G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

Fighters attack and defend at 2.
Strategic and tactical bombers attack at First Strike 1.
And let interceptors to hit bombers first.

I don’t understand what you mean by “First Strike”? As for “letting interceptors to hit bombers first,” that is not something I would know how to program in TripleA. :(

@1 First Strike means that if interceptors got hit by bombers, they are removed immediatly and cannot roll on defense.

This works like AA gun First strike or Submarine Surprise Strike.

My hint to implement such on Triple A bombers is to use the patch created by Barney on AA Cruiser.
That way, you will get nearer my SBR balanced HR because it will gives bombers:
up to 2 AA @1 preemptive shots per bomber, 1 roll per Fighter max.

This provides better acceptable odds when there is either more bombers than interceptors or the reverse, more interceptors defending @2 than bombers.

The defending players will more willingly commit Fighter interceptors against an overwhelming number of bombers because it means 1 roll @1 per Fighter at most.

@Baron:

@1 First Strike means that if interceptors got hit by bombers, they are removed immediatly and cannot roll on defense.

. . .

The defending players will more willingly commit Fighter interceptors against an overwhelming number of bombers because it means 1 roll @1 per Fighter at most.

I don’t understand. If bombers can kill fighters by rolling a 1, and the fighters don’t even get to shoot back, why would this make defending players more willing to commit fighters?

@regularkid:

@Baron:

@1 First Strike means that if interceptors got hit by bombers, they are removed immediatly and cannot roll on defense.

. . .

The defending players will more willingly commit Fighter interceptors against an overwhelming number of bombers because it means 1 roll @1 per Fighter at most.

I don’t understand. If bombers can kill fighters by rolling a 1, and the fighters don’t even get to shoot back, why would this make defending players more willing to commit fighters?

Because it means 1 roll @1 per Fighter at most.
Players already accepts that AA @1 roll upon their planes.

If there is
A) 4 bombers attacking at a regular 1.
Or
B) 4 bombers attacking preemptive AA up to 8 Fighters.

If you have only 1 or 2 Fighters to intercept, A situation is more risky one.
A) 4 regular rolls @1.
B) 2 preemptive roll @1.

There is many calculations and tables I made to find the best equilibrium between offense and defense odds. (You can find some threads in HR forum, unfortunately a bit too messy.)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1413631#msg1413631

Against Fighter-interceptor A2 D2,
giving 2 preemptive AA shots @1 per Strategic bomber is the most balance.
1 bomber can still take a risk against 2 Fgs @2, because it gets 2 first strike @1.
The defender have 2 Fighters Rolling @2 each. Without such AA roll, the single bomber must submit to 2@2 and 1 IC @1 before bombing IC.

On a gross avg 4/6+1/6 = 5/6 (83%) to be destroy before doing damage on IC.

Having AA shots gives a little more survival odds to bomber.
WHich

@Baron:

Having AA shots gives a little more survival odds to bomber.

So really what your proposing is to make strategic bombing less risky/easier? That’s not really a problem with the game.

@regularkid:

@Baron:

Having AA shots gives a little more survival odds to bomber.

So really what your proposing is to make strategic bombing less risky/easier? That’s not really a problem with the game.

Sorry, but this is an oversimplication based on the example provided.
I want more SBRs and more interceptions.
Three words: more aircraft actions.

These 3 situations (1 bomber vs no, 1 Fg, 2 Fgs) maybe this can help understand which method gives which odds:

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR / -0.388 IPCs damage/SBR

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.440 IPC damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +3.69 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2: +3.704 - 7.556 = -3.852 IPCs damage/SBR / -3.704 IPCs damage/SBR

D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +5.093- 7.556 = -2.463 IPCs damage/SBR

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.473 IPC damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.025 - 5.056 = -3.031 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

Updated the earlier post. Changes:

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 it is. It’s the light blue dl button

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

Here’s the previous one with AACruisers at 10 bucks

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

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1466823#msg1466823

For Global 1940 alternate Convoy Disruption House Rule.

