Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Post Reply
Noll
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:41 am

Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Post by Noll » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:21 pm

I thought of a solution to make the Cruiser more appealing.
Reduce the overall cost of some sea units to something like:

Submarine: 5
Transport: 6 (they no longer have 1hit point and def 1)
Destroyer: 7
Cruiser: 10

All the other naval units stay the same, so:

Submarine: 5
Transport: 6
Destroyer: 7
Cruiser: 10
Carrier: 16
Battleship: 20

oztea
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Post by oztea » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:40 am

I wish sea and land units were just produced differently.
Some way to allow different nations to have different income structures.

Like settlers of cattan. Except the currencies would be....
Manpower, Metal, Oil, Food, Coal

Infantry - 1 Manpower, 1 Food
Artillery - 1 Manpower, 1 Metal
Mech Infantry - 1 Manpower, 1 Metal, 1 Oil, 1 Food
Armor - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 2 Oil, 1 Food

Fighter - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil
Tac Bomber - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil
Bomber - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 2 Oil

Submarine - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil, 1 Food
Transport - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil
Destroyer - 1 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil, 1 Coal
Cruiser - 2 Manpower, 2 Metal, 1 Oil, 2 Coal
Carrier - 2 Manpower, 2 Metal, 2 Oil, 2 Coal
Battleship - 2 Manpower, 3 Metal, 2 Oil, 2 Coal, 1 Food

The rule would apply that any 4 of one supply can be traded for 1 of another
4 Food = 1 Metal (Scrap drives, etc)

Territories would have a row of symbols (with values) instead of IPC values
The eastern US might have
[6 Manpower, 3 Metal, 1 Oil, 4 Food, 5 Coal]
Central US might have
[4 Manpower, 3 Metal, 4 Oil, 4, Food, 1 Coal]
Western US might have
[4 Manpower, 4 Metal, 2 Oil, 3 Food]

Hawaii would have
[1 Manpower, 1 Food]


This certainly complicates things....but I feel it would be awesome.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Post by Caractacus » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:26 am

I have a version of this done for the entire world with just two resource types to make it easily playable:

Each space on the board has a Manpower and a Resource value.

You use your nation's total Manpower Points and Resource Points to build units in a manner almost exactly like that which you outlined.

When you conquer an enemy territory, you need to garrison it with as many combat units as the territory has Manpower Points. However, you DO get the benefit of those Manpower Points since they are ruled to then be working for you (on whatever level of unwillingness you wish you imagine), carrying, packing, building things, etc.

If you have too few Garrison units, you only collect as many Manpower Points as you have units there.

You also get access to all the Resource Points if the Garrison is complete. Otherwise reduce the Resource Points gained by 1 for each missing Garrison unit.

The element I really liked about this was that it gave very high Manpower Points to the Chinese, but low Resource Points, thus imposing upon them a policy of many Inf, few Art and nothing else without the need for too many additional rules.

Further, Japan suffers from a severe lack of Resource Points, meaning that if it wishes to continue to build non-Inf pieces in any meaningful numbers, it NEEDS the Netherlands East Indies.

The British, too, need additional Resource Points if cut off from the Empire and Commonwealth.

This therefore helps to shape the course of the war in and of itself.

I also have set a maximum piece count for nations based upon their total Manpower Points and Resource Points. Although units are built with a mixture of the two types, they are are defined as being predominantly of one category or the other. One can have a maximum number of Manpower-based units (Inf, Paras, Marines) equal to the total Manpower Points you have. Ditto for units that depend mainly upon Resource Points (all others).

It's fun, but the game plays differently since you can't just build 10 Armour without considering how that affects your ability to build warships or even add the single Resource Point needed for each Inf unit you were wanting. It also prevents small powers like the ANZAC nations from building nothing but Infantry for many, many turns, as their total Manpower just won't support it.

So I recommend designing something you like for yourself and your group and see how it goes!

Fun! 8)
Caractacus.

TheDS
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:40 pm

Re: Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Post by TheDS » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:18 am

One of the big problems encountered by the despotic powers was the lack of sufficiently intelligent/educated people for aircraft. I would imagine this was caused by a lack of education among the common folk (since their form of government made citizen intelligence a source of trouble most of the time) and was compounded by them not having a lot of time available to educate people once it was crunch-time. The Russians had an even worse problem since Stalin also killed most of his competent generals.

How to model that in game and keep it simple?

TheDS
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:40 pm

Re: Suggestion to Larry for future games: the Cruiser

Post by TheDS » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:18 am

One of the big problems encountered by the despotic powers was the lack of sufficiently intelligent/educated people for aircraft. I would imagine this was caused by a lack of education among the common folk (since their form of government made citizen intelligence a source of trouble most of the time) and was compounded by them not having a lot of time available to educate people once it was crunch-time. The Russians had an even worse problem since Stalin also killed most of his competent generals.

How to model that in game and keep it simple?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests