Sorry for the screw-up re posted.
Possible Changes from Larry
-
Just a few thoughts, peoples.
Jesus, what a lot of changes… Italy, 1 sub to BOTH SZ 95 and 97 instead of 2 SS in SZ 95 tho?.. WAAAH, I want my battleship as Italy! 1 sub is NOT going to deter the UK! Put both those subs in SZ 95, I could care less about SZ 97; those units never do sh*t in the counterattack I1 for me anyway.
NOs, holy crap, what a mess. Do the original NOs still count in most of these cases? Japan can now get up to +25 a turn if they also control most of the Pacific now… US kinda HAS to go after the Pacific too to get its +30 now too, I like it. Still, the 70+ IPCs the US has a turn to throw at Europe, bummer. Probably still needs a nerf.
Also, no building major ICs on FOREIGN territories… Japan starts out with Kiangsu, no major IC there, since its original owner is China? Can we get a clarification on this? How in hell is Japan supposed to reinforce S. E. Asia without a major IC somewhere (3 minors, maybe, that cost more and are less effective? FIC, Kiangsu, Manchuria, Malaya, Shantung? Ugh… Oh boy let’s build a Major IC in Korea… oh wait lets not.)? It already is bad enough with not being able to raise new units on the money islands.
UK in exile rule, well, that REALLY throws the Axis from attempting a Sealion. Wow, instead of risking 3 turns of production PLUS France’s captured IPCs to GAMBLE on POSSIBLY removing 30+ IPCs from the game board PERMANENTLY, FOR THE REST OF THE GAME (which is STILL a gamble with the US counterattacking), we now have a UK rump state in Canada which can still produce units under the benevolent 70+ US IPC GOD umbrella, not to mention them still causing a hassle for Italy from units produced in S. Africa. NO THANKS. “Sealion will be scrapped most games in favor of heavy Barbarossa”? Really? Hell, only an idiot would try Sealion now. UK’s new strategy may be to PROVOKE a Sealion attack since they know it barely scratches them in the long term (oh big whup, Germany risks 100+ IPCs and irreplaceable starting units to take 30-40 UK IPCs and jolly old Britain is STILL producing 20-25 IPCs 2 turns later on from Ottawa. Woohoo let’s start the 10 TRN build on G2! Any takers, I’ll play Allies. :-D At least the new Nenetsia strategy against Russia will work still, so Germany still has a reason to build some transports…) PEOPLE, COME ON! You just gave the US a NEW +20-25 NO for LOSING the UNITED KINGDOM now!
Boooo, to the new UK capital capture rule. Also, let’s touch on the True Neutrals a bit. How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or Region) to become Pro-other side”? Like Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden is going to make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention recruit for FREE their entire standing army)? Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side. Sounds like those would be good changes to me…
Thanks for your time, hope some of these ideas will be reconsidered.
-
Ugh. Royal Navy already dies, according to your changes all of Italy’s fleet survives to capture Africa, and you complain that the UK be given the chance to do something when London is captured, especially since it is impossible to prevent London’s capture?
-
Thank God for the AA Gun rule change. That drove me nuts!!! Nobody would abandon a fully functional gun as gift for the enemy. Occasionaly I will buy an extra AA gun to move to the front- especally if an opponent goes Lufftwaffe crazy on me. Thank you Larry!
-
Ugh. Royal Navy already dies, according to your changes all of Italy’s fleet survives to capture Africa, and you complain that the UK be given the chance to do something when London is captured, especially since it is impossible to prevent London’s capture?
What are you taking about? They just beefed up London’s defense by 2 infantry, and gave them another +5 NO for at least UK1, if not UK2, with the new “+10 for Japs not at war” NO. That’s at least another fighter the UK can build there to defend with. Germany will still have to pay up the wazoo to build all the transports, AND defend them against the US, and all they got was a fighter in return (which is nice, but some way to hit Gibraltar’s NB or SZ 91 would have been better). The USSR will be attacking like nobody’s business whenever Germany tries Sealion, and the US can still swing its Pacific fleet around at the drop of a hat to the Caribbean. Sealion is still incredibly risky even WITHOUT the alternate capital rule. Basically, it seems that the UK can act as two free planes + change a turn after Turn 4 for the US.
So, if Britain is able to do a rump state, why can’t Soviet Russia form one behind the Urals after Moscow falls? Why doesn’t Germany form a new capital based in S. or W. Germany after it falls? How is risking transports to take England on G3 or perhaps G4 ANY DIFFERENT from crushing Moscow on G6 or G7? The capital rules NEED TO STAND, if nothing else than to give the game solid objectives and REASONS for people RISKING IPCs on various units. Otherwise this game just becomes a big Yahtzee Infantry Push Mechanic, where we can see who can roll the most 1s or 2s defending their stacks. UK falling on G3 is NOT the end of the game, calvin (well, maybe in E40, but not in Global). You need to see it as an OPPORTUNITY for BOTH sides, rather than THE END.
