Hi guys,
without actually being aware of your project, I have assembled a set of house rules for G’40 in last days that I would like to try out. I did not read all the posts here, but looks that some of your design principles are same to mine, some are different. My main goal was to improve the balance, discourage players from some unrealistic strategies (bomber stacks, Japan all-in attack on Egypt, Allied fighters in Moscow). Also I did not like that in the top play the blocking and can opening strategies are so dominant. So I introduced special blitz combat to allow each nation for self-can opening. No more a single DD/infantry protecting an empty capital from a massive army. This allows (I think) to change the turn order such that all Axis players are followed by all Allies players, so in a PBEM game of 2 opponents, only 2 emails per round of play are required as opposed to 6 with the OOB rules. This is in principle a factor of 3 speedup!
Here is the full list of house rules I am considering: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tEPbkPockjYiMzeGpjH-0O11t5C4wnAHTsbmeBAlI1k/edit Feel free to use any of those in your project if you find them interesting/useful. Most of them are not my original ideas anyway. What is nice that I have all of them now implemented in tripleA. I would like to start playtesting them soon, as I am changing so many things it is hard to tell how it will actually play out…
Wish you good luck with your project, looks like you have much more interest from the community now compared to Gamersman01’s G40 league house rule project http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.1410, that kind of died last December :( … hope you will have better luck.
And just a suggestion, maybe you can consider summarizing your project in an online document that can be read by anyone new to the project. Maybe you already have something like that in place but currently it was hard for me to find out what set of changes have you already agreed on, which are considered, proposed, etc… reading a 19 page discussion is not really easy.
cheers, nerquen
I playtested this on a 1941 game mostly to see how unit interactions go.
Here is a few notes.
This is slightly different cost structure because I try to introduce a Carrier holding 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
I also tried to stick as much as possible to 1914 cost structure (6-9-12), including Fg at 6 IPCs.All other ground units are as OOB.
I really like this 5-6-8-9-12-15 increment for boats.
At lower cost there is more units on this board. Probably impact on the length of play.
The game took 6 hours to conclude with a decisive Allies victory.
To my astonishment there was a lot of heavy warships and planes combat in the first four rounds of play between US and Japan around Hawaii.
Many small battles can be broadly associated with WWII evolution in PTO. Funny coincidence.
Unit type
Cost Combat values
Special abilitiesSUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move
Really more satisfying to roll every time @2 first strike as a special Sub combat ability, even if you don’t get a hit.
Most, if not all Subs were destroyed while attacking.
Even have a 1 UK Sub @2 first strike vs 1 IJN Destroyer D2 turned against the attacking Sub.
Clearly better even match than my previous Sub HR in which Sub A3 D1 and DD A2 D2 and both worth 8 IPCs.
I prefer the weaker value A2 first strike, intuitively more suited to a small unit.
The No sub vs sub makes the job so Submarines were operating independantly from their initial fleet group.
There was no point at following a Transport to protect her from other enemy’s Subs.
This gave me a lot of UK Subs and IJN Subs combat vs DDs and TPs in PTO.
DESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.
Never get a real chance to block Subs with DD on offence.
But DDs have been use to protect Transports against Subs on all occasions.
TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.
I played without the no enemy’s aircraft requirement.
Instead, I allowed 1 TP to roll her AA shot or to flee.
This is not a good idea. To much dilemma without any compelling immediate reason.
Such as, do I save 1 TP by fleeing now? Do I take it as casualty instead of a cheaper but better DD Def@2? Do I keep her as an AA platform?
Never clear, fuzzy odds, unclear to decide.
Now I would surely use all the rule above and never allow TP escape as long as there is enemy’s plane present.
Also, I would add that first TP to escape can only start at the end of the second round, not before.
It was too easy to escape after a Sub bad roll on the first round.
I would treat TP evade in a similar way as DD blocking, which is, according to my HR, good for the first round only. TP evasion cannot be better than Sub submerge.
So, the first TP evade can only begin after combat rolls are resolved in the second round. Example, if 2 Subs attack 2 TPs, each Sub would have roll twice before the first TP can escape.
And if no Sub get a hit on third combat round, then last TP can flee after.
I also like the AA capacity, it provides a small deterrent against StBs which, on this board in particular, can come from very far away without notice and take off-guard a defenseless TP.
1 StB @4 vs 1 DD @2 and 1 TP AA@1 makes for almost even odds.
Another good reason to put Sub on the water against TP.
CRUISER
9 IPCs A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1
I used this special power on this small map, it helps US to reinforced his carrier fleet with 1DD in addition to the Cruiser. Doesn’t seems that OP since Cruiser is not optimal in combat.
Nonetheless, this Cruiser was sunk by a IJN Subs fleet, letting survive only a damaged Carrier.
Definitely worth a try on a bigger map.
CARRIER
12 IPCs A0 D3 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 3 planes, damaged CV still carry one aircraft.
I better like this Carrier.
First, a damaged one is still working and cripple.
It gives sometime the same dilemma: “How can I save my Fg from being ditch at sea?”
Second, defending @3 make it amongst the last unit to destroy along BB, makes more sense.
However, on offence @0, you can risk and loose it before planes, which keeps the dilemma alive.
BATTLESHIP
15 IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4
Were destroyed by Air and Sub, none were built during the game.
Another similarities with WWII.
At 15 instead of OOB 1941 14 IPCs. The small difference was not a factor.
FIGHTER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M4
Always hit aircraft first, then AAA, if any available.
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.TACTICAL BOMBER
8 IPCs A3 D2 M4
Pick any enemy’s ground unit of your choice as casualty.
TBR: A1first strike Damage D6, can do escort mission without bombing AB or NB.
Greatly reenacted the basic ability of these two units with no big issue.
Need to roll Fgs separetly, and TcB the same.
Giving both special targets makes some battle less armful for the lucky player which can select enemy’s casualty.
The 6-8-10 planes’ cost increment seems OK.
The 6 IPCs Fg D2 makes for a really better defending units than TcB.
The TcB A3 which select ground casualty worth this +2 IPCs higher cost.
In this game, everyone buy both types. Carrier operation saw 1Fg+ 2 TcBs and 2 Fgs+ 1 TcB configuration and less.
However, the odds are within acceptable limits. In some small battles, it happened so the last casualties were Infantry instead of Tank, but on many occasions, the last remaining units were still the costlier ones. And so, even if a lot of planes were involved on the other side.
Clearly prefer this simpler TcB over my other ones which gave a pairing bonus +1 to Tank.
No more combined arms with planes for me.
Thanks LHoffman for your suggestion on my TcB HR unit.
STRATEGIC BOMBER
10 IPCs A4 D1 M6
SBR: AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage : D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.
Cannot say much. There is no SBR in 1941 game.
None was bought.
All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.
I will not change this. It is so good to follow history on this matter and let planes defend against Sub without bothering about another unit.
Anyway, with A2 first strike, no sub vs sub and 6 IPCs DD A2, Sub is not a good defending fodder anymore and you prefer to keep them for offense most of the time, by submerging.
ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
3 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane.
6 AAA gets 2 consecutive rounds against their full load of planes (12 planes) before being taken as casualty. A single plane was shot down with 24 rolls.
This AAA OP?
I don’t think so.
Hope it can be useful to you people.
On my next playtest, on a 1942.2 map, I hope, I will focus on TP.
The evade capacity help creates a few cat and mice vs Sub in PTO.
I prefer this feature over the auto-kill which, IMO, kill any Battle of the Atlantic reenactment.
Another interesting feature added for Island and Capital City Airfields was 1 Fg or 1 TcB scramble.
This was not too powerful since such planes defend @2.
Also played with advanced air defense on a just conquered TTy or Island.
You can land 1 Fg or TcB on a just conquered TTy or Island if the plane have at least 1 move left.
It increase the fun. And we saw an air support debarkment on DEI turned sour because 1 TcB and 1 Inf left received a hit from the last standing and dying Japanese Infantry.
UK have no option but too destroy TcB to hold DEI, otherwise both units would have been lost.
Also, in all situations except for TcB, Fg and Sub hits the order of casualty choice remains in owner’s hand, best principle IMO.
See you around.
nice work nerquen ! Where is the triplea dl ?
nice work nerquen ! Where is the triplea dl ?
Thanks barney, you can download the tripleA patch here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1pizua6l01to9et/triplea.jar?dl=0 . But don’t overwrite your tripleA installation with this as this version cannot play according to standard OOB rules. So I recommend that you copy paste your tripleA installation folder and then in the new folder replace the file bin/triplea.jar with the one downloaded from the above link.
Then you will need the game setup https://www.dropbox.com/s/6iplovvpx8a1rvq/World War II HR.zip?dl=0, please unizp the downloaded file and then place the “World War II HR” directory into maps/ folder in your new tripleA location. Don’t place the zip file there. For some strange reason I can’t figure out how to make it working with the zip file only.
Also note that my implementation is not enforcing all rules as described in my google document, players have to watch for play according to the rules. For example tripleA would now allow you to move any units in the “Blitz combat” phase. Players have to make sure they obey the restrictions. Also any removal of the units due to deserting a capital or running out of supplies have to be done manually in edit mode, engine does not check for any of those. Also to allow China move out of its territories once it recaptured home, I simply lifted the restriction to keep China home all together so now players have to watch that China actually stays “home” until it has not recaptured all home.
I would be interested in any feedback you might have. You have to consider this only as a fast “beta” release. Once I will have a feedback of couple test games and it will turn out to be a useful variant I will invest more time and make it nicer so that for example the patch would be able to play both the house ruled version as well as the OOB version.
Right on Nerquen thanks. Do you have a thread setup for this ?
Hi Barney. Feel free to play my game, that he set up. I cannot load the map. I am computer retarded.
I want to p[lay, but might be some time!
Hi Wittman
I’ll take a look and see if I can figure it out. If so I’ll try and walk you through it. I’ll respond in the game thread. Might be a while
Thank you; that is kind.
A push might be better!
Can-opener for another power seems a gamey move produced by the turn order and sequenced play, rather than simultaneous. Coordination is always better inside 1 army power than within multipower alliance. The game makes for Germany sending StB to Japan and vice-versa.
I know Black-Elk and I discuss this blitz move with cruiser and TcB but I can’t remember where it is.
Any idea?
Did you play-test this feature?
Great work to inscribe HR into TripleA.
I’m excited to see all these replies. I didn’t really expect to find so much interest when I first posted but 19 pages in, after just around month, and it seems clear that there is a definite desire to use this glorious G40 board this board for a redux.
I’m in the midst of a move, in home improvement mode for Axis and Allies dungeon underground lair aka the new garage. But as soon as I’m set up, I will start aggregating all these ideas into a more reader friendly document and edit the lead post to bring newcomers up to speed. Then we can do some up or down votes and see what new features we want to adopt.
Like nerquen, I’m a fan of the self can opener concept. I’ve explored it in a couple different variations, once for same-time A&A in AA50 (where all players both Axis and Allies play simultaneously, ie no turns) and once for a collapsed turn order (where all Axis move, and then all Allies move.) The latter concept is somewhat easier to implement. In same time my approach was to eliminate turns altogether in favor of a general “game phase progression”, so everyone buys, then everyone moves, then all combats resolves etc and in that formulation the blitz move was it’s own phase, similar to “surge attacks” in same-time risk. For the collapses turn order I approached the blitz somewhat more simplistically, where certain units Tanks and Cruisers where able to make a clearing attack that basically happened before the regular combat phase (I was testing in AA50 so we didn’t have Tac Bs yet, but basically used fighters instead.) I think something like this could work for G40 as well, though whether people want to fully collapse the turn order? Or try to preserve an alternating turn scheme I guess is something we will need to explore.
Loving the ideas rolling in though. Keep them coming. We’ll brainstorm and collect feedback till November and then move it into the next round of development, where we pick the major ideas and really start to flesh it out.
Best
Elk
it seems clear that there is a definite desire to use this glorious G40 board this board for a redux.
I may be in the minority, but the G40 board no longer gives me the same thrill it did when I first saw it. Beyond simply getting used to it, over time I have been able to determine the flaws and points of contention I have with it. Many of the ideas people have come up with here would be best served by either creating a totally new board or heavily modifying the OOB one. To me, predicating revisions based on not altering the OOB G40 board places severe limits on the scope of said revisions.
I am still a whole-hearted proponent of this project and will continue to contribute. However, my personal leanings are to incorporate these improvements onto a revised board; either one of my own creation or using HBGs Global War 1936.
@Baron:
Can-opener for another power seems a gamey move produced by the turn order and sequenced play, rather than simultaneous. Coordination is always better inside 1 army power than within multipower alliance. The game makes for Germany sending StB to Japan and vice-versa.
I know Black-Elk and I discuss this blitz move with cruiser and TcB but I can’t remember where it is.
Any idea?
Did you play-test this feature?
Great work to inscribe HR into TripleA.
Yes, I probably got the idea about can opening cruisers somewhere from your discussion, but I can’t remember either where that is. Also have not really tested it yet, just starting my first test game now. Being able to implement any house rule in tripleA or being easily adjustable in the edit mode was a major requirement for me.
Thanks, I finally found the thread here:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988
I have never heard of “can-opening” before, but I recognize it because it is a tactic that I think everyone uses.
It does seem like if you want to circumvent the turn order-based strategy of it, then you would need to eliminate turns entirely; either everyone going simultaneously or everyone proceeding at the same pace through the phases. I don’t understand how the simultaneous way would even work and even for a collapsed Turn you would have the same problems, just broken up.
Say it is the combat move in a Collapsed Turn Order… Does everyone just start moving pieces? Or do you go by mini-turns and cycle through Germany-USSR-UK-Italy… etc. Either way it seems like there would be confusion and conflicting elements. There are still advantages on both ends of the spectrum with this mini-turn order in that the guys who go first get to set the pace and theoretically their own destiny, but the guys who go last get to make (some) decisions based on knowledge of who is doing what.
I would be interested to hear how all this works if anyone wants to explain or there is a thread they can point me to. The way I am seeing it, there are still flaws in either Simultaneous or Collapsed.
You could re-shape the Turn order in groupings among Axis and Allies. This would link the more cooperative alliances into a single Turn… Alliance Option 1:
1. Germany/Italy
2. USSR
3. Japan
4. USA/UK/ANZAC/China/France
At the very least this would take care of the two most problematic can-openers IMO: Germany/Italy and the Western Allies. Revising turns in this fashion could pose problems with Italy going before the UK (on Turn 1) and the US/UK/ANZAC being able to leverage a huge amount of firepower together if they so wished… although that is assuming US/UK/ANZAC could attack in the same territories… which is something that could be discussed.
You could also split it like this… Alliance Option 2:
1. Germany/Italy
2. USSR
3. US/UK/France Atlantic
4. Japan
5. US/UK/ANZAC/China Pacific
I don’t know what you guys think is better… The challenge for Option 2 would be how to divide up buying for the US and UK. I am thinking you could either have them buy everything they want on (3.) and wait to place the Pacific stuff until the end of (5.) … OR … Buy what they want on (3.), place Atlantic and save the money they want to spend in the Pacific for (5.). This will also cause IPC collection problems. The simple solution would be to collect everything on that half of the board (Atlantic or Pacific) for that turn - including applicable bonuses.
@Baron:
@Baron:
@Young:
**I always liked the classic SBR rules where you roll a dice per bomber and take that amount straight from their cash on hand. Off the top of my head, I would do something like… 1 or more warships in a convoy zone allows for 1d6 to take cash. **
A crazy idea on Convoy disruption: a 8 IPCs cap per Convoy SZ (cost of one TPs, as refence) but on all of them. The total lost could not be more than what is outside a direct ground route. Riping off the cash on hand is simpler.
Instead of direct combat, roll 1D6 (at no risk) per Sub in a Convoy SZ on the attacker turn could be easy to apply. The danger is the counter-strike on enemy’s turn.
Sub only defend on regular 1.
Example, UK Europe could lost everything except the 2+6 homeland IPCs.
Germany can only loose what is in Africa or Finland-Norway (as long as there is no terrestrial contact via Vyborg and Leningrad TTs.)
USA can only loose money from Brazil and Islands TTys.
Japan can only save homeland and some chinese TTys directly connected with an IC in Asia.
Italy could only loose what is in Africa.
Etc.Maybe to get symetrical values, we can gives to surface warships 1D6 IPCs damage raid, and 1D6+2 IPCs to Submarines?
Or 1D6 for warships as a whole and 1D6 per Submarine?
To increase some kind of Convoy raid such as in Battle of the Atlantic and subwarfare, maybe Submarine needs to be a able to fight both naval combat AND economic battle in a given round of play.
Here is my suggestion:
**Sub either attacks surface vessels and TPs OR makes a Merchants’ ships Convoy Raid (MCR)
in Convoy SZ, as suggested above, damage per Submarine unit: 1D6 IPCs taken from enemy’s hand.
But this time, defender can roll@1 against each Sub doing a raid, this picturing the Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes work.
Also, as YG suggested, I would make a warships group (from 1 to many units) able to do MCR if there is no enemy’s warship in the Convoy SZ. Damage is 1D6 IPCs for the whole group, which is also subject to Destroyer Escort defense, but only 1 single roll @1 against any number of attacking warships.
(This rule mechanic for MCR would be similar to SBR.)
In addition, Shipping Lines Disruption (SLD) is available to any Sub (no matter if it attacked or made a raid, or was on the move earlier in the turn) which is alive after NCM and still in a Convoy SZ.
Each Sub doing Shipping Line Disruption destroys an additional 2 IPCs from enemy’s hand.
This could simulate how Subs Staying on Station are ready to fall on any defenseless lonely pray passing by.
5 IPCs maximum is now applied per Convoy SZ.**
This 5 IPCs cap can also be an incentive to scatter Subs as much as possible to optimize IPCs losses.
