@david-06
I am talking about respect, friendship, loyalty, gentlemenship, responsibility and genuine fun. You always win if you play with players under these reciprocal conditions. Alas I had some experience with backstabbers who actually are the worst players ethically and biggest losers figuratively regardless of the number of victory conditions. My definition of best is not in quantity but in quality. That is why I have recently reduced the number of people I wish to play with in the future. After a hard lesson. To me the best player is not about who wins the most games. It is about who can manage to keep a group together by comradeship instead of split them up over personal gain. Who is genuinely interested in who you are and does not fake being interested just to use you. Maybe this clarifies more what I mean? Or am I just old-fashioned?

@noneshallpass
As one of the writers of version 3 rulebook, I can say that this was the best we could do given the time of about one month or so that the lead designer and I were given a free hand to adapt version 3. I seriously recommend house ruling where needed.

I decided to no longer work with HBG for different reasons, among which disagreements about being allowed to share house rules with you guys. So if it was up to me, I would say, take the unit off the board and into the production chart. Vichy is a neutral nation and the units would be put ashore somewhere to find their way back to home country or friendly territory. This travel would be the turn the unit has to stay on the production chart before returning on the board as a regular placement. Downside for the Allies is that the unit can not be used for 1 owner’s turn after the Fall of France. But this is a house rule. And the lead designer is the only one working on the rules so he can make an official ruling for it.

Enjoy your games!

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
V3 designer says it’s on the line.

@general-5-stars
The game is packed with randomness. Almost no scripting, except wartime economy

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
back to school

@david-06

Hi All,

As one of the designers of version 3, I can say that we deliberately set the damage-cost ratio higher, because in game play with the stats you propose, you could just invest in rockets to empty the capital of your enemies before attacking with land units. Whipe out London before entering for example. I would prefer a cost of 3, or 4 which makes it worth the buy versus 3,5 average damage in regular attacks, BUT in your calculations you are not adding in, the worth of all your income being used almost immediately against an important enemy target like the capital at the front each turn. Being able to suddenly bring a lot of units to the front with your full income is risky for the game balance. So the price needs to be higher. Rockets are a way of giving that extra punch where you desperately need it for strategical or tactical reasons. Because you want to take a certain land zone at any cost or because a certain land zone should produce as little units as possible or targeting other infrastructure to have your opponent invest in repairs. Limiting the number of builds per turn is a wise way to go. That would open up for lowering the price.
A) too low a price could potentially break the game
B) too high a price makes the units useless.
Under the conditions of the last post I read on this issue, I would say use a price of 4 or 5 if you can buy an unlimited amount of rockets to avoid overpowering them. Go lower if you limit the number of purchases of rockets. Find a balance that does not over- or underpower rockets. Looking forward to new calculations involving the extra dimension of reaching the front/enemy capital faster with rockets. 6 IPP was not my first choice, but 1 IPP is a game breaker if not limited.
With regards,
DSbb
HBG Designer of GW1936v3

@insanehoshi
If they were not near deepwater ports or other naval facilities, where are those training camps of say US Marines located?

North Carolina, north Virginia and California happen to be coastal states. For marine training camps that is not a coincidence. It is quite hard to practice an amphibious assault in the middle of the desert or a forest or the Rocky Mountains. The balance between game play and historical accuracy is important. Ofcourse there may be exceptions for certain camps. Anyway I am not here to compile a complete and perfect rule for this. Just sharing an idea and people can use it how they want to. Take what you need.

@Chris_Henry
We all share a love for the game. And house ruling should be fun.

As a V3 designer take it from me you don’t need an airbase to intercept in the same land zone.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
The continuation of recruitment rolls for CCP is a rule I enjoy so much. It hints to the later fears of Communism taking over the world with literally hordes of communists. As a major power CCP can attack outside of China. A true nightmare for the Allies and the Axis. We decided them to be able to run wild once they would become a major power, because the possibility of being wiped out by other factions especially at the start of the game is real. The stakes are always high. ️

@Mountaineer

Can you clarify this for the boys? If memory serves me well, you made this one?

@theveteran
It is one of the golden rules in designing, that rules are intuitively written. Generalization of concepts leads to faster game play and less discussion and looking up rules takes away from gaming time and enjoyment.

@theveteran
So removed my mistaken remarks. Still the adjusted rule is inconsistent. But like I said, we can agree to disagree. Interdiction is on the line. Raiding is on the line. Bonus is rading but not on the line. You have to start keeping track of which line was raided by who to account for the bonus. I have issues with the rules. You don’t and that is ok.

@trig

It seems I am mixing up my own VP future ideas with the current rules. Multitask-fail I apologize, consider ‘No enemy subs on your convoy line’ a sneak peek for the future house rules. And mental note not to answer rule questions after a birthday drink.

Seriously
In V3 it is a bonus indeed. So the wording still needs to be changed by Mr Nice. A sub (raiding or attacking or moving) along a line would be a threat. If it did not raid that turn, does not mean that UK earns that bonus. Why would UK get the bonus if the sub might have just killed 1 destroyer and 4 transports with a bit of dice luck instead of raiding the same sea zone by DOW. Would UK earn that bonus even if the line was packed with 17 subs and no UK fleet to be found within 8 sea zones, because they sank it? The quick and easy fix gives me no satisfaction, but it is what it is. There is an errata for what it is worth. And I have given away an idea I am working on.

Power to the community!

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
back to school

@trig
“Raiding lasts only one round.” (of combat).
It is well defined, but the HBG solution is inadequate.

The range is from 12 to 6 (not 11 to 5).
Sure it works well like this. Some people may want to play with less luck. Others want more randomness. Give the US player the choice which system he or she wants to use.

@delaja
If you see it, I suggest to avoid further problems by playing with ‘on the convoy line’ (in the same sea zone as the convoy line). If you don’t, I suggest to apply the errata rules until the next question comes up and you can start another discussion here or at the gaming table.

@theveteran
The HBG wording creates new problems. Does anyone see what the new problem is?

@general-5-stars
The game is packed with randomness. Almost no scripting, except wartime economy