G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.



  • 1.a)  Expanded ANZAC (The Commonwealth Dominions). Includes ANZAC, South Africa, SWest Africa and all of Canada. Capital remains Sydney. The IC on Sydney is changed to a Major IC.
    1.b) A ‘united’ United Kingdom, UK income is no longer split between India and London. The IC on India is changed from major to minor. Capital is London.

    2. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains OOB.

    3. Enhanced air units.
    Tactical bombers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
    No other change.

    4. Enhance naval units
    Submarines 7 IPCs
    Destroyers 8 IPCs
    Cruisers 10 IPCs
    Battleships 18 IPCs
    Aircraft carriers 16 IPCs
    Transports 6 IPCs
    -When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
    -Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

    5. Scorched Earth. At the beginning of a powers turn, that power may damage any facility he or she sees fit up to the maximum damage that facility may take per OOB rules. Any damaged facilities in this new phase are treated as if they were damaged before said players turn, and all rules regarding damaged facilities apply OOB. So you cannot ‘have your cake and eat it too’. That is you cannot damage your naval base and then repair a battleship on the same turn. Likewise you cannot damage and repair a single facility in the same turn.

    6. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1 or 2, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 3 or 4. On a roll 5 or 6 the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.

    7. Enhanced Air/Naval bases. Cost reduced to 12 for both.

    8. Neutral blocks. If the axis attack a neutral territory, all the neutrals in its block immediately become allied friendly. Same if reversed.
    Mongolian block (all Mongolian territories) Replace OOB Mongolia rules with: Japan or Russia receives 12 IPCs if the other declares war on it.
    South American + European block Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Rio de oro, Portuguese guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
    Middle-eastern block Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan

    9. Home Guard/Garrisons. (homeguard/volksturm/partisans/militia/headhunters,etc)
    Anytime a land territory is attacked, one die is rolled for its Home Guard defense in addition to the dice for any units occupying it. This die is rolled once during the first round of combat. Home Guard will never roll more than 1 dice. An empty territory would roll 1 dice before falling to the enemy, in the case where 1 unit is attacking and that unit dies to the Home Guard, the territory does not change ownership. Home Guards do not stop a blitz, but if a lone tank attempts to blitz through an empty territory and the Home Guard hits, the tank fails to take the territory; it dies right there and does not proceed into the second territory.  If a tank blitz is accompanied by at least 1 other tank or mechanized infantry and the Home Guard hits, then the territory is taken but one of the mobile units dies and the remaining units continue the blitz.
    Use the following chart to determine the Home Guard’s defense die:
    0-1 IPC territories - no roll
    2-4 IPC territories - @1
    5+ IPC territories - @2
    NonCapitalVC territories - @3
    CapitalVC territories - @4

    10. Enhanced Technology
    -Each power will receive tech tokens, based on their current production value at the beginning of their respective turns.
    -Additional tokens may not be purchased.
    -Only nations at war will receive tokens.
    -National Objective income does not count towards tech rolls, neither does IPCs saved.
    -China will never receive tech tokens.
    0-24IPCs = 0 Rolls
    25-49IPCs = 1 Roll
    50-99IPCs = 2 Rolls
    100+IPCs = 3 Rolls
    Each turn each nation rolls for each token in all categories it has a token in. A 6 is a breakthrough, a 1 is a token lost. If a breakthrough is achieved roll to see what technology you receive. Once you get a breakthrough within a category, all other tokens within that category are removed. Other categories are not effected by success/failure in another categories. Unsuccessful tokens not lost, remain until that powers next turn.
    Tech categories:
    Army Doctrine
    (1-2)Paratroopers: From Airbases. OOB, Consult Rulebook.
    (3-4)Adv Artillery: Can pair 2 infantry units with 1 artillery.
    (5-6)Improved Mech: Mech can blitz alone. Mech can pair with a tank for +1 attack (1:1) A Mech cannot pair with both a tank and an artillery.
    Naval & Aviation Technology
    (1-2)Super Submarines: Attacking submarines hit on a 3 or less.
    (3-4)Rockets: Rockets from airbases. One rocket attack per airbase. Range 4. Damage 1D6. Airbase must be operational. Rockets are susceptible to AA.
    (5-6)Radar: AA rolls hit on a 2 or less.
    Infrastructure
    (1-2)Increased Factory Production: Minor IC produces at 4, Major IC produces at 12. Repair 2 damage for each 1 IPC. Maximum damage not increase.
    (3-4)Improved Shipyards: TRN 5, SS 6, DD 7, CA 9, CV 14, BB 16
    (5-6)War Bonds: Collect an additional 1D6 IPCs during the collect income phase.
    Combat Aviation
    (1-2)Jet Fighters: Attacking fighters hit on a 4 or less. Jet fighters intercept/escort SBR at a 2 or less.
    (3-4)Long Range Aircraft: +1 to range of all aircraft. Stacks with airbase bonus to +3.
    (5-6)Heavy Bombers: Strategic bombers roll 2 dice when attacking or strategic bombing. Select the best result (dice does not add). LL roll = 5. (LHTR)


  • 2019 2018

    Since you’ve asked me to give my 2 cents, here I am.

    I like most of these ideas.

