Balance Idea: Remove the Gibraltar Naval Base

[calvinhobbesliker]

A better idea for balance is this:
Split up the +30 War NO so Japan can reduce it by 10 by taking Alaska or Hawaii
Give Japan and the US an NO for holding some Pacific Islands. This allows Japan to grow stronger if US ignores the Pacific. Also, give Japan 10 ipcs NO every turn it does not occupy FIC and is not at war with the US.

[Kobu]

@oztea:

The gibraltar naval base can not be removed, it is 100% historical.
I think Italy should start with a bomber
Thats it

They can bomb the Gibraltar port between the US and UK turns so the UK cant repair it before the US can use it.
This is historical because Italy bombed both Malta and Gibraltar regularly during the war
This also comes in handy on earler turns to give italy that “slight” advantage it needs.

To balance this there might need to be an AA gun added to Egypt

I usualy buy a bomber on I2 or I3 just so I can start bombing Gibraltar.

You could not bomb it first turn when it is sorely needed, and it’s certainly not a guaranteed thing. When the US is in the war and they are using it to stage all attacks, it would be ridiculously easy to stop the bombing run.

And balance with a free AA gun in Egypt? Now that’s just silly.

[Kobu]

@calvinhobbesliker:

If Italy remains with the two transports, then Egypt and eventually most of Africa will fall, especially with a Sealion and the alpha setup reducing India to 3 planes. If Japan doesn’t attack until turn 4, US can’t move to Z91 until US$, and it will be US5 before they can invade anything. An Italian block of Z92 delays this until US6, by which time, Italy should have a sizable fleet and multiple transports and ground units in Africa.

2. I see nothing historical about the entire royal navy being sunk by submarines and planes. If you’re going to remove the Gibraltar naval base, might as well remove the one on Queensland(since the US never used it to attack the DEI).

The “alpha” setup is just silly in the global context and shouldn’t be considered outside of trying to balance the Pacific game. Italy only has a fighting chance if left with some of it’s navy. It’s certainly not assured even if the UK doesn’t bring over fighters. If you are having trouble holding Africa until the US arrives, you should re-examine your strategies.

Your #2 does not follow.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Kobu:

@calvinhobbesliker:

If Italy remains with the two transports, then Egypt and eventually most of Africa will fall, especially with a Sealion and the alpha setup reducing India to 3 planes. If Japan doesn’t attack until turn 4, US can’t move to Z91 until US$, and it will be US5 before they can invade anything. An Italian block of Z92 delays this until US6, by which time, Italy should have a sizable fleet and multiple transports and ground units in Africa.

2. I see nothing historical about the entire royal navy being sunk by submarines and planes. If you’re going to remove the Gibraltar naval base, might as well remove the one on Queensland(since the US never used it to attack the DEI).

The “alpha” setup is just silly in the global context and shouldn’t be considered outside of trying to balance the Pacific game. Italy only has a fighting chance if left with some of it’s navy. It’s certainly not assured even if the UK doesn’t bring over fighters. If you are having trouble holding Africa until the US arrives, you should re-examine your strategies.

Your #2 does not follow.

Why not? Any setup change should apply to both games.
What does Italy usually do in your games?

#2 is using your argument(Although a base is historical, an ally never used it to take x, so we should remove the base since the game clearly favors the side with said base) and applying it to Queensland.

I posted an alternate balance idea in another thread you posted in.

As for Italy not having a fighting chance without its navy, that is incorrect. It can take Egypt, fly in German planes, and builda minor in Egypt, meaning it no longer needs navy to take Africa. With the NB and the Suez open, Italy can reach down to Tanzania. Additionally, transports in Z97 can invade Sudan. I don’t think you are playing Italy correctly.

[Kobu]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Why not? Any setup change should apply to both games.
What does Italy usually do in your games?

Because the Axis don’t need to be weakened in the global game.

@calvinhobbesliker:

#2 is using your argument(Although a base is historical, an ally never used it to take x, so we should remove the base since the game clearly favors the side with said base) and applying it to Queensland.

I posted the reasons why it should be removed. They are very clear if go back and read the topic. “It’s historical” is not in a good reason to keep it in my opinion. It’s an abstracted game, not a reenactment. I also pointed out that it’s use in this game isn’t historical anyway. The Queensland base does what for balance? Nothing I can see. Removing it does not help out Italy or anything else that needs to be addressed.

I posted an alternate balance idea in another thread you posted in.

@calvinhobbesliker:

As for Italy not having a fighting chance without its navy, that is incorrect. It can take Egypt, fly in German planes, and builda minor in Egypt, meaning it no longer needs navy to take Africa. With the NB and the Suez open, Italy can reach down to Tanzania. Additionally, transports in Z97 can invade Sudan. I don’t think you are playing Italy correctly.

So, let’s say Italy does take Egypt. Let’s not go completely crazy and say they are able to do this on turn 2 and the UK didn’t fly over any planes. Now Germany is risking their fighters on clearing pickets or what? I dunno. So third turn Italy is sailing around with it’s mere two troops and building an IC. Let’s say they’ve made it to Sudan. Hey, just three more turns until they get to South Africa! Maybe those two troops on the transport will get the drop on South Africa with some fighter support. Oh, and the UK apparently didn’t buy anything there…because Germany did Sealion (I’m guessing), which of course cost Germany the game, but whatever. Good job Italy. Now how are you going to stop the US?

[calvinhobbesliker]

Balance does not necessarily mean helping Italy. Removing Queensland NB prevents all the DEI from being reached.

The alpha setup weakens both sides equally, removing the same number of planes from both sides and also removing 2 allied transports and 1 Japanese transport. It reduces the number of Indian planes by 2, which would help Italy.

Germany does not lose the game by doing Sealion. Its multiple transports allow lots of units to be shipped into Russia(for example, into Novgorod or Nenetsia).

If the game is unbalanced, just weaken the US by finding a way to reduce its income or something. Don’t weaken the UK in the only theater it has a chance in.

[calvinhobbesliker]

I’m up for a game to test these ideas. Since you think alpha weakens the axis, I’ll play axis and we can use the alpha setup.

[Imperious Leader]

Move the UK carrier and DD to another location so that it cant attack, or just use my original idea:

Italy is neutral until her turn, sop she cant be attacked. ON her turn SHE begins her war, not England.

[MaherC]

agree that alpha setup has no place in g40.  use the oob setup for global and tweak from there.

[Bigtiti]

@calvinhobbesliker:

I’m up for a game to test these ideas. Since you think alpha weakens the axis, I’ll play axis and we can use the alpha setup.

believe me, calvin is right
the alpha setup removes too many wings from japan
and they really need to wait to round 3 for a decent attack, while with regular setup it can be any time
and germany can only expand into russia, italy a very tiny bit into africa: it’s japan who ‘saves’ the day for axis

[oztea]

@kobu

It doenst matter that you cant bomb it on I1, you only have to bomb it BEFORE the US is using it. and every turn thereafter.

UK cant repair it on the US turn so any US boats there are trapped because they cant get back to the US, or to Italy, or to west germany or norway.

The Gibraltar naval base isnt going anywhere, it is an icon of the United Kingdom simply because it is a naval base.

If you want it gone, bomb it.

[Kobu]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Balance does not necessarily mean helping Italy. Removing Queensland NB prevents all the DEI from being reached.

Weakening the Allies in the Pacific, and the already least effective Ally next to France at that, isn’t going to balance the game at all. It just makes ANZAC a bit less fun to play.

@calvinhobbesliker:

The alpha setup weakens both sides equally, removing the same number of planes from both sides and also removing 2 allied transports and 1 Japanese transport. It reduces the number of Indian planes by 2, which would help Italy.

Not even close.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Germany does not lose the game by doing Sealion. Its multiple transports allow lots of units to be shipped into Russia(for example, into Novgorod or Nenetsia).

Fat lot of good that’s going to do. See the numerous play reports. If you’ve got something that works, make a thread on it and tell us your strategy.

If the game is unbalanced, just weaken the US by finding a way to reduce its income or something. Don’t weaken the UK in the only theater it has a chance in.

A fairer fight between Italian and UK forces is much preferable to this notion of giving something to the UK.

I’m up for a game to test these ideas. Since you think alpha weakens the axis, I’ll play axis and we can use the alpha setup.

What exactly did you want to test? That the Allies simply crush the Axis as the game is today? I think you could get this from basically playing anyone or reading the battle reports. I myself haven’t played online in nearly a decade and don’t really have the time or inclination to do so anymore.

[calvinhobbesliker]

It also prevents the US from using it. Taranto is the only time the UK uses the NB.

Ask jim010 about what to do after Sealion.

Please tell me why “not even close” applies to my statement that the alpha setup weakens both sides equally?

[Kobu]

@Imperious:

Move the UK carrier and DD to another location so that it cant attack, or just use my original idea:

Italy is neutral until her turn, sop she cant be attacked. ON her turn SHE begins her war, not England.

Moving the carrier would work. My idea was to help with both issues of the immediate sinking of the Italian fleet and the immense movement bonus later for the US.

A neutral Italy isn’t a bad idea, however Italy had already declared war at this point. I suppose you could flub it.

[calvinhobbesliker]

How about this: move both the UK Northern fleets and Gibraltar fleets. That allows the bulk of both Italy’s and UK’s fleets to survive. Also, remove the EUS and New Brunswick naval base, so it can’t reach Gib in 1 move

[Kobu]

@oztea:

@kobu

It doenst matter that you cant bomb it on I1, you only have to bomb it BEFORE the US is using it. and every turn thereafter.

UK cant repair it on the US turn so any US boats there are trapped because they cant get back to the US, or to Italy, or to west germany or norway.

The Gibraltar naval base isnt going anywhere, it is an icon of the United Kingdom simply because it is a naval base.

If you want it gone, bomb it.

Germany turn 1 is when you’d want to bomb it to protect the Italian fleet. But that option is not there.

You have less than a 50% of damaging it to the point of uselessness with a single bomber in a single turn. That chance goes down to practically nothing once the US lands forces there. So how does the US fleet get trapped? Unless you are assuming the UK is gone so they aren’t able to repair it, I don’t really understand what your strategy is trying to accomplish.

[Kobu]

@calvinhobbesliker:

It also prevents the US from using it. Taranto is the only time the UK uses the NB.

Ask jim010 about what to do after Sealion.

Please tell me why “not even close” applies to my statement that the alpha setup weakens both sides equally?

It’s meant to balance the Pacific game and it does so by severely scaling back on Japan forces so they can’t just win by declaring war on turn 1. I don’t know why you’d think that would balance the global game when the Axis are already so far behind.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Kobu:

@calvinhobbesliker:

It also prevents the US from using it. Taranto is the only time the UK uses the NB.

Ask jim010 about what to do after Sealion.

Please tell me why “not even close” applies to my statement that the alpha setup weakens both sides equally?

It’s meant to balance the Pacific game and it does so by severely scaling back on Japan forces so they can’t just win by declaring war on turn 1. I don’t know why you’d think that would balance the global game when the Axis are already so far behind.

I didn’t say it balances G40. I said it removes the same things from both sides.

[oztea]

The Italian fleet should be in range of the UK on UK 1.
This is a fact of the game and history.
Italy should face an uphill battle, that is its lot in life.
If it is unharrased, then it becomes a juggernaut

Personally, I dont even do the Taranto raid, Its pointless. Killing those ships at the expense of your own does very little.
There is an even more devious tactic the UK can use on Italy on UK1

[calvinhobbesliker]

@oztea:

The Italian fleet should be in range of the UK on UK 1.
This is a fact of the game and history.
Italy should face an uphill battle, that is its lot in life.
If it is unharrased, then it becomes a juggernaut

Personally, I dont even do the Taranto raid, Its pointless. Killing those ships at the expense of your own does very little.
There is an even more devious tactic the UK can use on Italy on UK1

What is that devious tactic?