@simon33 Scramble?
G40 League House Rule project
-
Copy of the comment I posted to the game:
You guys are doing a great job of implementing the house rules onto 2nd edition G40
I like how the reduced transport price gives Japan more transports J1
The map looks good to me, and I’m happy nothing seems to have “exploded”With an extra NO, Russia will be harder to crack.
Probably should have bought a sub instead of one of those tanks!
You can disrupt 2 NO’s with a sub in 125, and 1 just by building one into 112 :-)Perhaps the Russian NO for European territories should only be 2. 3 always seemed a bit extreme to me.
-
Well, there’s a reason I’m only Tier 3/4. :)
I think leaving the Russian bonuses at 3 for European TT is fine. They have to work pretty hard to get them, after all.
-
Added a sheet to the document for new ideas, to keep them separate from the rules that Shin Ji and Noz are playing with.
They are already about 5 rounds into the game, and are doing a great job of adapting these house rules to Triple A and remembering the changes.
Thanks guys, for being the pioneers -
You know, I was thinking about the dual capital thing, and it seems needlessly complicated. If you were going to do that, wouldn’t you need clear ocean between India and Australia most of the time to let them share money?
So why merge them as one country in the first place?
Also, I think AA guns need further reduction - to 3. Even at 4, there’s no reason to ever buy them.
I’d also reduce Tac Bombers to 9. Ftrs at 11 is great, though. They are clearly worth it, as are Strat Bmbers at 13.
Love having the bases at 12. More options!
Were you still going to have Normandy change to a UK TT after USA1?
Does anyone else want to further playtest this? I’d like to see some higher end players give a whack at it.
-
@Shin:
You know, I was thinking about the dual capital thing, and it seems needlessly complicated. If you were going to do that, wouldn’t you need clear ocean between India and Australia most of the time to let them share money?
So why merge them as one country in the first place?
It still removes a power’s turn, and removes 1-2 punches and dirty tricks, like the old ANZAC declares war after UK sails a destroyer right into the Japanese so they can’t load trick.
There’s more - while it was fun and novel to have Australia as a playable power for awhile, it strikes me as ridiculous. If Australia is a power, Canada should be a power. They have too much income and units to start with, presumably to keep them from being a sucky playable power. Et cetera.I just realized during your game that I didn’t want Australia to be shut down by Calcutta falling, and vice versa. It’s not complicated. If one capital falls, Japan gets half the IPC’s, and the other capital continues on with the other half of the money plus income from non-Australian or non-mainland Asia territories only. It’s no more abstract than anything else in A&A.
Thank you for these thoughts and questions.Also, I think AA guns need further reduction - to 3. Even at 4, there’s no reason to ever buy them.
I hadn’t done extensive analysis on them yet, so just took a step in the right direction. 3 might be good, I don’t know yet. Thanks for the suggestion
I’d also reduce Tac Bombers to 9. Ftrs at 11 is great, though. They are clearly worth it, as are Strat Bmbers at 13.
Yeah! You are among the small minority that agrees with me. Awesome.
I hesitate a little bit to reduce tacs to 9, but don’t disagree.
Note for readers who may not realize - this is with Strat bomber SBR damage reduced to dr+1Love having the bases at 12. More options!
Sweet! Was starting to have 2nd thoughts that they were maybe slashed too much, but this feedback is valuable
Were you still going to have Normandy change to a UK TT after USA1?
Yes, if it is still French at that point, of course. Because it’s crap if the Axis have a way of making Normandy unusable to the Allies.
Does anyone else want to further playtest this? I’d like to see some higher end players give a whack at it.
Looking forward to another play test by whoever, with the tweaks I’ve come up with as a result of your play testing. Although, waiting for a full report and opinions from both you and Noz (or maybe this is your full report, I don’t know)
-
Yeah, I don’t think tacs should be reduced below 10
Part of the reason of raising fighters and bombers was to help the relative cost of tanks be a wee bit smaller
I would suppose few would argue with having transports cost 6
I’m wondering if Japan air needs to be reduced a little bit more, and maybe a USA fighter in the Pacific too, along with reducing the Russian stacks by 1 each…… I think the Pacific board overall has too much stuff. I took a guess at how much to reduce UK to offset the power of being able to attack together and build in Australia or India at will. If we think they are reduced too much, we can reduce Japan air. 19 fighters/tacs at start still seems like too much (it was several more than that before Larry did his aircraft reduction plan!), and we’re down to 17 now. Any more reduction, and we should probably reduce USA air too… This also helps reduce the dramatic effects of crossing over from Pacific to Europe for either Axis or Allies (btw Larry also increased Europe some from what it originally was. His first version had a huge disparity between Europe and Pacific stacks of ground and air)
-
Moving one infantry to Yunnan and taking one away from Kwangsi is pretty drastic, although I believe Japan in your game still mowed down Yunnan (leaving China with 1 less infantry). But Yunnan is no longer a pushover, and this was partly the intent. Now, bid units to Yunnan and Russian air flying down on R1 become more of an issue (not saying that’s good or bad), although playing with a 1 unit per territory bid limit pretty much still prevents R1 air to Yunnan being a wise move?
-
I get the impression that I’m in the minority on this one, but I have always been a big fan of tanks. MInf are very nice, no doubt, but when you need that punch, it’s worth the extra 2 . If MInf could blitz by themselves, though, or if tanks boosted their attack like an Art, that would be enough to tip the balance for me,
What I’m saying is that tanks are pretty much fine as is. But I’d be surprised if we see more than one in twenty air purchases being Tac, even with the increase in Ftr and Bmb prices. Price them at 9, though, and you’d see a real choice to be made. Maybe even purchasing parity between Ftrs and Tacs. And it gives Germany and Japan (as well as others) asort of mini Black Skies option to heavily invest in Tanks, MInf, and Tacs.
-
Yeah, I hear you
I don’t think I’m ready to reduce tacs to 9 and have them cost 4 less than bombers, which themselves have been nerfed by 1 on SBR damage. I also don’t necessarily want harder purchase decisions…
I think I’m in the minority on a lot of things too, when I think that there doesn’t need to be a lot of AA, tacs, cruisers, or battleships built. I think there are plenty at game start, so they are involved in the game…Anyway, I took at least a compromising step in the right direction by lowering the costs of all 4 of these units a bit. My intent is not to have them purchased as frequently as other items, but to make them a little bit less ridiculously over-priced… :-)
-
Yeah, I hear you
I don’t think I’m ready to reduce tacs to 9 and have them cost 4 less than bombers, which themselves have been nerfed by 1 on SBR damage. I also don’t necessarily want harder purchase decisions…
I think I’m in the minority on a lot of things too, when I think that there doesn’t need to be a lot of AA, tacs, cruisers, or battleships built. I think there are plenty at game start, so they are involved in the game…Anyway, I took at least a compromising step in the right direction by lowering the costs of all 4 of these units a bit. My intent is not to have them purchased as frequently as other items, but to make them a little bit less ridiculously over-priced…. :-)
:wink:
-
My 2 cents:
1. Russians should have a bomber in Moscow. If you plan on lowering the infantry stacks a little, then giving them something versatile in return seems fair.
2. All remaining European and African French TTs should revert to UK. Right now in the current testing game. 4 TTs are still French and unless Axis takes them, they will remain that way forever.
3. AA on 4 is fine. I buy AA whenever I face a large amount of planes. Most of the time AA buys are done in either India or Egypt. Also 2 AA have a decent chance of shooting down a fighter, tactical bomber or bomber. Which means that on average they have a positive return of at least 3 ipcs. The downside is that you have 1 less infantry (most of the time), but the upside is that they have one less plane.
4. Dual Capital role is needed. Sydney should be able to benefit from Java, Sumatra and Celebes, but not Borneo. Calcutta can benefit from all four. Naturally if both are controlled by the allies, it is up to the allied player how to divide the ipcs. As an additional rule, if Calcutta is captured and Sydney is not, then Borneo can’t be liberated.
5. Tactical bombers should not be reduced. They are fine the way they are. At most I could see a reduction to 10, but 9 would be to cheap. Also any change to tactical bombers is more then likely to favor Germany and perhaps the US. Tactical Bombers can attack for four and that makes them extremely valuable for Germany as Germany is known to use tanks a lot. -
I have saved your feedback in the spreadsheet for my reference and future consideration
Thank you very much, and thanks again for being one of the Dutch New Guinea pigs -
-
Also I feel like the Flying Tigers should resemble the kamikaze tokens a bit more. 6 seems better and they should definitely hit at a 2. Hitting at 1 would make them useless. This will protect India a bit better. UK India has a harder time protecting itself under the new rules and changes. So alleviating this a little wouldn’t hurt. If you are going to add more VC.
I would add Panama as it may or may not open more strategies for the Axis to gain a European victory. As for Asia. This one is hard. Currently Asia has 8 VC and Europe has a total of 11. So from this perspective if you want to make Pacific more the same as the European map, then you would need to add a total of 4 VC. However a lot of those VC would end up being in the range the Japanese. Sikang would be nice, but Japan can already reach that at J3 at the earliest. Malaya, Java and even Manchuria would be easy to defend and adding more VC close to the Japanese, would mean they would have less incentive to move out there. So what about adding New Zealand as a VC. Seems fair given the fact Auckland must have been a decently sized city even back then. Then you could add either Manchuria or Sikang and Malaya and Java and have your 12 VC. However this would require some testing of course.
-
All feedback appreciated -
I think I caught your flying tigers in the game thread - I make sure to read all posts there
I believe Japan succeeded in taking Yunnan on J1 in your game. This won’t always be the case - or Japan will sometimes lose air. So I’m not sure how much easier India will fall. Also, India has the ability to spend what was formerly Australia’s money, to buy more units in India. More games needed.
But I’m saying that with Yunnan having +1 infantry and Kwangsi having -1, Japan will more often get off to a slower start than before.
All feedback appreciated, and helpful. -
On second note: Sikang, New Zealand, Manchuria and Java. This would be worth testing. Add Panama for the European map. Both maps then have 12 VC’s.
-
Adding this to my notes, in the shared spreadsheet file
-
I’m concerned 6 @ 2 for flying tigers is too powerful, but agree that consistency (6 kamikazes @ 2) is good
I strongly agree that it’s a good idea to have the same number of VC’s in both theaters AND have the victory condition be 8 cities in both. -
I’m concerned 6 @ 2 for flying tigers is too powerful, but agree that consistency (6 kamikazes @ 2) is good
I strongly agree that it’s a good idea to have the same number of VC’s in both theaters AND have the victory condition be 8 cities in both.But kamikazes are also quite powerful. Al tho kamikazes can only be used at 6 locations. I think Flying Tigers should be limited to India, Burma, Yunan and Szechwan. Perhaps Sikang and Hong Kong as well. This would give the Flying Tigers about the same reach and relevance as kamikazes and somewhat limit their power.
-
Kamikazes rarely come into play, in my experience. The flying tigers defend key places early in the game. Kamikazes are more limited and are not used early in the game.
Suggested Topics
