G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.

I am thinking of adding a third research table to our G40 games. I believe one or more might have been suggested already.

1. Self-Propelled Artillery Artillery can move 2 spaces and can blitz when paired with tanks. Infantry and mechanized infantry paired 1:1 with SPA attack at 2.
2. Super Carrier Aircraft Carriers can transport 3 aircraft (fighters and tactical bombers).
3. High Speed Transport Destroyers can transport 1 or 2 infantry
4. Convoy Escorts Enemy units disrupting convoys ignore roles of 3 or more.
5. Mine Layers Destroyers can lay mines instead of moving, attacking or defending. Anti-Submarine rules are not applicable when laying mines. SZ that is mined do not impact friendly units. Enemy units entering a mined SZ roll 1d for each ship. Each ship that rolls a 6 is hit by a mine. Aircraft on carries that hit a mine can fly to a friendly territory or carrier up to 5 spaces away; if there are no applicable territories or carriers then aircraft are lost. Mined SZ is cleared after enemy contact.
6. Improved Transports Transports can carry 2 infantry plus one additional ground unit

very sorry everyone, we were experiencing technical difficulties today.

You might find useful some of the information in the British section of my G40 map analysis:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

Egypt, for example, was technically an independent country during WWII, though there was a lot of British influence.  It was also somewhat unstable; some members of King Farouk’s inner circle were a little too pro-Nazi for London’s taste, and in 1942 the British Army actually staged a mini-coup to get rid of them.

I agree that if the UK itself had been occupied the rest of the British Commonwealth’s self-governing Dominions, who in 1939 had declared war in their own names (rather than being automatically dragged in by Britian, as was the case in 1914), would have continued the fight on their own.  The British colonial territories are a more complicated case, with no clear answer.  India is particularly problematic to speculate about; if Britain’s homme territory had come under Nazi occupation, the independence movement in India would probably have been given quite a boost.  Even if India had, however, declared itself independent from the UK, this would hardly have translated into India surrendering to Japan, since that would have undercut the whole point of being independent in the first place.

With the political exile option for the UK, our group has decided to give Germany a 10 IPC NO for control of London.

@barney:

wow
I thought I could just read this and not have to think :)

Sounds way cool. I wonder how it will effect naval battles? In a good way I’m thinking
Yea I 'm gonna try it :)

Well I just read the whole thing! And yea sounds better.
Have you played any games yet?

I playtested this last one:
@Baron:

So, I tried with a better success this much more stable (and simpler) values for Fighter and Tactical on defense and only Tactical Bomber get bonus on attack for specific situations:

FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 7
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Attack to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with.

Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
**_Gain +1 Attack, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter .

Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4.
With these other units:

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4,  SBR @1
Defense 1
Move 6
1 hit
Cost 10

Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*): Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0

DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for all 3 types of aircraft:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory after first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.

a limited landing in a just conquered territory: 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as it can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

FLEET CARRIER G40
Attack 0
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 16
2 hits
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.
A damaged Aircraft Carrier still allowed flight operation for 1 plane unit.

FLEET CARRIER 1942.2
Attack 1
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 14
1 hit
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.

ESCORT CARRIER
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 9
1 hit
Hold 1 plane : 1 Fg OR 1 TcB.
ASV: Anti-Sub Vessel, same as Destroyer against Submarine.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 10
1 hit
1 Shore Bombardment @3.

BATTLESHIP
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2
Cost 18
2 hits
1 Shore Bombardment @4.

On a battlecalc, these values gives similar odds of survival to a full Carrier with 3 TcBs against itself when 1 CV and 2 Fgs attacks 1 CV and 2 Fgs. You get similar odds about 1 CV, 1 Fg, 1 TcB against itself compared to 1 CV 2 TcBs and 1 Fg against itself (as far as I can put similar numbers in the calc).

The idea is that a full Carrier is better on defense than offense.
So, to keep this principle in line, TacB has been put to a single defense value of 3.
It is slightly higher than Fighter (keeping @2), but remember that Fighters always hit planes first.

The 3-planes carrier provides more units in a SZ and Fgs A2 D2 C7 can be a good fodder instead of loosing a costlier Carrier with the same defense @2.
So during combat rounds, usually owner’s will keep Carriers and sacrifice Fighters and it doesn’t change the defense factor.
That’s the main difference with OOB Naval Combat, often Carriers with lower Def @2 are sacrifice earlier because of the high defense value of Fighters (D4).

Also, 3-planes Carrier gives more strategy and flexibility on which units (Fg or TcB) you prefer to put on board.
All 3 cheaper Fighters (A2 D2 C7) but with lesser odds A6 D6 C21.
All 3 costlier TcBs (A2-3-4 D3 C8) better on defense but not good against an opponent defending with planes (A6 D9 C24).
The mix of both Fg and TcB is far better in combat 1 Fg & 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs & 1 TcB.

I also like to put small 1 plane-Escort Carrier (A1 D1 C9) (bought from HBG) in the roster.
Their relative strength toward 3-planes Fleet Carrier is better historically depicted.
In fact, a single Escort Carrier can carry around 27-33 planes while a Fleet Carrier is around 90-100 planes.

I also experimented a Fg unit attacking @1 with First strike and defending @2 but the very low value of 1 and specific First Strike ability similar to subs was slowing down the battle process.
That’s why I prefer the A2 D2 C7 Fighter.
(Combat values wich are also similar to 1914 planes. From a A&A game franchise consistency POV.)
In each combat round, you start by rolling both attacking and defending Fighters, then picking up casualties on planes.
After, you continue with regular combat unit rolls.

One historical objections I made to myself was about that Fighters were better defending than attacking.
I answered it by giving a special +1 defense bonus to 3 Fighters when an operational Air Base is present.
This could figure the alertness of interceptors and all the Radar and Survey system against incoming planes.
Also, defenders can also have AAA unit on their side to increase the casualty rates of attacking aircrafts.
That’s why I think it can still be acceptable from an historical POV.
(Also, don’t forget how G40 OOB SBR rules doesn’t care about it, giving all planes a roll @1.)

TacBs Attack 2-3-4 Defense 3 values were more dictated by the defensive capacity required for Carriers to keep the similar balance of their OOB counterpart.

Strategic Bomber are lowered to 10 IPCs and it is required because of the dangerousness of attacking defending Fighters. Each round they could shot it down, no matter the number of ground units for fodder.

Finally, Cruiser and Battleship’s cost are reduced by 2 IPCs, 10 and 18 IPCs to level them against a more dangerous Fleet Carrier at full strength and cheaper planes.
To fully compete with this new carrier (which is a bit better than the regular OOB), it is now a must from the Battlecalc POV that Battleship and Cruiser need a reduced cost of 2 IPCs :
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 should cost 10 IPCs while Battleship A4 D4 M2, 2 hits should cost 18 IPCs.
So, Cruiser will be at the same cost than Strategic bomber (A4 D1 M6 C10),
and the Battleship (18 IPCs) still compete against the Cruiser (10 IPCs) + Destroyer (8 IPCs) combo.

Example: 12 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are too powerful against 7 A3 D3 C12 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.8% D. survives: 4.7% No one survives: 0.5%

10 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are within acceptable margin against 7 A3 D3 C10 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 75.2% D. survives: 23.2% No one survives: 1.6%

All in all, the additional money made from this savings will be needed to replace for the increased rate of aircrafts casualties.

From my little experienced with 3-planes Carriers, it works well.

Also, if you really want to increase aircrafts combat interactions in contested land territory, you should allow attacker to land a single Fg or TcB, or even up to 2 aircrafts in a just conquered territory.
(I ruled that an additional movement point to land in this zone is required.)
Otherwise, your game would mostly relied on AAA to defend against attacking planes.

I will post something on AAA issue in another thread more sooner than later.
For now, just know that I put them at 3 IPCs to get the maximum incentive to buy them.

Hope you will try and enjoy it.

One little physical inconvenient about a fully loaded Carriers unit with 3 TcBs is that there is not much place on the sculpt to put them in a row.
To overcome the lack of room for this bigger sculpt, is to put a chip on a Carrier below a TcB sculpt for additional units.
On the brighter side, any mix with a smaller Fg sculpt fit well on top of a Carrier._**

@Black_Elk:

I have done a lot of experimenting with the AA50 game board, but trying to use G40 rules on it is not something I have tried. I’m curious what you have in mind?

Do you mean like using G40 with an expanded unit roster? In that case it may be possible to include Tac Bombers or Mech, possibly G40 factories (with their restrictions) but I think the air and naval bases would be out, since the movement advantage would bust the map. Not using Air bases would handle the most problematic aspect of G40 on a AA50 board, since you wouldn’t have to deal with scrambling.

AA50 could probably support 2 hit carriers, though that might bust the opening battles. I suppose if you really wanted to retain the repair aspect on ships, you could just attach it to coastal factories, though that might give Japan a decisive advantage over the US in the pacific.

Beyond this, the Tac Bombers and Mech, I’m not sure what the payoff would be using G40 rules over AA50 OOB.

I think AA50 is a superior game to Global in many respects,  especially in terms of the learning curve and the total playtime to conclusion, so I’d be pretty excited to see it on offer if I showed up at someone’s house to find it set on a table.

I’m just spit balling, might be easier to just play by the AE rules rather than go though the work of making the G40 unit profiles compatible with the AE board. It’s been a long time since I played AE, but maybe it’s time to revisit it.

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

SBR Rules are intersting…