G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?

Verifying the site’s accuracy (or lack of it) in detail would take a good deal of research and time (which I don’t have), but just from a quick glance at it I think I know what’s behind the stated figure of 250 submarine kills by aircraft.  The site states clearly that this figure “Includes all ship-based aircraft”, specifically noting that all victories by “aircraft carriers” (meaning carrier-based aircraft) are included in this category.  In other words: many of those 250 sub kills by aircraft are probably kills by small tactical aircraft from escort carriers accompanying convoys, not kills by big, land-based, long-range planes like the Liberator bomber.  Escort carriers (also called jeep carriers) were small, cheap, and easy to build, so they could be produced in large numbers.  Their great advantage what that, by accompanying convoys, they were automatically at the right location to attack an enemy submarine immediately when a convoy ran into one, without wasting any time hunting over thousands of square miles of ocean.  I’m not sure what exact types of planes were carried from escort carriers, but they’d have to be small (to handle a carrier deck) and have a surface-attack capability (to engage a sub), so this would translate into some sort of dive-bomber or fighter-bomber or perhaps just a fighter.  Such planes are much more maneuverable than an big bomber like the Liberator, which is another reason why they’d have an advantage in attacking a small target like a surfaced sub.  (Liberators did sink subs, but as I mentioned this usually involved special night-time tactics and equipment that wouldn’t apply in a convoy situation.)  So what this would imply for potential A&A house rules would be, in my opinion, that aircraft would only have a significant anti-sub capability in situations in which a convoy is accompanied by an aircraft carrier.  It wouldn’t have to be an expensive fleet-type carrier – a less expensive escort carrier unit would be the correct choice – but there would have to be a carrier of some sort present right alongside the convoy that’s being defended from submarine attack.  Land-based aircraft wouldn’t work: the big ones (like the Lib) had their uses, but were much more limited for the reasons I’ve discussed, while the little and medium ones (fighters and tactical bombers, in A&A terms) didn’t have the range to get far enough into the Atlantic.  The only realistic exception might be to allow anti-sub attacks by land-based small and medium planes immediately next to a coastline, where range wouldn’t be much of a problem.

Yes Baron.  You could put those recon plane or planes on those carriers so you don’t have to be by a coast.

Sea Plane (Recon)  C8 A0 D1 M4  D2   D = D6 die roll. Sees Convoy.  Now you  have fighter - dive bomber raid convoy zone if it can reach convoy zone.

@CWO:

@Baron:

I based some of my assumptions about planes-Destroyers-Subs intereactions rules on this web site.
Is it an accurate source or not?
It seems that 264 U-boats were killed by ships compared to 250 U-boats destroyed by aircrafts.
Actually, I don’t know anymore what to think about efficiency of Aircraft against Subs.
Can you clarify things for me?

Verifying the site’s accuracy (or lack of it) in detail would take a good deal of research and time (which I don’t have), but just from a quick glance at it I think I know what’s behind the stated figure of 250 submarine kills by aircraft. The site states clearly that this figure “Includes all ship-based aircraft”, specifically noting that all victories by “aircraft carriers” (meaning carrier-based aircraft) are included in this category. In other words: many of those 250 sub kills by aircraft are probably kills by small tactical aircraft from escort carriers accompanying convoys, not kills by big, land-based, long-range planes like the Liberator bomber. Escort carriers (also called jeep carriers) were small, cheap, and easy to build, so they could be produced in large numbers. Their great advantage what that, by accompanying convoys, they were automatically at the right location to attack an enemy submarine immediately when a convoy ran into one, without wasting any time hunting over thousands of square miles of ocean. I’m not sure what exact types of planes were carried from escort carriers, but they’d have to be small (to handle a carrier deck) and have a surface-attack capability (to engage a sub), so this would translate into some sort of dive-bomber or fighter-bomber or perhaps just a fighter. Such planes are much more maneuverable than an big bomber like the Liberator, which is another reason why they’d have an advantage in attacking a small target like a surfaced sub. (Liberators did sink subs, but as I mentioned this usually involved special night-time tactics and equipment that wouldn’t apply in a convoy situation.) So what this would imply for potential A&A house rules would be, in my opinion, that aircraft would only have a significant anti-sub capability in situations in which a convoy is accompanied by an aircraft carrier. It wouldn’t have to be an expensive fleet-type carrier – a less expensive escort carrier unit would be the correct choice – but there would have to be a carrier of some sort present right alongside the convoy that’s being defended from submarine attack. Land-based aircraft wouldn’t work: the big ones (like the Lib) had their uses, but were much more limited for the reasons I’ve discussed, while the little and medium ones (fighters and tactical bombers, in A&A terms) didn’t have the range to get far enough into the Atlantic. The only realistic exception might be to allow anti-sub attacks by land-based small and medium planes immediately next to a coastline, where range wouldn’t be much of a problem.

Thanks for this answer.
I made the count on this web site and Halifax, B-17 and B-24 Liberator sunk 91 U-boats (including coordinated hunt with warships or other planes) and 72 were entirely credited to B-17 and B-24.
So 72 out of 250, is still a good score 28.8% amongst planes.
91/250= 36.4% amongst all U-boat killed by planes.

And 72 out of 514 sunk by ships and planes= 14%
Or 91 out of 514 = 17.7% of the majority of U-boat sunk. Very near 1/6 odds.
3 types of planes seems to be aboard Escort Carriers:
TBF Avenger gets 35 U-boats and 11 on their own.
F4F Wildcat gets credited for 23 U-boats and only 2 on their own.
Swordfish gets credited for 21 U-boats and 11 on their own.

TBF 35/250 = 14% on their own: 11/250= 4.4% amongst planes
F4F 23/250 = 9.2% on their onw: 2/250= 0.8% amongst planes
SF 21/250 = 8.4% on their own 11/250 = 4.4% amongst planes
Sum: 31.6% amongst planes.

TBF 35/514 = 6.8%
F4F 23/514 = 4.5%
SF 21/514 = 4.1%
79/514 = 15.4%
These 3 types were credited for 15.4% of all U-boats sunk.

It is only a rough ratio, because some credited kills can be counted twice for 2 different planes.

Updated to GlobalRedesignTb.

Added a M3 CA no NB boost (has AA), Bumped CruiserAA price to 12 and boosted bombard to 3, added 10 PU oob CA that bombards at 2, boosted SNLFs to 6, got rid of Russia’s Korean NO and changed India’s AB and NBs to repair at India. Was this intended otherwise ? If so it can be switched back.

Here’s a triplea mod that uses some of the ideas discussed here.

NAP Japan/Russia
Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. Mongolians behave the same as OOB. When Russia is at war with Germany and Japan she receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus for SZ 4.

New/Changed NOs

When Russia is at war with Germany:

“The Great Patriotic War” Theme:Soviet Sphere of Influence.
5 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.

“Arctic Convoys” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Arctic Supply Route.
2 PUs each if SZs 125 and/or 124 have no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Archangel is Russian controlled.

“The Northern Trace” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Northwest Staging Route.
2 PUs if SZ 4 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports) and Soviet Far East is Russian controlled.

“Persian Corridor” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route.
2 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), French Madagascar, Persia, Northwest Persia are Allied controlled and Caucusus is Russian controlled.

“Red Advance” Theme:Propaganda Value and Spread of Communism.
2 PUs for each originally owned German, Italian and Pro-Axis Neutral European (includes Scandanavia) territory that Russia controls. This excludes all African TTS, Iraq and Mediterranean Islands.

It is discussed in more detail on page 3 here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.30

“Pacific Island Control” When Japan is at war with any of the Western Allies (excluding Russia) all Pacific Islands valued at 1 or lower receive 1 PU. Controlling Power must be at war to receive bonus.

"UK Convoy Zone"UK receives 2 PUs if SZ 104 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports).

“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.

“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Axis control Midway, Wake and Guam.

“Island Conquest” 2PUs for conquest of any 2 value Pacific Island TT or less, excluding PHIs.

“All Island Conquest” adds the rest of the Pacific Islands to the “Island Conquest” NO after turn 4.

These are discussed in more detail here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36554.0

Removed NOs

Russia Controls Berlin for 10 PUs

Japanese Strategic Defense Perimeter, control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomon Islands for 5 PUs

Territory Value Changes

HI is now worth 2. Fiji, Samoa, Midway and the Aleutians are now worth 1. Gib, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Tobruk and Alexandria are all worth 1. These are discussed in more detail here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36514.0

West India is now worth 0.
French Guiana and Iceland are now worth 1. Ontario is now worth 0. If you want to build a factory there you will have to use edit. Same for West India. Alberta/Saskatchewan is now worth 0.

Territory Ownersip Changes

Sierra Leone is now Pro Allied Neutral (it still shows up as true neutral).

Minor Factories

All captured and new construction minors may only produce artillery and infantry. If a NB is present you may also build subs, transports and DDs. If a AB is present you may also build fighters and TBs.

Added another xml that removes the restriction builds on mechs and armour.

ABs and NBs

ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in TTs with originally owned  starting factories. So Germany may only build bombers in Western Germany and Germany. Germany must also have a AB. May not build at a AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all naval units. BBs,CVs,CAs and Escort Carriers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. These TTs must also have a NB. May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

Primitive Terrain

Non Coastal Asian and Soviet Far Eastern TTs all land units may only move 1. Air units exempt. Once you’re out of China and past the Urals, Novosibirsk and Kazaksthan movement restriction ends. Discussed on page 8 of this thread. Note: If you don’t start in a primitive TT you can move your full movemnt including moving through primitive TTs. Primitive TTs are editable.

New and Modified Units

Bomber A3 +1 when paired with fighter 1:1, D1, M6 +1 with AB, C12

Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB, C11. No boost when paired with fighter or tank.

Added Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB, C12. No boost when paired with fighter or tank. (Use caution whren purchasing as both images are the same).

AAgun A0, D1, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C5. Game starts with these.

AAgun1 A0, D0, 1 AA shot at up to 3 planes for first rd of combat only, M1 no restrictions, C4.

CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C12. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 3. Game starts with OOB Crusiers only. OOB crusiers bombard at 3.

Escort Carrier
A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD.

Transport333
Same abilities as OOB transport except may carry 3 inf or 2 inf and 1 other land unit. (will also carry 2 heavy land units which is not intended). Use caution when purchasing as they have the same image as OOB transport.

Militia
A0, D1, M1, C2. Limited by country. Discussed on page 3 of this thread. May only conquer Completely empty TTs. No infrastructure. Includes primitve.

Flying Tiger
Same abilities as fighter. When ending turn in Chinese controlled TT it changes into a Chinese fighter. US starting PHI fighter is a Flying Tiger. US may only have 1 Flying Tiger at any time. May fly over and land in UKP TTs when US is neutral.

Marines
Same as infantry except +1 during amphibous attack. Artillery bonus stacks. So A3 with artillery on amphibous attack. Limited by country.
Japan 6
US 6
UK 1 or UKP1 not both
ANZAC 1

Setup Change

Add 1 Chinese AAgun to Szechwan
Add 1 AB to New South Wales
Add 1 Russian DD to SZ 5. May only move in Sea Zones 3, 4 and 5. Restrictions end when at war with Japan.
Add 1 NB to Quebec

This adds a few things that have been discussed. Unfortunately a lot of Good Ideas on here are unable to translate to triplea or I don’t know how to do it.

The CA seems like some sort of concensus anyway. Wasn’t sure about the Tac at attack 4 but IDK if people would buy them otherwise. The 3 unit transport sounds cool but I wonder if it will be an automatic India Crush. ANZAC will face a more serious threat as well.

ABs and NBs are more valuable. Russia is stronger economically. Movement through China and Soviet Asia has been slowed. Limited Japan’s ability to spam mobile units on mainland China while still allowing UK to deploy some mech forces out of South Africa.

I know it’s a significant addition of NOs which will make it harder to keep track of, but it seems like the easiest way to encourage certain behavior without deviating too far from the current system.

An optional version with Shipyards for everyone as well as ABs and NBs C12 is also included.
Note: Custom techs, Improved Mech Infantry, Airborne Forces and Shipyard, are not editable. You can aquire them normally.

Future Changes

Neutral Blocks
Vichy france
Paratroopers

Sadly SBR attacks +2 only when leaving from an AB is not possible.

