@General-Veers I like the idea of reducing the facilities cost as well. But I have been wondering if perhaps airbases should cost more than naval bases. I feel like the scramble potential of airbases is more powerful than the repairing abilities of naval bases (while the move extension seems obviously on equal terms). I think a 12 or 13 IPC naval base sounds good, but I’d personally want air bases to be more, maybe about 14 IPCs. One of the reasons why I think airbases need a higher cost is their relevance to aircraft carriers. Why build a carrier for 16 when you can scramble 3 fighters for 15 (or as you and I propose 12/13).

I’d love to see more facility building, as this is something that’s very rare in my group’s games. It would be hard to find the perfect cost, but I think your 12 IPCs is a good place to begin testing, perhaps going as low as 11 for sea bases and as high as 14 for air bases. I’d like to try it.

@Imperious-Leader I was only thinking about 1940, but I’m curious now about 1942. Do you like cruisers at 12 and battleships at 20 for 1942?

@Imperious-Leader I’m referring to Global 1940 aircraft carriers that are capital ships which take two hits to sink and cost 16 IPCs.

Some units just don’t get purchased very often because they’re a little too expensive for their abilities (such as AA guns and cruisers, and to a lesser degree, battleships and tactical bombers). On the other hand, some units are accused of being too good or “broken” due to their wide range of uses and influence (such as strategic bombers and mechanized infantry).

My proposition is this: alter the IPC cost to make better balance but don’t do anything else. If you were to tweak only the price, what would you do? Here’s my take:

No change:
Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8

My changes:
AA Guns: 4
Cruisers: 11
Battleships: 19

Up for debate:
Tactical Bombers: 10 (11)
Strategic Bombers: 13 (12)
Aircraft Carriers: 15 (16)

I think infantry, artillery, tanks, submarines, transports, destroyers, and fighters are all very good units that should not be touched. Mechanized infantry are only “overpowered” because of the Global 1940 map and setup’s inherent problems in my opinion.

AA guns need a boost. Most people would rather change their entire mechanism, but I think most of us wouldn’t mind buying them for a 1 IPC discount, and at the same time, they’re still not too effective. I don’t see why anyone should object to this.

Cruisers are overshadowed by battleships and the other special naval units. Again, many players have tried countless ways to change cruisers into something more affordable, but in order to keep it simple but also keep battleships relevant, a single IPC discount should work for most people.

Tactical bombers are actually quite good already. I can understand why many would argue that 11 IPCs isn’t that bad, but I do think they are slightly overpriced due to their limitations. I’d honestly rather boost them by a small rule change, but the purpose of this thread is to only change prices. 11 or 10— take your pick.

Strategic bombers at 13? Yikes. I can already hear the players who love bombing the heck out of factories screaming at me. But seriously, these far-reaching aircraft are pretty darn good and effective at eliminating production. I just wanted to throw this out there since I think the power of strategic bombing is pretty heavily abused.

Aircraft carriers are already a great purchase. So why do I want to discount them? Well, since I’m suggesting reductions in price, to the big gun ships, I want to make sure that the effectiveness of aircraft carriers is preserved. This is World War II after all, and I’d hate to see the false idea of battleships being superior to aircraft become a thing. It’s just another idea I want to add since…

Battleships need a discount since cruisers are getting one. I think the perfect value would be 19 IPCs, but I could see others arguing for 18 or even leaving them at 20. 19 might sound like an odd number, but if cruisers are 11, I think battleships should be 19.

So now that I’ve seriously thought about it all, here’s a revised price chart that I think most players will like. Changes are in bold:

Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Tactical Bombers: 11
Strategic Bombers: 12
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8
Cruisers: 11
Aircraft Carriers: 16
Battleships: 19

Please share your thoughts, especially on those that I changed and whether aircraft carriers should be 15 or not. Remember, no unit characteristic changes, only price changes.

Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.

Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.

Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.

When you’re stuck at home in quarantine and you have nothing that you need to do, sometimes the craziest ideas will cross your mind:
This is something I’ve actually been toying with for a while: a 1939 or 1937 game played on the 1914 board. It’s been a great deal of fun, but I usually find myself exploring alternate history rather than creating a game that is actually balanced with streamlined rules.

Have you ever experimented with playing a World War 2 era game on 1914 with the rules and units from 1940? Making a good setup has been difficult, and some places like Russia just aren’t ideal, but I’ve seen a lot of potential with making an early war scenario like this with many playable little nations. OH, and a well-defended France as well.

Have I just gone crazy, or is this an interesting idea?

I hadn’t really given it a thought, but here’s two ideas that just came to mind:

Make it so that the player has to somehow “transfer” the precious metal from the area. This could be as simple as forcing there to be one unit in the zone, or somehow involve a shipping convoy.

Another thing I was thinking that might help with the same old boredom in Africa, is perhaps gold or silver can be used to recruit more African locals and deploy infantry in the colonies.

@barnee

Unfortunately, no. Never got the chance to play it because I’m on Android. That would be a fun way for me to try Oztea’s new rules though.

Did I hear the words Free French?

This is an interesting spinoff, Oz! I had been waiting so long for you to make this setup that I actually made my own. But now we got yours to try, and it even incorporates a semi-independent Holland! Some great stuff here.

And I love any scenario in which I can fight the despicable Vichy Regime and its Boche oppressors of France.

I’d like to see resources developed a little more. Gold and silver, for instance, basically just increase the IPC value of a territory. Maybe you could add some technicality to make it more interesting and influential?