G40 League House Rule project

[gamerman01]

So are you our guy?!  :mrgreen:

The new NO’s are indeed variations on the current theme, so sounds like they will be easy.

[Karl7]

Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:

I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?).  The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

That reminds me, I would prefer to see bases cost 12 like a minor IC, I think

bmnielsen, do I have any changes on the table right now (in my spreadsheet) that would be difficult to change in Triple A without Veqryn?
National Objectives?
Depending on what we do for convoys….  Maybe can just be edited when necessary
Mongolia rules…
Neutral blocs, but this could be edited or enforced by players…

Otherwise, so far, I think bmnielsen is right - it will all be fairly easy to change, or if nothing else can be edited by players as they go along, when necessary, which is already necessary for various rules that Triple A does not follow (like convoy damage against China, for example)

holy SMOKES - are we saying bmnielson is able to modify TripleA code in order to bring TripleA up to the a current reflection of the ruleset and possible to reflect the new ruleset being devised?

[gamerman01]

@Karl7:

Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:

I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?).  The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.

YEAH!  I love agreement  :-D

And there is PLENTY of time to talk ideas.  This is going to take time.

[bmnielsen]

@Boldfresh:

holy SMOKES - are we saying bmnielson is able to modify TripleA code in order to bring TripleA up to the a current reflection of the ruleset and possible to reflect the new ruleset being devised?

I’d love to be, but I barely have enough free time to keep one league game going right now, unfortunately. The code base is huge and supports lots of games I don’t know (having only ever played G40), so I can’t just dive in and start changing things. However, I do feel qualified to estimate how difficult a specific change is to do.

As for the stuff not requiring code changes, I’d be willing to have a go at it. Once you guys finalize an initial list of changes you want to start playtesting, I’ll whip something up.

[lexgreat]

@Karl7:

Not sure if you are still taking ideas, but:

I’d definitely change the cost of airbases and harbors (like 10 IPCs?).  The idea that a factory costs less than throwing up a pier or laying down concrete is ludicrous.

I think you pay the price for the strategic value, not only the construction cost. With your logic, it can also not explained that a small factory can either put out just a few hundred men with guns, or three ACs. A facility that can build ACs should be more expensive than 12. And throwing up a pier….a BB would not be happy with that. A lot of logistics, defense etc necessary for a harbour in war time…we would need maintenance per round to reflect cost and offset the strategic gain that stays until game end. 15 is not that much if I consider all things.

What I am saying is, you can argue 10, 12 or 15, but with a game like this its useless to tansfer reality into it too much. Every suggestion should be brought forward, but I’d not change too much in the end.

[Guest]

The cost of airfields and harbors should stay the same. Otherwise it would be to easy to place a harbor or airfield somewhere. Now you actually need to consider carefully were to place one. I think that if the cost of a harbor and-or an airfield would be lowered to much, then players might start spamming them.

As for other unit costs. The cruiser is the only unit that desperately needs its cost to be lowered (10 or 11). Battleships are fine at 20. Take the following calculation as an example. If you can spend 26 ipc. You could buy a carrier and a fighter or a battleship and a submarine. The carrier and the fighter would offer more defense (6 vs 5), but the battleship and the submarine offer more offense (6 vs 3). On average the battleship and the submarine are slightly better. If you can spend 36 ipc, then you could buy 1 carrier with 2 fighters or a battleship and 2 destroyers. Again the carrier with fighters has more defense (10 vs 8), but the battleship and the two destroyers offer more offense (8 vs 6). Both times each buy had the same amount of hp.

[wheatbeer]

@Gamerman01:

Wheatbeer, I imagine it will be at least 6 months (or a year) before the league’s house rule game will be ready to be rolled out and played competitively….

But I am pretty excited about the prospect of a (basically) new game to play, and hopefully many of us will prefer it.

I hope so too. I am all for eliminating some of the cheese as variance put it.

Is there a way to make a google doc more interactive? Like a side bar for comments (but not allowing just anyone to spam or delete)?

[gamerman01]

As far as I know it’s all or nothing for edit access, so I’d rather retain control…  I will add the ideas I think are seriously advancing it,  as I already have…

For now I like bases at 12.

