G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

Paratrooper/Commando/Marines/ELITE Infantry
A1 first strike (A2 with Artillery) D2 M1 cost 4,
Load up 3 Marines/Elite/Paratrooper units in a regular Transport or 1 Elite and 1 other unit (including reg Infantry).
Can be put on an Air Transport (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.

The idea is that it cost more but you have fewer number (less logistics), better trained to do the same damage to the enemy, hence being able to put 3 units on a Transport.

Probably it could be more interesting if Marines/Elite on TP can allow 2 Marines Inf and 1 Art unit, at most for 12 IPCs invested. Giving A2+A2+A1 first strike on offence. Iit was more historically the case for Marines working with Artillery division, it is the only way I saw some incentive to put them together.
But, it probably becomes too OP vs regular transportation.

@Black_Elk:

Ok I have another question for you guys to kick around…

What are your thoughts on the damage/repair mechanic for the two capital ships in this game, battleships and carriers?

The 1940 game departs pretty significantly from its predecessors in this area. The OOB rules require that you be adjacent to friendly naval base in order to repair damaged capital ships.

Do you like this system? From a gameplay perspective? How about from a historical accuracy perspective?

I may be in the minority, but I’m not a particular fan of the way it works OOB, especially for Carrier decks.

The game’s other repair system is related to bombing and facilities, with a direct cost in IPCs. Ships by contrast repair for free, but they need to be at an operational naval base (which costs 15 ipcs to build.) I’m just curious if we might be able to create a better or more forgiving system for Carriers? Unlike battleships, which don’t lose their special ability to bombard, the usefulness of the carrier is totally shot if it is damaged mid battle. This might be novel from a historical perspective, but in terms of the gameplay it’s pretty rough.

One possible solution would be to allow 1 fighter to land/take off from a damaged  (rather than the current system where it’s either 2 fighters if operational or 0 fighters if damaged.) The rationale here might be that the single unit sculpt represents a carrier task force which might include more than 1 actual carrier. So, as sometimes happened in the war, if the deck of one carrier was damaged, airborne fighters might be able to land on a the deck of a sister ship.
I think there were what like 3 or 4 carriers operating in the Pacific for the start date? And these are represented by a single sculpt. Japan likewise had more carriers than just the 3 they have as part of the OOB set up chart. So it would make some sense right? These sculpts are clearly representing larger carrier groups.

I just think it would be nice if at least 1 fighter could land on a damaged deck, because the carrier unit has no defense value by itself. Fleets are already so vulnerable to land based aircraft and the carrier is the only way to meet the land based air threat, by putting defensive 4s the water via fighters. Seems a shame that a 36 ipcs investment can be undone so easily, when the game just doesn’t provide many alternative options for fleet defense at a cost within reason vs land based aircraft.

I played with 2 hits Carrier on WWII The Expansion. A damaged one could still have 1 plane on board.
In this rule, if you wanted to put a hit on BB, it required to put one on a Carrier first.
Simply because Carriers were the main target at sea.
What about extending the range of Naval Base repair capacity?
Any damaged capital ship in an adjacent SZ to a NB’s SZ can be repaired without moving the warships.
It is because the ships have the time to go back and forth within the timeframe between game round (3 to 6 months).

I agree that giving a marine 3A with a artillery is a little overpowered but if they don’t get a bonus you’d be better off with reg inf/arty combo. As LHoffman alluded to limiting their number might be a good way to go.

I use Midnight Express’s rule that limits the US to 6 marines and Japan to 8 SNLF. They A2 on amphib 3 with arty. Revert to normal inf after amphib attack. Cost is same as inf. It takes 2-3 turns for the US to get into action so they’re really not OP’d. Japan can pretty much always have SNLFs so maybe they should be lowered, but overall I find it makes the Pacific more exciting.

I painted the helmets of US inf black and Japan red to distinguish. It seems to work good although you might need some more regular inf from other games.

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to keep up with this thread, but I see that some of the ideas are evolving pretty quickly. I know that these sea unit profiles are really off the current radar, but I just wanted to throw them out there. I personally think there are enough sea units in a G40 game without adding more, and I would rather increase their capabilities and/or cost than decrease their cost. That said, it is very difficult to modify 1 unit without a ripple effect to the other units, and I always prefer to keep things simple. Here are my unrefined, and untested ideas for new sea unit profiles…

Transport
Attack-0
Defence-0
Movement-2
Cost-7
Abilities
-May transport 2 land units (same as G40).