Black_Elk quote is for the Devil advocate…
@Baron:

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

Yes I think that does a pretty good job of sumarizing my misgivings, and contrast with the OOB situation. Also important to me is the ability to create one system that could work on all game boards.
Frankly I don’t like either system, because I think the economic disruption should be a feature of the submarine unit specifically (not all warships) and that this should be a form of “attack” made during the raiding player’s own “conduct combat phase,” not during the opponent’s collect income phase!
My argument there would be for simplicity and for gameplay i.e. as a way to make the submarine different from other naval attack units, and give it a more independent “hunting role.” I say the argument is “for the gameplay” because I’m aware that historically any warship could probably disrupt convoys. But what we’re looking for in a rule, is a way to separate off the role of subs and make that role unique or advantageous when compared to other naval units at a comparable cost. More advantageous than they are in normal combat, so players actually have an incentive to use them for the economic attacks instead of just normal attacks!

Otherwise the subs just default to the same way other naval combat units work e.g. grouped together with the main fleet, or the main air group. I don’t think the submarine should work like this. (I don’t think StratBs should work like this either, for that matter, even if this conversation is just for subs, I see them as related issues. I mean the way a bomber’s economic attack advantage is subordinated to its normal combat attack advantage vs ships, instead of the other way around.)

The sub unit would be far more interesting, if it’s primary role was for economic attacks, with a secondary role in normal combat. The current situation is basically the reverse. And the sub isn’t really very unique as a convoy disrupting unit. It behaves like all other ships that disrupt convoys, except that its cheaper for the spam and can’t be hit by air without a dd.

The analogy I always return to is SBR or Rocket Attacks, I think subs should work in a similar way. Either you choose to use them as a combat unit, or you forego combat for the chance at an “economic attack.” I think you should be able to run such a “sub attack” in any coastal sea zone bordering enemy territories with an ipc value, otherwise it only works on maps with a special “marker” or map designation drawn on the sz, which means it can’t work on all game boards.

A simple rule, that took into account the max value of adjacent enemy territories, and then allowed subs to “roll” against it, would be ideal. If its overpowered, then you just build in some kind of defensive roll, similar to an AAgun vs a bomber, to destroy the sub. I used to play with similar rules in AA50 (although there it was a special roll against coastal factories for my group.)

The danger of all convoy rules that allow you to “destroy” enemy IPCs directly is how they can affect the first round purchase options. Thinking about SBR as a model, when you “raid” with a bomber in the latest games, money is removed indirectly (via the purchase/repair damage system). In the old SBR rules of Classic/Revised a successful “raid” meant that your opponent had give money to the bank immediately, with no “choice” and no damage/repair. Seems to me that the G40 convoy rules follow the earlier sort of idea of Classic or Revised (where the money is given up to the bank ie. destroyed), even though I much prefer the latter sort of idea from AA50 and later, where the player got to choose how to deal with the consequences of the raid.

In other words, I don’t think players should have to learn two totally separate “economic raiding mechanics” one for bombers and one for subs. Instead the two mechanics should mirror each other and work in similar ways. If not exactly the same, than at least similar enough that I can explain one with reference to the other.

Putting the focus on coastal factories would probably be too overpowered, given how SBR already works against these factories. But if you’re not going to put the focus on coastal factories or give the defender an intermediate “repair” type option, but use the old model (money taken goes straight to the bank) then there should at least be a chance that the “raiding” unit can be destroyed during the economic attack, the same way bombers face AA fire, defender rolls at 1 to destroy the unit attempting to raid. I think that would be way easier than separating this whole “convoy” process out across multiple turns in the game round, which is what the current G40 system does.

I will assume my most preferred type of 5 IPCs Sub against 6 IPCs DD:

HR SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 M2 C5 IPCs,
first strike even when enemy’s DD present, no first strike roll on defense (ever)
blocked by DD on 1:1 basis Stealth Move and
on 1:1 basis Sub’s Submerged for first round only.
Any plane can hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without any Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit submarine nor aircrafts.

Convoy Raid Damage: 1 Dice keep all 1 to 3 results AND add 1 IPC

Immediately remove IPCs from enemy’s power.
Add 1 chip under National Control Marker in Convoy SZ per IPC damage (as reminder).

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 C6 IPCs,
blocks on a 1:1 basis Submarine’s Stealth Move, CM and NCM, and Submerge, first round only.

I would also delete Bordeaux Convoy SZ 105.

1. Any Convoy SZ is to be identify with owner’s Control Marker.
   All Convoy SZs worth 4 IPCs and are bordering at least 1 TT or have an island group in it.
   These TTs can worth 0 IPC to many IPCs, this doesn’t change the 4 IPCs Convoy SZ basis.

Shared Convoy Sea Zone:
lf at least 1 territory bordering the Convoy SZ belong to an enemy’s Power, this Convoy SZ maximum is split in two 2 IPCs which can be both raided by the other side. So, some Convoy SZs could have two National Control Markers, one from Allied Power and one from an Axis power.

If multiple Powers from the same side share a common Convoy SZ, damages are split between these Powers, as they wish. (Same as multiples casualties in a TT or SZ.)

During Phase 3: Conduct Combat
Combat Sequence
1. Strategic and tactical bombing raids AND/OR Convoy Disruption

2. During Combat move phase, each Submarine can choose whether to make a regular combat attack (Step 3. General combat)
   OR
   to do Convoy Raid in a given Convoy SZ (Step 1. S&TBR AND/OR Convoy Disruption).
   It is only Submarine units which get this option, even if Convoy SZ is enemy controlled by warships.

Other warships and aircrafts (Destroyer, Cruiser, Carrier, Battleship) can only do such Convoy Raid if there is no enemy’s surface Warships in Convoy SZ. (Step 1. S&TBR AND/OR Convoy Disruption)

3. The Convoy Raid damage roll is determined that way: 1 roll 1D6 per Sub and keep only 1 to 3 results, and add 1 IPC to the result.
   (Odds: 2+3+4+1+1+1= 12/6 = avg 2 IPCs.)
   (@2 first strike = up to 3 damage roll)

It gives the amount of IPCs which will be lost immediately by Convoy SZ’s owner.
Never more than 4 IPCs per Convoy SZ for the whole game round.

You put in the SZ one Country Control Marker chip under the Convoy’s SZ owner National Control Marker for each IPC damage on Convoy to keep track of the entire game round results against this Power.

Other Combat units get only 1 single dice to roll, and get Convoy damage if they get their attack number or lower:
Surface warships:
Destroyer Attack @2 Damage on 1-2. (odds: 3/6 = avg 0.5 IPC)
Cruiser Attack @3 Damage on 1-3. (odds: 6/6 = avg 1 IPC)
Battleship Attack @4 Damage on 1-4. (odds: 10/6 = avg 1.67 IPC)
Carrier Attack @0

Aircrafts:
All empty Convoy SZs are treated the same as a Tactical Raid target.

Fighter have no attack on Convoy SZ.

Tactical Bomber (12 IPCs HR) takes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6 damage as usual but must first submit to preemptive AA defense @1.
(Odds: 18/6= avg 3 - 2 = +1 IPC. Regular AA)
(Odds: 18/6x 5/6 = 15/6 = 2.5 - 2 = +0.5 IPC. Preemptive AA)
(OOB G40 TBR D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/TBR)

Strategic Bomber makes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6+2 damage as usual but must first submit to preemptive AA defense @1.
(Odds 23/6= avg 3.833 -2 = +1.833 IPCs. Regular AA)
(Odds 23/6 x 5/6 = 115/36 = 3.194 -2 = +1.194 IPCs Preemptive AA)
(OOB G40 SBR D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR)

(This is played as an IC’s AAA. Many Cargo Ships were equipped with AA guns and were more able to defend themselves than against Submarines attack.)
In addition, the 4 IPCs cap in Convoy SZ makes such Tactical Bombing Raid sub-optimized compared to SBR and TBR on IC, Air Base and Naval Base, as you can compare above.

**Do you think this alternate National Convoy Disruption for Global 1940 can be a workable balance system?

Do you see it as a sufficient incentive for Submarines Commander to prefer raiding over regular combat?**

@Baron:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1466823#msg1466823

For Global 1940 alternate Convoy Disruption House Rule.

I will assume my most preferred type of 5 IPCs Sub against 6 IPCs DD:

HR SUBMARINE A2 first strike D1 M2 C5 IPCs,
first strike even when enemy’s DD present, no first strike roll on defense (ever)
blocked by DD on 1:1 basis Stealth Move and
on 1:1 basis Sub’s Submerged for first round only.
Any plane can hit unsubmerged Submarine during combat round without any Destroyer presence.
(If a Sub submerge during first strike phase, plane can not hit Sub.)
Submarine cannot hit submarine nor aircrafts.

Convoy Raid Damage: 1 Dice keep all 1 to 3 results AND add 1 IPC

Immediately remove IPCs from enemy’s Power hands.
Add 1 chip under National Control Marker in Convoy SZ per IPC damage (as reminder).

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 C6 IPCs,
blocks on a 1:1 basis Submarine’s Stealth Move, CM and NCM, and Submerge, first round only.

Aircrafts:
All empty Convoy SZs are treated the same as a Tactical Raid target.

Fighter have no attack on Convoy SZ.

Tactical Bomber (12 IPCs HR) takes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6 damage as usual but must first submit to preemptive AA defense @1.
(Odds: 18/6= avg 3 - 2 = +1 IPC. Regular AA)
(Odds: 18/6x 5/6 = 15/6 = 2.5 - 2 = +0.5 IPC. Preemptive AA)
(OOB G40 TBR D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/TBR)

Strategic Bomber makes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6+2 damage as usual but must first submit to preemptive AA defense @1.
(Odds 23/6= avg 3.833 -2 = +1.833 IPCs. Regular AA)
(Odds 23/6 x 5/6 = 115/36 = 3.194 -2 = +1.194 IPCs Preemptive AA)
(OOB G40 SBR D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR)

(This is played as an IC’s AAA. Many Cargo Ships were equipped with AA guns and were more able to defend themselves than against Submarines attack.)
In addition, the 4 IPCs cap in Convoy SZ makes such Tactical Bombing Raid sub-optimized compared to SBR and TBR on IC, Air Base and Naval Base, as you can compare above.

Giving a preemptive AA @1 against TcBs and StBs trying to Disrupt a Convoy works as a simpler mechanics based on SBR and TcBR.

However, from a more realistic POV (there is no AA batteries floating on the ocean surface around merchants ships), it is also acceptable to give a regular AA @1 against StBs and TcBs on Convoy raid if such transport unit with a similar AA defense is used.
Both defenses, against raiding Convoy SZ and attacking unescorted Transports with Aircrafts, would imply similar mechanic.

TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 regAA1 M2, 1 hit, taken as casualty according to owner’s choice.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
Beginning on the second combat round, 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.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

And odds for regular AA defense are not that high neither.

Tactical Bomber (12 IPCs HR) makes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6 damage as usual but must submit to regular AA defense @1.
Odds: 18/6= avg 3 - 2 = +1 IPC damage/TcBR vs regular AA
compared to
OOB G40 TcBR D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/TcBR

Strategic Bomber makes a Tactical Bombing Raid 1D6+2 damage as usual but must submit to regular AA defense @1.
Odds 23/6= avg 3.833 -2 = +1.833 IPCs damage /TcBR vs regular AA
compared to
OOB G40 SBR D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR

Here’s one with some changes. Returned Aleutians, Midway, Fiji and Samoa to 0 and HI to 1. Boosted West India back to 2. Iwo, Formosa and Okinawa don’t get the 1 PU NO boost.

Done about a half dozen tests with different DOW dates. The J1 still seems hard to save India. Might try getting rid of the Island NO and just give them all 1 at the start. IDK if that would discourage the J1 attack at all or not. I think India probably just needs a few more dudes. Don’t want it to be impossible but not a sure thing either. Oztea seems to have a pretty good balance on his.