-
I’m not complaining that Sealion breaks the game; rather that it makes the UK very boring.
-
I’m not complaining that Sealion breaks the game; rather that it makes the UK very boring.
When was the UK’s job in any game NOT boring? It always gets hammered by the Luftwaffe in EVERY A+A game on G1, before it has a chance to consolidate its spread-out fleet. If A+A implemented a unit cap on how many units can potentially be in any given area/SZ, we’d have a much cooler game on our hands here (with a LOT more combat). At least you can say in this game that going after the Luftwaffe potentially means a LOT more casaulties in France.
Heh, Africa is still entertaining. Watching the Italians bumble around helplessly like they always do for the first few rounds is fun to watch.
-
I’m not complaining that Sealion breaks the game; rather that it makes the UK very boring.
When was the UK’s job in any game NOT boring? It always gets hammered by the Luftwaffe in EVERY A+A game on G1, before it has a chance to consolidate its spread-out fleet. If A+A implemented a unit cap on how many units can potentially be in any given area/SZ, we’d have a much cooler game on our hands here (with a LOT more combat). At least you can say in this game that going after the Luftwaffe potentially means a LOT more casaulties in France.
Heh, Africa is still entertaining. Watching the Italians bumble around helplessly like they always do for the first few rounds is fun to watch.
I don’t really like that, which is why I complain.
Problem with Africa is that UK doesn’t have enough troops there if it looses its capital. Unless it flies in Indian planes, every trading of Egypt whittles down its forces.
-
Hell, if the UK loses its capital and can’t liberate, its pretty much game over in Africa until the US gets there. Italy will be getting 30+ IPCs a round whereas Africa is getting zero. So the US better not have been sleeping at the switch for a US 4 takeback.
If Japan completely screws up in the Pacific there’s a chance the Commonwealth from India can have some fun taking it back, but this is usually not the case since India is usually Japan’s no. 1 target.
-
Arent the Italian subs ‘unofficial’? Our member put some *'s there to indicate he was suggesting the new subs. Larry did not siggest them.
-
The changes all seem great, with one or two exceptions:
**1) UK 2nd capital in ottawa - as explained in great detail by sgtBlitz, it nerfs the Sealion strategy completely. Taking euroUK’s only capital and stopping their war contribution is the only reason to Sealion, otherwise the UK isles hv little strategic value for axis. It really is just that simple. If the euroUK is taken out of the war, the UK player still has India to play. If that’s taken too, then they can try to cajole the USA player to liberate London to hv another player rejoin the allies’ ranks. Seems perfectly fair to me.The major problem with the OOB global game seems to consistently be that for evenly matched (namely good/experienced) players, it is v v hard for the axis to win. Hence the axis really dont need to be nerfed too much. That’s not to say don’t touch them at all if the errata’s altering many things - maybe the axis need a bit of a change to aid the rebalancing of the allies, etc. But there’s little point altering the OOB setup if it doesn’t address this fundamental problem as it currently seems to stand (only 3-4 months after release, admittedly)
**2) The overall potential increase to USA NO’s. Basically, the +20 base alone still places USA at a sufficiently high level to waltz over in 4-6 turns and smash the euroAxis. The +10 for the collection of 7 islands is a great idea. +5 for the 3 pairs of islands may be ok, but could add too much to the USA. Maybe it’s better to only use a +10 base and maintain the other proposals. That way if the USA maintains the Pacific theatre, it could get +35 ipcs - 5 more than the OOB - and if it doesn’t, then its only getting +10 (or maybe a little more if Japan’s lazy).
WRT my earlier point abt it already being tough for the axis, its mainly because the USA comes over to europe and takes berlin. And w relative ease - even if the first wave dies, the second or third does the job shortly afterwards. 70 ipcs is still enuff to do this . This is especially so because those 70 ipcs is almost impossible to reduce. Sure the other powers can accrue high incomes, but all of them are somewhat vulnerable to being shaved down. Not so the USA. That’s why i think Larry’s general proposals are awesome to rebalance things; i’d just go a bit further. Maybe the new victory conditions will address this issue effectively and so his NO’s are fine. Time will tell. I’d suspect tho, that it will take Japan many turns to take India, then Sydney, then Honolulu. I’d guess J7 optimistically; so US5 should make a dent on europe, then 1-2 turns to drop a fleet in hawaii… etc
That said, v v happy w almost all of the other changes. Esp the victory conditions and the new NO’s (esp esp in the pacific). The extras suggested by oztea et al - namely the 2 subs in sz95 would be well worthwhile.
Two other possible additions:
- Add a few more seazones in the Atlantic - eg: split sz 102, 90, 88 each into 2 seazones.
- Remove the bases in Gibraltar.
-
The changes all seem great, with one or two exceptions:
**1) UK 2nd capital in ottawa - as explained in great detail by sgtBlitz, it nerfs the Sealion strategy completely. Taking euroUK’s only capital and stopping their war contribution is the only reason to Sealion, otherwise the UK isles hv little strategic value for axis. It really is just that simple. If the euroUK is taken out of the war, the UK player still has India to play. If that’s taken too, then they can try to cajole the USA player to liberate London to hv another player rejoin the allies’ ranks. Seems perfectly fair to me.Well, what if UK in exile would only receive IPC’s from Canadian territory? That way they get 6 IPC.
They’re not really in the game anymore (still attractive enough for Sealion), but Canada isn’t completely defenseless as well. -
Hypotetical case:
New USA’s NO: the Enterprise. If, being at war, USA holds Hawaii, Alaska, Midway and the Aleutians, USA gets the Enterprise for free! (one time NO). But wait, it’s 24th century’s USS Enterprise, with Jean L. Picard, Data, orbital bombardments, phasers, fancy high-tech weapons and even a DVD of the series! . In game terms, 24th century’s Enterprise is a 5/5 unit that repeat rolls, has 10 hits, is inmune to aa gun fire (and all other units must roll at 1s and repeat the succesfull rolls) and counts as land, sea and air unit, all in the same basket (it’s even a submarine, a trannie and a mayor IC)! You can deploy the Enterprise at any place in Pacific board, even in enemy, neutral or impassable territories. If any turn USA doesn’t buy any boats at the Pacific board, remove the Enterprise from the game forever
Sad fact:
Even with that imaginary NO, many would still say that there is not much incentive to fight for the Pacific
-
Techno, how is 70 ipcs enough to kill the Euro Axis? Germany will have about that amount of money, and it only needs to spend 6 ipcs for every 14 ipcs the US spends(2 inf vs inf, art, Transport), leaving it with plenty to fight Russia. Seriously, what in the world are Japan and Germany doing
-
Techno, how is 70 ipcs enough to kill the Euro Axis? Germany will have about that amount of money, and it only needs to spend 6 ipcs for every 14 ipcs the US spends(2 inf vs inf, art, Transport), leaving it with plenty to fight Russia. Seriously, what in the world are Japan and Germany doing
I was asking myself the same thing…
-
@SalothSar:
When are these changes coming out?
Define “coming out.”
-
Thank you oztea for listing the changes that were introduced by Larry Harris. One thing that was not listed though was Larry’s proposal for minor industrial complexes in the US:
Larry Harris - “Another important concept under consideration is to change both US Industrial Complexes to minors. The US player can, without expense, up grade them during the first Mobilize New Units phase following the event of war. They can only be used as majors on the following turn.”
Do people think that this will not be one of the changes? If this will be implemented, then what does Larry mean by both US Industrial Complexes since US has three Major Complexes? I am assuming he meant EUS and WUS.
-
In fact, I think that the CUSA IC should be deleted. Any thing that speeds up the invasion of America in case of a ignore Japan strat is good
-
Hypotetical case:
New USA’s NO: the Enterprise. If, being at war, USA holds Hawaii, Alaska, Midway and the Aleutians, USA gets the Enterprise for free! (one time NO). But wait, it’s 24th century’s USS Enterprise, with Jean L. Picard, Data, orbital bombardments, phasers, fancy high-tech weapons and even a DVD of the series! . In game terms, 24th century’s Enterprise is a 5/5 unit that repeat rolls, has 10 hits, is inmune to aa gun fire (and all other units must roll at 1s and repeat the succesfull rolls) and counts as land, sea and air unit, all in the same basket (it’s even a submarine, a trannie and a mayor IC)! You can deploy the Enterprise at any place in Pacific board, even in enemy, neutral or impassable territories. If any turn USA doesn’t buy any boats at the Pacific board, remove the Enterprise from the game forever
Sad fact:
Even with that imaginary NO, many would still say that there is not much incentive to fight for the Pacific
With the game ending if Japan claim their victory cities, I think that would be incentive enough.:)
-
Some people are saying that is enough with holding Hawaii and ignoring the rest (with a goal of 7 VCs)… go figure how strong is the KGF dogma
-
Some people are saying that is enough with holding Hawaii and ignoring the rest (with a goal of 7 VCs)… go figure how strong is the KGF dogma
6 victory city… 7 it’s too hard for Japan.
Suggested Topics