Submarine
Attack-2
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-8
Abilities

• Same as G40.

Destroyer
Attack-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Defence-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Movement-2
Cost-9
Abilities
-Can spot and attack submarines with other sea and air units (same as G40), however, destroyers do not negate submarine capabilities until the beginning of round 5.
-Attack and Defence increases by 1 after round 5.

Cruiser
Attack-4
Defence-4
Movement-2
Cost-15
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@4

Aircraft Carrier
Attack-1
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-17
Abilities
-Require 2 hits to be sunk.

Battleship
Attack-5
Defence-5
Movement-2
Cost-23
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@5
-Requires 2 hits to be sunk.

To compensate for more powerful sea units in the initial setup, I would propose adding a German fighter on both Holland and Norway, as well as a German Tactical Bomber on Berlin. I would also add a British fighter on both Gibraltar and Malta, and an American fighter on both Philippines, and Hawaii.        </r5)></r5)>

I totally agree on every points you just said.  :-)
You also pointed out one issue about NB repair adjacent SZs which was annoying me too.
I find the 3 warships repair maximum to be a very consistent solution.

@Black_Elk:

One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.

The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.

The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.

You just gave me another reason for the change I suggested on Transport getting only air defense but staying defenseless against warships. This would give more incentive to put 5 IPCs Subs and 6 IPCs DDs at sea rather than throwing planes to chase TPs.

What can be the incentive to keep afloat Transport, instead of a better defense value unit?
1, the higher cost 8 vs 5 or 6.

**A defensive benefit ?
Here is an old idea, in a new context (5 IPCs Sub and 6 IPCs DDs) than previous idea.
Gives all Transports an AA ability.
Only 1 shot per transport against only up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, every combat round.
And no defensive capacity against any warship, as in the defenseless transport but still keeping 1 hit value.

This would provides additional defense against Dark Sky strategy.
Planes would be a vulnerable and valuable targets, which can make an incentive to keep transports alive, as long as there is some costlier attacking planes.

On the other part, this would emphasis the role of Submarines warfare (especially for Germany) against transports.
And the owning player would have to chose between loosing a cheaper 6 IPCs DD defending @2, or a costlier TP at 8 with no defense. Either ways, the Sub commander gets something in return.
And, in the case of a combined attack with planes, to get nearer Atlantic battle: forget about Last Strike idea for Transport.
That way, planes will always be at risk when attacking transports, even lonely ones.

To summarize:

TRANSPORT A0 D0* M2 C8, 1 hit
***_~~Last Strike AA defense:
If the transport is not taken as casualty, each Transport gets 1 AA shot @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lower, each combat round.
No defense against warships.

CRUISER
A3 D3 M3 Cost 9
Shore bombardment @3, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense: once per battle in opening combat round, each Cruiser gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

I would introduce both M3 and combined arms bonus to Cruiser also because it stays much weaker than Destroyer when compared to the same IPCs basis:
@Baron:

@drummerinheat:

It seems to be agreed on the forums that cruisers aren’t worth purchasing.  Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships**, what if they had movement of 3 from any space regardless of naval base?  Would that change your mind on purchasing? I think it would for me.**
I believe this could actually change the Pacific theatre in an interesting way.
What about this Cruiser unit?
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 12 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)

This way, you can use the Cruiser & Transport combo without regarding Naval Base and maximizing the Shore bombardment. For example, 2  Cruisers, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport can invade a few 1 Infantry’s islands which doesn’t have Naval Base but still keeping the pace of fleet making yo-yo move between Naval Base, to keep up the 3 moves pace.

On this post there is a similar idea, but only applied to transport & Cruiser combo then.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1358278#msg1358278

I just found one of my original post which includes a combination of some previous ideas in this thread.
@Baron:

@CWO:

Cruiser + Aircraft Carrier?  Yes, cruisers added to the protective rings of AAA fire that were thrown up around carriers, whose own AAA abilities were limited.  US practice was to put the carriers in the middle of a formation, with battleships surrounding the carriers, cruisers surrounding the battleships, and destroyers surrounding the cruisers.