    @1) London will earn quite a lot more, but will spend ~10-15 of that in the PAC, so the balance in Europe should stay roughly the same. UK can decide to push Europe harder, but risk losing the factory in india. All the while, anzac will be promoted to be the main opponent of Japan, next to USA. Might need to give them a second factory in queensland to begin with. Overall I think the balance won’t be touched a lot, while it makes more sense that Sydney is the big price in Pacific and not Calcutta.

    @2) Actually that rule makes submarines more complicated and not simpler 🙂 I don’t like this proposal a lot, because submarines are already the strongest naval unit (it’s the infantry of the seas, and infantry is the best unit on land too) IPC-wise AND have additional flexibility (strong convoy, require dd to be detected). This additional option gives them even more power.

    @3,4,5)
    I see the reason here. You want fighters to be basically escort-only for bombers. It kinda makes sense. I really like the new air combat. It always felt weird that all the defending planes are not shooting at the attacking ones. However, the defender should have the option not to “intercept” his defending planes and to specify which will intercept. Otherwise the Allies are in a great disadvantage. That Chinese Fighter could be forced to participate in an air-combat against 20 planes and the infantry will be killed very easily then. Russian planes are at great risk as well against the huge German Luftwaffe.
    I also like the idea of having Strat-bombers roll 2 dice at 2 each instead of 1@4.

    That being said, I have the feeling planes are quite weak in this version. You can actually only use the two bombers for attacking. But you have to build fighters too, to protect them in the air-combat. On the other hand, the defender will probably not defend with planes as often as now, because they are very ineffective. I’m just not sure planes are a cost-effective option in land attacks. And I actually liked the Strats to be glass-cannons with 4/1.

    It’s even worse in naval battles. Carriers will lose a lot of worth in your version. And with that, i mean A LOT!

    @6) Cruisers are still a big joke. No one will produce them, ever.
    I see no need to change the transporters. I don’t understand why there is a problem with trannies being defenseless. Giving them 3 movement (this is super strong!), reducing the cost by ~15% AND giving them 1/6 chance of not dying when alone is just over the top. This will benefit landing projects a lot. I think Italy will be very happy about that rule (Japan and Anzac+USA both benefit equally, I’d say).

    @7) Almost exclusively important for Germany. This makes up for the reduce of attacking power of the planes, so it should be ok.
    @8) Nice idea. Especially if you can use it on facilities captured in the same turn.



  • First off thanks for the response,

    @MrRoboto:

    Since you’ve asked me to give my 2 cents, here I am.

    I like most of these ideas.

    @1) London will earn quite a lot more, but will spend ~10-15 of that in the PAC, so the balance in Europe should stay roughly the same. UK can decide to push Europe harder, but risk losing the factory in india. All the while, anzac will be promoted to be the main opponent of Japan, next to USA. Might need to give them a second factory in queensland to begin with. Overall I think the balance won’t be touched a lot, while it makes more sense that Sydney is the big price in Pacific and not Calcutta.

    -The idea here is to make ANZAC more of a second thought, without crippling UK vs German Sealion attempts, the lost income by UK losing Canada and South Africa is made up for with the UK pac income. Now the decision on where to spend falls on the player, and more options are now available.
    -You may be on to something with a 2nd factory in ANZAC, or possible up the one to a major, as now Japan will be more crush ANZAC that crush Calcutta. Do remember though that ANZAC now has 2 additional ICs in Canada and S Africa.

    @2) Actually that rule makes submarines more complicated and not simpler 🙂 I don’t like this proposal a lot, because submarines are already the strongest naval unit (it’s the infantry of the seas, and infantry is the best unit on land too) IPC-wise AND have additional flexibility (strong convoy, require dd to be detected). This additional option gives them even more power.

    -It does seem more complex at first, because it is different from what they have been for so long. But it pulls back on some of the special rules governing combat with a submarine. It is currently a special unit under all circumstances with its own special rules. Under this enhancement the special rules now only apply when submerged. Do remember that when not submerged, they can roll dice with aircraft as a normal unit, but also as a normal unit, there is no sneak attack. Sub casualties would be treated as any other casualties.
    -Look at it as a normal unit with a stealth ability rather than a special stealth unit.
    -As far as convoy raiding is concerned, i just havnt got there yet 😉

    @3,4,5)
    I see the reason here. You want fighters to be basically escort-only for bombers. It kinda makes sense. I really like the new air combat. It always felt weird that all the defending planes are not shooting at the attacking ones. However, the defender should have the option not to “intercept” his defending planes and to specify which will intercept. Otherwise the Allies are in a great disadvantage. That Chinese Fighter could be forced to participate in an air-combat against 20 planes and the infantry will be killed very easily then. Russian planes are at great risk as well against the huge German Luftwaffe.
    I also like the idea of having Strat-bombers roll 2 dice at 2 each instead of 1@4.

    That being said, I have the feeling planes are quite weak in this version. You can actually only use the two bombers for attacking. But you have to build fighters too, to protect them in the air-combat. On the other hand, the defender will probably not defend with planes as often as now, because they are very ineffective. I’m just not sure planes are a cost-effective option in land attacks. And I actually liked the Strats to be glass-cannons with 4/1.

    It’s even worse in naval battles. Carriers will lose a lot of worth in your version. And with that, i mean A LOT!

    -Keep in mind bombers are rolling 2 dice now with the possibility of knocking out 2 units at once, even in air combat. Bombers will always roll 2 dice even in SBR.
    -That being said, you make a compelling argument. And after doing some calculations i am changing to:  Fighters cost 7, A/D at 2/3, Tacs cost 10, Strats cost 14, -thankyou
    -The goal here is a bit of spice, while promoting more tac purchases rather than fighter or strat strategies as we currently have

    @6) Cruisers are still a big joke. No one will produce them, ever.
    I see no need to change the transporters. I don’t understand why there is a problem with trannies being defenseless. Giving them 3 movement (this is super strong!), reducing the cost by ~15% AND giving them 1/6 chance of not dying when alone is just over the top. This will benefit landing projects a lot. I think Italy will be very happy about that rule (Japan and Anzac+USA both benefit equally, I’d say).

    -I tend to lean towards the side of transports are fine the way they are. But i dont think reducing them by 1 IPC and giving them 3 movement will break anything (remember with naval bases alot of the times its 3 anyway, and they cannot ever mover 4)
    -Im liking now Giving them the movement bonus either during noncombat only or only when not transporting anything (the 2nd makes logical sense as they would be lighter)…what do you think? - im leaning towards only when empty
    -The point is trying to find a middle ground without doing anything too drastic and add to the game abit
    -On Cruisers i have strongly argued that they are worthless in the past, but have since stepped back a bit. They still need help, but i do think they have a place,

    @7) Almost exclusively important for Germany. This makes up for the reduce of attacking power of the planes, so it should be ok.
    @8) Nice idea. Especially if you can use it on facilities captured in the same turn.


  • 2017 '16

    I stress the importance of simplicity, meaningfulness and logic; the goal is to enhance the game, not make it unplayable.

    You should categorize these various HR from the simple minimal change to the greater distance from OOB. If some are interconnected putting them together,  if some need only fine tuning vs other which have much room for important change, etc.

    It is to have a way to discuss some HR point by point, and starting with the one which have the better chance for a large approval (and less and smaller adjustments, etc).


  • 2017 '16

    3. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) during the single round of air superiority combat. AAA price increased to 6 IPC.

    We used this one AAA A1D1M1 OOB 3 AA@1 but C5 in our 1942.2 game.
    Doesn’t have a great impact, no irresistible incentive to buy a large bunch of AAA for Germany or Russia.
    Need more play-test.
    At least it works like other ground unit with 1 special capacity.
    This HR AAA fit better within A&A system’s rules.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Uncrustable:

    1.a)  Expanded ANZAC (A sort of Commonwealth within the Commonwealth). Includes ANZAC, South America and all of Canada.

    I assume you mean South Africa rather than South America.

    A handy term encompassing Canada, Newfoundland (which wasn’t yet a province, but whose men fought mainly in Canadian and British units), Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would be “Commonwealth Dominions.”  The only Dominion which remained nominally neutral was Eire.



  • @Baron:

    3. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) during the single round of air superiority combat. AAA price increased to 6 IPC.

    We used this one AAA A1D1M1 OOB 3 AA@1 but C5 in our 1942.2 game.
    Doesn’t have a great impact, no irresistible incentive to buy a large bunch of AAA for Germany or Russia.
    Need more play-test.
    At least it works like other ground unit with 1 special capacity.
    This HR AAA fit better within A&A system’s rules.

    Maybe it would be better off staying at 5 IPCs, as you say. Requires more playtesting.

    @CWO:

    @Uncrustable:

    1.a) Â Expanded ANZAC (A sort of Commonwealth within the Commonwealth). Includes ANZAC, South America and all of Canada.

    I assume you mean South Africa rather than South America.

    A handy term encompassing Canada, Newfoundland (which wasn’t yet a province, but whose men fought mainly in Canadian and British units), Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would be “Commonwealth Dominions.”  The only Dominion which remained nominally neutral was Eire.

    Thankyou, yes i did mean south africa lol, and i will use that term


  • 2017 '16

    6. Enhance naval units.
    a) Cruisers do not require a naval base to move 3 spaces in either combat or noncombat move. They cannot however, move 4 spaces under any circumstances.

    I like it M3 is good for Global. Cruiser A3D3M3C12, offshore bombard 1@3
    I’m just sad you didn’t add an AA capacity.
    Just a small one like 1 preemptive @1 vs 1 plane?
    You seems to develop much more aerial dogfight and AAA phase inside.
    Could the cruiser be a part of this change?

    The last version I played is:
    A3D3M2C11, offshore bombard 1@3, give 1@1AA preemptive when paired with CV or BB, give 2@1AA preemptive when paired with both CV and BB. But no AA when alone or with other CA.

    Lower cost help but the real incentive is still the psychological impact of getting a naval AA gun.


  • 2019 2018

    @Uncrustable:

    Do remember though that ANZAC now has 2 additional ICs in Canada and S Africa.

