Young Grasshopper's G40 House Rules



  • @Baron:

    UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 116 to 124
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 90 to 99

    Nice way to make it comprehensible.
    From SZ95 and beyond, you require that UK sink Subs in Italian drop off SZ95 and SZ97.
    Requiring SZ90 to 94 is one part,
    SZ96, SZ98 and SZ99 are more clearly UK shipping lines.
    But SZ95 and SZ97, is more puzzling.
    How are they part of UK supply lines?

    I believe that submarines in any of these areas pose a threat, they wouldn’t need to be directly in the path of the shipping lanes, but rather patrolling these sea zones is enough to eliminate the bonus.


  • 2017 2016

    Seems OK for play-test, after all it is only  2 IPCs bonus.
    And it cost 6 for Italy for trying to interdict this bonus.



  • @Baron:

    By discarding Okinawa and Aleutians, you are going against history. There is no incentive to reenact this part of PTO WW2.

    On that point YG’s VO give more room to act like Allies did in WW2. They recaptured Aleutians and fight over Okinawa.

    That is partially correct, Baron.

    Okinawa had a huge strategically value, much bigger than on A&A, because it had airbases and docks to repair ships. Furthermore it was essential to keep the connection between Japan main lands, Korea, Manchuria on the one hand and the Japanese fleet in the Southern Pacific on the other hand. So yes, I agree with you and will propose to add this island, when we playtest it next weekend. That way both sides will start with 6 islands/island groups, which need to be captured.

    Aleutian Islands had no strategically value at all. The invasion force was small and most likely a feint attack while the main force was heading for Midway. The only reason why USA took it back was prestige. They could not let the Japanese capture US territories. No one did that for more than 200 years. And hey, they got 5 IPC NO for it.  😉

    To put it in a nutshell, our proposal, in comparison to YG´s, is that you need all islands/island groups to get the token, but discard the following islands/island groups:
    Hainan, Formosa, Aleutian Islands and Philippines
    (the Philippines keep their own VO because it is a “moral obligation” (Douglas MacArthur) to liberate those)

    Additionally this token counts for both sides in our version.
    Our idea was to create a simillar situation like in Africa.  :evil:


  • 2017 2016

    Seems fair.

    I like this symmetrical aspect:

    That way both sides will start with 6 islands/island groups, which need to be captured.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Young:

    Thanks for the suggestions BM… I think I’ve got it now. Axis National Objectives

    Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
    -5 IPCs if an Axis power controls London

    Japan (in addition to all original NOs)
    -5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territories

    Allied National Objectives

    Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
    -5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
    -5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territories

    United States (in addition to all original NOs)
    -5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers

    UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 116 to 124
    -2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 90 to 99

    ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
    -3 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany and Italy)

    I like the idea of a lighter touch to messing with national objectives than in balanced mod. Not sure I like the idea of an additional US objective just for being at war (is it with any or all Axis powers?) or the ANZAC/Egypt NO. Given that ANZAC start the game at war with Germany and Italy, why include that bit in parenthesis? That’s an awkward part of the standard rule book.

    Regarding SBR, I never really understood why there was such an urge to mess with the +2. That change was for the better. After risking a bomber and scoring a hit, I don’t want to do only one damage, bad enough only doing 3. However, why not steal the good (and obvious) idea from balanced mod of fighters A2 D2?

    Do these changes balance the game? I still see a big advantage for the Axis with these rules, just less than G40.2.



  • Sorry for the late feedback. I was pretty occupied during the last weeks.  😞

    We did playtest the “Island Hoping” VO and in our opinion it worked very well. The Axis decided to do a G1 Barbarossa and a J1 Pearl Harbor. The idea was to force USA into a Pacific war and that way provide Germany the needed air to crush Russia. This idea worked and the US player did heavily invest in the Pacific to prevent Japan from getting the islands and later even more to get the islands himself. Because of this fact we would say that those new VOs are very good, because before there was not much to lose in the Pacific for the Americans, but a lot to win in Europe.

    Resume, we will keep playing with the new VO in our next games and keep you informed!  😉


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 20
  • 16
  • 1
  • 29
  • 1
  • 10
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games

55
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts