Grasshopper's modified National Objectives

@Black_Elk:

Japan’s starting IC violates the island prohibition, even in the OOB game, which always struck me as inconsistent.

Japan is not an island, its a continent like Europe, Africa, Greenland or Australia.

Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.

One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.

@UncleSam0330:

Regarding the Excel file, you all are certainly welcome to use it! I’ve also integrated the rules and charts into electronic versions of the original 2nd edition rulebooks but I’ve not posted those because I’m not sure if that’s OK/legal to do outside of my own private use.  :? If it is OK, I’d be happy to post those as well.

I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, but OK. I mean that it’s illegal in the sense that writing Transformers fanfiction is illegal: It probably violates a copyright law, but Hasbro is never going to do anything to you because you aren’t making money off of it and they won’t waste the time and effort to sue you.

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Oh yeah, you need to play the game all the way to the bitter end. Don’t let the Axis surrender. You have to smash ALL their precious units and take that capital.

In the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Conan the Barbarian (who was himself quoting Genghis Khan): “Crush enemies…see them driven before you…hear the lamentations of the women.”  In the context of Global 1940, “the lamentations of the women” probably refers to the lady of the house saying “Haven’t you guys finished playing yet?” sometime around 2:00 o’clock on a Sunday morning.

LOL… my drunken games of Classic Edition with 4AM finishes were over years ago, now it’s a 9AM to 9PM time slot (maybe a little longer if ask nicely), but it won’t be long before we’re limited to playing Bridge and Lawn Bowling.

@Uncrustable:

I think you should play some games of G40 on here before making these assumptions.
I do, and I see many SBR involving fighters.
Germany sometimes will send 5 or more bombers on Moscow alone, where Moscow has 2-3 fighters to scramble. Odds are better that Russia will lose a fighter before Germany loses a bomber in the air combat. And  Il trade a German bomber for a Russian fighter, Russia can’t afford it.
I also see many games where G2 Germany sends 2 bombers 2-4 tac bombers and 2-4 fighters to London where there are sometimes up to 5 fighters that can scramble.
Italy will also heroically send its lone bomber to London in an attempt to disable the airbase on London before Germany’s turn.

Even with interceptors SBR is a touch too powerful in G40.
This is mainly because bombers are getting +2, meaning 1 bomber auto disables bases and minor facilities once past AA and interceptors.

I would propose taking away bombers +2, while halving tacbombers damage.
Bombers SBR at 1D6
Tacbombers SBR at 1D6 /2. Rounded up.

Now I better see why you wanted to give defending interceptor D2 instead of D1.

Attacker have the advantage of picking which units will go SBR and to concentrate firepower on a single IC.

The defenders are overwhelmed by the sheer number.
In addition, on defense you have often more than just only 1 IC to protect, and you cannot keep all the Fgs in the same territory, have to split them usually.
D2 interceptors can counterweight the advantage of attacker and hindrance of defense a bit.

Reducing attacking bombers to only 1@1  for the whole group is also a way to preserved the defending fighters against destruction by a large number of StBs. But we both know, that is not A&A standard rules, each unit usually get 1 roll…

…unless you treat StBs/TcBs the same way as AAA!!!. :-o
So each defending Fgs can never have more rolled against them than 1A@1, if there is at least the same number of StB/TcBs vs Fgs.

It can be rationalized to get an historical accuracy somehow in the way:
intercepting fighters are not able to attack all groups of StBs/TcBs flying over the territory but only one unit (flight group) at a time.
When interceptors fly around StBs they are under an intense and concentrated AA fire coming from the flying fortress. But all others group of StBs are not chasing actively Interceptors, they are just flying toward the IC/AB/NB target.
So if interceptors are overwhelmed by the StBs/TcBs, it will be in essence 1:1 combat.
1 TcBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2, all other additionnal StBs/TcBs cannot shoot anymore.
In fact, all intercepting Fgs are already busy, other StBs/TcBs have pure and simple an open road toward IC or NB/AB.

What do you think of this one?
When StBs/TcBs attack fighters on SBR air combat, they get A@1 for each StB/TcB or intercepting Fgs wichever is less.

Escorting fighter attack as usual, 1 unit get 1 roll.
Based on 1942.2, I will keep @1 First Strike
Based on G40 rule, if Interceptor has D1, then A1.

(I really wonder why I haven’t think about it, even back in the old thread about StB spam strategy. :?)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31373.0

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.

US 11: I think it should be “place” 1 Infantry for free -vs- “pay” 1 Infantry for free in China

–---------yes tekkyy typo again.