New Idea: barracks

@hengst yea i read through them again. Some cool ideas. The End Points are interesting. Kind of a Railroad type thing. For Land anyway.

Got a couple other things going, but yea, gonna check it out some more :)

I like the idea of Transports as units that are A0 D0 M2 C7 units that haul ground units from one shore to another. I also like the idea of groups of transports, that’s 2 or more transports, have a single collective defense roll of 1 on a d6. The transports would be taken as casualties last but so long as there’s 2 or more, they continue to take potshots @ 1 at their tormentors.

And here I thought I was being unique for having thought that up myself, before I read this thread. Parallel Evolution, I guess.

-Midnight_Reaper

I use a bit different set up in my games. Bombers do well at strategic bombing while still keeping other options.

inf 1/2/1 3Pu AA
art 2/2/1 4Pu AA +1 attack bonus to infantry
arm 3/3/2 5Pu AA blitz

fig 2/2/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at, strategic bomber

sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6Pu
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP

trench 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP, repair, only one can be placed per territory per round.

Also,  I’ve been toying with the idea to allow a player to build MULTIPLE Naval Bases / Sea Defense Fortifications in the same territory.

This would hence compound their effects.  So lets say in Gibraltar, 2 or even 3 NBs could be stacked.  This would allow the defender to make rolls for each operational base.  Defender could apply damage from bombing raids as desired among the bases present.

Any thoughts regarding this?

Nice ideas. Thanks for posting. You have probably seen that many here do the same thing.

@Black_Elk:

it becomes a full mod and an entirely new game.

Here’s a radical suggestion which you might want to consider – either as a practical project, or just as a way to generate some out-of-the-box lateral thinking.

There are many aspects of the Global 1940 game (and of other A&A games) over which people have expressed dissatisfaction and for which they’ve proposed house rule alternatives.  Some of these proposals have targeted just one or two specific game elements and have involved changes of a very modest nature (such as adjusting the turn order and nothing else).  Other proposals have been more wide-ranging in scope and more intricate in nature.  Generally speaking, however, all of these proposals have operated under an implicit restriction: trying to stick as closely as possible to the OOB game in order to keep things recognizable.  It’s a valid design principle, with the advantage that it makes proposed changes acceptable to a broader base of players, but the downside is that it acts as a straightjacket: it severely limits what you can change.

So here’s an alternative you might want to think about: remove the self-imposed restiction of needing to come up with the same game.  Rather than starting from the premise that the end result of the design process has to be a game which is essentially the same as G40, eliminate this predetermined end result from the equation.  Instead, draw up an inventory of: 1) all the things about the game that you absolutely want to keep; 2) all the things that you’d be flexibily prepared to either keep or modify or discard, depending on what works best; and 3) all the things that you feel don’t work properly in the OOB rules and that you feel absolutely must be improved or replaced, whether by minor tinkering or total reconceptualization.  Then try to come up with a redesigned version of the game that addresses all of your issues and which works well on its own terms, regardless of how closely it adheres to the OOB game or how far it deviates from it.

The thing to keep in mind here is that, in the redesign of any existing system, you can only make so many adjustments to the system while sticking to its original basic architecture.  Beyond a certain point, the original architecture becomes a constaining factor rather than a help, and instead of an improved version you end up with something that’s even clunkier than the unsatisfactory version which you were trying to fix in the first place.  So beyond a certain point, you have to throw out that constraining architecture, start with a clean slate, focus on the specific things you’re trying to achieve, find the solutions which achieve your aims, and then let those solutions dictate the eventual new architecture of the revised system.

@tekkyy:

Yeah radar is so powerful.
Besides end game move, when would you ever bring air units to a radar territory?

When I want too.  AA Guns don’t scare me.

And if they did, just get Jets and become almost immune. (Not immune to radar, but it negates it bringing it back to normal.)

@Loki:

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don’t know.

Its fun playing like this, definetely makes Germany better, but also helps the Soviets repel the Japs and Nazis after they move into one of their territories and it keeps Tanks with a def of 2, which means the enemy will probably use their fighters to bomb them when the bulk of your infantry is in the next territory blocking the enemy from hitting your tanks. I dont see tanks as a 3/3 unless they’re the heavier versions that appeared towards the end of the war (tigers/IS-2’s etc…)