Balancing National Advantages

It’s “Canadian Shield” on Caspian Sub.

The original writeup was “Operation Hollywood” by a non-Caspian sub player.

I’m teaching my cousin how to play I was the Axis b/c he was born in England and moved to Canada so he was die hard about having the UK any way I gave him a bid last time b/c he got wasted the time before I gave him 15 IPC’s to use for any allied country. I wasn’t worried b/c I thought he would buy a US Pacific Navy. Instead he bought 5 INF and put them in Moscow. Needless to say that slowed down the Axis advance early on.

I like your idea about mixing it up. Keeps them on there toes. he he

-LT04

Thanks for the link. Wow, the Japanese Battleships are amazing, and I am glad that superfortresses are nolonger immune to AA fire. I will definintly use these rules. Thanks agian.

I have to agree with Duke that Germany is the hardest to play :D

@frimmel:

The fugo raid seems a little unrealistic as according to the history you have supplied they did not stop any war production. So 10 and a turn of mobilizing is seriously out of line. Particularly since you get to choose its use, say the turn before a move towards LA? It seems overpowered both in game terms and historical terms. Perhaps if that were changed to some form of SBR? Can’t get shot down and roll a dice minus one (one min) of loss?  Maybe in some other form but the no mobilization is certainly too much.

Wow, this was an old one! You are right! The Fugo Raid is over powered as is, but I skipped it in my revised NAs!

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!

U-Boat Program it is! Or is there any other thoughts of how one can replace or revise the Wolf pack advantage??? :o

@Guerrilla:

Sounds like fun… I’ll try a solo (or 1on1) game this sat (unless I have something going…) to playtest for you (or us :wink: )

GG

Well GG, how did it all work out? Did you win or just win! :wink: