D12 with Expanded Land Units

I like the BOTB syle mech infantry with the truck peice. A Truck unit can be bought for 4IPC. It than can carry 2inf or 1inf and 1Art or just 1Art Like a “land” transport. It has know attack or defense value itself. We already have them for U.S. and Germany if you have BOTB. That only leaves USSR and U.K. and Japan. Just paint the U.S. truck U.K. and Russia colors because the U.S. provided many trucks to those countries anyway. Japan never really had much mech inf anyway but you could paint the German one Jap Orange or Jap Red whatever you prefer.

long distance attacking planes ?
Yes

AL.

I doubt the US would buy the truck if all it did was transport units.  The US is constantly doing amphibious assaults from Africa to Italy, then into Europe, and all over in the pacific.  It has no need for a land transport.  Italy and Anzac would have no need for it either.  It’s only use would be on the eastern front and in getting Indians or South Africans to Egypt.  Also, it is unrealistic to use trucks in Asia due to the terrain. Jungles slow things down, and the logistic nightmares they create are one of the reasons Japan’s ground war eventually stalled and floundered in South East Asia.  Better to make it motorized infantry.  Maybe a 1/2/2 unit costing 4 IPC that can pair with artillery or tank for +1 attack?  Mech infantry would then change to the values DannyBoy2016 suggested.

Native infantry were not supplied with much in the way of heavy equipment such as machine-guns. They were dependent on European leadership, hence they cannot operate or hold tt on their own. Their loyalty to colonial rulers was questionable. I wanted to represent that the war in Africa was on a much smaller scale than in Europe, but give the region more flexibility by having more units. I wanted them to be recruited only in original tts, so that there would be an incentive to defend your own colonies rather than just march around in circles.

If we restrict Askaris to sub-Saharan Africa it balance in that starting armies qualifying would be 4-4 and could be given 2 Askaris ech to begin viz:

Togoland, Kamerun, SWA, GEA

FWA, BEA, Rhodesia, Somaliland.

South Africa did not think much of arming natives…

Bombers caused a profound effect on populations, their morale damage was considered 20 times the material harm they ever did. The large late war planes were a generation on from early war aircraft, the German Gothas had a larger wingspan than any operational Luftwaffe plane of WWII.

By “movable” mines I meant mines that can be built and placed wherever required; assume that each NB has its attached mines to begin, but allow ships to lay mines in other SZs; as mentioned destroyers would have a mine sweeping role…

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  😄

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  😉

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

Hello,

I have Revised and a friend of me has the Spring42 Version. We prefer the newer Rules of Spring42 with the additional cruisers, “better” transporter rules and so on. But the board of Revised seems to be better, bigger and with more detail.

Now we plan to play on the Revised board (with Revised setup) with the Spring42 rules.

Has anyone of you did this before or has any ideas if this is feasible and playable?

Thank you very much!

This commander idea must be kept SIMPLE. As I have posted previously the commander should be tactical and have special abilities within the army he is in or the fleet. The best way is to have him with target ability for certain units. We have used the tactical bombers, the tanks, the battleships and the cruisers. Also the commander should have the retreat option when defending. This has worked well for our games. We have been giving three commanders to each major nation on the setup. Maybe four or five would work but we have never tried that many. My new Italian units will be here soon and they include commander units

If subs cost more then destroyers then they should be not cheaper. Not basing it on let’s give them less cost because there weren’t that many.

I have played with different sub, destroyer and plane rules for a long time now. Plus Cruisers having aa capability. But a different topic.

Try subs cost 8 and destroyers cost 7. But allow the sub to dive with destroyer present and destroyer getting a depth charge shot.