It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.
Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.
The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it. They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.
Here are my thoughts:
The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs. So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.
Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing. The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub. So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things. But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent. I think I’m OK with the rules as is.
Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.
Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.
One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.
These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.
Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.
mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.
I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.
For whatever reason my Alpha 3 thread hasn’t been sticky’d yet, so search for that instead of using the Alpha 2 if you want. It is on the 2nd or 3rd page of threads.
Just a thought, but if you PM me the link to your new one it might help you get it stickied. Just spit ballin here. wink
Yea, cause then we would only need like 5 more until this whole page is stickied. And that’s what we want.
Time to retire a few.
Use the second edition rules and setup. You can download them here:
Here’s the history in case you care. What happened was they released the first editions of 1940 Europe and Pacific a few years ago but then people immediately figured out that if you put those 2 together to make the global game it was hopelessly screwed up. So for the next 2+ years all the experts played and played and talked and talked and talked and the company every so often put out new versions of the rules and setup that were called alpha 1, alpha 2, and so on until FINALLY they released the second edition, which is just about perfect.
"Thanx for the input, much easier to understand now So I’ll use 2ed rules, but some of the player aides & charts for +3 & +3.9 look like an easier read & are cool. So I’ll compare them to the 2ed rules & set-ups & should be able to use those ok. Thanx again.