2 xmls is np. I’ll go ahead and finish up SF Rules. Won’t take long. Is no big deal to change either.
OK SFR is ready to Rock. I’ll go ahead and bust out Philly too. No big deal if the plan changes.
I don’t believe it.
It will come to fruition.
Thank you very, very much.
Stars were aligned for this new born San Francisco !
:wink: :-) :-) :wink:
Sounds good
Philadelphia! sounds totally apt haha. Who needs sleep
:-D
Ok Philly ( or Tesla for ease of testing ) has joined the Party ! Take a bit to get the objectives and DL.
Forgot about the game notes. Be tomorrow before it’s ready.
Peace Out
Killer
I suspect that San Francisco will be a bit simpler to implement in face to face play, where you are more reliant on memory and go more by the gut for fast calculation, based on experience and habit. I think there is enough in here with SBR and M3 ships to be pretty entertaining. But it’s still pretty easy on the player at least in terms of no new complex relationships to track or additional phases. Pretty grab and go once you get the hang of the defensless bomber.
The Philadelphia experiment strikes me as particularly well suited to tripleA testing. Because here all the new values are presented clearly in the UI and all the new phases and combat interactions are enforced by the engine. And you have a Calc to help parse combats, and built in game notes for all the stats.
ps. I think the SF M3 cruiser/transport will be interesting especially in 1942.2. From G1 on things start to look rather different. There is a potential attack option for the Baltic Fleet now, vs sz 4 and Archangel if Russia allows it. If Germany takes both Arch and Karelia on G1, then there is perhaps another way to keep the Baltic Cruiser alive into the second round, even without a naval purchase in sz 5, or a link up with the med. At there very least such a move would put presure on the red october and soviet airforce in the second round. I think Russia would have a much higher incentive to just park fighters in Arch now to cover this tile, rather than deal with the possible fallout. Alternatively G can go south toward Gibraltar, also now in range of the Baltic Cruiser/Transport. This combined with the SBR only bomber, puts a new spin on the first round both for Russia and UK vs Germany. I think the German player will feel more pressure to do something creative or experiment with their starting fleet, since this is something they don’t usually get to do. This might keep G somewhat more oriented vs the West, rather than just plowing headlong towards the center the same way each and every game. The UK situation around Egypt is somewhat less precarious for Allies at least at the very start (again because of no StratB in combat). The British fighter lives to fight in the first round (without gamey Russian assistance, or just counting on a conservative Axis player hehe), and UK has a few more options with their India and Aussie fleets as a result. In the Pacific more broadly the M3 transport is a total game changer, which makes that theater much more active for the Americans (even just launching transports on the sacrifice distraction). Japan in turn has to face a whole new transport calculus vs India and the money islands, vs Tokyo itself. The cash in Europe and Scandinavia is much closer to sz 11 too, so I think the US still has some difficult decisions to make about where to throw their weight. Not sure what the overall balance will shake out to be, might still end up needing something like the an A0 turn or a bid or something else in the end, who knows, but I’m intrigued.
G40 I’m sure will be more intense, with much more to ponder.
I think the full naval expansion experiment for either board is certain to be entertaining, because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable. Kind of offsets any complexity for the subs when you can buy more of everything in exchange. I look forward to checking it out.
And San Francisco rules may introduce Philadelphia.
The simpler more familiar leads to the wider game changer.
Easier to give a try to a game with a few HRs, it allows to test things and compare from known experience.
If you like, no, enjoy it, then the other might appeal.
PhiExp is an experimental cost structure which may reveal more bugs than the other which is more an historical enhanced feel of Subwarfare and economical warfare.
Still M3 TP and Cruiser may be a boon or a bane. We don’t know.
Probably one thing that will need a correction is about Sub Stealth move.
It might require to allow DDs to block it somehow.
Good news is that players may enforce it in CM or NCM, and different ratios can be try.
IMO, a 1:1 blocking is an option to play-test.
I imagine a huge pack of Subs roaming and unwilling to engage.
Can be hard to stop with a few Depth Charges @1.
Maybe it might need also two attacks per DDs. IDK.