    Why south Africa? You only said something about south America (which is weird in the first place, because there is only one pro-allied neutral, and no uk territory with ipc value) In case you really want South africa to become anzac, I have to argue against it. South africa is a very important fallback plan for UK, if egypt falls (or to help defend egypt). It’s not doing anythin really for anzac

    @Uncrustable:

    -It does seem more complex at first, because it is different from what they have been for so long. But it pulls back on some of the special rules governing combat with a submarine. It is currently a special unit under all circumstances with its own special rules. Under this enhancement the special rules now only apply when submerged. Do remember that when not submerged, they can roll dice with aircraft as a normal unit, but also as a normal unit, there is no sneak attack. Sub casualties would be treated as any other casualties.
    -Look at it as a normal unit with a stealth ability rather than a special stealth unit.
    -As far as convoy raiding is concerned, i just havnt got there yet 😉

    You didn’t need to explain the submarines again, I got it the first time 🙂
    But you get it wrong -> your rule makes them more complicated. And here’s the reason:
    In your version, submarines don’t lose anything, and every rule in effect at the moment (in battles) also is true in your map. But you ADD the option of having the sub be submerged or not, while being surfaced is the default.
    So you’re not removing a rule, you’re adding one.
    That’s okay for me.

    What’s not okay for me, is that you’re buffing a unit, that is already the strongest. Additionally to the advantages of submarines at the moment, in your rule they can be used as cheaper blockers than dd (because they are surfaced). And the fact that they can choose to stay surfaced in a battle means, that you do not need to fear air-only attacks as much as you need to do now, since they can be chosen as casualties.

    @Uncrustable:

    -Keep in mind bombers are rolling 2 dice now with the possibility of knocking out 2 units at once, even in air combat. Bombers will always roll 2 dice even in SBR.
    Yes they have a 1/9 chance of scoring 2 hits. But they also have a chance of 4/9 to score nothing. At the moment a bomber only misses with a chance of 3/9.
    Having 2 dice at 2 each is long term exactly the same as having 1@4. You have 66% chance to make 1 hit or you have 2 chances at 33% to score 1 hit.

    @Uncrustable:

    -That being said, you make a compelling argument. And after doing some calculations i am changing to: �Fighters cost 8, A/D at 2/3, Tacs cost 10, Strats cost 14, -thankyou
    -The goal here is a bit of spice, while promoting more tac purchases rather than fighter or strat strategies as we currently have

    Now the Strat is far worse compared to the tac. Would you rather have

    7 tacs = 70 IPC
    21 attack, may be improved up to 28 if paired with fighters/tanks
    21 defense
    7 hp

    or

    5 Strats = 70 IPC
    20 attack (or 2*10, as you like, but it’s the same)
    20 defense
    5 hp

    You really need to do the math!
    Actually the fighter might even be stronger than the tac now:

    5 fighter = 40 IPC
    10 attack
    15 defense
    5 hp

    4 tac = 40 IPC
    12-16 attack
    12 defense
    4 hp

    Granted, the tac will be stronger on the attack IF they are paired with tanks/fighters. Without support, they are even weaker in offense. And they are much weaker in defense. But your original plan was to establish the fighter for air-battles only.

    @Uncrustable:

    -I tend to lean towards the side of transports are fine the way they are. But i dont think reducing them by 1 IPC and giving them 3 movement will break anything (remember with naval bases alot of the times its 3 anyway, and they cannot ever mover 4)
    -Im liking now Giving them the movement bonus either during noncombat only or only when not transporting anything (the 2nd makes logical sense as they would be lighter)…what do you think? - im leaning towards only when empty
    -The point is trying to find a middle ground without doing anything too drastic and add to the game abit

    If you just hand 3 movements to transports, there would be almost no value in building harbours. Although, there are many occasion, where transports don’t start on harbours. The SZ at FIC for example. No harbours on Hainan needed anymore.
    Or when you land Italian forces in TRJ to close the suez. These transports can’t do anything next turn with only 2 movement, unless you have groundtroops in Greece. With 3 movement, they can pick up in Italy and load into syria.
    Now your second idea is really interesting, giving them 3 movement only, when empty. That is actually an awesome idea. It will be easier to send them back to pick up reinforcements. Good job here!

    @Uncrustable:

    -On Cruisers i have strongly argued that they are worthless in the past, but have since stepped back a bit. They still need help, but i do think they have a place,

    That’s why I’ve not seen a SINGLE cruiser being purchased in well over 100 games I’ve either played or watched. They don’t have a place right now. Giving them 3 movement is far from what they need.

    @7) Almost exclusively important for Germany. This makes up for the reduce of attacking power of the planes, so it should be ok.
    @8) Nice idea. Especially if you can use it on facilities captured in the same turn.


  • 2017 '16

    Now your second idea is really interesting, giving them 3 movement only, when empty. That is actually an awesome idea. It will be easier to send them back to pick up reinforcements. Good job here!

    I agree there is something to do with this.


  • 2017 '16

    Quote from: Uncrustable on Today at 12:40:58 pm
    -On Cruisers i have strongly argued that they are worthless in the past, but have since stepped back a bit. They still need help, but i do think they have a place,

    That’s why I’ve not seen a SINGLE cruiser being purchased in well over 100 games I’ve either played or watched. They don’t have a place right now. Giving them 3 movement is far from what they need.

    Another interest of Cruiser, besides bombardment, it is a D3.
    When you have a bunch of TTs and 2 or 3 DDs, someone can wish increase the protection in a SZ by including a costlier unit.
    In OOB, the only alternative is just buying another cheaper DD with only D2.
    Or getting a CV (16 IPCs), still D2 + at least 1 FG D4C10)= 26/2 units= 13 IPCs for A1.5D3, 3 hits
    with a 2nd plane: 36 IPCs/3 units = 12 IPCS for A2D3.33, 4 hits

    So a cruiser is the fastest way to give more punch (said A3D3) to a small fleet.

