Great feedback!
First to the army base idea, its probably reasonable to assume that, anyone who is willing to mod the whole game, is probably willing to find a gamepiece marker that could represent this base, which would remove the need nix the minor factory.
Trying to change the OOB production profiles might just be more effort than its worth, but the adding of a new base unit is probably doable.
I mentioned the idea just as a jumping off point, and was trying to highlight the bases a bit, just because they are the unit (even moreso than Mech or TacBs) that makes the G40 game feel pretty distinct from its predecessors.
On the whole, I’m still not even sure that I like the OOB base units haha. But they certainly introduce another layer of complexity to the gameplay. At least from a PBEM/PBF standpoint, scrambling at Air Bases definitely stalls the exchange, but then again in a face to face game, the scramble can be fun hehe. I’ve often wondered how the OOB G40 map would play, if base units were just removed from the roster altogether? and if the map would even be fun to play without bases. I think the map could probably have been designed without base units and still be functional, but trying to remove ABs and NBs at this point would probably cut out the fun and run into serious resistance.
Adding a new “land base” unit of some sort seems like it could create some new interest for the game. In practical gameplay terms, I had conceived of the army base as a nerfed factory (a factory that produced only infantry) and didn’t do much beyond that. There are other ways though, that an army base might be conceived, ways a bit more like the other two base types Air/Naval.
One earlier idea that was discussed involved a land base conferring some movement advantage to infantry units (in the same way Air Bases or Naval Bases grant bonuses to units of those types.) The rail base was discussed as a possible concept here, though I had in mind something more abstract.
The more I was thinking about this idea, the more it seemed a bit too overpowered to allow infantry a movement bonus when moving “out of” a base territory, the way ships/air get one when moving out of a base. On the other hand the idea of a movement bonus “going to” the base somehow, instead of going out of it might be workable. It’s been described before like this…
Infantry units are spawned at factories (just just like every other combat unit), but once built could, in the following round, move directly from the Industrial Complex to any army base territory under the nation’s control, some set number of infantry units. Maybe 3? Air Bases can scramble 3 fighters, so perhaps 3 infantry units would seem reasonable. So in this sense the base is not spawning units per se, but allowing existing armies to move into position in a way that confers a movement bonus. The movement bonus for any individual infantry unit is basically only conferred in a one-way direction, from IC to Base. You can imagine it like the initial deployment, a sort of one time movement bonus for the units at the Industrial Complex. The army units get out of basic training, and received their deployment orders to base “such and such.” Only a limited number per base.
That was an idea I’ve heard proposed, strictly for infantry, but it would still be pretty useful. In fact it might be so useful, that it’d make sense only to allow a very limited number of infantry unit per base to move this way. Perhaps 3 inf is too many. Or perhaps cap the total number of infantry that can be moved from an IC in this way per turn (in the case of multiple base units across the whole map) to the value of the Industrial Complex territory?
I’m not sure how the introduction of such a unit would play out with Japan. Amusingly the word Tycoon, indelibly associated with railroads to western ears, is actually a Japanese word haha. But again my idea of the base was more generic than a rail hub. If an army base or two was already in place in Japanese occupied coastal China, perhaps it would mean fewer minor factory builds? Hard to say
Perhaps it’s just easier to keep the OOB roster, not worry right now about the land base concept and just focus on the units that already exist. Given that Japan spams minor factories all along the coast, I think the Allied starting unit balance needs to account for the mass mech build/air blitz strategy that Japan tends to adopt out of them.
For the Russians, if the smallest surface fleet that we can represent with a unit is the destroyer, then perhaps a destroyer in sz 127 and sz 5 would be nice? A starting battleship in sz 115 or sz 100 seems like it could probably be worked out.
Also great feedback on the major deep war campaigns of the mid war. Those are the campaigns I think we need to design the mechanics and gameplay incentives to emulate. If it was attached to the ultimate victory conditions, or at least the ultimate economic balance, I think that would be very helpful.
Of the campaigns mentioned I think the ones that could use the most help are probably, the Atlantic and North Sea, The Med, The Central Pacific, and the Southern and Western pacific. Somehow more incentives need to go into those areas (whether they are purely cash incentives, or bases, or if those campaigns are somehow involved in some broader ‘victory achievements’ scheme.)
Eastern Europe and Burma/Inda and China already have some strong incentives in play. The could be better I think, with some unit balance tweaking, but those areas are pretty much guaranteed to see action.
Central Europe bombing campaigns by the Anglo-Americans would depend I think on how advantageous our SBR mechanic is. Right now its rather difficult to wage a very effective bombing campaign against Germany, but perhaps if it involved some further bonuses. Like +X ipcs, if a Germany factory is max damaged, or something along those lines.
I’m pretty convinced that any victory scheme, whether it be based on Cities, or achievements, probably needs to have some kind of cash incentive/gameplay-driver in order to compete with the “Victory by Capital Capture” structure that most A&A games have adopted in the past. I know YG has experimented with a system that uses tokens for Victory in G40. In AA50 I used to play with rules that granted a cash bonus to capturing a VC.
Perhaps you could create some sort of hybrid system? I think as long as the Victory condition is something that was actually achievable by either side, this would help. The OOB conditions are not like that, it’s an Axis game to loose, and the Allied victory conditions are basically impossible within the timeframe of most games, or the patience of most players.
TripleA uses the 14 VCs threshold by default, but I think there most players still approach the game as if it were being played to concession (eg. focus on capitals first, and total VCs only after your capital goals are secured, or definitively thwarted haha)
