G40 League House Rule project

[gamerman01]

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…  :-)

[Amon-Sul]

@Gamerman01:

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:

[Guest]

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.

[gamerman01]

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

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

… Dutch New Guinea pigs

I tickled myself under my arms to laugh at this :lol:

[Guest]

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.

[gamerman01]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[gamerman01]

Adding this to my notes, in the shared spreadsheet file

[gamerman01]

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.

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

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.

[gamerman01]

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.

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

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.

That is because you can avoid them by using submarines and planes and send in the other ships during ncm. It is however possible to use the kamikazes to defend your fleet. So most of the time they are a deterrent.

You could avoid flying tigers by using ground forces or you could sacrifice a few fighters.

[gamerman01]

@Nozdormu:

You could avoid flying tigers by using ground forces or you could sacrifice a few fighters.

Yes, I really like the chit idea.  Oh, and I just remembered they can’t be used until round 3.

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

@Nozdormu:

You could avoid flying tigers by using ground forces or you could sacrifice a few fighters.

Yes, I really like the chit idea.  Oh, and I just remembered they can’t be used until round 3.

In the end it all balances out :lol:

[Shin-Ji]

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with pretty much everything Noz has said here.  More VCs are needed.  I’d also add that the nerfing of the TT values in Asia is probably not necessary.  Just leave it all the way it was.  He’s right that India struggles to keep its head above water in this version - without HEAVY USA intervention, the Pacific falls fast.  So let’s give them a fighting chance.

[Guest]

@Shin:

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with pretty much everything Noz has said here.  More VCs are needed.  I’d also add that the nerfing of the TT values in Asia is probably not necessary.  Just leave it all the way it was.  He’s right that India struggles to keep its head above water in this version - without HEAVY USA intervention, the Pacific falls fast.  So let’s give them a fighting chance.

I disagree. I am positive that the UK India can do a little more to prevent the invasion of India. However it requires the help of the Chinese. I played the Chinese this time the way I played them previous times. However with the added chits, the Chinese can actually do a lot more then I did with them this time. I think we should test at least a couple more times with the changed transports. I also strongly believe that buying a medium facility J1, might be good as well. In fact it might even be better. Also the way it is now, it would actually favor a highly aggressive Japan. In the previous games this was punished to quickly. Most of the old games Japan would declare war on J3. In this version it might happen as early as J1/J2 as it is slightly more rewarding now to do so.

[gamerman01]

I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.

As always, all feedback appreciated

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.

As always, all feedback appreciated

I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.

On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.

[Guest]

@Nozdormu:

@Gamerman01:

I agree with Noz that more playing is needed to determine that
I would like to not change territory values anywhere on the map, though
I will be putting a lot of thought and attention into the Japan vs. India situation, though.
Regarding non-Normandy French territories, I don’t want them to change ownership to UK.

As always, all feedback appreciated

I can understand you don’t want them to change. However part of the reason changing ownership of the units wasn’t bad, was mainly because the units would work alongside the uk anyways. I could imagine the same for the TTs.

On a side note. In the current testing game I am avoiding liberating UK as it gives the US more resources to play around with. Seems weird.

Then again it makes Sealion slightly less viable then it already is. So perhaps it limits strategy to much.