G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

@black_elk Rock On !!!.png

heh heh that ought to keep a guy busy

@Yavid:

nations with an “old bb” piece from HBG I’ve replaced improved mech inf. tech with heavy battleship tech. HBG become the standard BB and used at set up and can be purchased until you get the tech. After you get the tech you can buy the OOB battleships as heavy battleships. These Heavy Battleships are 4/4/2/20 units just like standard but take 3 hits to sink and roll two dice in combat taking the best roll and using it.

Interesting idea, though I’m not sure if I want to make it a “tech” thing, especially since all the nations had new BB’s already in production before the war started.  I’d be more inclined to make it a “tech” ability to create a TRUE SBB along the lines of Yamato, Montana or H-class (and perhaps Sovietsky Soyuz, and, perhaps even more arguably Iowa, Vanguard and Lion), of which the Yamato is the only one we’re likely to have a piece for any time soon (and of which only the Yamato was ever actually built)… I might try something along these lines, along with maybe a “super-cruiser” and/or “super-carrier” tech if and when I ever decide to try using some of my painted NAVWAR or Panzerschiffe pieces on a very big map like GW1939… but I don’t see the likelihood of having AA-scale pieces of any of the other true SBB’s any time soon.

Another idea: perhaps old BB’s could be a 3/4/2 unit or a 4/3/2 unit; the rationale here is that the “real world” speed difference may not be enough to make a difference in the category of strategic mobility (which is what speed really represents in game terms, and most especially on the smaller board versions) but rather that the old/new speed difference should be understood as more an issue of “tactical” mobility which could put old BB’s in a combat disadvantage on either defense or offense?  If so, though, in which of the two would the lack of tactical mobility be more important?  I’m leaning toward it being a bigger disadvantage on offense, but I’d be interested in hearing other opinions.

In any case, keep in mind, for all of you out there who plan to use some sort of “old BB” house rules, that classic BB pieces are about perfect for this while we’re waiting for HBG to get to all of the nations’ version of one.  Similarly, the classic version’s carriers are almost perfect for generic CVE’s.  Variable or Coach, do you guys have classic pieces available for these two unit types for most of the relevant nations for those who don’t have oodles of them lying around?

@onetthome:

These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though  :|

I appreciate the compliments from you and from Georgemak!

I’m currently putting the final touches on another rules set–a more advanced one. As is also the case for the rules set under discussion, this rules set is designed with a global war in mind. But that being said, I wouldn’t object to a custom map designer creating a Pacific scenario.

Every time I create a rules set like this, I try to build something generic enough that a custom map designer will have a lot of room in which to work. Working within the general framework, a custom map designer could create his own starting map, nations list, national advantages, disadvantages, and available technologies for each nation, starting unit setup, and other adjustments. The rules set is intended to give map designers plenty of room in which to exercise their creativity.

But my greatest current need is for a software developer. If anyone here is a developer or knows a developer who might be interested in something like this, please PM me.

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

Each nation is established with a basic starting income and this does not change, except by possible investments into the economy to grow it to full war making potential.

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

possible benefits:

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

Here is my changes to the rules for a free for all version.

[attachment deleted by admin]

we play alot of 3 person games with one person as allies and one as germans, the other japan. games usually last around 6 hours or so.It sounds alot more complicated than it really is, if overwhelmed then just try some of it.such as random turnd or pregame spending,or just event cards.