    However, with 3 planes which can scramble with AB A2D3C7, you get almost 2D3 for 1 cruiser IPC cost.
    No more need to add Cruiser to protect a fleet, built Fgs in AB then put a Carrier in the SZ.
    7+7+16= 30/3= 10 IPCs/ unit  for A1.33D2.67.
    The changing cost of aircraft will sign the doom of Cruiser I think.
    Planes have a better projection of power and can attack/defend both land, air and naval.


  • 2017 '16

    5. Enhanced air combat (land combat only). All planes in a land battle now participate along with defending AAA in a single round of air combat. See #4 for air combat values. All planes are rolled simultaneously (keeping attacking and defending dice separate obviously). Add up the total hits for each side, divide by 2 (rounding down), that number represents how many aircraft are destroyed for each side. The defender also rolls AA dice (no change from OOB rules on AA dice), owner chooses all casualties. The casualties are immediately removed from play. AAA may not be chosen as casualties in this round.

    I am under the impression that this HR is going too much tactical  on this aspect instead of keeping the simplicity required from a strategical game.
    I don’t understand this division by 2.

    **I would prefer the kind of “1” roll on a first round of battle to reveal:
    a critical strike destroying an enemy’s aircraft.

    For Fg any “2” or less rolled /  For TcB  a “1” rolled /  for StB “1”-“1” / “1”-“2” / “2”-“1” get a hit, or any 3 or less out of 2D6 rolled (3/36 = odds at 1/12).

    Other successful results imply a ground unit as casualty for this first round.**
    Keep AAA preemptive roll as OOB, before any air units attack.

    Why are you limiting this first round aerial battle to ground combat?
    It should work for both ground and naval battle.

    About the division by 2, it is another layer of unusual trick.
    If it is a carnage amongst planes, you should go back to the OOB Global escort rule, at least.
    All aircrafts Attack @1 and defend @1.

    I know it is sad because defending aircrafts should have an advantage over attacker.
    Maybe, the aerial battle should use these stats:
    Fg A1D2  TcBA1D1  StBA1D0

    Another way to slightly improve Fg A1 is to give them a preemptive shot.


  • Customizer

    Uncrustable, just taking a look at these I think you’ve got some good ideas. I’m going to study a bit of it some more when I get to an actual desk top (on the phone right now as I type) and get a better look.



  • Why south Africa? You only said something about south America (which is weird in the first place, because there is only one pro-allied neutral, and no uk territory with ipc value) In case you really want South africa to become anzac, I have to argue against it. South africa is a very important fallback plan for UK, if egypt falls (or to help defend egypt). It’s not doing anythin really for anzac

    It was a typo that i somehow didnt catch lol, it has been fixed. South Africa because of historical reasons. British Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, and Newfoundland were considered “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”
    But for balance purposes i believe you are right

    What’s not okay for me, is that you’re buffing a unit, that is already the strongest. Additionally to the advantages of submarines at the moment, in your rule they can be used as cheaper blockers than dd (because they are surfaced). And the fact that they can choose to stay surfaced in a battle means, that you do not need to fear air-only attacks as much as you need to do now, since they can be chosen as casualties.

    I did not make it clear enough that the only changes to OOB are those listed. I can see how it can be misconstrued.
    But submarines still cannot block, in current OOB rules it is implied that submarines are not submerged. Because you have to decide whether or not to submerge if there is not a destroyer present. The destroyer essentially blocks submerges, or simply makes it pointless.
    Again you make a good argument for submarines being OP, increasing to 7 IPC might be too much ?
    What would be your recommendation? Im assuming just leave them be?

    Now the Strat is far worse compared to the tac. Would you rather have

    7 tacs = 70 IPC
    21 attack, may be improved up to 28 if paired with fighters/tanks
    21 defense
    7 hp

    or

    5 Strats = 70 IPC
    20 attack (or 2*10, as you like, but it’s the same)
    20 defense
    5 hp

    You really need to do the math!
    Actually the fighter might even be stronger than the tac now:

    5 fighter = 40 IPC
    10 attack
    15 defense
    5 hp

    4 tac = 40 IPC
    12-16 attack
    12 defense
    4 hp

    Granted, the tac will be stronger on the attack IF they are paired with tanks/fighters. Without support, they are even weaker in offense. And they are much weaker in defense. But your original plan was to establish the fighter for air-battles only.

    How many tactical bombers do you see purchased in comparison to fighters and strategic bombers?
    According to the math, tactical bombers posses an edge in pure combat. But strategic bombers more than make up for it in range and SBR power. I believe this to be both logical and historically accurate. And fighters are no more stronger than tacs in this set than OOB.
    Fighters are a better purchase on defense alone, but for offense it would be efficient to have them in pairs.
    I think you will see more tactical bomber purchases, while still seeing plenty of fighters and strategic bombers.
    I also compared everything to destroyers and it works out pretty well.

    Now your second idea is really interesting, giving them 3 movement only, when empty. That is actually an awesome idea. It will be easier to send them back to pick up reinforcements. Good job here!