How AAA phase treat such double roll? 1 roll per target max or as a reg attack each rolls important?
Ex. 2 DD vs 2 Subs, 2 @1 rolls or 4 @1 rolls?
because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable.
Amen brother. Nothing else is so satisfying.
Alright it sounds like we are putting together a battle plan here.
:-D
I say we float the SFR game files for G40 and 1942.2, so players can take a crack at it and start making balance assessments. In a perfect world, we might hope for it to be balanced by sides right out the gate, but when you’re dealing with A&A things rarely go so smoothly. I’d be interested to hear feedback, or suggestions. If people think it’s unbalanced in favor of one side or the other, what they might recommend for a bid range, or if they like to try it under A0 or China0 conditions etc. Also if it might have applications with other Mods, or integrated HRs that people enjoy.
Give that one a little time to shine, while we put our best scientists and conspiracy theorists on the Philadelphia experiment to create a new roster/unit cost structure for use in these games.
We can keep the working game files for that one cloaked in the shipyard for a time, if need be, while we run the numbers and consider tweaks. Since the overhaul here is certain to be extensive, I think we should feel free to go mad scientist with it haha.
I think the only things I would try to keep sacred are the principle combat ground units and the core stats for the fighter at A3/D4/C10. I feel like those are key touchstones, and units that I’m not too comfortable messing with. But otherwise I think we should go all in. If we need to add abilities or revise costs on a unit by unit basis to make the system better, then that’s what we should do.
Since the experiment will build on the SFR ideas, those initial gamefiles can serve as primers, and might help raise new questions or recommend new solutions we haven’t fully considered yet, once we see it in action. That ruleset should also be fairly simple to playtest FtF too, which is why I like it for the physical table.
When we get to the point where we have a complete roster ready to materialize. I’d like to make some printable materials (battle board, and unit chart) to accompany it, so its a bit easier to get going around the table face to face.
I can edit the lead post in this thread, with a brief synopsis and an internal link to an SFR thread for specific balance feedback on that project. While we continue to charge ahead with the experimental stuff here.
Most of all, even more important than any specific balance by sides, is whether people like the gameplay. Whether fleet movement and SBR in particular under the new ruleset help to shape enjoyable patterns of play. If it succeeds in that basic aim, then set up changes for starting balance are pretty easy the way I see it. Many solutions are on offer there, from a suggested bid range, to starting cash or additional objectives bonuses, even balance modding of the starting unit distribution. Turn order, or new political situations. But the important question is whether the basic rules are fun with the defenseless bomber and m3 transport/cruiser situation.
I agree.
Good plan.
It allows to observe a lot of basic points without going crazy with Subs.
IDK where will lead us SFEx and PEx.
I truly hope one or the other will work great.
It is a cautious approach with baby steps.
I like this.
I new Subs are complex matters, I played 5 different interactions along my whole life.
I will need help to learn how to load all xml files and play by Forum, to eventually play-test all these features. :-D :-D
Ok dropped a testing thread in the main section below, and edited a link into the lead post of this thread. I’ll format it and flesh it out a bit more tomorrow if I can.
Right now I’m kind of lazy at the keyboard and more interested in messing around in TripleA haha.
I did throw some red up in there for San Francisco, like YG often uses. Cribbed his font technique, since I always like how it looks. But tried to keep it short, since I usually ramble like a madman.
Should be cool for now, unless anyone catches something we missed. Should keep us busy for a little while at least, waiting on bomber and M3 transport results, while we tease out the rest of the roster overhaul.
depth Charging ahead!
:-D
I think that the map would benefit from significant adjustment in certain locations. Historical Board Gaming’s 1939 map probably gets closest to the territorial distribution I consider ideal.
Consider giving the French an increased presence in Indochina, which should be divided into a northern Tonkin and a southern Cochinchina. Add two infantry and a cruiser. Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.
Cut off the bottom of Shan state to create the Kra Isthmus. Expand Indochina in size to allow for the two French territories while preserving Siam.
Enlarge the Philippines so that it is bisected by a pair of sea zones. Consider dividing the Dutch East Indies into smaller districts. Add a neutral cruiser that joins the Allies if an Axis ship enters coastal waters.
