The Fighter Ace & Luftwaffe Ace IPC cost is 11 IPC for each unit.
There was a flaw in the IPC cost in the original text in the rules.
This has now been corrected and updated in the rules attached to the first post in this thread.
Captain
@Young:
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage. I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.
“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”
I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities. I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.
“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”
I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.” The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.
“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”
I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…” It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing. (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)
“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”
“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual. (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.) Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”. Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.
@CWO:
@Young:
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage. I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.
“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”
I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities. I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.
It only effects the damage it causes during SBRs, mission briefings, maximum payload, fueling etc…
“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”
I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.” The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.
Understood, but the roll is meant to represent a chance of a severe winter rather than controling the weather, plus it adds excitement from round to round for the Russian player.
“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”
I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…” It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing. (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)
Done
“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”
“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual. (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.) Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”. Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.
Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.
A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn. Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.
The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?
It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.
@Young:
Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.
Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.
The alternate “Hump” and “Ledo Road” suggestions I made (which by the way don’t need to be both implemented; if I had to pick just one, I’d pick The Hump) might help in this regard because, unlike the original proposal, they put a limit on how much artillery China can buy.
@Young:
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”. Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.
@CWO:
@Young:
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”. Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.
“Logistical Allies”?
@Young:
“Logistical Allies”?
I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf. The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning. Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?
@CWO:
@Young:
“Logistical Allies”?
I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf. The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning. Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?
Maybe, but “comrades” sounds a little Russian
@Young:
@CWO:
@Young:
“Logistical Allies”?
I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf. The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning. Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?
Maybe, but “comrades” sounds a little Russian
How about Brothers in Arms?
Perfect!
Got a couple of concerns through PM that the R2 Advantages for Germany are heavily tilled in favor of “Blitzkrieg” due to the sure fire strategy of Barbarossa vs. “Enigma” and the always risky strategy of Sealion.
One concern is that Enigma doesn’t really contribute to a Sealion, even with the extra dice to convoy, and the other concern is that tactical bombers are only $1 cheaper than a fighter making them to powerful with an unsupported attack @4.
I am thinking about modifying the R2 pairing to either…
1. weaken both, or
2. strengthen Enigma.
here are my thoughts…
Enigma
German submarines now attack at 3 or less, and now receive 3 dice each when conducting convoy disruptions.
1. Remove the 3rd die for convoy disruptions
2. give a +1 to all successful convoy disruptions and a 3rd die
2. give a +2 to all successful convoy disruptions and remove the 3rd die
or
Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during their non-combat phase. Also, German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones).
1. Remove the following. German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones)
@Young:
A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn. Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?
It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.
You’re right. Sorry. Read over it too quickly and thought it was two dice.
@Young:
A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn. Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?
It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.
You’re right. Sorry. Read over it too quickly and thought it was two dice.
No problem, I was sure there had to be some misunderstanding involved.
@CWO:
@Young:
I really want China to build artillery without needing the road, so I was kinda reaching. Is there any acceptable explanation that we could realistically and historically frame this rule around CWO Marc?
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.I’d propose changing the current China rule into the following pair of rules (for which I’ve left some values as blanks for you to fill in, depending on which numbers you think would work best).
The Hump
Beginning with the entry of the United States into the war, China can purchase x artillery units per turn, provided that India and Szechwan are both under the control of an Allied power. � This option is available to China regardless of whether or not the Burma Road is open for use by the Allies.Ledo Road
Beginning on turn [y, corresponding roughly to 1944], China can purchase z artillery units per turn, provided that India and Yunnan are both under the control of an Allied power. � This rule only applies when Burma is controlled by an Axis power, and it does not require Szechwan to be under Allied control. � When India, Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan are all under Allied control, the normal Burma Road rules apply.The rationale for the first rule is that the Americans were able to fly some supplies to China over the Himalayas. � The upside was that this method did not require the Burma Road to be operational; the downside was that its capacity was limited by the great difficulties involved in flying this route – hence the need to put an x imit on how much artillery can be purchased by China in this way. � As compensation, the Flying Tiger requirement in your original rule has been dropped.
The rationale for the second rule is that the Allies were able to bypass the Japanese-controlled southern sections of the Burma Road by building a road connecting northern India to a northern section of the Burma Road. � By the way, the z number in this rule should be smaller than the x number of the previous rule because the Ledo Road only ended up delivering between one-sixth and one-tenth of the tonnage that was flown in over the Hump air-route (which remained in operation until the end of the war).
Not to dismiss your suggestions, but how about this?
Military Support
China may always purchase artillery units, however, they may also purchase tanks if the Burma road is open.
Here’s an old Strategic Advantage that got dropped in favor of something else, but I’ve found a fun way to include it into the Alternative Rules (also gives the axis more weight when balancing the ARs).
Propaganda
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Germany may roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to influence a Strict Neutral territory of their choice into joining the Nazi cause. They may decide to make an attempt during a turn, or pass and save it for a later round. If / when successful, Germany will immediately take control of the standing army on the chosen strict neutral territory without the need of occupying it first, and without provoking the remaining strict neutral territories into joining the allies. There may only be one successful propaganda attempt per game (this rule is void if all strict neutrals turn pro-axis).
@Young:
Here’s an old Strategic Advantage that got dropped in favor of something else, but I’ve found a fun way to include it into the Alternative Rules (also gives the axis more weight when balancing the ARs).
Propaganda
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Germany may roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to influence a Strict Neutral territory of their choice into joining the Nazi cause. They may decide to make an attempt during a turn, or pass and save it for a later round. If / when successful, Germany will immediately take control of the standing army on the chosen strict neutral territory without the need of occupying it first, and without provoking the remaining strict neutral territories into joining the allies. There may only be one successful propaganda attempt per game (this rule is void if all strict neutrals turn pro-axis).
I actually like this one better than the old one. I could see a lot of fun scenarios with this.
@Young:
Here’s an old Strategic Advantage that got dropped in favor of something else, but I’ve found a fun way to include it into the Alternative Rules (also gives the axis more weight when balancing the ARs).
Propaganda
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Germany may roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to influence a Strict Neutral territory of their choice into joining the Nazi cause. They may decide to make an attempt during a turn, or pass and save it for a later round. If / when successful, Germany will immediately take control of the standing army on the chosen strict neutral territory without the need of occupying it first, and without provoking the remaining strict neutral territories into joining the allies. There may only be one successful propaganda attempt per game (this rule is void if all strict neutrals turn pro-axis).I actually like this one better than the old one. I could see a lot of fun scenarios with this.
Yep, don’t know if you’ve seen the changes to “Russian Winter” and “The Manhattan Project” but these and “Propaganda” are all similar in the sense that you have to earn them.
Some minor changes tonight…
1. I’ve renamed “Alternative Rules” to “Fortunes of War”
2. I’ve renamed “Propaganda” to “Nazi Propaganda”
3. I’ve eliminated the FOW that allows China to build artillery without the road.
Propaganda should be named “Fifth Column” which is exactly the practice that Germany employed to sway neutrals. look it up.