Cruiser + Battleship?  Nothing much to be gained there since, as I’ve already outlined, both ship types differ mainly in scale rather than in fundamental ability.

Cruiser + Destroyer?  
A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills.  (They often mooched from battleships too.  The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.)

Cruiser + Transport ship?  Perhaps, in the sense that cruisers could (in principle) protect them from attack with their AAA batteries.  I’m not sure, however, to what extent cruisers were actually used in that role in WWII; destroyers may have been cheaper to use in the same capacity.

Ok, talking about Cruiser and Combined Arms
1- Cruiser always moves at 3 CM and NCM.
2- Cruiser gives +1 CM & NCM to boost the moving range of any other surface vessel if paired 1:1 (BB, CV, DD and TP, only).
3- Cruiser with Battleship and Carrier get the Anti-Air capacity (same as AAA: @1 against up to 3 planes, preemptive).

Battleship get nothing else, except as being part of #2 and a requirement for #3.

Carrier is in the same situation as Battleship.

However, to get a 3 move CM or NCM without Naval Base is costly for a Task Force Fleet: 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, needs 4 Cruisers.
The mandatory pairing 1:1 provides a very restrictive limit, since Cruisers are the worst Combat effective units of the Naval roster.
Speed and maneuverability is gained at the cost of optimized Att/Def values.

Can this be within historical accuracy, A&A system and a balance limit?~~_**

However,
if Fighter stay at 10 IPCs and bombers at 12 IPCs, there is no need to add AAA capacity to Cruiser or even Battleship.
Their reduced cost at 9 and 15 IPCs make them far more effective against planes.
But the issue will remain when compared to 6 IPCs Destroyers.
On IPCs basis, DDs is the most dangerous and cost effective.
So Cruiser would need something special to compete with DDs, hence M3, +1M to paired 1:1 surface vessel.
Or it should be better to reduces Fg to $8 and Bombers to $10, to balance them vs warships.
And then add AA capacity to Cruiser only, and not Battleship. Because BB already outmatch Fg at 8 and Bomber at 10.
Or just a better moving capacity to Cruiser and no AA at all for BB or Cruiser.

This unit would be simpler to use in play, (with either 10 or 8 IPCs Fg, 12 or 10 IPCs Bombers) and provides something different compared to DDs and BBs.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)

@Black_Elk:

One goal of mine, perhaps a gamey goal, is to see more ships on the board (more ships introduced through purchasing over the course of the game). Even holding to the traditional “no chips under ships” mentality

Amen.

@Baron:

However,
if Fighter stay at 10 IPCs and bombers at 12 IPCs, there is no need to add AAA capacity to Cruiser or even Battleship.
Their reduced cost at 9 and 15 IPCs make them far more effective against planes.
But the issue will remain when compared to 6 IPCs Destroyers.
On IPCs basis, DDs is the most dangerous and cost effective.
So Cruiser would need something special to compete with DDs, hence M3, +1M to paired 1:1 surface vessel.
Or it should be better to reduces Fg to $8 and Bombers to $10, to balance them vs warships.
And then add AA capacity to Cruiser only, and not Battleship. Because BB already outmatch Fg at 8 and Bomber at 10.
Or just a better moving capacity to Cruiser and no AA at all for BB or Cruiser.

This unit would be simpler to use in play, (with either 10 or 8 IPCs Fg, 12 or 10 IPCs Bombers) and provides something different compared to DDs and BBs.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)

Don’t give the Cruiser the 3 movement. Have fuel tanker ship  C10 A0 D0 M3.
If fleet has a fuel tanker ship with them, movement would be 3 sea zones. But still only move 3 from a naval base.
Also you may have to have a cap on how many ships the fuel tanker can support.

@SS:

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 9 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)

Don’t give the Cruiser the 3 movement. Have fuel tanker ship  C10 A0 D0 M3.
If fleet has a fuel tanker ship with them, movement would be 3 sea zones. But still only move 3 from a naval base.
Also you may have to have a cap on how many ships the fuel tanker can support.

@Baron:

@CWO:

Cruiser + Destroyer?  
A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills.  (They often mooched from battleships too.  The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.)