Include a Russian destroyer and submarine in the Pacific, along with one tank in Buryatia.
Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.
Add cities to the map, including Singapore, Tobruk (which eponymous territory should be renamed Cyrenaica), and Vladivostok. Divide Amur into two territories (not inclusive of Vladivostok).
Are you sure you answered in the appropriate thread?
Black Elk
Have you or anybody else that you know of tried to play the G40 tabletop game using the D12 system ? Maybe Triple A ?
What’s funny is I do have room and pieces to setup a G40 game and test D12 (if 1 or 2 guys wanted to try testing ) but I would be strapped for time.
Other is also I only have played 1 G40 game.
I haven’t tried it myself, but I had buddy who’s a big d12 enthusiast, and we once tried to get something up off the ground for revised way back when. He was a big fan of space tactical wargames, and made one that was a bit like Master of Orion for the tabletop, so we were pretty used to using d12 for crits and such in that game. And being a D&D geek myself, I still have the dice, but haven’t attempted anything other than d6 for G40.
I think sometimes I am kind of an abnormal Global player, mainly because everything I want to do with the game (in HR or redesign terms) trends towards simplifying it, whereas many others tend to move it in the opposite direction haha. To me the promise of d12 would be to somehow streamline the game at the tactical level, so that you could maybe chip away at some of the rules overhead, by having more raw numbers to work with. Not sure if that makes much sense. But I prefer an easy read where the mechanics and desirable play patterns or purchasing/production patterns make clear sense at a glance, without having so much nuance or so many specific conditionals in the rules. I think there is a definite brilliance to the A&A combat system (just in abstract gameplay terms) at d6, and I really enjoy it at the foundational level. But as the desire to build more and more complexity on top of that foundation increases, while still retaining d6 structure for everything, I think there may be a point where it might just be easier to jump up to d12. But yeah, I’d be a total neophyte here, since I haven’t really made a serious attempt at d12 for an A&A game at this scale. Perhaps others have given it more serious thought?
Ok guys I think we have just discovered a winning method for including many of these HR ideas in a tripleA standard package.
The idea is to replace the game’s built in tech system (which is largely unpopular and rarely used anyway) by a standard HR system. Essentially it is a way to make an “a la carte” menu of optional rules that are unlocked via Edit Mode, and then assigning the “techs” = new rule, from the drop down screen. Basically the active rules are assigned to all players via a quick auto-tech edit, so it can all be adjusted easily on the fly once the game is launched. You pick and choose the HRs you want to use in that game from the grab bag. Think of each “tech” as a toggle that can be turned “on/off” on an individual basis. My thought is that we could make one of these for each of the standard games, so…
1942.2 v5 Redesign
1941 v6 Redesign
Global 1940 Redesign
Some things that we make available using this method of tech replacement…
-Tactical Bombers or Mech in 1942.2, or Artillery and Cruisers in 1941.
-Medium Factory for G40, or Scorched Earth factories (autodestroyed)
-AAA fire for Battleships and Cruisers.
-1 Role bombers at C5 (with the various dogfighting values.)
Airbases +2
M3 naval units
New Sub/Destroyer interactions
Alternate cost structures, such as for naval or air units.
-Rail bases or military outposts
-Warbonds for All
Etc.
In addition to these, or other like rules which could be hacked in using the tech method, we could also use the game notes to describe how to do other things via the edit mode. For example…
American Zero Turn 1942.2, or Chinese Zero turn, or Anzac Zero Turn in G40 (restricted opening.)
Create the Commonwealth, or different UK economies, by editing territory ownership and starting cash.
Ways to use a different capital capture dynamic, or provide standard VC bonuses, or introduce alternative liberation rules, via edit mode.
In other words, all purpose gamefiles that play as OOB (no tech) by default, but which contain within them the tools and instructions necessary for using popular HRs via the tech menu and Edit mode.
We can start with the basic files, and update them with more material as time goes on. But this way everyone would be on the same page. They’d have access to the same “players handbook” with established popular options, easily described/referenced in the game notes.
I think these would instantly eclipse the OOB game files in popularity, since they would give you a built-in way to mod the game on the fly with your favorite optional rules.
And it allows to share a common bases for talking pros and cons of HRs.
Allows people playing via Forum to create an history and archives which may be useful when talking balancing set-up.
And if a lot of player like, for instance, AA Cruiser and Battleship, it can be possible to tweak some initial set-up SZ in G40 which radically change the TUV swing because there is many BBs and Cruisers in same SZ.
Also, it is also possible to create almost my HRs which SS is working on and testing with the optimized air intensive combat (Fg A2 D2 C7 same SBR, TcB A3 D2 C8 A1 D0 SBR, StB A0 D0 C5 A1 SBR, AAA rolling each combat round, CV A0 D3 C16, 2 hits, carry 3 planes).
So, if it becomes popular, some benevolent hard coders may try to introduce Fg hitting planes first and TcB targeting Tank first, then other units.
This opens a lot of possibilities.
If some optional variants grabs more attention it helps knowing what can be bring into a map review which may integrate no zero IPCs TTy, no amphibious landing on Berlin and other special.
However, it is like Alice following in rabbit hole.
Once entered in Wonderland, hard to return to OOB unified reality.
All players will like different things and might be still impossible to find a most recommended “one” like first we were heading by comparing SFExp vs PhiExp.
Not so tragic knowing Redesign will be a real newborn A&A game, which get somehow a life on its own.
What strikes me as particularly cool, is that the edit mode allows for really flexible modification, so with a system like this you could create your settings and then save/share them as a gamefile, so it makes customizing a game for your play group pretty simple, quick to launch.
Right now in v6, the 1941 starter board, or v5 1942.2 you really can’t do a whole lot short of set up changes/bids. But with this tech/mod kit, you could add stuff to make them into real training ground maps to prime players for the more advanced global game. Like add cash via warbonds, or standard units from the more advanced games like artillery and cruisers (to v6) or tacs and mech (v6, v5). Even replace OOB units with new versions, such as OOB strategic bombers for the new C5 bomber. Alternative cost structures and the like.
In G40, which is more expansive, you can take the mod kit concept even further. Possibly with new bases and factory types. I like the idea of a system which includes both new features, and instructions on how to use the edit mode for other types of popular mods. Seems like it would be a lot fun, and pretty adaptive on the fly.
If anyone is working the zero-IPCs case Islands this post from CWO Marc provide an interesting historical background start-up:
I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:
Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide. They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used. They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.
The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials. Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value. The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.
@CWO:
As promised, here’s a summary of the information I was able to find about the zero-IPC islands on the Pacific 1940 map. The sources I consulted weren’t as detailed as I’d hoped, so the summaries below are basically an estimate of what the general situation was for each island group. Some of these assessments could be off the mark, so if anyone has access to better data please feel free to correct whatever errors exist or to provide supplementary information.
Aleutian Islands
Important naval base(s)? No, just a US naval station (pre-war and onward) at Dutch Harbor whose facilities were very limited.
Important air base(s)? To some degree. Several US forward airbases were established (pre-war and onward), with larger bases like Elmendorf in Alaska proper. The Aleutians have very poor flying weather.Caroline Islands
Important naval base(s)? Yes. Truk was a major Japanese naval base, pre-war and onward. The Japanese did not make significant use of Ulithi Atoll, but after the American capture of the Carolines the US developed Ulithi into a major forward naval base that was used in the last year of WWII.
Important air base(s)? Yes, as an adjunct to the naval bases.Dutch New Guinea
Important naval base(s)? To some degree. Hollandia had a good anchorage which both the Japanese and (from 1944 onward) the US used to some extent, but its facilities were minimal.
Important air base(s)? To some degree. Various airfields were built by the Japanese after their occupation began, and were used by the US from 1944 onward. There was an airstrip at Hollandia.Fiji
Important naval base(s)? No, but there was a good harbour at Suva.
Important air base(s)? No, just a UK wartime airstrip built after 1941.Note: The Ellice Islands, geographically located about halfway between Fiji and the Gilbert Islands but not appearing on the Pacific 1940 map, were used as naval and air bases by the US in WWII. In particular, there seems to have been an important airbase on Funafuti Atoll.
Gilbert Islands
Important naval base(s)? No. Port facilities at Tarawa were almost nonexistent.
Important air base(s)? To some degree. An airstrip was built by the Japanese on Tarawa in 1942; it was taken over by the US in late 1943. The nearby Phoenix Islands, under joint US/UK control, had a number of airstrips established on them during WWII, for instance on Enderbury Island and Canton Island.Guam
Important naval base(s)? No. At the beginning of WWII it only had a small harbour with few facilities, though there were some good anchorages here and there, notably at Apra. Captured by Japan in December 1941; recaptured by the US in August 1944.
Important air base(s)? To some degree.Johnston Island
Important naval base(s)? No, served only as US sub refueling base. It had no port and no decent anchorge.
Important air base(s)? Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.Line Islands
Important naval base(s)? No.
Important air base(s)? To some degree. There was a US naval air station on Palmyra Atoll, pre-war and onward. Palmyra was well positioned to control part of the airspace lying directly on the U.S.-to-Australia route. Nearby Christmas Island also had some US airfields.Marianas
Important naval base(s)? No. Tinian lacked a proper port.
Important air base(s)? Yes. It had a Japanese pre-war base. Tinian was captured by the US in mid-1944 and was developed by them into a massive airbase. Fleets of B-29s operating from Tinian bombed Japan extensively; the two A-bomb missions took off from there.Marshall Islands
Important naval base(s)? Yes. Japanese naval and air bases of various sizes were established there in the late 1930s, notably at Kwajalein, Majuro, Eniwetok and Bikini, but the Japanese did not develop them to the extent that they could have. After the capture of the Marshalls by the Americans in January 1944, the US Navy used Majuro as a major forward naval base.
Important air base(s)? Yes.Midway
Important naval base(s)? No, except as a US submarine base.
Important air base(s)? Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.New Britain
Important naval base(s)? Yes. Rabaul, which has an excellent harbour, was the largest Japanese base in New Guinea during the 1942-1945 occupation.
Important air base(s)? Yes.New Guinea
Important naval base(s)? To some degree. Allied-controlled Port Moresby apparently had limited use as a port, but the town itself and the bases around it were important Allied staging areas.
Important air base(s)? Yes, several, established both by Japan and the Allies (who controlled different parts of the island) during the war.New Hebrides
Important naval base(s)? To some degree. Espiritu Santo only had a small port and a small airfield, but it saw a lot of use by the Allies during the war. Nearby Free French-controlled New Caledonia (which is not part of the New Hebrides, but is located nearby to the southwest) was an important Allied forward base in the early stages of the war; it had a small pre-war French naval and air base, good anchorages in the area and a small port at Noumea. The Santa Cruz Islands, northwest of Espiritu Santo, were not used by the Allies despite their advantageous position because the local strain of malaria was too virulent.
Important air base(s)? To some degree.Palau Island
Important naval base(s)? No. Peleliu had no port facilities.
Important air base(s)? No. There was a Japanese airfield on Peleliu, though apparently not an extensive one. The US captured Palau in late 1944, but made little subsequent use of it to support its operations in the western Pacific.Samoa (American Samoa and New Zealand Samoa Mandate)
Important naval base(s)? No, just a minor US naval station that existed (pre-war and onward) at Tutuila; harbour traffic increased for the first half of the war but decreased thereafter. The principal port of American Samoa, Apia, only had limited facilities.
Important air base(s)? Yes. US Tafuna Airfield (in American Samoa) existed pre-war and grew in wartime. The US built Faleolo Airfield (in New Zealand Samoa Mandate) in 1942; it was used by US. There was a decent airfield at Apia.Solomon Islands
Important naval base(s)? Yes. Little or nothing exietd pre-war, but the US and Japan both established several naval bases in the area from 1942 onward.
Important air base(s)? Yes. Little or nothing existed pre-war, but the US and Japan both established a large number of airfields in the area from 1942 onward, Henderson Field on Guadalcanal being perhaps the most famous one.Wake Island
Important naval base(s)? No. It had no anchorage.
