[AA50 & AA42.2] Redeploy non-capital starting ICs

:lol:

Why are capital ships (Carriers in 1940 and Battleships) repaired at no cost and taking no time? I think they should be forced to sit out for a turn while repairs are carried out. I can live with it being no cost though.

Or does that weaken Battleships too much? You still need carriers.

@Larrie:

Wow, things can really get out of hand, can’t they? First of all, I stand corrected, but only to a point. What I mean by that is, Baron, you are correct, all planes would be defending, therefore they would be in the air to begin with. What I was still trying to address is the statement, Cannot carry plane when damaged. That is still incorrect. If say A British carrier has one British and one American fighter on it and is in the attacking force, and it is the British turn, then the American fighter of course would not participate in the attack. It would be relegated to sitting on deck, and if the carrier is subsequently damaged, the American fighter would still be on deck, not able to take off on the American turn. Again I am addressing Cannot carry plane, not anything else.

You were right about this statement, it was too absolute and didn’t accurately describe OOB rule.
That is why I answered by adding the point on friendly aircrafts trapped in a carrier.
But, if your carrier is damaged, it is not possible to trap your own aircrafts inside.
This last point wasn’t clear, especially when subs only are attacking @2 first strike carriers with no destroyer escorting. I returned to the rulebook to be sure about it.

@Baron:

@Larrie:

Baron, I have to disagree with you on the cannot carry plane when damaged statement. They cannot launch or receive planes after being damaged, but if for example a loaded carrier was surprise attacked by a sub and only damaged and not sunk, then I believe the plane(s) would be trapped on the carrier until such time as it was repaired or sunk.

Talking OOB rules, …

On offense, only friendly plane(s) carried on board is/are trapped if the carrier was damaged in combat.

@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.

Give Russia a starting fleet!  :evil:

For use in games when the bosphorus and sz 16 “the Black Sea” is closed to all surface ships (only subs can pass through.)

Add 1 Russian Battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 transport to sz 16.

Add 1 Cruiser and 1 transport to the Caspian sea which becomes a normal sz.

Now the Russians have a little mini fleet of their own! This bolstered Soviet navy gives them a new attack route into Romania and a few chances to conduct annoying bombardments into Ukraine, Romania, Persia or Kazakh!

The fleet is still fairly small, and it can’t “escape” into the open ocean, but it gives the Russians a few more sculpts to play with. Axis still have air attack options against this new Russian navy (and sub attacks in the case of the Black Sea) but it gives them another distraction on the march towards Moscow.

Who knows maybe the Russians could even buy a carrier deck at some point, if they manage to keep their Black Sea fleet alive, for late game transports against G?

Finally because sz 16 is open to subs it is even possible for the Red October to sail all the way from sz 4 to sz 16, to link up with the main fleet! This would serve no real purpose at all, but would surely be deamed a grand accomplishment worthy of Soviet prestige hehe.
:-D

What do you guys think? You like idea of a little Russian naval action?

Well the map is not accurate in this respect, but Shanghai would be Japanese original. If it was up to me the VC should be in Manchukuo and that other territory held in Chinese control in 1941. Sometimes you have to just do the best of a bad situation.

Cmdr,

TG:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.  So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.

I disagree.  One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle.  If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.

Secondly, I’m all about simplicity.  Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.

Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

Okay, you clarified it for me.

tekkyy,

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

Agreed.

Joe,

I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.

How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones?  Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources?  Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs?  I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.

Seconded.  +1 for an inventive idea.

That would make a nice NA under ANZAC.

Perhaps the American player can place one infantry in those territories from new units, rather than convert British to American. I am sure the British had troops in this area and would seem your fixing one problem, but creating another under your idea. I think ANZAC should be additional forces, but placement staggered one INF per turn from builds.