@simon33 No scrambles.
G40 League House Rule project
-
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?
-
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)
-
Wheat, sounds like the other Allies need to be getting their air to Moscow. Why aren’t they?
-
Also, is UK scrambling on G1? Taking out a few German fighters can make a big difference in the SBR of Moscow, no?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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??? -
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!
-
+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:
-
This new and improved game is getting better and better
-
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)Actually when I was lying in my bed I was thinking cruisers should cost 10 and battleships should cost 18. I made some calculations and this seemed about right. This way submarines still give the most hp and offensive punch, but all the other units have slight improvements. Fleetcomposition will be slightly more important this way. You might be right about bombers being to cheap. As for naval bases and airbases. By all means lower the cost to 12. I am fine either way.
There is however 1 thing I never really understood and thats why we can’t scramble from AC. This would make carriers a lot stronger, but it makes sense if that could be made possible. The downside is that it would make Japan really strong as Japan starts with a lot of planes, but I see no reason why carriers shouldn’t be allowed to support nearby areas. This may or may not result in an increase in icp cost of carriers tho.
-
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!
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
-
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
Ah, yes! I thought the same thing but it was a long time ago and I have long since been resigned to the Larry rule.
This would be a huge change, actually, and now the suggestion about interceptors hitting on a 2 becomes much more important.
I need to hear more discussion on this topic. Just thinking about the Axis hitting the Gibraltar naval base (for one example) and stopping not only the USA but also the UK from going 3 spaces….Another option is to leave the rule as is, that you can repair and then use immediately, BUT you must fully repair to 0 damage to use.
-
Looks like Cow and Ziggurat will be promoted to the official playoff, now that rgp has pulled out, and Zhukov still hasn’t said anything.
-
I accept.
-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE#gid=0
For Gamerman’s playoffs and the official playoffs.
Make sure you’re signed up and confirmed if you want to play.
-
I still think repairs to damaged airbases and naval bases should be paid for at the start of the turn but don’t become effective until the end of the turn. That way someone can actually knock out a base for a turn; you don’t just pay a couple bucks to repair it and use it right away.
Ah, yes! I thought the same thing but it was a long time ago and I have long since been resigned to the Larry rule.
This would be a huge change…I see a couple issues cropping up here. First, I feel that the “repair and use” part of the rule is just a continuation of the instant cost rule, before damage markers were even used.
If a change is made to pay start, use end as Variance mentioned, the owner of the base could conceivably never get to use it, especially in a harbor. Using Gib as an example, Axis bomb it, allies fix it, Axis bomb it over and over. That is too much of a penalty for a 15 IPC facility.
I do think that max damage should be roughly half of the purchase cost, especially for a major facility.
-
Good point
Although it won’t be a 15 IPC facility, it will be 12 (actually the ones you start with cost 0) :-D
Suggested Topics
