I’ve read it, believe me lol. That’s why I used it as an example :) .
Posts made by Ben_D
-
RE: Partial IPC's or inflation of value of IPC's
-
Partial IPC's or inflation of value of IPC's
Does anyone think partial IPC’s would work? S.P. artillery could be 4.5 IPC’s, for example, or whatever else you can come up with.
Either that or inflate the prices of the units and territories (income) to make a greater variety value for a variety of units. I’m thinking that increasing everything by 100% might work. This in effect is the exact same thing as partial IPC’s. One could try 50% or 150%, but that would probably complicate things more than necessary. Certain rules would need to be revised as well, like requiring a minor factory to be built on a territory with a minimum value of 4, instead of 2, and whatever else there is about that. I know it doesn’t make sense that it takes 11 million man hours to create a panzer or panther tank, but it’s just for the sake of the game.
I’m thinking this might solve the problem of certain units being too strong at 4 IPC’s but too weak at 5. Maybe 4.5 is the right spot, I’m not entirely sure. I haven’t tested this or done the math. Let’s take the german tank for example. It currently costs 5 IPC’s to build, and seems to be too powerful on the eastern front and probably elsewhere as well. 6 IPC’s makes it too expensive and I think gives the eastern front to the Russians. Does 5.5 or 11 (assuming everything is doubled in value) work?
I don’t mind handling more IPC’s to balance the game, if this is the solution. I’ll do whatever it takes. However, I personally prefer implementing decimal points over inflating everything, it makes it less of a hassle overall.
I tried to search the forum about this topic, but I haven’t found anything related to it. I admit I didn’t take a thorough look, so I apologize if it is being rehashed. I look forward to some feedback.
-
RE: Development of Alternate Version of Rules
This approach of rethinking how the game mechanics are designed is amazing. It begs the question for some (such as me): why didn’t I think of that? Lol.
If this gets wind in the rest of the A&A community, these ideas have the potential (I’m hoping and guessing) to start a new generation of A&A boardgames, or in other words, revolutionize the way they’re played, once everything is refined.
Compressing the amount of time it takes to finish a game within 4 hours is of importance to quite a few people who don’t have enough attention span or time for long games. I wouldn’t have a clue how to do that myself at the moment, but I’m enthusiastic about these reforms myself since I prefer long games.
I can’t wait to see what the fine details are for this. I’ll add some input if I come up with anything.
-
RE: Start date second half of 1941
Everyone seems to forget Canada in the turn order, if at all :( lol
I don’t think there would much difference in the Chinese theatre, but I’m not sure. Iceland would be under British control, not U.S. control.
-
RE: Global Oil Rules
There’s a few things that HBG has available that aren’t explained well, if at all. All of the resource tokens, certain types of fortifications (like the Fort Drum one), P.O.W. camps and a few other things seem to fall into that category. There is a section on the site that has rules laid out for some of the stuff, but it seems to be outdated at this point. Maybe an update is in order?
-
RE: Overpowered German Navy
I was trying to advocate this (axis being overpowered in certain ways) in my earlier post/thread. I’m experiencing an Axis win pretty much every time as well. My suggestion to curb this was to take the blitzkrieg/2nd impulse rule right out of the game. I’ve only been able to play test this against an unskilled allied player once in the past few months, seeing as I don’t have the chance to play much, so I don’t know if that’s a viable option or not…
Regardless, changes need to be made. Other people have done the math in other posts as well on this subject. We’ll see what happens.
-
RE: How to get people to use your house rules…
This thread should get sticky’d ( or is it stickied? Idk…), seriously, 'cause it brings up a valid point that pertains to a broad audience. I have no idea why it doesn’t have several more views than it does now.
-
RE: HBG's Japanese Sets
Thanks for the responses.
@Coachofmany,
That’s good to hear man. I understand what you’re telling me, it’s nothing short of what I figured. If I had the capital, I’d help out if I could. There’s one thing I do know for sure, and it’s that the more patience a person has, the more the outcome is rewarding, more often than not. I do appreciate what you guys do, and waiting a little longer is absolutely no problem. Best of luck with all your projects!
-
RE: HBG's Japanese Sets
This question might have been posted already, I haven’t checked all that much. I’m sorry if it’s redundant/being rehashed.
I’m wondering if individual units from the sets can still be ordered, instead of the whole thing. I don’t have use for some of the units in the sets, and I just can’t justify shelving the ones I don’t need when I get the order because it’s wasted money. The last answer I got was: this option is available 6 weeks after the initial shipments of the sets. If this is the case, then would mid December be the time to order individual units, if the end of October is the initial shipping date?
HBG, you might be able to see more coin if you do this sooner than later, but I obviously can’t say for sure because I’m not knowledgeable enough of the situation you guys are in to say it’s feasible. I am a lil’ biased when I suggest that, as one might have guessed, because I’d really like to acquire some of these said units lol.
-
RE: Just discovered Global '39 a few days ago
I must admit I’m quite intrigued by what you know about the war and the different aspects of a nation’s military. The statistics you came up with also interest me. I’d be interested to know your sources, they seem quite useful. I’m guessing Wikipedia might be one, I don’t know… but I’ll do some digging myself.
I see your point with transports. The ones on the board might represent ones strictly used for military purposes, or just a conglomerate of available transportation like you posted. I can’t say either way. I’ll say though that a guy would have to determine the number of transports on the board through gameplay and balance rather than historical reference because of all the variables, as the designers might have figured.
If you remember the setup much (version 6.1), which I think you do, you’ll see that there’s a considerable amount of navy owned by the neutral countries. Is there reliable info on that as well from what you learned? I just can’t get around to the research at the moment, I’m just wondering if you happen to know.
From what I remember of the setup myself, the number of some of the navy units you posted in the OP match what the designers wrote in. I guess this indicates they have a lot of reading time the subject as well, to a certain extant. Maybe we can wait to hear from their perspective on this. More brain power is better than less, eh? lol.
-
RE: Just discovered Global '39 a few days ago
It’s a neat game, that’s for sure. The one coming out next fall should be even better.
Just a couple questions about your post though.
Are you certain that the ratios are appropriate? It seems like they’re too out of proportion. I’d say some units represent less than what you propose. I can’t say for sure though, I have nothing to back that up with.
Have you come across any statistics for transports? They may be somewhat defenseless, but of course we know that they are integral part of a navy unit.
Also, if it was possible to extrapolate these numbers and statistics to land units, would it be feasible? Did the designers do their research in this already when making the setup? I’m assuming so, but “assuming” sums up how much I know about this :).
-
RE: 4 players
Hey Unscrustable, I thought I’d let you know about a post I put up in a thread a little while ago about implementing Canada. You’ll obviously have to adapt it to your idea here, but otherwise I think it would work.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29640.15
My posts are on the second page.
As for your idea itself, if I were to use it, I’d leave all the specific colours for each nation the way it is (not that it truly matters in the end). I’d also leave all territorial gains to the country that actually did the work to get it. I have no idea what that does for balance however, so I think I’d have to try both your style and OOB if I wanted to determine that.
I agree that this way of doing it is more historically accurate as well.
-
RE: New Expansion Packs for Global?
I ended up ordering most of the pieces individually myself. Check your order when you receive it though. There’s been a few times when I got mine and a few pieces where missing, especially on the bigger orders.
In regards to plans for an updated “lot” for the game, I’m not the right guy to ask. It would make things a bit easier though somewhat if they had one available. They have actual specific designs for alot of the different countries now, which effectively makes the old “lot” of painted pieces obsolete.
-
RE: Current balance in rules version 6.0/setup vserion 6.1
Hey Tigerman, thanks for noticing this thread. I think this game is currently the best edition of this type of WW2 game of all the ones available out there. I’ve given HBG some good coin for it along with many of the associated pieces. I just can’t wait for what comes out next year. It addresses alot of the shortcomings of G40, as we’re seeing now somewhat in the house rules section in the “G40 enhanced begins” thread haha. Not to say I endorse or participate directly in what’s being proposed and debated there, I’m just spectating. Anyway… I’d like to say that there’s always room for refinement, for most things and people. I’ll received some arguments before I post anything else about the current situation about the game. It’s just too bad I can’t actually meet up with you guys and play a few rounds, seeing as how I’m fairly far north in Alberta lol. Things could be learned, tested and resolved alot more efficiently. As it probably will, I hope this game continues to get enough support from the community to stay on the radar for the next while, because it’s pretty awesome what you guys do :) .
-
RE: Current balance in rules version 6.0/setup vserion 6.1
Alright, sounds good. Looking forward to hearing from you.
-
RE: Current balance in rules version 6.0/setup vserion 6.1
Does it seem like it’s perfectly balanced to everyone at the moment? I’d really like to hear what else can be said on this.
The one change that could be formally adopted that I would appreciate the most would be the removal of Germany’s 2nd impulse phase on turn 1. Evidently, I’m assuming it was introduced to bring perceived balance to the game, but it just doesn’t seem like the mechanic creates a level playing field with the current setup and rules. For what it’s worth, it doesn’t make the game historically accurate either because Paris didn’t fall so quickly, the Royal navy didn’t get sunk by such a great magnitude and Italy didn’t join the war until later on… all these until 1940, at least. I suppose that doesn’t actually matter much in this case however… I know house rules are widely used and varied, but I think this one should take the spotlight in front of everyone and be discussed.
