G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.

I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.

@barney:

yea there’s a lot to be said for simplicity, which fewer units boosting others does. I guess being an A&A enthusiast (fanatic), it doesn’t seem that hard to remember. Playing for the first time I could see it being overwhelming. Most people probably start with 42 for that reason. Having expansion sets such as Elk mentioned seems a good idea for adding complexity.

I could see those air stats working. I think the main thing is to reign in the SBR either through higher cost or lower attack. With it’s range it’s just too powerful currently imo.

My minimal POV on SBR combat is this one:
St Bomber should get preemptive AA attack @1 vs up 2 Fighters, whichever the lesser.
D6+2 damage

Tc Bomber gets 1 preemptive attack @1.
D6 damage

Fighter gets Attack @2 and Defense @2.
But Fighter interceptors always hit bombers first, either  StB or TcB, owner’s choice.

The main programming issue is to give StB this combat values.
It balance things out for interceptor D2, which in itself is  too big deterrent if STB have only A1.
And a swarm of STBs is also a deterrent against few Fgs unless StBs attack like AA, so cannot roll more than 1 dice per defending Fg.

@Baron:

From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg:  1D6

And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2

It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.

StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.

In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.

That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.

Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.

@barney:

Should Normandy turn pro allied neutral after rd 2 if it’s still French ? This would keep the axis from corking the allies from the factory.

Leaving aside the fact that the OOB rulebook concept of “pro-Allied neutrals” (and of neutrals in general) is one of G40’s problematic mechanisms, I’m wondering what such a situation would be supposed to reflect.  Why would Normandy change into a “pro-Allied” neutral (whatever we define that to be) from the status it has before the change?  That starting status theoretically has three possible values, and I can’t imagine how Normandy would convert to a pro-Allied neutral stance from any of them: Normandy as part of a France which is an Allied power, Normandy as part of a France which is under Nazi occupation, or Normandy as part of a France which is under collaborationist Vichy control.

agree with Marc. There’s no reason for such a change. The conceit of keeping Normandy French to prevent allies from using the factory is rarely done, and never for the whole game. Personally, I love it when Germany fails to take Normandy. That makes it all the harder for them to prevent a landing in Norway.

It would reflect that germany not taking normandy is a gamey move done to deny the allies the use of the factory there.

Black Elk, that is more or less the central idea of the “Vichy France” rule set, part of G40 Balance Mod (and I think Barney incorporated the ruleset into his as well). Game notes follow.

VICHY FRANCE RULE SET

The G40 Balance Mod may be played with or without the following rule-set, which is included for historical interest and fun.

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 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.

Elk are you saying treat France like the DEIs ? After France falls axis would have to attack to take control of French TTs where as Allies could take control during ncm. Or the French put up resistance to all comers ? Maybe a dice roll per TT to determine if they resist or not. Depending on the outcome either the axis or Allies would get to walk in or fight. French units remain French if Allied controlled and turn into w/e axis power controls them.

The Vichy rule provides the option for the Allies to take control of some of the French TTs but at the discretion of the axis. I like the Vichy rule as it provides more options but it is limiting compared to treating the French TTs the same as the Dutch.

I don’t have a hard opinion on Normandy the way it is now. It’s not the only “gamey move” in the game. Strafing Army Group South and moving it to Romania is another. Also not liberating France so the Allies can continue to use French factories and collect French income is one as well. The axis pay a price in lost income by not taking Normandy. It also allows the Allies to make a landing uncontested, although at the expense of not being able to reinforce the landing with use of the factory. Provided they could hold it of course. Southern France provides a precedent of Germany not taking complete control of France, until after Operation Torch began anyway. Still if there wasn’t a factory there, there would be no reason for the axis not to take control.

Allowing the Allies to take “Custodianship” of French TTs would further encourage them not to liberate France. Right now the US gets 5 bucks every turn for having a dude in France after its liberated. Maybe expand that to include the UK ? Probably still wouldn’t be enough of an incentive to liberate France. Perhaps some sort of negative incentive ? If the Allies have control of Normandy X number of consective turns, they have X number of turns to liberate France before a PU penalty is imposed on them ?

The capital liberation rule regularkid’s playgroup uses seems like a good idea. While it’s nice to get the dough for a capital takedown, being able to take a capital back without fear of giving the enemy another crack at the bank would promote more counterattacks it would seem. You still lose your dough if you lose your capital.

@regularkid
How often are you seeing Japan DOWs on Russia ? I have yet to see it as Russia usually declares first to help China or India. Not always though. This seems to work really well as it encourages certain behaviour but doesn’t eliminate the possibility of certain events happening. Curious as to what your results have been.

Barney, since our last discussion, we increased the lend-lease bonus from a Japan DOW on Russia by 2 PUs (per route). So now, if Japan declares war on Russia, Russia gets 4 PUs for each end-lease lanes that is open. Presumably Japan would immediately close the Pacific Route, so this would be simply the allies sending more aide through other available routes and/or increasing overall to assist Russia in a two-front war.

As for Russia making unprovoked DOW’s on Japan (negating the possibility of the +2 PU Bonus), it is a infrequent occurrence, though it does still happen in unique cases where other strategic considerations become more important. What you don’t see, happily, are the kind of DOWs between Russia and Japan “just for the heck of it” that you often seen with the OOB game.

Thanks for the reply. That was my conclusion as well. I find it a big improvement.

Hi Barney,
a few questions:
Q1, Do you think it is possible to make a Destroyer unit which cannot block Submarine’s Surprise Strike?
Q2, Is it possible to erase that part of the code without erasing the other part which is blocking Submarine’s Submerge and Stealth Move?

Q3, Is it easier to add a 1 combat round only blocking on DD against Sub’s submerge to the TripleA code?
I’m just asking.

Hey Baron
I would imagine all things possible but I wouldn’t know how difficult they would be. I’ll be meeting with my computer mentor soon and will ask him to take a look at the triplea code. Maybe he will explain some basic things for me and more importantly I can try and get him to focus on one area: one DD effecting all subs. I have no idea what it will take time wise to change it, but it won’t hurt to ask.

I have low expectations for success but if I don’t try I am guarranteed to fail.

If none of these modifications every gets played, whats the point? Seems like as soon as one concept is implemented, another is proposed, and then another, and another (often self-contradictorily), without taking a breath to see what you have. Lord knows, Barney, you’ve poured enough time and effort into your xml trying to keep up with ever-changing, multiplying ‘ideas.’ Now, lets play!

I play every day. Whether others play is up to them.

Yes suggestions are easily proposed but IDK how many try them. A lot are by ftf players and I know they try different things frequently. I see nerquen and your guy’s vichy mod being played. If you want to give it a go lets try a forum game. Been a few years for me but should be able to figure it out w/o too much trouble. We can give your Vichy mod a run as well if you want. I know you got a few games going on currently so we don’t have to do both at the same time if you don’t want too.

@barney:

Hey Baron
I would imagine all things possible but I wouldn’t know how difficult they would be. I’ll be meeting with my computer mentor soon and will ask him to take a look at the triplea code. Maybe he will explain some basic things for me and more importantly I can try and get him to focus on one area: one DD effecting all subs. I have no idea what it will take time wise to change it, but it won’t hurt to ask.

I have low expectations for success but if I don’t try I am guarranteed to fail.

That is a good news.
Hope it will work.
Nonetheless, you have made a pretty good job and without it, this project would not be the same.
You bring a lot of reality to something which could have been only a phantasy.
Thanks man.
Baron

Hey guys!
I’ve been away for awhile, and noticed this thread… but 40 pages is a lot of reading.
Can someone summarize the proposed changes, or is there a google doc of all the changes, or something?

There is many different ideas.
The thread is changing topic in each 4-5 pages.
In disorder, you can find in this thread:
There is some Triple A files which includes many different but similar units to allow a wide range of play-tests. If you read backward, you will find the latest made by Barney.
There is usually explanations of units and changes on NO.
Some Cruisers and Marines are in it.
BB and Cruiser can load 1 Marines.
There is a Vichy expansion  rule on files too.
Some NOs to increase Pacific action had been discussed.
Some Non-Aggression Pact breaking penalty between Russia and Japan.
An Elite Infantry has been discussed.
A different Convoy Raiding rule is developped, not only for G40, also AA50, 1942.2 and 1941.
A general discussion about the aim of Redesign is on the first pages.
There is a complete change of cost structure for ships suggested.
And different ways of interactions between planes against planes, TcBs against ground units and between Subs, DDs, planes and TPs.
And a few more ideas.

@regularkid:

Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

**REVISIONS    **

Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

FIGHTER
10 IPCs A3 D4 M4
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D3 M4
TBR: A1 first strike, Damage D6 on AB or NB,
SBR: can do escort mission for StBs without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs No cost change A4 D1 M6
SBR: AA A1 first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage on IC, AB, NB D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s/AB or NB’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

After my discussion with Regularkid on Fighter escorting & intercepting @2, I believe it is necessary to explain and revise some features I suggested to increase and improve SBR/TBR actions.
There was 5 points meant to increase action for both sides making optimized to SBR even with more defenders or to do interception in most cases even when only one or two Fgs defend.

There is one feature which can be discarded : minimum +2 damage if hit by IC’s AAA.
Even if it is an incentive to risk more bombers, the odds doesn’t rise so much.
It should be drop for simplicity.

Second one, Fighter needs to be A2 D2 to have a better incentive to escort and intercept.
And we all know that Fighters were superior in air combat over bombers.

Third feature, 1 StBomber attack must work like AA@1 against up to 2 Fgs interceptor, which ever the lower.
It is required because a large number of attack @1 (first strike or not) is a deterrent to intercept.
That way, if many StBs only are SBR and one single Fg is defending in IC’s TT, or just a couple Fgs, each Fg can intercept and risk only 1 shot @1 against itself.
On the other side, 1 StB can dare to attack up to 2 Fgs (1:2 ratio) without having too high odds against itself (-2.463 IPCs/raid vs - 3.852 IPCs/raid with A2D2 Fg and OOB -0.206 IPCs/raid, IMO this one was too generous and OP) and it can reach parity offense/defense when 1 StB and 1 Fg attack 2 Fgs interceptor (-0.056 IPC/raid) but it needs one incentive: letting bomber being the first target.
Same scenario, only Fg A2D2, gives odds at +0.407 while  OOB odds are high +2.445 IPCs/raid.

Fourth, Bomber as the first target/casualty is an interesting incentive to intercept when there is Fg escort.
That way, one or two escorting Fgs are no more deterrent because it was better to do nothing and suffer bombing damage (+2.583 IPCs/1 StB raid).
First target gives defender a real opportunity to stop some damage and lower the odds against him, even if it risks losing his own intercepting Fg (+2.167 IPCs/raid 1StB+1Fg vs 1Fg).
Otherwise, attacker trade Fg for Fg and all Bombers get an opportunity on IC (+3.694 IPC/Raid 1StB+1Fg vs 1Fg).
In fact, all other kinds of scrambling interceptors worsen odds against defender in a way it is better not to do so. (Fg A2D2 only:  3.694- 2.583 = +1.111 more IPCs damage per raid intercepted instead of letting bombers do direct attack on IC.)(G40 OOB SBR: 3.972 - 2.583 = + 1.389 IPCs)

Finally, fifth aspect, giving @1 first strike to bomber can be a big psychological deterrent for defender while keeping both regular @1 StB (as AA vs 2 planes) and TcB reg @1 is low but attacker has always the advantage to choose where, when and how SBR will be done.
Attacker can wait until there is enough units on his side.

For Redesign project, either can work for play-test.
It depends on which Triple A code is easier to implement on StB, first strike AA up to 2 Fgs or regular AA up to two Fgs, which ever the lower.
So, here is the combat values I would like:

FIGHTER
10 IPCs A3 D4 M4 +1AB
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.
Owner still choose which bomber type is taken as casualty.

TACTICAL BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1AB
TBR: A1, Damage D6 on AB or NB,
SBR: can do escort mission for StBs without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D1 M6 +1AB or A3 D2 M6 +1AB
SBR: AA A1 against up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage on IC, AB, NB D6+2

Once this said, it should be clear that odds are still much less generous for attacker than OOB SBR.
This can make SBR strategy less paying out because intercepting always reduced the odds for attacker. This wasn’t the case OOB, so most witty people choose, for good reasons, to never risk intercepting at disastrous odds.