Anyway here’s the new one. The previous ones are still available on the other posts.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/ij7nu6

It’s the light blue dl button

Barney, good work. Look forward to trying this.

A mod that includes Vichy France (both the game save and an screen capture) are attached. Let me know if you’d like the xml code.

Franco-German Armistice

On June 22, 1940, with Paris encircled and the French army in full retreat, France entered into an armistice with Germany, officially ending hostilities between the two countries. The Armistice resulted in a division of France, with Germany occupying the north and west, and a pro-Axis, Vichy-French government, led by Marshal Pétain, governing the unoccupied south (the “Zone Libre”).

In exchange for Germany’s promise that French sovereignty would be restored to the whole country after the war, France agreed to maintain “armed neutrality” in the ongoing conflict between Germany and Britain. Under this arrangement, France was permitted to keep its fleet stationed at Toulon and to retain a small French army (under the overall direction of the German armed forces) for the provision and defense of its colonial empire.

With the exception of colonies in French Equatorial Africa and French Polynesia (which sided with the Allies), most of France’s territories adhered to the policy of “armed neutrality,” remaining loyal to the Vichy French regime and resisting allied incursions. However, when Germany took direct control of the “Zone Libre” in 1942, in violation of the armistice, the Vichy French government disbanded its army in Southern France and scuttled the French fleet to prevent it from falling into German hands.

The following rule-set attempts simulate the circumstances and strategic consequences of the Franco-German Armistice, and is intended for play with the G40 Balance Mod.

Game Conditions for Franco-German Armistice

At the beginning of France’s turn, if the following conditions are met, the Franco-German Armistice will occur:

1. Axis must control both France and Normandy Bordeaux;

2. France must control Southern France; and

3. There must be no non-French, Allied units in Southern France.

Game Consequences of Franco-German Armistice

French Territorial Control: At the beginning of France’s first turn in which Armistice conditions are met, all originally French territories not already under Axis control immediately change ownership to Pro-Axis Neutrals, except: (1) French Equatorial Africa; (2) New Hebrides; (2) any French territories containing non-French allied units.

With the exception of Southern France (see discussion of “Zone Libere” below), Vichy French territory works the same way as other Pro-Axis Neutral territory–i.e., an Axis player may capture Vichy French territory and commandeer its forces by moving a land unit into the territory during the non-combat phase of his turn.

Fly-over restrictions applicable to other Neutral territories do not apply to Vichy French territory.

Fleet at Toulon: In addition to the change in French territorial control, the Armistice changes control of the the French fleet in sz 93, from French to Pro-Axis neutral. The Vichy French fleet maintains a strictly defensive posture. It may not be moved. It may not be captured by the Axis. The fleet is immediately destroyed if any power, other than the Free French, occupies Southern France

“Zone Libre”: Any Axis occupation of Southern France following the Armistice results in a disbandment of the Vichy French forces there and a scuttling of the Vichy French fleet in sz 93.

The “Zone Libre” army and fleet will revert back to Free-French control if either: (1) France is liberated by the Allies; or (2) Free-French land forces enter Southern France during the combat-movement phase of France’s turn.

Armistice’s Effect on National Objectives: Vichy French territory is considered “Axis” or “Pro-Axis” controlled for purposes of Italy’s “North Africa” and “Roman Empire” Objectives. Any direct takeover of French Indo China by Japan still negates Japan’s “Trade With America” Objective, even if the territory was already Pro-Axis Neutral.

Liberation of France: The Allied liberation of France effectively terminates the Armistice. Any territory and forces still under Vichy French control (including any surviving fleet in sz 93) revert back to Free French control.

G40BalanceVariantv3(VichyFrance).tsvg
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb
VichyFrance.png_thumb

Hi kid

Yea go ahead and post your xml and I’ll incorporate your vichy rule in the next go around. How’s that been working out for you guys ?

Barney,

The XML is attacked. Replace the original “French Triggers” section in your XML with the attached text. Note: It ain’t pretty, cuz its the product of much trial and error, and its probably much longer than it has to be, but it works, and it doesn’t generate errors.

Also, let me know if you’d like the XML to make the PU capture happen only the first time a capital is taken.

Vichy France has generally been well received in our group. Some have suggested it’s too Axis friendly, and it is definitely something you would have to pair with balancing national objectives, or other advantages for allies in the region, which we have done (the attached XML is just for the Vichy France event itself, though).

Enjoy.

Vichy France XML.txt

Hi everyone,
I made a Word document which includes combat unit roster on 1 page, as a reference chart.
Feel free to download and change numbers and abilities according to specific roster you would implement.
This can be shared amongst us and can be printed for F2F game.
Baron’s HR units charts and set-up for 1941, 1942.2 and AA50
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36833.msg1469053#msg1469053

Hey kid do you think it would be better if Italy’s NOs needed German and or Italian control ? The neutral axis/vichy wouldn’t count towards it. Or would that make the Axis not want to use the Vichy rule ?

Barney:

Went back and forth on that. But you surmised correctly: the reason that “Vichy” ownership counts for both objectives is because, otherwise, there is not enough incentive to utilize the “Vichy” feature. Also, “alliedownership” in the XML automatically includes ownership by friendly neutrals, so the objectives are already written that way.

One thing we have been talking about is making it so that Axis occupation of Southern France results in the removal of ALL “vichy” units (not just those in Southern France) to help incentivize respecting the armistice.

-RK

Barney: Playtested your mod some with the AI.
Thought you might appreciate the in depth feedback, since u obviously put a lot of time and effort into the mod. Below are the game notes for ur mod, with my comments in bold

GlobalRedesignT

**In this download, there are a like a dozen different versions of ur map, the differences between which are unclear. I would just keep one authoritative version of your mod, and update it from time to time with all the changes you deem fit to  for play testing.  **
. . . .

What’s different

NAP Japan/Russia Cost 3 PUs to break the Pact. I would remove this. It is unclear what this “fee” represents, in real world terms, and there are plenty of ways to disincentive war, without imposing arbitrary fees on conduct u don’t want. You already have this with the lend-lease increase, and Mongolian trigger

Mongolians behave the same as OOB. When Russia is at war with Germany and Japan she receives another 2 PU Lend Lease Bonus from SZ 4. The 2 PU lend lease bonus should only apply if Japan declares war on Russia unprovoked.

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. I like this

“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. Why the addition of sz 124?

“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 Archangel is Russian controlled. I assume you mean Amur, not Archangel? Should be sz 5.

“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 Archangel is Russian controlled. Simplify this to require allied control of Persia only. Unclear why Madagascar and Archangel are included. Also, since Persia touches Caspian Sea (through which lend lease aide passed, historically) unnnecessary to include North West Persia. For simplicity’s sake, each lend-lease route should be one land territory, and one sea zone.

“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. 3 PUs for control of Korea. Is there a historic or gameplay justification for including Korea in the context of WW2? Undermines the goal of discouraging war between Japan and Russia.

“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). Is there any special/historic significance to this sz that isn’t already captured by the convoy zones in 109 and 119?

“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.

“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.

**The Pacific island objectives seem more-or-less like you’re just trying to make the islands worth 1 PU each. The result is a bit convoluted. Why not just make them worth 1 PU each. Or, if you want to use national objectives to get the desired effect, they would be structured the same way existing OOB Nos are. For example:

USA
� 3 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
� 3 PUs if USA is at war and Allies controls 3 of: Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.

Japan
� 3 PUs if Japan is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
� 3 PUs if Japan is at war and Allies controls 3 of: Gilbert Islands, Solomon Islands, New Britain, New Habrides.**
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

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

ABs and NBs

ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. The additional restriction on bomber production seems unnecessary, since you already require an airbase to build them, and spamming strategic bombers from newly constructed minor factories is not really a problem with the game. The less special rules the better. 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. No boost when paired with fighter or tank. Why do tac bombers have a higher default attack value than strategic bombers? Are these changes really necessary. What are they designed to addressl?

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, C10. 2AA shots for first combat rd only. Only 1 shot per plane max. Bombard 2. Game starts with OOB Crusiers only. OOB crusiers bombard at 3. Why the reduced bombard? Also, if going to give cruisers AA capabilities, just  make it 3 planes, so its consistent with existing AA guns. Is there any reason why it would be only 2?

Escort Carrier A0, D1, M2 +1 with NB, C9, may carry 1 fighter or tac bomber. Has anti sub capability same as DD. Love this unit, especially. Don’t understand giving it destroyer capabilities when regular aircraft carriers don’t have them.

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. Since u’ve changed some initial unit placement, would it be better to simply remove the OOB transports from the board completely if ur going to increase transport capacity? Also, see below, for discussion of Marines below

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. Consider making the restrictions on the number of militia uniform across all factions.

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. Cool

Marines Same as infantry except +1 during amphibous attack. Artillery bonus stacks. So A3 with artillery on amphibous attack. Limited by country. Japan 4 US 6 UK 1 UKP 1 ANZAC 1. **Rather than putting faction-specific limitations on the number built,  consider increasing the cost to 4 or 5 and giving the marines the added benefit of being able to travel 3 to a transport. So your standard transport  can either carry the usual number of infantry/big units, or 3 marines. Can be accomplished by giving transports 10 carrying capacity, making marines 3, infantry 4, other units 6.  **

Very impressed with what you have accomplished here. Keep up the good work!

Hi kid
Thanks for the feedback. Cool you got a play test in. To answer your questions,

The different versions are for testing different things. At the top of the notes it will tell you what’s different. I need to update the game notes again as I have just been listing the changes in this thread. For example mech means you can buy mechs and armor at new minor factories. The original version only allows inf and artillery builds.

Ahh I misunderstood that Russia doesn’t get a extra lend lease NO when they declare on JPN. I thought a little extra disincentive might be required. Yea this probably isn’t necessary.

Archangel is a typo. It is SFE and SZ 4 is correct. The reason for SZ 4 is so JPN must use a bmbr or carrier air to reach it. SZ 124 is for more Atlantic action. Being a open SZ allows for it to be contested more. Same with 104. I’ve used it for a while and it seems to work well.

The thought was to encorage disruption of lend lease going around the Horn. Churchill was concerned that JPN could have taken Madagascar easily and shut it down. Creates more game options. Yea NW Persia shouldn’t be required. Guess you wouldn’t necessarily need Caucusus but wanted 1 Russian TT required the same as the other routes. I guess you could get rid of it for simplicity. If Germany owns all those TTs it’s not looking goood for Russia anyway. I suppose you could get rid of Madagascar but it doesn’t really seem that complex to me.

The Korean NO has been removed.

The islands have been changed to just the valueless ones getting the bonus. Been thinking about just making them a buck from the start. Probably will. With the 2 PU conquest bonus I don’t think the strategic island objective is necessary either. There isn’t any Marshall or Golbrert Island NOs.

People expressed intrest in having their heavy units only built in their home factories. They didn’t like the idea of B-29s and CVs being built in Norway. :)

When the bmbr was dropped to 3 and the fighter was switched to support it to 4, the TB was jacked to 4 so people would buy them.

This was discussed quite a bit here and a few other places. 2 seemed to be the concensus with 3 being too powerful. The bombard was dropped to 2 because at 10 bucks they might prove OPd. The OOB CAs bombard at 3 so they don’t disrupt any opening battles.

The anti sub is Baron’s idea. It represents the small carriers the British used in the Atlantic hunting subs. Also it’s so people will buy them.

Someone suggested a 3 carry transport this allows the option.

Yea I was concerned about spamming and wanted to reflect manpower totals somewhat as well. I suppose everybody could just get 6. I’ve been playing this way a long time so I’m used to it.

That’s a good way to do it if you want to carry 3. I got the Marine idea from Midnight. I cut 2 from JPN though. Mostly for the Pacific. JPN and US each get 6 and ANZAC and UK 1. Don’t want them spammed and raising the price seems like you’d be better off with artillery unless you did 3 to a boat. I like the way they work.

Anyway I’ll clean up the notes and change a couple things discussed here. Thanks again for the feedback.