[gamerman01]

Soulblighter, I am thinking a decrease in cost to 18 for Battleships.  Do you really think that’s going to sell many more - I do not.
I also think tacs are inferior to fighters generally, and favor having them cost the same
Bombers are overpowered at a mere cost of 12, so I think they should cost 14 (which is still less than they cost before AA50)
On a huge map, bombers are the premier unit for eating up space and delivering maximum attack power.  Also, with the +2 to SBR damage (which is cool) that is overpowered when the bomber only costs 12.

I could be talked into making bases cost 13, but I think 15 is too high.  Keep in mind that when Larry first priced bases at 15, airbases provided UNLIMITED SCRAMBLING!!! (although only from islands)

I think it’s a bit elegant if fighters/tacs cost the same and bases cost the same as Minors.
As I type this, though, I am reminded that fighters/tacs are also more disproportionately powerful than in previous games because of their range and utility (especially fighters).
I would also like tanks to seem a tiny bit less expensive at 6.
So I think fighters and tacs should both cost 11 or maybe even 12 (they were 12 before AA50, after all)

[boldfresh]

ftr/tac at 11 or 12 and bomber at 14 or 15 probably right.

[gamerman01]

Thank you, Boldfresh.  I think so too.

And I overlooked transports - I like reducing their cost to 6 since they lost their combat value entirely and are auto-kills.
What do you guys think?

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

Thank you, Boldfresh.  I think so too.

And I overlooked transports - I like reducing their cost to 6 since they lost their combat value entirely and are auto-kills.
What do you guys think?

that’s a tough one.

[wheatbeer]

The current system makes deterring SBR quite difficult … does anyone else find it problematic?

I would offer three possible solutions (if I am not the lone voice on this):

1. Boost defending dogfight interceptors (hit at 2 old style)
2. A lower maximum cap on SBR damage (for example, max 15 damage to major complexes and a max of 5 damage to minor complexes / bases)
3. Attacking fighter escorts become susceptible to antiaircraft fire (I see no reason why they would be immune to flak)

I like options 2 and 3 best. Curious what others think.

[gamerman01]

Yo Wheatbeer:

Raising cost of bombers to 14 pretty much addresses that.

Also, at SBR targets there is often a prohibitive number of defensive fighters.  I think raising the cost of tacs and strat bombers is enough.

[wheatbeer]

I do support the rise in cost of strats, but mostly to compensate for the incredible value of their range. As far as SBR, SBR campaigns require relatively few strats to toast a major IC.

I think the Soviet Union is most problematic since Germany can field more planes than the Allies over Moscow’s skies for an extended period (that’s been my experience). In a quick/dirty Barbarossa, the Soviets basically have to pray that they get lucky with aa shots or they get buried (after which point, 1 or 2 strats are sufficient to top off the damage until the Allies can match Germany’s fighters/tacts/strats with fighters).

Does it make sense that repairing a fully damaged major IC to the point where it can mobilize a single unit costs 11 IPC, while a minor IC built from scratch costs 12 IPC?

[Karl7]

@Boldfresh:

ftr/tac at 11 or 12 and bomber at 14 or 15 probably right.

ha, the reality was that fighters were cheaper to build than tanks…. more fighters I think were built by all combatants than tanks (except USSR)

[gamerman01]

Wheat, sounds like the other Allies need to be getting their air to Moscow.  Why aren’t they?

[gamerman01]

Also, is UK scrambling on G1?  Taking out a few German fighters can make a big difference in the SBR of Moscow, no?

[wheatbeer]

I rarely scramble against Germany and I am rarely scrambled against. It is definitely not necessary to risk German planes on G1 if you don’t want to.

Germany starts with 12 planes. It isn’t a stretch to build 2-3 strats to add to the starting 2, and that’s enough to do the job, barring bad luck.

How early do you expect to have 14-15 fighters on Moscow (assuming you don’t simply abandon London/Calcutta/Cairo/Middle East immediately to stop SBR)? And even if you intercept, Germany simply trades fighter for fighter, and the SBR goes through anyways.