Important air base(s)? No, just a airfield useful for reconnaissance planes and Marine garrison aircraft. Captured by the Japanese in 1941; surrendered in September 1945.
@SS:
This is what I have so far.
AIRBASES NAVAL
Caroline Caroline
Midway Dutch New Guinea
New Guinea New Zealand
Okinawa Philippines ( west side only )
Formosa Singapore
Malta Java
Gibraltra
Here is the list of 1942.2 seven Zero IPCs Islands (Midway is the last one):
@Baron:
Here is my proposition for 1942.2
Give +1 IPC to these 6 Japanese Islands:
1- Formosa
2- Okinawa
3- Iwo Jima
4- Wake Island
5- Caroline Islands
6- Solomon IslandsGive +1 IPC to 3 UK territories (bigger islands):
1- Western Australia
2- Eastern Australia
3- New ZealandGive +3 IPCs to 2 US Islands:
1- +2 To Hawaiian Island
2- +1 Midway IslandAll this increase in IPCs will be received at the end of the first turn for the next, second round purchase.
This increase in 6 IPCs can easily be put into this costlier naval war.
@Der:
@Baron:
Why not just using this mechanics: paying 2 IPCs from the looser to the winner, instead?
I personally don’t care for that idea, the main reason is it is an exception to all the rest of the rules of taking territories. In order for this game to be learnable and enjoyable, the rules should be consistent with as few exceptions as possible.
The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.
1. Morale - if an island is lost on Japan’s perimeter, the citizens would feel bad about it EVERY turn the island was in enemy hands. Not just the first turn.
2. Shipping - islands taken from your defensive perimeter would result in enemy forward bases and thus better recon for directing submarine attacks, etc. This would continue to damage your economy EVERY turn, not just the first.
@CWO:
@Der:
The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.
The concept of having islands be worth IPCs because of shipping efficiencies is pretty solid, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but I’m dubious about the whole “morale value = IPCs” concept for a couple of reasons. First: the strategic bombing campaigns against Britain, Germany and Japan showed that populations in wartime can “keep calm and carry on” to a remarkable degree even when their own homes and family members are being blown to bits by enemy bombers, and that wartime industries can keep functioning as a result. If wartime populations remained resilient (and industrially productive) in the face of having their towns demolished and/or incinerated, I doubt that their productivity would have been seriously dented just from reading bad news in the papers. Second: there’s no guarantee that wartime citizens would even have learned that a particular island territory had been lost to the enemy – especially in dictatorships like Germany and Japan, where the media was tightly controlled. Japan in particular was notorious for suppressing bad news; as an example, survivors of the sinking of the Yamato were put into detention when they returned to Japan to prevent them from talking. Even in the US and Britain, which were democratic states with a free press, the government sometimes filtered bad news to some degree: delaying its release, providing few details on security grounds, putting a positive spin on events and so forth. Wartime governments of all stripes are always happy to play up their successes (to the point sometimes of exaggerating or inventing them, such as when Japan portrayed Midway as a great victory for the IJN), but they’re understandably reluctant to discuss their failures.
Another one just mentioned, but which has been kicked around before.
Team Coordination Rules:
Unit co-location restrictions
For G40 and 1942.2Rule: Basic formulation = (Nation’s) units cannot end their turn in (Teammate’s) “starting” territories, if those territories were still under friendly control at the start of the turn.*
So…Japanese units cannot end their turn in European Axis starting territories.
European Axis units cannot end their turn in Japanese starting territories.
Western Allies units cannot end their turn in Soviet starting territories.
Soviet Units cannot end their turn in Western Allies starting territories. **
*If the territory in question was under enemy control at the start of the turn, then it may be liberated by a teammate, but the liberator must leave the following turn or be in violation of the rule. If the units are unable to leave a liberated territory on the following turn they will be automatically removed.
**1942.2 Option: US supported starting Chinese territories are not considered “Western” for the rule as stated above. Soviet units may end their turn in Chinese territories, but American units (including those in China) still cannot end their turn in starting Russian territories. So the movement across the border of Western China is one way, from Russia to US supported China, but not the other way around.
Purpose: To prevent gamey and ahistorical unit movements by teammates. For example, by the US/British in Soviet starting territories, by the Soviets in British starting territories, by the Japanese in European Axis starting Territories etc. Restricts aircraft transits in particular, to prevent the worst abuses. Likely creates some balance issues by sides.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39465.0
I’m not sure anything short of this, will ever give us a way to develop a proper balance on the center, or a proper incentive for a dual theater war, and present a game that actually looks like WW2.
Everything we’ve seen OOB (from the NAP, to Russian NOs etc) has all been half-measures. I’m thinking we need to go all the way, or it will always be gamey as all hell, with fighter transits and can-openers and propping up teammates along one dimension/theater while totally ignoring the other theater.
No idea what might be possible in tripleA, or if anyone would have the energy to create/test the game under such conditions. The idea is admittedly pretty sweeping, but I honestly can’t think of a simpler way to go with it.
If this rule was the bedrock, then it would be possible to actually build a balanced set up that didn’t totally rely on such gamey and ahistorical distortions.
I prefer self-imposed sound strategy rather than special rules.
G40, at least bring NO IPCs to Russia when no Allies on its TTys.
I’m still wondering about creating a different game dynamics for Japan against USA.
What motivate Germany toward Moscow is clearly a lot of IPCs, even Africa is a kind of diversion and fool’s gold.
It cuts a few IPCs from UK into Germany’s purse. But, it cost a lot of units.
In 1942.2, you need more incentive to conquer islands and Crush San Francisco.
San Francisco rule needs to be well named.
It needs deterrent to not do Japan CCrush and incentive to go JSF Invasion.
A) Deterrent to JCC
1-If you make Sinkiang and Szechwan impassable toward Russia (like Sahara or Mongolia) for both ground and air units.
It forces Japan to go north or south or both. Which is still (M3) not too difficult via India. It just take more land units to put North or South coming from Asian IC. It also makes Kwantung IC very far from Moscow. FrenchIndoChina appears better starting place.
2- I once proposed a Non-Agression Pact bonus for Japan only, with a bonus to Moscow if Japan broke it.
Maybe this can be a start to create a different dynamics, leaving Germany to his own fight while US being much absorbed by Japan in PTO.
For example, giving 5 IPCs to Japan (1 DD or 1 StB) while Moscow received 0 IPC can be an incentive to not break NAP.
But, if Japan breaks it, Moscow received immediately 15 IPCs (1 Fg+ 1 StB) and 5 IPCs each round while Japan none.
Number are indicative, of course.
B. Incentive toward San Francisco
Japan needs to fight for PTO Islands and get some reward.
All zero PTO island should received some values or even a simple 3 IPCs when conquered and zero after might help.
This bonus may include all islands and Australia, too.
Another trick is any zero island taken from Japan cut 2 IPCs from Japan income.
Midway, Hawaii, Mexico and Alaska may simply get +2 IPCs.
So USA, after first turn would rise to 50 IPCs. (Or on set-up.)
IDK, but need to find a way to make it worth the cost of naval war.
We need to find a few older ideas about this in the House rule thread and put it into Master list.
Barney added this option into G40. IDK how far it works. But, at least, it is a starter for incentive.
If we want that Japan fight toward USA instead of Center Crush, it needs some kind of incentive as SS stated:
@SS:
What I mean is like you said have some islands worth more or all so it would be worth fighting for these islands due to the increased value of territories. Midway 3 icp’s, Solomans island 3 icp’s for samples and then have it where certain land territories are worth more where there is back and forth fighting. Like some land territories between Germany and Russia increased values.
So, if it requires that many rounds to get 5 IPCs from Russia invasion, it becomes a better strategy to turn westward or southward. It also indirectly help Germany because USA will not repel Japan without a massive investment.
So JSFI becomes like a third scenario:
Germany vs Russia & UK.
Japan vs USA & UK.
KJF seems to me:
Germany vs Russia.
Japan vs UK, USA, Russia
KGF is usually:
Germany vs Russia, UK & USA
Japan vs UK (India) & Russia
This NAP can still be broken and reverse to standard situation but Russia will get a few more IPCs which might balanced things out.