    Yes i agree, move 3 only in noncombat when empty. Thanks.

    That’s why I’ve not seen a SINGLE cruiser being purchased in well over 100 games I’ve either played or watched. They don’t have a place right now. Giving them 3 movement is far from what they need.

    Well atleast we both agree that something needs changed about them. Im not a big fan of giving them an AA shot.
    What are some of your ideas on making cruisers more relevant?


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    9. Enhanced Lend Lease. During the US or UK research and development phase the US/UK may purchase lend lease tokens for 5 IPCs each. (Place a Soviet control marker to represent each token on Wash DC for USA and London for UK) During Russia’s research and development phase they may attempt to cash in any number of these in by rolling one dice for each token. The token is destroyed on a roll of 1, delayed atleast one turn on a roll of a 2 or 3. On a roll 4 or higher the Russian player may pick any of the following; A fighter in Amur, 2 Infantry and a mech infantry in Archangel or +10 IPCs if the allies control a series of connected territories from Persia to Russia. The territories must be under Allied control at the beginning of its turn (Soviet controll in the case of Amur and Archangel). The tokens are not redeemable if there are any non Soviet allied units in any original Soviet territory. If London or DC is overtaken by the Axis any tokens there are destroyed.

    This one I like right off the bat. I think this one is ready to go as is.


  • 2019 2018

    @Uncrustable:

    What would be your recommendation? Im assuming just leave them be?

    @Uncrustable:

    What are some of your ideas on making cruisers more relevant?

    My idea of units is to have each ship has its own role. You can have a look at other strategic games. Whenever units don’t have a specific and distinctive role, it causes balance problems.

    The land units in A&A are nearly perfectly balanced.

    Infantry = base unit. Cheap, cannon fodder, best defensive unit
    Artillery = best attacking unit
    Mech+Tank = not as efficient as Inf or art, but faster for flexibility

    Now let’s have a look at the Naval units.

    Submarine = By far the best in offense. Best in Defense due to being so cheap cannon fodder. Strong convoy. Bypass blockades without dd. Requires DD to negate first strike.
    DD = Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blocker. Needed to attack subs.
    Carrier = Main source of damage in defense. High flexibility due to higher plane range. Great support on landings.
    Battleship = Soak one hit. They are actually just bad destroyers without the ability to detect submarines. Unless you can manage to repair them. Each time you repair them, their value has increased a lot. Slight support on landings

    What about the cruiser?
    Comparison to DD: Far worse in attack/defense. No additional ability against submarines. Too expensive to be used as cannon fodder or blocker
    Comparison to BB: Slightly weaker than BB in attack/defense. No soaking. Even weaker landing support.

    My idea of a solution:

    a) Increase submarine cost to 8. Make them attack on 3, defend on 1.
    b) Redesign battleship.
      b1) Remove bombard ability.
      b2) Remove convoy ability.
      b3) New ability: Damage facility. A Battleship can bombard a facility on a coastal territory for 1d6, with a range of 2. This counts as an attack, so no other movements can be made in that turn afterwards. It’s basically like having rockets at sea.
    c1) Reduce cruiser cost to 11
    c2) Bombard immediately removes the unit from the board, if it hits. Cruisers still attack or defend at 3, but bombard at 4.

    Now let me explain my proposals.

    The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
    Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

    Cruisers/Battleships/Destroyers: You cannot balance all 3, without giving them different abilities. As long as the cruiser is just a small battleship, math will always find the better of these two. And if cruiser and BB are exactly equal, there would be no reason to buy the more expensive one.
    With my proposal, the destroyer will become the sole cannon-fodder unit. In addition it serves it’s current role as blocker and anti-submarine unit.

    The cruiser is worse in attack/defense IPC-wise than the destroyer, but is a huge support on landing operations. By far the most landings are small skirmishes, like the battles for the DEI. The new bombard will help there greatly, both sides. The destroyer should still be better at pure sea battles though. I’ve not run the math in detail yet, perhaps bombard needs to be buffed to 5, not sure here.

    The Battleship is about as strong as a cruiser in pure naval battles, but has the ability to bombard facilities in addition to it’s soaking skill. Range 2, but only against facilities on territories with access to sea. This gives battleships value after the big naval battle is over (besieging Japan, escorting the transports in the canal).

    @Uncrustable:

    How many tactical bombers do you see purchased in comparison to fighters and strategic bombers?

    Not much, I give you that. They are only very slightly stronger than fighters (10 tacs with 40 offense, 11 fighters with 33 offense) WHEN they are paired with tanks/fighters, while being clearly weaker in defense.

    My argument about units needing a pure role is true here too.
    At the moment the fighter is the defending plane, the strat the attacking one. But the tac is just a bad mix of both, which is why they’ve not bought much.

    Your new air combat system solves this problem partly. Fighters are only efficient as escorts for tacs/strats.
    In your latest table, they come off too strong though (I’ve made the math in my last post which proves this).
    And while it is okay that Strats are worse in offense, than tacs, because of the higher range, the latest IPC costs are just too much. Tacs are SO MUCH better than strats, that the higher range does in no way pay for the increased cost.

