SZ54 will be attacked by Japan. Everything on or around the Carolines plus 2 more pairs of planes. Can I assume a scramble? I can’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be max D.
G40 League House Rule project
-
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
-
Regarding any difficulty in doing flying tiger chits in Triple A - no big deal. They can easily be accounted for by the players, and dice rolls can be done on the forums to resolve.
-
Good point
Although it won’t be a 15 IPC facility, it will be 12 (actually the ones you start with cost 0) :-D
Out of interest, how will final decisions be taken? Majority, a chosen representative, League admins?
-
I would like the allies VC conditions changed for this tournament.
Hold Rome Germany OR Japan for one full round AND 14 VCs.
-
It is still super hard to achieve that… but trust me… it is better than waiting to conquer all 3!
-
Alex, it will be me
-
Cow, don’t worry about Allied VC’s - the Allies always win once the Axis fail to win
Alex, I am hoping that when the New and Improved G40 is finished that many league players will want to play it over and over again. I will be very receptive to ideas and suggestions from everyone, that I think will be popular.
Keep in mind that we are in the brainstorming phase. Don’t get too excited (I’m writing to everyone, not just you) about any certain proposed change at this time - most everything’s on the table.
For example, I am flexible on what price we end up listing for bases, between 12 and 15. If a lot of players want it to stay at 15, or if 1 or 2 players give really compelling reasons why it should stay at 15, then I would keep them at 15.Remember. Brainstorming. None of the changes are really final until we are actually rolling this puppy out after play testing.
-
Cow, don’t worry about Allied VC’s - the Allies always win once the Axis fail to win
Alex, I am hoping that when the New and Improved G40 is finished that many league players will want to play it over and over again. I will be very receptive to ideas and suggestions from everyone, that I think will be popular.
Keep in mind that we are in the brainstorming phase. Don’t get too excited (I’m writing to everyone, not just you) about any certain proposed change at this time - most everything’s on the table.
For example, I am flexible on what price we end up listing for bases, between 12 and 15. If a lot of players want it to stay at 15, or if 1 or 2 players give really compelling reasons why it should stay at 15, then I would keep them at 15.Remember. Brainstorming. None of the changes are really final until we are actually rolling this puppy out after play testing.
What new and improved G40?
-
Everything on the table, I am sure it will be a wealth of ideas to be discussed. There is, already. I am only concerned of one thing: There will be no playtesting to see if all changes together are balanced. We have our experience that shows us what can be improved, but we never tried it out. As far as I understand it, all changes will be implemented at the same time, directly for League play. Look at the (comparatively few) changes from the different alpha versions, and how unhappy people have been. With the mass of changes, untested, I hope it will work out better.
Of course, the community is both eager to improve and adaptive when something does not work, but I cant shake the feeling that too many changes at so many levels are a difficult thing to get right. But no, Bold, I am not against progress :)
-
@alexgreat:
Everything on the table, I am sure it will be a wealth of ideas to be discussed. There is, already. I am only concerned of one thing: There will be no playtesting to see if all changes together are balanced. We have our experience that shows us what can be improved, but we never tried it out. As far as I understand it, all changes will be implemented at the same time, directly for League play. Look at the (comparatively few) changes from the different alpha versions, and how unhappy people have been. With the mass of changes, untested, I hope it will work out better.
Of course, the community is both eager to improve and adaptive when something does not work, but I cant shake the feeling that too many changes at so many levels are a difficult thing to get right. But no, Bold, I am not against progress :)
:wink:
I am right there with you alex. once you start changing things, there are most likely going to be all kinds of unintended consequences. playtesting/tweaking of the new version will most likely be done over the course of a remaining league year - it will not just be dumped on the league. i hope.
-
@alexgreat:
Everything on the table, I am sure it will be a wealth of ideas to be discussed. There is, already. I am only concerned of one thing: There will be no playtesting to see if all changes together are balanced. We have our experience that shows us what can be improved, but we never tried it out. As far as I understand it, all changes will be implemented at the same time, directly for League play. Look at the (comparatively few) changes from the different alpha versions, and how unhappy people have been. With the mass of changes, untested, I hope it will work out better.
Of course, the community is both eager to improve and adaptive when something does not work, but I cant shake the feeling that too many changes at so many levels are a difficult thing to get right. But no, Bold, I am not against progress :)
You’re right, of course.
What made you think we wouldn’t play test it, though? Of COURSE we’re not going to dump a significantly changed game on the league for games that count! I envision a few months for coming up with all the changes, then the rest of the 2014 league year for volunteers to play each other and give feedback without the games counting. We should be ready for rollout for the 2015 league, but for those eager to play a new game, the good news is this should be ready in a few months to play (play test). -
For the record, there is literally no reason why we cannot have a house rule tournament in July. We’re just not importing untested rules into the league, this year.
-
Apologies if this has been discussed before, came a bit late to the thread.
Have you considered optimizing the turn order for PbF/PbEM games? The proposed turn order has a nice symmetry, but still means the turn switches sides six times per round, which is the main reason our games take so long to finish. If we keep the standard G40 turn order, but without ANZAC and France, it only changes four times per round. Plus it doesn’t change anything regarding who can can open for who, which might make it a bit easier to balance the game.
-
Yes, that is a consideration
It has huge effects on who can can open for who.
With USA between Italy and Germany, and Italy between UK and USA there are better chances to close up can openers (with USA/UK in 2nd edition, there is obviously no turn at all in between to try and stop the synergy)
Am I missing your meaning? -
Yes, that is a consideration
It has huge effects on who can can open for who.
With USA between Italy and Germany, and Italy between UK and USA there are better chances to close up can openers (with USA/UK in 2nd edition, there is obviously no turn at all in between to try and stop the synergy)
Am I missing your meaning?My point about can openers was just that if the relative turn order is the same as now (i.e. Germany/Russia/Japan/USA/China/UK/Italy), then the can open possibilities are basically the same as normal G40 (since ANZAC is rarely much of a force in Europe and ditto Italy in the Pacific). So as far as can openers go, the new game would be closer to standard G40 and therefore perhaps easier to balance. My thought was that this might be an added bonus to the improvement in lag time per round.
Of course, if one of the goals of the new rules is to shake up the can opener situation, then obviously this isn’t preferable :) However, that can still be done while minimizing the number of player switches per turn (by just swapping US and UK or similar).
-
OK, thanks for the clarification.
The current proposed turn order is old school:
G
R
J
UK
Italy
USAI actually do NOT like the back to back USA/China/UK move (too much to play at one time, for one thing, and no chance for the Axis to go in between is incongruent with all previous A&A) nor do I like the Italy/Germany move with only France/ANZ in between (now it will be USA)
So yes it will still be 3 turns per round, just as it was with AA50
-
I have some historically-based map changes to propose:
Ireland should be a strict neutral with a one or two infantry. They never joined the Allies due to their relationship with Britain, even after the outcome became clear and everyone dog-piled in.
Persia, Eastern Persia, and Northwest Persia should be strict neutral. Iran was absolutely not pro-Allied.
-
I have some historically-based map changes to propose:
Ireland should be a strict neutral with a one or two infantry. They never joined the Allies due to their relationship with Britain, even after the outcome became clear and everyone dog-piled in.
Persia, Eastern Persia, and Northwest Persia should be strict neutral. Iran was absolutely not pro-Allied.
Awesome! Thank you!!
What about Iraq? Is it pro-Axis? With 3 infantry? Would they have actually joined an Axis force and marched into other countries for their cause?
-
Iraq’s politics circa 1940 was pretty unstable, but I think it is fair to say that they would not be fighting for the Axis outside the immediate area.
Strict neutral might better represent Iraq. I would reduce them to 1 infantry though because their army was tiny and ineffective when Britain attacked.
Suggested Topics
