What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?

[gamerman01]

@MrRoboto:

That, in addition to that weird China rule, will make life in pacific even harder. How is China supposed to even remotely defend itself now?

You have a point.  But it’s very easily solveable.  We can take away an infantry or 2 from Japan.

Japan has 8 ground units in Kiangsi and Kwangsi.
Russia has 7 ground units in 3 territories along the Russian front.
Again, I think there is some slight imbalance between the E40 and P40 games, with P40 having more units.

[gamerman01]

I don’t think the China rule placement restriction is weird.  In AA50 you couldn’t place ANY units in a territory that already had 2-3 Chinese infantry in it.  This rule of placing no more than 2 infantry in a territory at once is very attractive, I think.

Remember the rule book points out that China is in civil war.  So they should not be able to coordinate attacks and build up so easily.  I’m not even sure I’m in favor of the “flying tigers”.  That’s some serious cheese right there, isn’t it?

According to Wikipedia, the flying tigers were active from 12/20/41 to 7/14/42.  So they shouldn’t even exist at start up.  Furthermore, if there is a Chinese fighter representing the “flying tigers” they shouldn’t be able to support ground attacks of Chinese infantry.  A quick review in wikipedia reveals that the tigers were extremely successful in their campaign against Japanese aircraft.  How often does the Chinese fighter in G40 destroy a Japanese plane?  Almost never.  The flying tigers helped defend and shoot down bombers that were doing SBR’s.  So it makes more sense that the flying tigers would enter the game in round 2 or 3 or something and sit in India, defending against SBR’s as an interceptor.  So instead of a fighter piece, perhaps the Allies should have a piece similar to kamikazes that can be used against Japanese air attacks in China and South Asia and that would represent the flying tigers.

Yes, I like this idea a lot, because it is not only much more historically accurate and less cheesy, but it gives the Allies something comparable to the kamikazes.

[variance]

too bad China can’t have AA guns

[toblerone77]

Gamerman, you have some pretty good ideas. My variant is pretty drastic in many ways and will have a really niche following if at all.

@ Varience, good topic! Don’t mean to de-rail your thread. Sorry.

[gamerman01]

@variance:

too bad China can’t have AA guns

Actually I’m thinking the chits (2?) for flying tigers will work like surprise AA guns that would hit Japanese aircraft.

And it’s not too hard for the UK or USSR to get AA guns into China…

[MrRoboto]

@Gamerman01:

Remember that UK Pacific is going to have more income

Yes UK Pac will have more Income. But in your rule UK Pac has less income than UK-Pac + Anzac at the moment, since you’re reducing the value of the Australian territories. And on top of that, the allies won’t get the 5 bonus income from the Anzac NO (Guinea+Solomon+New Britain)

Overall, that’s a reduce in Allied IPC in the pacific.

Japan couldn’t care less, if it has 2 less tacs against China. It has such a huge amount of aircraft. These vast Aircraft numbers are only needed in the war against the US+Anzac navy. For supporting the ground troops in China, only a few planes would suffice.

China will not be able to stack in Szechwan as easily to recapture Yunnan for the Burma road. In fact, since you’re forcing China to spread out with the max-2-infantry-rule, Japan will easily be able to thin out the Chinese infantry even faster. It’s never good for the defender to spread forces.

I still don’t agree with your cruiser assessment.

18 cruisers = 11 battleships in cost.
18 cruiser = 18hp, 54 power.
11 battleships = 22hp, 44 power.

So that’s 25% less damage than cruisers, while having ~22% more hp. While the cruisers may do more dmg in the first round, the battleships will do WAY more damage in the following rounds, since you can tip them. Battleships are obviously stronger.

8 cruisers = 11 destroyers in cost.
8 cruisers = 8 hp, 24 power
11 destroyers = 11 hp, 22 power

Now that’s even more obvious. Destroyers have 37.5% more hp while having only 8.3% less power. Additionally they can more easily be used as blockers, cannon fodder and anti-submarine, while cruisers only have bombard (rarely used, and even more rarely needed).

No one who gets his math straight will be buying cruisers, even with a reduced cost of 11.

[MrRoboto]

What would happen is, that Japan rushes through China faster with your rule, conquering most of it before USA can enter the war.

Additionally the Japanese fleet will position itself somewhere in the near of Philippines, FIC or whatever, forcing UK PAC to decide what to defend. This makes Japan’s life even easier, since it can and will attack the weak spot -> probably being India, since you’re reducing the factory there to a minor (why would you do that anyway? I’ve not seen anyone so far, who has a problem with that major).

And since Anzac is no playable power anymore, you’re additionally eliminating the option of another block-clearer. At the moment, USAAND UK can clear destroyers blocks for anzac landings.

Most of your propositions are reasonable, in a historic context. I understand and agree with the reasons you’re stating (flying tigers, chinese revolution etc), to all of the changes. However, you’re not compensating them nearly enough. At the moment the Axis have an advantage and you are even expanding that advantage.

There have to be some historic inaccuracies sometimes due to game balances.

[gamerman01]

And of course the rules have to be popular with most players first, and finalized, then play-tested several times to make sure it’s not totally out of whack.

Speaking of which, please don’t even comment too much on how these changes affect game balance, because we’re not ready for that yet.  I think this should be addressed toward the end after we’ve got all our desired changes and rules out there.  Many changes will obviously help the Axis, and many changes will help the Allies.  Again, this project is in its infancy, so please save game balance concerns until later, thanks.]And of course the rules have to be popular with most players first, and finalized, then play-tested several times to make sure it’s not totally out of whack.

Speaking of which, please don’t even comment too much on how these changes affect game balance, because we’re not ready for that yet.  I think this should be addressed toward the end after we’ve got all our desired changes and rules out there.  Many changes will obviously help the Axis, and many changes will help the Allies.  Again, this project is in its infancy, so please save game balance concerns until later, thanks.

Thanks, MrRoboto, I hear you.
I posted this in my “Rankings” thread where I am inviting discussion about a house ruled version of G40, but did not post it here.
I am merely in the brainstorming part of the development.  I know that these changes create a lot of ripples, but it is futile to try to resolve game balance issues while you are in the middle of feeling out changes, because there will be more changes.  Playtesting and balance fine-tuning should come at the end, which I am nowhere near.

I am currently thinking about removing a couple of Japanese infantry from the mainland China at game start, and I am strongly considering a minor complex in West India.

The reason I don’t like the major in India, and I know I’m the only one, is that India should not be able to produce that much.  They were not even a major player in WWII, correct?  I never heard any stories about the Indian army marching into Burma or into China or FIC or anything, and they never got invaded.  India being able to produce the same amount as a USA territory, Berlin, Moscow, or Tokyo is absurd to me.  A minor in West India compensates (production of 3 is not enough for UK India) and helps protect them from SBR since the major was some protection before.

[gamerman01]

And yes, it was by design that the new UK Pac will have a bit less income than UK and ANZ combined before.

You point out the can opening possibilities (which are majorly cheesy and a major factor in eliminating ANZ), but you neglect to acknowledge that with the 2 fighters in Australia that are now UK, the transport/destroyer off NSW that are now UK, that the UK has the powerful ability to attack together with the formerly ANZ forces.  Also, the ability to spend all income in Australia or India is very powerful, and an offsetting factor.

[gamerman01]

My ideas spreadsheet is posted here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2

Please continue discussion in my league “rankings thread”, since this is not directly on Variance’s topic, thanks

[ChocolatePancake]

For what it’s worth, the British controlled India + Anzac forces did invade and retake Burma and plenty of places in south east Asia (though I don’t think they actually entered china). And the Japanese DID make an attempt to invade India and take Calcutta. They failed miserably, but they did try.
India was a major, important player in the war against Japan.

[gamerman01]

Thanks, Chocolate!!

[eddiem4145]

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

Toblerone’s comment, that I bolded above could not have been better said. I don’t understand, that IF, there is ever a new edition, that this would not be fixed. Which mean a significant reduction in all costs. Yes, it might require a change in initial setup, but it wouldn’t matter if done with a new edition.

The arguments for this have been said many times. It should be obvious.

With that said, the Japan 6VC rules is the cheesiest.

[ghr2]

@eddiem4145:

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

When does UK ever build naval defense for sealion?

[gamerman01]

I was thinking the same thing.

[ItIsILeClerc]

And the UK shouldnt really need to build naval defenses ;-)
Because in the real war, the UK had (around, I am not 100% sure of the numbers) 10+ Carriers (CV), around 100 Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers (CA) and Light Cruisers (CL) combined. This doesn’t even include destroyers, Light Carriers (CVL) and a lot of other ships that are I won’t mention because they have no equivalent in the game.

The kriegsmarine had not even 20 of those shiptypes, so in game terms if the German BB and CA represent the surface warships of the kriegsmarine, the RN misses out at least 3BB/CA at set up.
But ofc A&A is more a game than a simulation, so it has to be tweaked and balanced.

As long as the current balance is not disturbed I wouldn’t care whatever the cost for ships is.
But I really think that if the cost is altered, in any way, the entire combat system has to be revamped, as ships in the current combat system DO affect land combat more than normal and more German transports DO influence greatly how the battle for London is played out, making it questionable if the UK would, even under lower costs, could afford to buy more warships. To mention just a few examples.

I find the most cheesy thing are the dice. Too much depends on the outcome/luck in a few battles. I’d like to see a more subtle combat system, where luck on the dice is allowed to average out. Rolling bad/good is too unforgiving as there is no such thing as averaging out in the current system.

[toblerone77]

The cheesiest thing about this game is the mythos surrounding the cost of items 1 IPC = 1 million production hours and what is a production hour worth in actual currency?

Players arguing over hard facts about what any given unit in the game reperesents. Nobody knows and the fact is there are no hard facts. At this level of gameplay realistically the should be only 3 units land, air, sea. We know though that’s not fun or we all would just play risk.

Time. There really is no solid representation of time even Larry says he sees time like a rubber band in A&A. Technically everything in a round happens at the same time. However simulating realtime would be extremely difficult.

Still love the game but constantly trying replicate history or justify things we’d like to see in the game or series doesn’t need to be so serious.

[toblerone77]

@eddiem4145:

**A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.**

Toblerone’s comment, that I bolded above could not have been better said. I don’t understand, that IF, there is ever a new edition, that this would not be fixed. Which mean a significant reduction in all costs. Yes, it might require a change in initial setup, but it wouldn’t matter if done with a new edition.

The arguments for this have been said many times. It should be obvious.

With that said, the Japan 6VC rules is the cheesiest.

For the record eddie I agree with some of the principals of your statement. I would support a set of house rules or variant but I DO NOT agree with this being an official rule. I still would suggest that if you are going to do this you need to run a session and give an after action report. Then post in a more appropriate forum such as House Rules or A&A Variants.

[General Veers]

Back to NOs: If the Russian “spread of communism” NO can be abused, the British Empire NO hardly sees the light of day. Can’t it just be kept to major Commonwealth cities and strategic territories? Ontario, Union of South Africa, Egypt & Gibraltar? The Axis can still grab Gibraltar to cancel it but Italy holding British Somaliland is not exactly a massive blow to national prestige.

This is also a map nitpick, but since there was so much room on the Arabian Peninsula, why didn’t they throw Aden in there? Could give the UK an extra landing spot when things get hairy in East Africa. Turkey probably should have been divided since it is such an enormous shortcut to the Middle East for the Axis (or the Balkans for the UK).

[gamerman01]

Good points, General