    I’m too lazy to work out a cost system for these 3 planes right now. But your first idea actually was better than the latest one.
    Make fighters escort-only units which are super strong in offense and defense in the air-battle. I don’t know if attacking or defending fighters should be better in the air battle. How did they work in the real WW2?
    Make tacs, that are clearly winning in purpose of fighting ground/naval units in offense and defense, compared to fighters. They should be roughly equally strong like destroyer too, IPC-wise (attack/defense per IPC). (Probably make them stronger than dd and more expensive, in the same rate)
    Make strats only slightly stronger in offense IPC-wise, a lot weaker in defense. This places the strat in the current position: being long-ranged glass-cannons.


  • Customizer

    I messed this post up a bit and had to edit it. It pertains to your naval proposal.

    a)I like the CA stats. More than one person has suggested this. Good idea. This is a 50/50 proposal. There are a lot of experienced players as well as less who like this idea. I see this as an easy fit to your project.

    b)The cost reduction to transports makes sense to me. If some changes to point C are made.

    c)Those of us like myself, BlackElk and DerKuenstler have been passionate about the defenseless TT. I think this comes from the idea that a theoretically one attacking unit could destroy an infinite amount undefended transports. I like your ideas on this Uncrustable, but for the sake of the community and to promote your project I suggest this:

    The current OOB rules remain intact except. Once or if transports are the only unit present or remaining in a sea zone, all attacking aircraft or warships get 1 round of attack on a 1:1 basis. the remaining TTs can: 1. be treated as if they were “ignored” as per OOB rules. or 2. Retreat and evade to a friendly sea zone containing at least one friendly surface warship 1D6 per TT at a roll of one. This would apply ONLY to defending TTs. � If TTs are involved in an unsuccessful naval battle prior to an amphibious assault it would only be logical for them to be destroyed.

    Example 1:

    2 Fighters attack 2 enemy DDs and 2TTs.

    Both fighters roll a 1 and 3, The DDs are hit and return fire rolling a 4 and a 5 missing the fighters.

    Instead of automatically destroying the TTs the 2 fighters get one round to attack. They roll a 1 and a 5.

    One TT is destroyed and the combat is over. The TT remains is now considered ignored.

    Example 2:

    SZ109- UK has 2DD and 4TT.
    SZ108- US has 1DD and 1 CA.
    Normandy Bordeaux-Germany has one STB
    SZ110-Germany has 1BB and 1DD �

    Germany attacks SZ109 scoring 3 hits against UK destroying 2DDs, and 1 TT.

    UK rolls for DDs and scores 2 hits. German BB soaks one and chooses it’s DD for the other.

    The UK decides to risk an escape/evade roll to SZ108 where US ships are present, rather than endure another assault from the German bomber and BB losing 2 TTs almost assuredly (The UK could take another barrage saving one for sure or risk saving all remaining 3). The 3 remaining TTs roll a 1, 5 and 2.

    1 TT escapes to SZ108 and combat is over.

    Remember, for Example 2 to be an option there must be an adjacent SZ containing at least one friendly surface warship. The defending TTs must risk a roll to escape/evade or let attacking forces one last strafe or bombardment. Also remember this applies ONLY to defending TTs, if this were combat involving a failed coastal assault, � all TTs are lost per OOB rules.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
    My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

    I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
    For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

    Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

    Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.


  • Customizer

    @Gamerman01:

    For any reading through this who are interested in alternative rule sets for G40 2nd edition, I am also kicking off a discussion about creating a house rule game for A&A.org league play.
    My work in progress ideas are contained in a spreadsheet (with different sheets for different categories, like NO’s, or Mongolia, or True Neutrals)

    I am going in a very different direction from Uncrustable, although it’s interesting we both agree independently on knocking down the India complex from major to minor.
    For example, I am eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers.  My game will not be “enhanced” so much as it will be “changed” to eliminate several of the annoying oddities that Larry Harris has given us.

    Anyway, if you would like to check out my version in progress and contribute your ideas, you can see my spreadsheet online at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=2 and discussion is in the stickied “Gamerman’s rankings” thread in league play, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

    Again, I just got started in putting down several of my ideas into this spreadsheet about a week ago, and several league players have already helped me improve it.  It is a group project, but I am retaining ownership - no changes made without my approval.  It will take at least several weeks before we are actually ready to start play testing it.  Thanks in advance if you contribute any constructive ideas.

    I took a look at this. I’m not a league player myself. Should it come up I’ll point them your way.

    LOL I think we all have some projects going on.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    Sure, just check back with us in 6 months and see if we have a finished product that you might enjoy playing



  • My idea of a solution:

    a) Increase submarine cost to 8. Make them attack on 3, defend on 1.
    b) Redesign battleship.
    � b1) Remove bombard ability.
    � b2) Remove convoy ability.
    � b3) New ability: Damage facility. A Battleship can bombard a facility on a coastal territory for 1d6, with a range of 2. This counts as an attack, so no other movements can be made in that turn afterwards. It’s basically like having rockets at sea.
    c1) Reduce cruiser cost to 11
    c2) Bombard immediately removes the unit from the board, if it hits. Cruisers still attack or defend at 3, but bombard at 4.

    Now let me explain my proposals.

    The submarine is too strong, I’ve said it often enough. My main concern about the sub is it’s existence as the cannon-fodder unit. That leads to it’s strong defensive value.
    Instead I’d like to see the sub as the strategic bomber of ships. Glass cannon style. The increased cost will remove the cannon-fodder status. It’s higher attack damage makes them equally strong in offense (for 24 IPC you get 3@3 instead of 4@2, which is roughly the same. power 9, hp3 vs power 8, hp4).

    Cruisers/Battleships/Destroyers: You cannot balance all 3, without giving them different abilities. As long as the cruiser is just a small battleship, math will always find the better of these two. And if cruiser and BB are exactly equal, there would be no reason to buy the more expensive one.
    With my proposal, the destroyer will become the sole cannon-fodder unit. In addition it serves it’s current role as blocker and anti-submarine unit.

    The cruiser is worse in attack/defense IPC-wise than the destroyer, but is a huge support on landing operations. By far the most landings are small skirmishes, like the battles for the DEI. The new bombard will help there greatly, both sides. The destroyer should still be better at pure sea battles though. I’ve not run the math in detail yet, perhaps bombard needs to be buffed to 5, not sure here.

    The Battleship is about as strong as a cruiser in pure naval battles, but has the ability to bombard facilities in addition to it’s soaking skill. Range 2, but only against facilities on territories with access to sea. This gives battleships value after the big naval battle is over (besieging Japan, escorting the transports in the canal).

    I really like these ideas.
    I will disagree with subs being the best fodder unit on defense. Destroyers are better on defense, and they can hit and take hits from aircraft. 2 Range for the BB IC bombard seems a bit much though for WWII era warships. The long range rockets were large and would hardly have been efficient being carried and fired from surface ships. Reduce it to 1 and i love it.
    On the cruiser bombard, i like going back to removing the hit before the battle. This seems more realistic.
    I would propose the cruisers participate in the bombard phase (where the casualties are removed immediatly) and the 1st round of normal combat. They would bombard at either a 2 or 3 for both. During the normal round whatever the cruiser may hit is not immediate removed (treated like a current oob bombard)

    My argument about units needing a pure role is true here too.
    At the moment the fighter is the defending plane, the strat the attacking one. But the tac is just a bad mix of both, which is why they’ve not bought much.

    According to the math, tactical bombers posses an edge in pure combat. But strategic bombers more than make up for it in range and SBR power. I believe this to be both logical and historically accurate.
    I feel the tactical bomber should be the better in a pure combat, esp on offense. That is against other units. Where the Strategic bomber should be a long range SBR machine. The fighter an air superiority unit (Escort/intercept SBR), best on defense, supports tactical bombers.

    Fighters at 8 IPC A/D 2/3. Air combat value 1/2. Range 4.
    Tac bmb at 10 IPC A/D 3/3. Air combat value 1/1. A at 4 when paired with tank or fighter (1:1). Remove SBR ability completely. Range 4.
    Strat bmb at 13 IPC A/D 4/1 (get rid of 2 dice). Air combat value 1/0. Normal OOB SBR (one dice +2). Does not participate in air combat on defense.

    some quick math
    5 Fighters (40IPC)  Attack value 10 Defense Value 15 (best defense, escort/intercept SBR, best air combat)
    4 Tacticals(40IPC) Attack value 12-16 Defense Value 12 (best all around combat, best offense)
    3 Strat  (39IPC)    Attack value 12 Defense Value 3 (good offense, long range, SBR)

    Defender has option whether or not to scramble in air defense in normal combat (as in OOB rules for SBR intercept and scrambling from airbases)
    Essentially the air combat becomes a scramble operation for the defender, no strategic bombers. This prevents such things as China’s lone fighter going up against a swarm of japan air, unless it wishes to ofcourse.

    This i think is starting to come together, both navy and air. Really glad your helping Roboto 😉


  • Customizer

    On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

    Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

    I do really like the idea of establishing some more realistic form of air combat. I have some suggestions I need to work on before I present them but I like this idea.



  • Gamerman i really like your chart.
    Do the French territories act as friendly allied neutrals? That is they can be walked into?
    I do not like the French units not being able to move, what is the reasoning behind this?
    What happens in the crazy scenario where neither Germany or Italy takes France round 1?

    I like all the cost adjustments, esp the bases. I do not believe they should cost more than a minor IC.



  • @toblerone77:

    On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

    Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

    Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
    Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.


  • Customizer

    @Uncrustable:

    @toblerone77:

    On the tacs I really don’t think the defense should be as high as the fighter. Stuka and Il-2 Sturmoviks we fantastic on offense but without air superiority or fighter escort the were chopped up quickly by fighters. The SBD Dauntless took heavy losses to the Japanese Zero.

    Just IMO bombers need to be strong on offense against ground etc. I think your ideas have the potential to model this well. However the fighter needs to keep a stronger defense if you’re looking for a more advanced model of realism.

    Remember it is not just defense vs air. It is defense vs air and ground that is represented in the defense value. Look at it like this: while the fighters battle it out in the skies the tactical bombers are knocking out tank columns.
    Regardless i clearly illustrated that fighters are better on defense, while tactical bombers are the better options on offense.

    Yeah you’re right when you show it in a combined arms model taking the entire force into account. I’m thinking about it from a different angle.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 73
  • 5
  • 9
  • 56
  • 7
  • 2
  • 24
  • 48
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

57
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts