Its a mater of marketing. If people could try or see it out at conventions and buy a complete boxed game there, im sure it would move into the market. But its a highly detailed large game with a time commitment. So its not ever going to sell like clue. And thats a ton of advertising
[HBG 1936] eliminating zero income land zones
[HBG 1936] income increase for zero territories or islands house rule.
Looking for some experience with this from other variations. There is a bit of this I have found, thanks to the house rule stickies.
Any input welcome!
My goal is to eliminate the use of history scripting income bonuses, and increase the purchasing power of all powers. Realy looking to encourage SBR, interception, and increasing the play and value of ofter ignored areas on the map in Southern Hemisphere. Without breaking game balance. We have the luxury to keep the game setup for months. We play till surrender, victory scores are only to find who lost most.
The only bonus income left would be from treaties of non aggression pacts, or military expansion.
I’ve found 3 ways to accomplish this but I’m not sure what will work best.
Add one income to every land zone in the game. (340 land zones). Benefit given to all geographic areas most needed in the European area. Few zero land zones present. Keeping economic par with new income from africa etc. Retains the KISS idea simply add 1 income to everything.
Add one income to all zero income land zones. (157 land zones). Solves 1 problem but mostly affects russia, africa and islands in atlantic or pacific. Double bonus to allies minor change for axis. Breaking balance.
A combination of the other 2 looking for balance, targeting specific geographic locations like the Pacific Islands. Difficult to get a concensus on the best locations to select. May work best but will require constantly adjusting and play testing.
Only other thing that I think will be affected by this is, income increases to US and Russia. May need to be more than a d12 per turn.
Ill be play testing a variation of option 1 and 3. The only deviation from +1 income to every land zone was in Germany. Germany having only 5 zones was too far behind France or British. So its income was doubled on all land zones retaining the parity. All national economic bonuses are the same for peace time. All wartime bonuses are removed unless part of a nonaggression pact. Since the US and USSR wartime incomes are nearly doubled they will roll 2×D12 rather than one D12 per turn for income increase.
Since I don’t own such huge map, my comments will be about tweaks to put money here and there to get to an equilibrium between powers you are looking for.
Give bonus IPCs for VCs instead of all owned TTs with values already on it.
Wait until a given DOW for a power to collect 1 IPC from zero land.
Zero land worth 1 only if captured, regaining control does not add IPC but cut opponent 1 IPC income.
If something else come to my mind, I wilk write it.
For explanation I’ll provide some numbers baron. Though your idea may be a good one for me to test out.
Power / Current wartime incomes / adjusted income (bonus removed)
Germany /20/40 =doubled or would be 25 (14)
Japan /16/33 (19)
Italy /10/21 (6)
Axis total / 46/94 (39)
Great Britain /24/69 (5)
FEC /14/27 (2)
French /17/45 (3)
Dutch /12/23 (0)
ANZAC / 8/17 (2)
KMT China /6/11 (1)
US /63/93 (13)
Allies total /144/285 (26)
USSR / 46/103 (20)
CCP China /2/3 (1)
Cominturn total /48/106 (21)
Should germany take everything in continental Europe it swings up 67. Vichy is also 2-32.
This brings dutch down 2, france down 15 and possibly 0-30 more depending upon Vichy rolls. Ill provide new totals for germany vs Allies and Cominturn , assuming rest of axis neutral.
Considering these numbers ill need to play test. Comunist is free to attack allies in our games.
Leatherneckinlv last edited by
I think some territories are grossly undervalued….Tobruk should be 2, Novgorad should be 3, Novosibirsk should be 3 Samar should be 2, Ukraine should be 3, All Pacific Islands should be a minimum of 1 but here there should be a bonus income and a victory condition attached to it, Turkey should be split into 2 zones with 3 for Istanbul and 2 for I would it call it Kars or Ezurum…Yugoslavia 2 territories Serbia or Slovenia (Allied Minor) and Croatia (Axis Minor) 2 each and I think cities should be immune to Amphibious landings such as Berlin and London and have values as well…my 2 cents for ya
Thanks to you both. Play testing a new one today.
Figured id try the most basic change first. Definitely worth it to try those options seperately to find the best.
One other thing we needed to change was initial income for allies. 5 french, 11 british and 8 ussr vs 20 german was ok. But with germany and japan starting double we agreed to double all allies starting income to match. We saw that otherwise axis was free to buildup and surprise attack most allies. possibly taking london paris and either moscow or us in the same 2 turns. Or japan taking out fec and anzac along with western us. The game would have been broken.
So far this is going very well. Realistically the same game in balance. But everyone has a lot more money, resulting in more varied purchasing. We have more strat bombing and intercepting. Definitely more varieties of units on the map, but way less infantry only stacks. And bonuses that caused scripted actions are gone, but play is still focused on strategic locations, such as controlling access to the Mediterranean etc.
1941 july current incomes.
Japan 70 not at war with a major power yet, but owns all of China.
Dutch 2 playable minor neutral
US 93 just reached full income but not yet at war.
USSR 81 of 103 plus 18 extra from conquest, total= 99
All of china is Japanese controlled both factions eliminated. Facist victory in Spain. Italy has the Mediterranean, including Sueze canal and Gibraltar. German and Japanese pacts with Russia, molotov-ribbentrop pact bonus in effect. Germany still taking rest of Europe and moving into Turkey. Russia has Iran and Mongolia, and pact income but still short of full income by 22.
Jinx1527 last edited by
I’ve heard from players of G40, that extra income only meant a longer game.
But perhaps GW36 has that room in which to spread troops. I agree with the premise behind what you are attempting to do, give more purchasing power to nations.
Myself I have approached this from the opposite angle, I’m giving more bonuses to nations instead of +1 to the value of all territory.
For instance, Japan gets a 1/2 IPP point per island, the idea being; how much utility is a sandy beach and jungle in the middle ocean.
This serves to encourage Japan to go Pacific.
Britain likewise gets a bonus for every neutral nation existing in Europe with connection to Britain, thus encouraging Britain to stand for democracies of small nations against the aggression of the Soviet and Axis threat.
Germany gets Waffen SS Infantry which if participating in an attack that captures a territory for the first time, boosts that territories income up +1 for only one turn.
Soviets get a +1 for each foreign capital and victory city it holds.
Many more in the same vein, I agree it adds to complexity, and requires everyone to go over their bonuses turn by turn, but it also makes certain parts of the globe attractive to different nations and nearly meaningless to others.
I have not finished the playthrough yet. Life in the way. So far no negative change to the speed. But income collection and checking for enemy bonus income has dropped off making it faster. It’s now more strategic by the map rather than fighting over artificial bonus income. We dont use victory points.
Usa is island hopping on the way to japan, to cut Japanese income and increase its own. FEC is defending but Japan can afford to replace its losses better and will take it sooner.
German and Italian troops are taking everything in the middle east and medditerainian no skiping valueless places like Saudi Arabia etc. Took 3 from British here at Aden etc. On the way towards sueze.
Only militia builds on defense have increased disproportionately . Money is available for more militia builds on borders and capitals. Purely for absorption of hits.
But attackers have more units. And are more aggressive on both attack and counter attack. Leading to faster battles, stacks grow faster but are used more often.
Will need to play it through. Switch up players countries and try it again to get a real idea. May just be different strategies being tried this time, we know each others play styles.
1936 senario we are using the add 1$ to every landzone and double for original German house rule and Russia is free of Berlin fall declaration of war restrictions. This one is so bizarre we are continuing even though its 1946 by the calendar next turn.
Allies went for Japan first. Russia joined in and attacked allies for Chinese ownership. Us beat Japan down as a can opener. Then had Australia take all of Japan’s money and land (just because I wanted Australia to dominate the Pacific when America went with everything Atlantic). As a result Germany went sealion but was kicked out by uk when Russia attacked Germany. Italy has all of Africa and most of south America. While Germany is fighting with Russia. Its now a race, For the Atlantic and south Africa by US and Australia is taking China and Eastern Russia while eating up pieces of Africa, to liberate the UK its south African factory back. Both are out of position to attack Germany. Axis is using Italy as a screen similar to how the UK and French start the game, on the defensive to buy time, for Germany to focus on its only front Russia. French and Netherlands are eliminated they lost all possible capital locations on the same turn. When london was lost and Italy owned all Africa. Vichy was attacked to prevent funding the German war machine and became German aligned. Only allies way to attack Germany.
Honestly the income change, only changed our purchase power per turn but was virtually identical in ballance of income across all players.