DD blocking subs from submerging on a 1:1 or 1:? is doubtful.

Obviously ignore any units you want for testing purposes. If you want to give it a try here it is:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/3k9yyi

It’s the light blue dl button

Put the zip in your maps folder which is inside triplea.

This is the previous one with AACruisers at 10 bucks

https://www.sendspace.com/file/ftahv8

Wow, way to go Barney. This took a lot of work, I can tell. Excellent job.

Would love to playtest this with you. You ever in the TripleA lobby?

On initial read through, I’m loving what i"m seeing. I have two concerns/questions though:

1. Why are all of Russia’s Lend Lease routes contingent on Archangel being Russia controlled? If the stuff flows through Persia, for example, what does that have to do with Archangel? And Madagascar?

2. I think I’m missing the Mongolian infantry. Effectively replacing the Mongolia penalty with a 12 PU “fee” to declare war, is it seems arbitrary and disconnected from any historical reality? What does it represent exactly? With the Mongolia thing, you immediately understand whats happening. . . you’ve pissed off the Mongolians  and now they’re at war with you (scary!). But 12 PUs? Just cuz?

Another, perhaps more organic way to deter DOWs between Russia and Japan is to increase the lend lease NOs if Japan declares war on Russia unprovoked. This is how it works in my Balance Mod, and it really does seem to prevent early DOWs. Russia doesn’t want to DOW Japan cuz it doesn’t want Japan to block its lend lease route in the Far East (in mine, its sz 5 and Amur), and Japan doesn’t want to DOW Russia because then the amount of lend lease aid that will flow to it from the West will increase, and Japan will have to devert resources to blocking the Far East route.

Also, does putting a 12 PU penalty on a Russian DOW essentially means that Japan can leave Manchuria defended, since when does Russia have 12 PUs to spare?

Anyhow, let me know if you’d like to play test.

Nice work.

Hi kid

Updated previous post. Archangel was a pasting error. Soviet Far East and Caucasus are the TTs needed.

The 12 PUs for the NAP was just because that’s what it was originally. I’m only 3 test games in and yea it doesn’t look like Russia would spend the dough to do it, although she’s making extra dough so she might. Maybe lower it to 6 for Russia or scrap it. If she doesn’t it means Japan can move here forces out of Manchuria. However if you can get a Flying Tiger to China that makes them a lot more powerful (might want to limit them to 2 max) and Japan has had to send more dudes to keep them in line.

Increasing the NOs sounds like a good idea for keeping Japan from taking a DOW to lightly. I check in on the lobby once in a while but haven’t played in a long time. My schedule is a little erratic but maybe we can set something up in the future. I’ll pm you or look for ya.

Just trying to make as many ways as possible to try stuff out. Nothing concrete by any means.

It is a lot of good work, man.   :-)
Thanks!
I believe this provides the basic ground to test many things to improve Pacific actions.

About NB and IC, there is an historical issue about moving the Naval Base from Nova Scotia (Halifax) to Quebec. If absolutely needed to have in the same TT both IC and NB, then add 1 NB to Quebec but do not remove Halifax.
Maybe, if a 3 ships Cap apply to number of ship NB can repair, this SZ 106 would provides up to 6 repair points. There is Shipbuilding yards in both Nova Scotia and Quebec.

It seems that one Japanese NO is based on what islands Allied have, is this right?

“Strategic Islands” When at war with Japan, US receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam.

“Strategic Islands” When at war with US, Japan receives 3 PUs if the Allies control Midway, Wake and Guam

You seems becoming more and more profiencient with TripleA software.
Do you know if it is possible to create a 4 PU AAA which fire at up to 2 planes per round, (1 shot per plane max) every combat round?

These two units worth the try:
**CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.

Escort Carrier
A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD.**

However, if Fleet Carrier is at 16 IPCs, I would have raise the Escort Carrier cost to 10 IPCs.
It is a balance issue, 2 CVEs at 9 (18 IPCs) and 2 Fighters at 10 IPCs for 38 IPCs will be more cost efficient in combat than a full Fleet Carrier at 36 IPCs, with no Anti-sub capacity.

Hi Baron

I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.

I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.

Oops another pasting error. Should be axis controlled for Japan. Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.

Barney:

Two things:

1. Just for shits and giggles, I had the AI run a couple of games with your mod to see how it impacts overall game economics (granted, AI is very different from human players, but you can glean some interesting things from a comparison of AI games among different mods). One thing I noticed right away is how quickly Japan matches (and soon exceeds) US income. In fact it is even faster than in the OOB version. Is this something you found as well? Probably has to do with making all the little islands worth money regardless of who owns them.

2. If you Jap minor factories on the mainland can only build slow units, is the primitive terrain effect necessary? Or, conversely, is there any reason to limit minor factories to slow units if you already have the primitive terrain there? Thoughts?

yes I found the same thing. The primitive terrain is somewhat redundant, but even though it would take longer Japan could still transport a fairly large force over. Also wanted to slow the Brits down out of Egypt a little and the Germans in Russia. The good thing is you can edit the primitive units anywhere you want, although keep them with the same TT owner.

Japan gets bigger but US is pretty close and they kinda pass each other depending on attacks. UKP and ANZAC also get a boost so I don’t think it’s a problem. If you use the militia it really helps China and if you can get a extra fighter it can give Japan some problems.

Went ahead and changed the NAP to 6 PUs for Russia and gave Mongolia back another dude for now. I think I’ll incorporate your NO boost in the future

I think I’ll make another factory unit restoring mech builds so people can have that as a option as well

If I had to choose between the limited factories and the primitive terrain, I probably would go with the privative terrain, and nix the limited factories altogether. Do you find that UK needs to be slowed down out of Egypt? I haven’t found that at all, but maybe i’m not playing right :)

Also, add a primitive terrain to Afghanistan, just cuz.

Have you ever tried playing with the paratrooper technology turned on? Wonder what impact that has.

I’m sure you play just fine. I’m no expert by any means. :) IDK that the Brits need slowing down, although I’m interested to see how it plays out. So far they seem to be doing ok. Depends on how bad the Italians get their ass kicked rd 1. Was trying to keep the rule consistent is all.

Yea there’s a lot of places the primitive unit could go. I’ll add another factory that allows mech builds tomorrow.

Yea Iv’e used paratoopers. They can be pretty devastating. I think it’s best to limit them and/or do like DK I think it is and have them dropped from transports so they don’t get the bomber hit on the attack as well.

@barney:

Hi Baron
I think it should be possible to make the AA unit. I’ll look into it. I moved the NB to quebec because it wouldn’t let you build ships there when I restricted the naval builds. I could leave it there add another to quebec though. IDK if the build restrictions are a good idea or not but they seemed worth a try.

It is a good news because I really believe this AA rolling each round as any other units becomes competitive with Inf and Artillery. So this need a full play-test to break the old convention about AA gun.
Adding NB to Quebec and keeping Nova Scotia Halifax NB would not change the movement bonus.
It would keep history without changing much to game balance.
Your restricting built with IC worth a try and you gives us a tool for testing.

@barney:

I used escort carriers in some other mods I have and found 10 to be too high. I always busted out another 6 bucks for the 2 hit. Being able to absorb a hit and repair is a pretty good bonus. The little carriers are seeing some action sub hunting when there aren’t enough DDs. Although you gotta have some sub fodder or a place to land in case the sub gets lucky with a hit.

You are right. After a few tests on battlecalc, on the same IPCs basis, the Escort Carrier at 9 IPCs is still slightly weaker on defense in direct combat against Fleet Carrier. Even costlier 2 Fgs 2 CVE (38 IPCs) vs 2 Fgs 1 CV 2 hits (36 IPCs) is weaker for 2 IPCs higher.
So you have the right place for this ASW warship. Good call.

Probably the 10 IPCs CVE is balanced with 1942.2 Fleet Carrier A1 D2, 1 hit, C14.

@barney:

Your idea of Island Conquest has been a real boon to Pacific action. Waited until rd4 for the money islands so Japan wouldn’t get to strong too fast and wax India every time.

Glad to see it increase action in PTO, with 2 IPCs bonus per invasion.
Instead of an arbitrary rnd4, what about allowing to the following Power turn, once Japan makes a DOW on USA as the starting point? That way, after Japan turn, all Allies would be the firsts to get this bonus and Japan last.
Or it activates when all money islands are taken by Japan, retrieving them will first benefits Allies.

Tac Bomber A4, D3, M4 +1 with AB. No boost when paired with fighter or tank.

What is the cost of this Tactical Bomber?

Interesting ways to add Lend-lease via NO for USSR.
It rise up to 8 IPCs for USSR, helps deals with Germany in a better ways than the + 10 ☺ for reaching Berlin.

Hi Baron

Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.

Good idea on when the bonus should kick in. Maybe US’s turn after Japan DOW. Although you only get the bonus when you attack. So walking in won’t activate it. IDK we’ll have to think on it some more.

Yea I like the idea of the NO changing for the NAP. I’ll put out a updated version later today.

@barney:

Hi Baron

Tac Bomber is 11 bucks. Hitting at 4 is pretty powerful, but their range is less than bombers. With limited resources I don’t see people spamming tacs over bombers. We’ll see how it plays out.

If StB was OOB, it seems a correct price at 11 IPCs.
But with StB A3 D1 M6 C12, +1A paired 1:1 with 1 Fighter, I would really put TcB A4 D3 M4 at 12 IPCs.

I always feel that highest attack value is costlier.
IDK if a playtest can be decisive to help choosing between 11 or 12 PUs for TcB.

Updated the previous post. Added XMLs that remove the build restrictions on mechs and armor. Added a 12PU TB. Changed the NAP for Japan/Russia:

Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. Mongolians are same as OOB. When at war with Germany and Japan, Russia receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus for SZ 4.

@ regularkid Decided to only boost SZ 4. Thinking being Russia might be more tempted to attack if Japan can only cork the one zone. Germans can take care of the other and she might get to SZ 80 late game but…Russia already has a extra Lend Lease zone in 124 so… I see the logic in doing a boost for all zones, but decided to give this a try for now. The NOs make the Aleutians a pretty Fat target (potential 13 PU swing) so I expect more action in that theatre. Also thought I’d give them a little 3PU sting just to make them think about it a little more. Nothing to prohibitive. :)

US can open up the route if she has forces in place but Japan can make it harder by amphib landing from zone 5 to SFE. It forces her to go north, which she normally doesn’t want to do, but with the aforementioned Aleutian Boost it might be a more viable option for her.  And if you can wack the Aleutians you might as well dust the soviet NO too.

Went with SZ 4 so Russia must use carrier air or mainland bomber to reach. Anyway should be worth a playtest.

@Baron I’d probably still go with the bomber instead of TB at 11 but I understand the thinking and can see situations where you’d want to go TB. Anyway the TB12 will give us the option to test.

Checked into the aagun and I think you might need to use v2 rules. I’m not sure. I’ll look into it some more. Any future changes I’ll make different versions so we don’t get too confused :)

Updated earlier post. Fixes Mongolian placement to OOB.

@ Baron I agree having the money islands kick in after Japan conquers them is the way to go. Unfortunately I haven’t figured out how to do that yet. I looked at the aagun some more and haven’t found a way to do it. It seems like I remember that being an option somewhere.

@ Elk Yea this should make for some good play testing. Do you think restricting the builds for capital ships and strats is too much ? I could add oob builds back but don’t want to overamp with too many xmls. Gonna do some more testing :)

Here’s the new update

https://www.sendspace.com/file/ftahv8

it’s the light blue dl button

@Baron:

It is a lot of good work, man.   :-)
These two units worth the try:
CruiserAA
A3, D3, M2 +1 with NB, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Cruisers only. OOB cruisers bombard at 3.

Great thing this added AA to Cruiser.
You probably work harder to get this.

Thinking about the cost.
Within DD at 8 IPCs and Battleship at 20 IPCs, I believe that AA Cruiser should be balance at 12 IPCs though.
The increase AA ability can easily make for the higher cost at 12.

For playtest, I guess 10 IPCs can be try.

For playtest, I would also make it a A3 D3 M3 unit. No bonus from NB.
If this still possible.
Shore bombard @2 or @3 is minor aspects.
For historical purpose, it is fine @2.