edition rulebook. It got scrapped at some point during the Alphas. Too bad, because I think it’s a great rule, and now that you’ve introduced marines, this rule would go a long way toward not castrating your marines.
You can’t even send a marine to go take an empty Philippines, Iwo Jima, Korea, anything from Z19 or Z20, or the Marianas without the likely result of getting blown away by Kamikazes in 1942
Kamikazes were clearly introduced for their historical significance, and with the combination of marines and the dropping of the wait until the Allies are deep in the heart of Japan’s empire rule, they are too ahistorical.
Re-introducing the kamikaze trigger rule from 1st edition makes a ton of sense I think
-
In most cases, to carry out convoy disruptions is to sacrifice other opportunities or better position for those units
So to get skunked by the dice and do 0 damage really sucks.But I’m sure not as bad as getting shot down in a bombing raid! Ugh that’s gotta be the worst feeling in this game. Especially when it happens to you like 5 out of 6 times in one game, as is happening to me in my current game vs abh!
I agree, and I lost quite a few bombers in our first game as well.
My point is I don’t like more of this dice pain, especially after we who were playing G40 at the time were all used to the automatic calculation without dice. -
After much deliberation, the marine-kami rule will be the following: marines can unload from friendly cruisers/BBs and the cruisers/BBs are not subject to kamikaze attacks, nor do they stop the unloading.
Reason: should be a rare occurrence, so might as well take what TripleA does by default.
-
Is this logical? Why should a cruiser/BB carrying a marine should be immune to Kami?
Does this mean I can send cruisers into a sea battle against Japan at e.g. Phil and use Marines to make them immune to Kamis? I don’t get that.Why not: They can unload BEFORE the Kami strike but are subject to Kami then?
I think this is another (small but not irrelevant) advantage for the Allies.
-
Great, thanks Adam!
JDOW, it’s only if a different power’s marine is on a different power’s cruiser/battleship
Kamikazes can still totally be used against USA ships carrying USA marines or ANZ ships carrying ANZ marinesIf you leave a fighter at the Philippines, the landing is impossible
Suggested Topics
