Posts made by Robbernosky

@Young:

If you look at the original neutral blocks rule, it is a very simple idea that does not mention anything about adding sea or air units to territories, that said, I do realize that any ideas that are voted in, are very raw and need discussion for refinement. However, if I don’t question drastic changes in the process, than ideas accepted by democracy become unrecognizable to the members who voted for the rule in the first place.

The reason why I need to question and even reject suggestions made to Delta+1 rules in their final stages, is to guard them from members wishing to exploit winning rules in order to push in their more radical ideas into Delta, ideas that may not sit well with most members who are involved in this project. I am not suggesting at all that you are such a member, but I’m sure you can appreciate the risk of not filtering out ideas that are completely in left field from the original.

That said, looking at the suggestions to re-write almost all the standing armies for every strict neutral on the board, and the amount of layers added to the original suggestion, to say that “neutral blocks” is impossible without adding ships and planes, is disappointing. I guess my question is, can it be done with just infantry and artillery?

You’re like a Thomas Jefferson for these Delta rules.

@Vance:

@Zallomallo:

We could have 2d6, and the middle numbers have more mundane tech, while the outer numbers have some game changers, or at least big enhancements.

Permutation.  Excellent idea.  It’s like a craps game.

You get nothing is the 2d6 adds up to 5, 6, 7 or 8.  Get an OK one for 4 or 9, a good one for 3 or 10, and awesome one for 2 or 11, and if you roll 1 or 12 you get the A-bomb.

I’d like to see you roll a 1 with 2 dice.
Lemme fix that:
No tech - 6 7 8
Mediocre - 5 9
Good - 4 10
Excellent - 3 11
A-Bomb - 2 12

@ er… JimmyHat
That’s a good idea, maybe we could make tech dice cost different based on initial income.  Smaller nations get less use out of it, right?

Like:
2 - Awesome
3 - Fantastic
4 - Excellent
5 - Great
6 - Good
7 - Meh
8 - Good
9 - Great
10 - Excellent
11 - Fantastic
12- Awesome

If you don’t know, 2 dice has increased probability of inner numbers (7 is the highest).  This could make technology a little more predictable, or something.

@Vance:

No no it’s not morale points; it’s morality points.

Each major power starts the game with 100 morality points representing Christian civilization.  You lose morality points for doing things like bombing civilians, building concentration camps, exterminating the Jews, using chemical and biological weapons, using slave labour, having child soldiers, using prisoners of war for medical experimentation, and mass rape of women in victory cities.  The first one to lose all of their morality points WINS

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif

We could have 2d6, and the middle numbers have more mundane tech, while the outer numbers have some game changers, or at least big enhancements.

How I feel

Keep in mind, none of the above has an inherent advantage.  Those wishing for no changes have all their votes consolidated.  That being said, we should give benefit to no change, so we have a tight, well functioning ruleset.

Didn’t you use to dislike bids?

So, they can fire at planes(attacker chooses which planes to lose) every turn?  If it was only one shot per turn, per AA, that could be good.  Though it would probably create some problems.

@JimmyHat:

All you’re ‘points’ didn’t have an effect on the aa gun changes.  They were around in A2 and are around in A3, fulfilling the same basic function of protecting your army from air attack.  Now they just do it much worse and also provide a meat shield to your army after they fire.  Anyone have any better thought out reasons??

They fit the chips perfectly?

Has anyone ever taken back France in a game?  What happened?  It seems like people stop playing before that happens.

Cost 9?  How about 7 or 8?

I think it would have been essentially impossible for the Axis to have invaded the USA in real life.  It’s so far away that whatever they sent at it could be intercepted, or prepared for.  Also, this would take pressure off of nearby enemies, allowing them to gain the upper hand.  The only way it would’ve been possible is after the Axis had conquered Russia and England.

@Cmdr:

@Zallomallo:

Build-your-own-table Kit?

I did, for Revised.  It has little toggle switches to change the color of the territory (All are clear when the table is unplugged) which is kind of cool, at least I think so.  I am SOOO not putting the time, effort and money into one for Global!  For one thing, it’d be way too large to store anywhere!  For another, my Revised table cost me over $300 to make (mostly for the furniture grade mahogony.)

Holy crap!  How is that even possible?  That would take like 100+ hours of work.

@Cmdr:

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

Build-your-own-table Kit?

@knp7765:

@Cmdr:

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.   American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

Perhaps “racism” isn’t really the proper term.  Maybe “nationalism” would be more appropriate.  Basically it’s taking pride in one’s country, patriotism, with perhaps a little “we’re better” ego thrown in.

(sorry for more off topic)
My thoughts exactly.  Racism is directed at a single race, like Korean, American, English, etc.  Nationalism is for an actual country.

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh, back on topic please.

@mantlefan:

I think it’s safe to say that practically any modification to the rules that was worth the effort of changing the rules is most likely going to have a relevant distortative effect. It’s pretty much necessary to dismiss the reports that come in from games where practically any modification was made.

This is a good effort but it leaves out player skill and dice, the big variables. The who won/who lost is just not complex enough to be meaningful. In the end, it just becomes a collection of “what feels balanced,” and that’s when we get the people who start making things up in order to have an excuse to get their ideas in the game.

Thats what other comments is for!