The LRB/CRP gets around this problem by using the "Declare Petty Cash Phase" wherein each coach, in turn starting with the higher TV team, declares how much money they want to transfer from their treasury into purchasing inducements. Then what each team spends is added to their TV before determining how much free inducement money their given, which is then added to what they transferred.
That's kind of a clunky system, and not entirely intuitive, especially for newer coaches. It's also two extra steps (one declaration times two coaches) that each need their own interface screen and timer during the pre-match sequence. This is, I suspect, why Blood Bowl 2 doesn't use that system.
So, I've attempted to come up with an alternative system that accomplishes the goal of being simpler and more understandable than the CRP one, while avoiding the problem of un-counterable wizards, and also maintaining the one good (in my opinion) effect of the current system, which is allowing the underdog to spend a small amount of money to make up the difference for an inducement they are just shy of affording. It's essentially the same as the current system, but with a couple minor changes.
- Whatever money the higher TV team (the overdog) spends towards inducements, is added to what the lower TV team (the underdog) receives for free.
- A cap is placed on how much each team is allowed to spend from treasury. Determined separately for each team.
The overdog would be limited to some specific number. 100k seems like a good number for this, in that it allows them to get a basic inducement (an apo, a bribe, a reroll, or 2 babes.) You could also go up to 120k or 140k, to allow some of the more mid-range star players without allowing a wizard. Since they don't receive any free inducement money, whatever this cap is set to will be the maximum inducements they can get.
The underdog can be limited to a different, smaller constant number, say 30 or 40k, or to a ratio of the money they're already getting for free (including TV difference and whatever the overdog spent,) say 1/3 rounded down to the nearest 10k. The cap here should be less than 50k, stopping below that even if it's a ratio (for the 1/3 example, that would mean your cap is 40k at 120k of free money, and never goes higher than that.) This is to prevent the scenario where an underdog puts in enough extra money to warrant an inducement on it's own, giving them "unanswerable" advantages over the overdog, without needing to go back to the overdog and let them purchase additional inducements based on what the underdog spent.
The only real difference as to where you put the cap specifically, other than under 50k, is how much free money you want them to have to have before they can put in for any given inducement. Using a ratio will mean that you can spend slightly more to make up the gap for a wizard then you can for a babe, for example. A constant number would make the close-able gap the same for any inducement.
There are a couple of potential issues with this system, tho I think both are still improved over the current one. One is the Nuffle's Altar => 10k star player combo that dwarfs have. As of right now I'm inclined to say this isn't that big of a deal, as that player isn't really spectacular anyway. If the bombardier star players, who also cost 60k normally, are ever added, then it may become an issue. My suggestion would be to either ditch that enhancement, set a minimum on how cheap it can make stars (say 50k) or prevent purchases of less than 50k from treasury.
The other issue is what to do when teams are of equal TV. I've come up with two options for this scenario, the simplest is just disallow inducement purchases in this scenario, on the grounds that the teams are equal and thus don't need them. This is unsatisfactory to me, as it feels against the spirit of the game, but it is an option. My other thought is to treat the Home team as the overdog, and the Away team as the underdog, and otherwise follow the rest of the system as normal. So if the Home team doesn't spend any money, the Away team won't be able to either. I chose the Home team to be the overdog based on the idea that stadium enhancements do add some amount of "Home team advantage" to the game, so lacking a TV difference they should be the advantaged team, assuming they have an enhancement of course.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea, and I hope that Blood Bowl 2 continues to improve and becomes the amazing digital blood bowl experience that I know it has the potential to be.