G40 League House Rule project

[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.

[wheatbeer]

We probably have pretty different perspective on G1 scrambling and the relative value of UK to German planes (and that argument would require a discussion of the best SZ configuration for G1, and I believe their are many viable naval CM configurations for G1). Also, Japan is quite capable of staging to SBR Moscow in many scenarios.

Putting all of that aside, if the UK knocks out some German planes, they should have lost theirs too. So even if they kill three German planes on G1, the Allies would still need to station 11-12 fighters on Moscow to simply trade fighters at even odds (which has no affect on the actual bombing raid since the attacker selects dogfight casualties). Actual deterrence would take 13+ Allied fighters.

[wheatbeer]

Edit: forgot Germany would prefer to minimize tacts risking facility aa unecessarily on Moscow’s airbase. Although we could also assume any G1 casualties were tacts if SBR was the endgame (especially if they will cost the same as fighters). In which case, assuming Germany chooses to exclude its tacts during SBR, the Allies would still need 10 fighters to get an even exchange in a dogfight and more to deter.

[gamerman01]

You said buying 2-3 more bombers, and that’s exactly my point.  That will now cost 2 IPC’s more each.

If you are using all your fighters as escorts on SBR in Moscow, then those fighters are not addressing the Western Allies nor are they attacking Russian units.  Also, any AA hits by the Moscow facility are quite devastating.

In my 28 games this year, SBR has never been a big issue.  But anyway, raising costs of Strat bombers is a step toward addressing the SBR damage +2 a bit

[gamerman01]

But I’m glad you reminded me of SBR
Now would be our chance to change Larry’s +2 afterthought rule.  Should we make it +1???

[gamerman01]

I like it!  +2 is a GUARANTEE when a strat bomber gets by the AA of the base, and Larry himself apparently hates guarantees (see rolling for convoy damage).

+1 fixes that, if you roll a 1 and get 2 damage, the base is still operational!

[wheatbeer]

+1 rather than +2 makes makes me happier (hopefully it isn’t an over-correction) … It might seem a silly part of the game to take issue with given that SBR may not be terribly popular, but I think that SBR’s simply underrated.

The repair/mobilize mechanic requiring up to 11 IPC to be spent on repairs to mobilize a single unit still makes no sense to me, but I can live with that I suppose :lol: