@SAS:
I understand you point of view. Unfortunately the chart is already 9 1/2" by 16 3/4" (slightly bigger than the old AAP income chart) and I’m not sure I am willing to make it any bigger. I would prefer the chart going to 100 but its already pretty massive.
I am open to suggestions.
Well here’s what I was thinking, your current chart is 5 roundels deep by 15 roundels wide, funcioneta suggested on another thread that doing a chart with a section for 1s and 10s would save space so why not start by setting the chart up like this:
0 5 10 60
1 6 20 70
2 7 30 80
3 8 40 90
4 9 50 100We already know that Europe comes with two Union Jack roundels for UK Pacific, so you would just put one on the 10 and one on the 6 and you’ve got the UK Pacific income.
However, this tiny chart would get really crowded with 10 powers (counting UK Europe and UK Pacific as separate since they are on the income chart) with 2 roundels each on the board, plus we’ve only used 4 of the 15 columns you currently have, so we could potentially even have 3 of these charts: one for the 3 Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan), one for the 3 major Allied powers (USSR, UK Europe, USA), and one for the 4 minor Allied powers (UK Pacific, ANZAC, China, France).
The last chart for the minor powers could even only include 0-9 and 10 and 20, since one of these powers would have to get really lucky to be earning more than 30 in a game. This would leave plenty of room for extra NOs and such. 8-)
I disagree. With so few numbers, a lot of powers would be on top of each other, which is always annoying to me when changing income and such.
@The:
I disagree. With so few numbers, a lot of powers would be on top of each other, which is always annoying to me when changing income and such.
Which is why I suggest using 3 charts. Though I suppose the minor powers chart would have all 4 of them having 1 roundel on the 10 space. :| However, you still have powers overlapping with a typical chart anyway. You could always group the powers differently so as to avoid extra overlap. Such as Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan), Allies 1 (UKE, UKP, USA, France), and Allies 2 (USSR, China, ANZAC). That way you would only have at most 2 minor powers that would have the likely possibility of overlapping, plus each chart has a power that is likely to go below 10 relatively quickly (France and China) decreasing the amount of overlap further.
Perhaps this makes it overly complicated, but it’s what I came up with for making the chart go to 100 without increasing the size.
Alternately it could be 4 rows with 5 columns each, 3 charts. Then it would be the same width as previously, but you gain a row for NOs.
Axis Allies 1 Allies 2
0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70
1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80
2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90
3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100
I suppose that would work, although my stubbornness says keep it the same.
Hey, I kinda like having individual numbers too, but it certainly does take up a lot of space on a card (or the board ala Spring 1942). Besides, it’s just a suggestion; it’s all up to Bob.
I’m also not sure of the actual value of taking up so much space having a separate roundel space for each German territory the Soviets might get an NO for, it seems to me that it’s probable that they won’t get more than one or two boosts from that NO toward the end of the game (if at all if Japan decides to harrass them in Siberia); though again we run into how to mark each instance on the board… :|
@SAS:
@The:
I disagree. With so few numbers, a lot of powers would be on top of each other, which is always annoying to me when changing income and such.
Which is why I suggest using 3 charts. Though I suppose the minor powers chart would have all 4 of them having 1 roundel on the 10 space. :| However, you still have powers overlapping with a typical chart anyway. You could always group the powers differently so as to avoid extra overlap. Such as Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan), Allies 1 (UKE, UKP, USA, France), and Allies 2 (USSR, China, ANZAC). That way you would only have at most 2 minor powers that would have the likely possibility of overlapping, plus each chart has a power that is likely to go below 10 relatively quickly (France and China) decreasing the amount of overlap further.
Perhaps this makes it overly complicated, but it’s what I came up with for making the chart go to 100 without increasing the size.
Alternately it could be 4 rows with 5 columns each, 3 charts. Then it would be the same width as previously, but you gain a row for NOs.
Axis Allies 1 Allies 2
0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70
1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80
2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90
3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100
Interesting idea. but I think the group consensus is to stay with the current style. So no radical changes today. Great idea though.
Long Range aircraft only increases range by 1. And with heavy bombers you pick the better of two dice. Its seems much more balanced now.
My home version has been updated.
Do you know the the Increased factory production rules? My current version is just a guess.
Is Jet fighters correct?
UPDATE: August 10, 2010
Here are the low resolution screenshots based on additional information and corrections submitted by those who played the game at Gen-Con.
Thanks for everyone who has helped. As always if you notice any errors or inconsistencies please let me know.
P.S. I am already working on the Diplomacy / Nation Specific rules charts. Once again these will be based on information available. An official release will be issued after I read and review the rulebook.
[Charts have been updated. See first thread entry.]
Jet fighters is correct. So is increased factory production, except it also allows you to repair at half cost.
Back too the +5 Soviet NO, another condition is that sea zone 125 is free of enemy warships ships.
Jet fighters is correct. So is increased factory production, except it also allows you to repair at half cost.
So do the 1/2 cost damage repairs apply to all facilities or just industrial complexes?
Back too the +5 Soviet NO, another condition is that sea zone 125 is free of enemy warships ships
That NO keeps getting harder and harder to fit in the space provided.
@SAS:
@The:
I disagree. With so few numbers, a lot of powers would be on top of each other, which is always annoying to me when changing income and such.
Which is why I suggest using 3 charts. Though I suppose the minor powers chart would have all 4 of them having 1 roundel on the 10 space. :| However, you still have powers overlapping with a typical chart anyway. You could always group the powers differently so as to avoid extra overlap. Such as Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan), Allies 1 (UKE, UKP, USA, France), and Allies 2 (USSR, China, ANZAC). That way you would only have at most 2 minor powers that would have the likely possibility of overlapping, plus each chart has a power that is likely to go below 10 relatively quickly (France and China) decreasing the amount of overlap further.
Perhaps this makes it overly complicated, but it’s what I came up with for making the chart go to 100 without increasing the size.
Alternately it could be 4 rows with 5 columns each, 3 charts. Then it would be the same width as previously, but you gain a row for NOs.
Axis Allies 1 Allies 2
0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70 0 4 8 30 70
1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80 1 5 9 40 80
2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90 2 6 10 50 90
3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100 3 7 20 60 100Interesting idea. but I think the group consensus is to stay with the current style. So no radical changes today. Great idea though.
Long Range aircraft only increases range by 1. And with heavy bombers you pick the better of two dice. Its seems much more balanced now.
My home version has been updated.
Do you know the the Increased factory production rules? My current version is just a guess.
Is Jet fighters correct?
What if instead of the charts, you have National Control markers with a number in the 10’s layered on top of the marker that could be added to the current production space.
Example: the US exceeds 75IPCs on the National Production Chart; it gained 10 IPCs in conquered territory.
US National Control Marker with a ‘(10)’, is placed over the 75 IPC limit giving it a sum of 85 IPCs
Shouldn’t the Union Jack be used for Britain proper since it IS their flag?
Shouldn’t the Union Jack be used for Britain proper since it IS their flag?
I thought it would be that way also.
They should’ve used the RAF Roundel with the red centre painted out - to avoid confusion with Japanese sun symbol for short sighted American pilots.
I like the LRA change. Improved Mech inf was what I thought it was. Are war bonds and better artillery still weak?
They should’ve used the RAF Roundel with the red centre painted out - to avoid confusion with Japanese sun symbol for short sighted American pilots.
Or color blind ones? :wink:
Could somebody please type out the Global NOs? The Mediafire link appears to be broken.
Could somebody please type out the Global NOs? The Mediafire link appears to be broken.
Germany: 5 for not being at war w/Russia, 5 for controlling Denmark and Norway and Sweden being neutral or axis, 5 for each Russia VC controlled by Germany
Russia: 6 for each original German tt controlled if all red tt are controlled, 5 if Archangel and its SZ are friendly and no allied units in red tt
Japan: 5 for DEI, 5 for each of India, NSW, and Hawaii
UK: 5 for no axis subs in Atlantic(excluding Med and Baltic), 5 for allies having all original ANZAC and Canadian tt
ANZAC: 5 for having all original ANZAC tt and allies having Malaya
Italy: 5 for Med free of allies surface warships, 5 for Italy controlling Southern France, Egypt, and Greece
US: 30 when at war
China: 6 for Burma Road
France-4 inf in Paris if it’s liberated for the 1st time
I forgot: Russia gets 5 for being at war with Germany/Italy
Wait, so you’re saying that the At War NO and the Archangelsk/no Allies/sz 127 NO are separate, correct Calvin? That’s what I thought, but Bob has them combined into one on the card currently… Anyone know if these are two separate Russian NOs or one single?
@SAS:
Wait, so you’re saying that the At War NO and the Archangelsk/no Allies/sz 127 NO are separate, correct Calvin? That’s what I thought, but Bob has them combined into one on the card currently… Anyone know if these are two separate Russian NOs or one single?
Well, I got them from separate sources. The archangel NO was from Larry’s previews. The war NO was from Emperor Taiki’s GenCon memories.
Ok, it kinda makes sense to me for them to be separate, but it may not be. Regardless, we need a confirmation so Bob can know if he can fit the text on the card!
