Note that Free France may only declare war on Italy if it has declared war on another nation during the game (Free France NRS v3.2).
Planes must end their movement at an airfield
-
Huh ? What ?
-
@gen-manstein This could be an optional rule for Major and minor airbases, that’s all.
-
@gen-manstein Because you could “Stun Lock” planes from moving away from a land zone by bombing their airfields. And if you want to get realistic, its easy for a plane to take off, the hard part is landing it in one piece.
-
So if the Airbase is damaged you can land plane/s but you can’t scramble plane/s ?
This should go one way or the other. -
@gen-manstein Added in some scramble rules for damaged air bases. What you said makes sense. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
@athawulf I think a house rule could be that each territory without an airbase can land/ take off as many planes (only 1 strategic or heavy bomber can land per territory) as its IPP value. to add more landing capability, you can add airfields. This also is the amount of planes that would be able to fight in combat
minor airfield
cost: 2 IPP
Lands or takes off 1 tactical, medium bomber or fighter.
Maxi damage: 2
can’t take off/ land unless is fully repairedMajor airfield
cost 4 IPP
Lands/ takes off 3 aircraft of any type.
max damage: 6 and subtracts one takeoff/ landing each damage -
@david-06
I like your thought on built in airfields, but it does have some annoying effects. For instance, Transcaucasia, which didn’t have great airfields, is worth 5.
Not trying to bash your idea, but just pointing out problems. -
@trig What if the amount of Landing/ taking off is also based on which railroad area they are in, such as Europe/USSR? But honestly, if people are going ahead with this house rule, I think people could sacrifice some historical accuracy for simplicity. I wouldn’t want to place down every single time I play with this expansion 50 more airfields with this expansion.
-
You ask for thoughts. Here is some Free advice from an old veteran if you wish to ever have a career as a game designer. 😉 I don’t mean to discourage you.
With all respect, I don’t feel like writing an essay why these rules you propose would not work, so I will try to keep it short. But believe me, they bring neither flavor nor simplicity (or a fun complexity) to the game. Instead they create problems that experienced players and designers can identify without playtesting. So please take my advice. You need to try and improve game mechanics, not break them.
Ask yourself; what will the bases compete with regarding spending IPP and will for example strat bombers be more attractive to buy or not? Factors you seem to not take into account, but are important for such ideas to become valuable in a game or in house rules. That is it in a nutshell.
Possibly you don’t have someone in your group that is experienced enough to help you with this, so it is good of you to ask the question here. Keep trying! And find someone who can teach you in this. Your group and the community can eventually benefit from good house ruling so I encourage you to continue your quest. But I really suggest to first solve the issues presented, before investing time in playtesting these rules as they are. Saves you a lot of time.
-
@delaja While I am neither a game designer or profess to be one, your post does not tell me anything I don’t already know. This “suggested” house rule was only meant to spark some interest in adding minor and major airbases to the game like ports, docks, and shipyards and using planes in a somewhat realistic fashion. The house rule was intended for someone like yourself, a “veteran game designer”, to perhaps add in things that ‘could work’ not theoretical things that might work. So if you want to add value to this post, please rewrite or add suggestions for the house rule for players out there that would like to see minor and major airbases in the game. I appreciate the feedback and encouragement though.
Suggested Topics
