Japan’s starting IC violates the island prohibition, even in the OOB game, which always struck me as inconsistent.
Japan is not an island, its a continent like Europe, Africa, Greenland or Australia.
Yeah, that’s a fair point – the naval bases wind up being too productive in places like Guam and the Philippines. The US had some ability to refit or finish ship hulls in its Pacific outposts, but not 40 ipc’s worth.
Maybe we could add one more rule to the mix: production is capped at 10 ipc per turn per territory per point of ipc value, or to 40 ipcs per territory per turn, whichever is smaller.
So, Hawaii’s air base could manufacture one fighter per turn (representing recovered or repaired planes), but not 3. The Phillipines could drop a cruiser and a destroyer at its naval base, but not a third ship, unless all three ships were ss/dd/transports.
Does that sound more balanced?
While discussing on Global development, Larry said:
Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
After all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 plane
Because, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.
I just realized that Tank A3 D3 were 5 IPCs at that time, so doubling the cost would have put Cruiser A3 D3 at 10 IPCs.
And what is strange is that Larry back off because he felt that it would make 2 hits, 20 IPCs Battleship obsolete.
I understand that 11 IPCs is a too odd number, but 10 was not.
However, all the A&A combat structure is based on this fact that cheaper ground units are always better cost effective than costlier. Subs, DDs, Cruiser were following the rule, why bend it for Battleship?
It would have follow the rule, in addition, the 2 hits repairable units is something still valuable.
[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]
Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale. In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality. It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.
The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game. It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own. China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.
Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers. Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land. There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers. So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.