CWOMarc brought me the way to rationalize about this combined arms bonus.
A lot of support ships have no sculpt but are part of a real fleet.
In addition, there is already an unsinkable unit at 12 IPCs which gives +1 Move: Naval Base.
I believe your additional Tanker unit better fit into LHoffman roster who is looking into additional historical units.

Ya I noticed after I posted.  Thought it was his thread. :-)

This is slightly different cost structure because I try to introduce a Carrier holding 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
I also tried to stick as much as possible to 1914 cost structure (6-9-12), including Fg at 6 IPCs.
I write it here since many ideas came from the last exchanges.
All other ground units are as OOB.

Unit type  
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5  IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6  IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8  IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

CRUISER
9 IPCs  A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1

CARRIER
12  IPCs A0 D3 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 3 planes, damaged CV still carry one aircraft

BATTLESHIP
15  IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4

FIGHTER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M4
Always hit aircraft first, then AAA, if any available.
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
8 IPCs A3 D2 M4
Pick any enemy’s ground unit of your choice as casualty.
TBR: A1first strike Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
10 IPCs  A4 D1 M6
SBR:  AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage :  D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
3 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane.

@Black_Elk:

I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.

In my mind, a 3-plane carrier has more to do with the strategic and cost implications of allowing a third plane on a single carrier. (For one, it means you need less carriers to do the job, which means fewer ships bought.) Their physical ability to fit is less of a concern. Two planes fall off pretty easy anyway and planes in a sea zone = planes on the carrier as far as I am concerned.

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

I’m actually pretty intrigued by the 3 plane carrier. I know the standard sculpt can carry 3 fighters if you put them at a 45 degree angle, but 2 fighter and a Tac B will probably tip. I’m not near my board, can we confirm whether a chip can rest on the decks without tipping? If so I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t try the 3 plane concept.

In my mind, a 3-plane carrier has more to do with the strategic and cost implications of allowing a third plane on a single carrier. (For one, it means you need less carriers to do the job, which means fewer ships bought.) Their physical ability to fit is less of a concern. Two planes fall off pretty easy anyway and planes in a sea zone = planes on the carrier as far as I am concerned.

You can easily fit 2 TcBs sculpts but a third one can’t, 3 Fgs fit also, 1 TcB and 2 Fgs can also fit.

Don’t forget that the Fg is not OOB, OOB full CV gets A6 D10, 4 hits, cost 36 IPCs.
The above 3 planes Carrier full Fgs gets
A6 D9, 5 hits cost 30 IPCs
while full TcBs gets
A9 D9, 5 hits cost 36 IPCs.
It is balanced with AACalc to keep a similar ratio between Carrier offense vs Carrier defense than OBB.

@Black_Elk:

One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.

The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.

The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.

I’m wondering if making ships cheaper is perhaps approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  There’s a modern architectural principle which states that “form follows function” that might be applicable in this context, with some adaptations of course.  If people aren’t buying a particular unit type very much, the root problem may not be with the “form” (i.e. price and combat capabilities) of the unit; the problem may actually be with its “function” in the sense that the unit may not have any important (or specific) job to do, and therefore that it’s not really needed.  Similarly, if people aren’t fighting a proper Battle of the Atlantic, the problem may not be with the capabilities of the units that could be used to fight it; the problem may actually be that there’s not much point (under the OOB rules) of fighting such a campaign.  If so, then the best way to address the problem may not be to tinker with unit capabilities or unit prices; rather, the solution may be to give people a strong incentive to fight a proper Battle of the Atlantic by making its stakes and its outcome very important on a round-to-round basis.  So in this context, “form follows function” would become something along the lines of “need determines usage”.  Or, to use an analogy from economics rather than architecture, think of this approach as focussing on demand (why a unit type (or campaign) is neeeded) rather than supply (what a unit costs and what it’s capable of).

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

One thing I would like to see is an actual battle of the Atlantic, or more appropriately a real Atlantic campaign with ships from both sides mixing it up. I don’t mean like a round one flash in the pan, where all the ships are destroyed and then the battle devolves to an air umbrella on one side vs carrier stacks on the other, but something that looks a bit more like what happened in the war. You know, with Germany trying to strangle Britain with Uboats, and Allies responding with armed convoys.

The way it works OOB, the battle of the Atlantic is basically an air war. With German bombers on one side, and Allied fighters/carriers on the other, and this just seems a little silly to me.

The best way I can think of to change that dynamic would be to make the cheapest surface ship cheaper. If the destroyer cost 6 instead of 8, and the sub cost 5 instead of 6, I think we’d see more uboats at purchase, and more destroyers to back down the land based air attacks. Add to that some kind of anti air function for the cruiser and I think a more realistic battle of the Atlantic might take shape.

Similarly, if people aren’t fighting a proper Battle of the Atlantic, the problem may not be with the capabilities of the units that could be used to fight it; the problem may actually be that there’s not much point (under the OOB rules) of fighting such a campaign.  **If so, then the best way to address the problem may not be to tinker with unit capabilities or unit prices; rather, the solution may be to give people a strong incentive to fight a proper Battle of the Atlantic by making its stakes and its outcome very important on a round-to-round basis.  So in this context, “form follows function” would become something along the lines of “need determines usage”.  **Or, to use an analogy from economics rather than architecture, think of this approach as focussing on demand (why a unit type (or campaign) is neeeded) rather than supply (what a unit costs and what it’s capable of).

Good idea CWOMarc.
I believe that the first function which can explain why, is that Germany is usually going after Russia but must slow down UK and US invasions. The cheapest way (form) is buying a lot of cheaper Ground units which can serve both objectives. Sacrifying a Tank, to buy a Sub which cannot be useful against Russia is far less interesting than buying a costlier plane which can works in both directions. Having a cheaper Sub, invicible against Transport while giving TP an AA capacity only, can make a better incentive to buy Sub over plane and it left 1 IPC more for ground unit purpose. This should imply more DDs investment to better protect against Subs, and because DD is cheaper at 6 IPCs.

Once this said, some National Objective should also be defined to create a more convincing Battle of the Atlantic.
Since it involves U-boats destroying Allied shipping, it is easier to provide a positive bonus to Allies clearing the U-boat menace (no German’s sub in Atlantic SZs).
But what can be a positive reward National Objective for Germany to put Subs in the Ocean?

Is it a prestige one? Such as anytime a Sub unit destroy anything above a Destroyer in a given turn, Germany receive 3 IPCs for this turn, due to propaganda after event causing higher recruitment rate?

A direct impact such as -1 IPCs to UKs and US income per Axis Sub patrolling the Atlantic.
This would be in addition to any other kind of Convoy raiding?
Any idea?

I agree with CWO that having more of a reason to contest the atlantic is the way to go, although I wouldn’t necessarilly be opposed to a price restructure either.

I’ve been playing for almost a year now with 2 conoy zones in 104 and 124. 104 is UK and they get 2 bucks if there are no axis warships present( I also changed some UK TTs so UK gets a extra buck total with the bonus and one less without it). 124 is Russian and they get 2 bucks if at war with european axis, no axis warships present, own archangel and no allied units. The no allied units might be dropped as suggested for the 125 NO in other threads.

Anyway I’ve found it encourages more battle in the Atlantic and slows Germany down a little by having to invest in 1 or 2 more subs per round if hotly contested. Early on if Germany successfully destroys the Royal Navy in their home waters she can usually negate the 104 bonus for 3 or 4 RDs. She then needs a extra sub for Russia and usually blows off trading with UK/US for 104. While not a lot even at 6 and sometimes 12 extra bucks per turn that doesn’t go to the Eastern Front makes a noticeable difference.

Of course they can ignore 124 if they want, but that gives Russia a extra 2 per turn and they can usually trade Archangel to RD 8 or longer unless Germany goes north which isn’t neccessarilly ideal. It should probably be bumped to 3 or 4 but I give Russia a extra buck for Vyborg, Nenetsia and Bessarabia at the start. Anyway this allows the US and UK to indirectly help Russia with air and DD attacks on German u-boats or increased dough if Germany doesn’t contest.

What’s also cool is both SZs are open ocean with no ABs to support them making German Bmbr/ Carrier air and subs able to counterattack with a decent chance of success. If Germany contests it usually means one less US DD for the Pacific along with a Bmbr in UK. Of course the US/UK has the option not to contest either.

Sorry to ramble but to sum up it creates more options which can subtly effect a large area of the map.

Edit: To Baron’s idea of a pro Grerman bonus I might try making both SZs worth 3 to whoever controls them. That ought to stir up some action :) Although that might be to big of a early boost to Germany