The reason I mention this is because my group has found a way to guarantee the fall of Cairo, Calcutta, Leningrad and Hong Kong on round 3 without any form of reprisal afterward. Sydney is usually threatened by round 4 and the Allies cannot afford to defend Stalingrad because Moscow is just under too much pressure with no backup, which usually results in an eventual German take over (before round 6). Manila and Singapore just can’t be defended. The Axis have 6 cities they’ve secured very well by the end of round 1, which are their Capitals, Paris, Warsaw and Shanghai. By the end of round 3, they usually have 10, which are their Capitals, Paris, Warsaw, Leningrad, Cairo, Calcutta, Shanghai and Hong Kong, which are very difficult to reclaim for the U.S. . At the end of round 5, the Axis have control of 14 cities, which some might be reachable, but not enough of them. Those cities are their Capitals, Paris, Warsaw, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Cairo, Calcutta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Manila and Sydney. Sydney has been seen to trade hands, but it was irrelevant in the bigger picture. The Chinese always seem to have bad luck and can’t seem to retake Hong Kong or Shanghai for long (thanks to Japanese air power and bombardment). The Americans are only a threat after round 5 (so round 6 and onward). The only allies the U.S. have by the time they show up in force are the British, which are in severe recovery mode and Canada, who can’t generate enough IPCs to help turn the tide. The U.S. usually have 100 IPCs or so to spend, with the Commonwealth having between 30 and 40, with the 2 Chinas having between 10 and 20 and Russia along the same line (if Novosibirsk still stands), which gives 150 to 200 total. The Axis easily outproduce the Allies where units are needed, which usually means game over because we’ve only got 12 rounds to do anything about it, as officially stated.
I’ve tried abandoning Calcutta for Cairo. I’ve tried the opposite of that. I’ve tried standing my ground in both. I’ve tried running to South Africa with both. I’ve tried building infantry and forts in Sydney. I’ve tried building only men and forts in Moscow and moving everything there. I’ve tried defending Leningrad/Stalingrad and building tanks and/or infantry (with no backup from the West, of course, because that opportunity is denied very early on). I’ve tried using American air power in conjunction with the Chinese to take Hong Kong and Shanghai. I’ve tried focusing the U.S. in either the Pacific or Atlantic. I’ve tried smashing through Gibraltar with the U.S. and Commonwealth whether I focused the U.S. there or not.
None of it worked.
I think the removal of the 2nd impulse on Germany’s first turn will buy the Allies enough time to prepare, put up a decent fight and give a 50/50 shot to who wins. I’m looking to this community for some answers.
Maybe I’m just in a lot of despair, who knows lol.
-
Current balance in rules version 6.0/setup vserion 6.1
So now that the v. 6.0 rules and v. 6.1 setup have been out for some time, does it seem like the game is balanced? I’m currently experiencing an Axis win almost every game at the moment. Yes, I’ve tried different things every time lol. It just seems like the Axis have way too big of an initiative at the start. I can give my details about my group’s games later if needed.
Thoughts, opinions, comments?
-
RE: Russian Population
These are some very interesting and creative ideas. How do they work out in the grande picture of the game I wonder? I’ll see how they work in my games, if it’s cool with everyone else in my group.
In the original post it was suggested that infantry be used to represent the population and give a boost to Russia. Has anyone tried to think of how a partisan system like in the Global War 1939 version would fit in G40? It’s very similar to how the extra infantry would work in the original post, but with different mechanics (which I can explain later on if need be). The only reason I suggest this is because some other people might find that the IPC’s that Russia can generate already represent the lend/lease agreement that was proposed earlier in the thread. It might be argued that the partisan rule can then be applied to any enemy occupied territory, but that’s beside the point haha.
-
RE: Other House Rules
Thanks for the feedback man, it’s much appreciated! I’ll be discussing this with the guys I play with. Alot of the things you pointed out make sense, so I’ll definitely be rethinking them.
There’s a few points I disagree with though.
I figured the port in Santa Cruz for the Allies would actually be quite useless to them, in exception to the Commonwealth fleet fleeing the pacific, but that’s about it. It’s faster to go through the Panama canal the vast majority of the time anyway.
Splitting sea zone 28 in half was done to make it realistic, because it’s just not practical in real terms. I guess it just depends how you wanna balance gameplay and realism… I’m pretty excited for that '36 map, we’ll see what they do with it :).
As for building in friendly territory, I can see your point with the Soviets. I don’t see a problem however with places like Iran and Free French territories, vice versa for the Axis with their eligible territories. Compromises can be made. I’m aware that Germany can do this already with the minors. At least it’s not like G40 where you can build anywhere (where there’s enough value in the territory).
I think the logistical issues with the way China produces is pretty much related to how the population itself fought with the military against the Japanese. The population is scattered, yes, but why would a militia form up in force in western China when there’s no direct threat there, and then march their way over after? Better to form up where you’re needed most, isn’t it, especially with the kind of transportation they had at the time? The fight is in Eastern China, and that’s where the majority of the population is anyway, so more people can volunteer to fight close to the front lines, where it’s relevant. Just send the supplies to where they’re needed. Also in regards to C. China, the Russians are just too busy in my games to go there. The C. Chinese collect little in the first place, so I figured it wouldn’t make that big of a deal. F.E.C. doesn’t factor much into this for me, because they’re usually toppled within three turns when I play with my regulars. I know it’s tough for the F.E.C., ANZAC and Americans later on otherwise in other peoples’ games though. It just depends on what Japan does. Giving them a major factory actually seems to balance out everything with the changes in that theatre I proposed.
I downgraded the factories in Karelia and Fukuoka and raised the value of Helsinki because the factories there in the official setup stand in contradiction to the rules. For actual game mechanics in terms of how units work and what they’re allowed to do, I don’t agree with this sort of thing. Raising/swapping the values in the territories can be done too, it doesn’t matter much, just as long as nothing contradicts the rules in that fashion.