A new income paradigm?

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

Here is 8 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

My suggested rules add new units to the game. Some powers have never produced a certain type of unit. These optional rules add a fee to the cost for these units the first time those powers produce units never seen before on their roster.

If a country does not start the game with a certain type of unit in their possession (e.g. the Soviet Union and Battleships, Germany and Aircraft Carriers) then that country is considered to be unable to make any of that type of unit. If a country wants to make a unit that it unable to do so, then that country must make a one-time payment to the back in order to build the capacity to make that type of unit. The payment is 6 IPC. Once this payment is made the country in question will be able to make that type of unit as if it had started play with that type of unit. Payment is made for each type of unit (Aircraft Carrier, Battleship) desired. Units may be made on the same turn as the payment to build the ability is made to the bank.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

I made a small but significant modification (written red) in the first post about Subs vs Battleship in 1942 version to increase balance toward the new Subs and for historical reason.

Battleship in G40 and 1942 seems the same at first glance but are far more potent in 1942:
BB A4D4M2C20, takes 2 hits, can bombard @4.

In 1942, Battleship unit recover from damage after any attacking player’s turn. So, in a whole 5 players turn. They could recover up to 4 times from a battle.
The owning Axis player’s attack turn and the 3 Allied attack turns.

In G40, BB can only be repaired once in a whole turn, at the beginning of the owning player’s turn. In addition, you need to move it near a Naval Base before it can be repaired in another turn. So, in this case, it becomes fully operational only 2 turns after being damage.

Compared to the 1942 BB immediate recovery in any Sea-Zone.
G40 BB is clearly a much weaker unit.

By the way, that’s another reason why I consider that BB cost for G40E should be put at 18 IPCs when Cruiser is put at 10 IPCs.

In addition, all BattleCalc simulations show clearly that a balance battle between BB, CA, DD imply this ratio: 1 BB vs 1 CA+1 DD

What they are getting at is the respective VALUE of conscripts.

Chinese “soldiers” without rifles, equipment, or even food, do not equate with American GI’s for example.

This is a new concept to make SBR more effective and also speed up the game by causing a reduction in placements based on a portion of damage caused by SBR.

All Factories now have maximum damage rating according to this calculation:

Part 1:
All Factories now have maximum damage according to this calculation:
Factory type + Territory IPC

So in North Italy a major at 10 and territory at 4 means the factory can be bombed for damage up to 14 points

So a major in Germany at 10 and the TT at 5, means Germany can be bombed for 15 Points max

Part 2:
When repairing damage, all damage sustained greater than the total placement value of the factory are always repaired first.

Part 3:
If damage exceeds the factory placement total, additional placements must wait till the next turn to be reset.

Total damage - Total production capability ( rule #1) = value - factory production capability= total placements in the current turn.

If Germany has 12 points of damage and decides to pay for all repairs, it will only be able to place 7 units THIS TURN, and 10 units next turn ( provided it does not sustain new damage the next turn)

12-15=3-10=7

If Russia ( worth 4) has a Major factory and sustains 8 points of damage, it will only be able to place 6 units this turn and 10 the next turn.

8-12=4-10=6

If the Soviets have a minor factory in a space worth 2 IPC and it gets bombed for 4 points of damage and the Soviets pay the 4 IPC to repair, They will only be able to place 2 units THIS TURN, and 3 units next turn ( ( provided it does not sustain new damage the next turn)

4-5=1-3=2

Lets now use a slightly different example:

Germany has been bombed for 12 points, but fixed only 8 damage points…net 4 unfixed. Germany can only build 4 units this turn and if they don’t fix the damage next turn, it will remain at 4 units

In this case unfixed repair points alter the maximum total sustainable value.

So in this case its normally 15, but now changed to 11 ( this is true as long as you don’t repair all damage).

8-11 ( you must use this new basis)= 3-10= 7 units now and each turn as long as you got 4 unfixed.

Another example:

UK has a major worth 10 and the TT is worth 6 IPC= total 16 maximum damage rating.

They suffer a SBR totaling 14 points, but fix only 6 of these leaving 8 unfixed.

14-8 ( this is her new total capacity because the other 8 was not repaired)= 6-10=4 units.

I am sorry for all the examples but i am trying to really make this clear. To me this is really simple, its just the way to explain it is hard, but once you get it you really can see the magic behind this rule. I consider it one of the best ideas to fix the SBR and give it more weight in the game.

Also my final rule on tactical bombers is somewhat altered:

Every 2 tactical bombers roll 2 dice in SBR and you must pick the higher of the two dice in this roll.

or

If you have only one tactical bomber used in SBR, roll two dice and you must pick the lower of the two dice in this roll.

@orion-21:

I think air is the key to winning the war.

I’m thinking any rule(s) that makes it that decisive needs serious revision. Douhet was wrong.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.