2 IPCs for SLD can also be a consistent reminder of the Sub’ Attack value @2 (2 IPCs) First Strike (no retaliation from a lonely ship unit.)
Another feature is required to keep track of the IPCs loss per Convoy SZ.
For each IPC paid due to MCR or SLD in a given SZ, put 1 attacker’s Control Marker in this Convoy SZ.
When it reaches 5 markers (you can use plastic chips under 1 Control Marker), any additional IPC damage in this individual SZ have no effect.
That way, the raided player would have a mean to remember how much damage was taken in the whole game round and how many powers made the raid.
Example, Italy in 1 Adriatic SZ can be MCR by UK and USA, if UK ripe off Italy of 3 IPCs and USA rolls for 5 damage, it will be easy to stop at 2 IPCs by looking on the number of UK’s Control Markers/chips.
I believe it is one of the situation which make Larry put Convoy Disruption just before the Collect income phase of a Power, instead of the attacking Power’s turn.
Hey Folks,
concerning LHoffman’s suggestions about “_can-openers_†and “_collapsed turn-orders_", if you intend to eliminate the „can-opener“ strategies, you might consider a change in the turn-order.
In our games I’ve modelled the turn-order in accordance to the old “1942†& “Reviced†games to ease the transfer to the new game-system for the players. As an unintentional side-effect this eliminated Italy as a can-opener for Germany but created ANZAC as such for the US-Fleet.
(Our turn-order: USSR / CHN / GER / UK / JPN / ITA / ANZAC / FRA / USA)
I wouldn’t recommend a “collapsed†turn-order like the one suggested by LHoffman since the western allies would profit enormous from this. They would simply get too powerful for the Axis. Just imagine a combined Anglo-US invasion of Normandy or combined fleet operations in the Pacific TOW. An Axis “Afrika Korps†or “Panzerarmee Afrika†is no sufficient compensation for this.
No matter how interesting or historic accurate such an idea might be. Â :-)
And besides game balancing, I see no plausible argument to deny allied nations to attack the same enemy territory.
Just some thoughts…
Greetings,
Lars
@The:
As an unintentional side-effect this eliminated Italy as a can-opener for Germany but created ANZAC as such for the US-Fleet.
(Our turn-order: USSR / CHN / GER / UK / JPN / ITA / ANZAC / FRA / USA)
This just reverses the situation and allows Germany to be the can-opener for Italy… the same thing will happen. We used to play AA50 a lot and used Italy to knife Russia after Germany broke through the first layer.
@The:
I wouldn�t recommend a �collapsed� turn-order like the one suggested by LHoffman since the western allies would profit enormous from this. They would simply get too powerful for the Axis. Just imagine a combined Anglo-US invasion of Normandy or combined fleet operations in the Pacific TOW. An Axis �Afrika Korps� or �Panzerarmee Afrika� is no sufficient compensation for this.
No matter how interesting or historic accurate such an idea might be. � :-)And besides game balancing, I see no plausible argument to deny allied nations to attack the same enemy territory.
Well, since game balancing is the reason we are even talking about revising the turn order, I see no reason why you couldn’t just say that the Allies (or any two Powers) cannot jointly attack the same territory or sea zone. (They could still occupy the same territory/sea zone for defense.) It is really that simple and it would be consistent with current rules. There are many gameplay elements that circumvent history or reality for game balance and honestly I think doing so here is not that big a deal.
And actually, there is historic reasoning for denying the Allies the ability to jointly attack. Typically, the US and UK militaries operated independently of one another, both in command structure and tactically in battle. There were very few operations which had roughly equal portions of offensive participation (Overlord, Husky, Market Garden, Invasion of Italy…) and these were the bigger ones of the war. Even in these, British and American forces remained stratified and had different objectives. Considering that there was still some level of cooperation between the two, you could institute a rule that only, say, 3 or 4 times a game could the Western Allies conduct joint attacks on a single territory. Sort of like the Joint Strike NA from Revised, except that was only once a game.
This is in contrast to the Germans and Italians (and Rumanians) who often collaborated in attack and defense because Italy was militarily inferior to Germany and often required their support. As the war progressed, Italy became essentially a puppet state of Germany and had even less independent control. The Rumanians were even more entrenched in this situation. Germany/Italy should be able to attack the same territories together whenever they want. This puts a little more pressure on the USSR all at once, but it prevents Italy (or Germany) from backdoor-ing them.
I think it’s much easier for players to accept that they are prohibited from invading the same space due to their separate turns like in the standard games. If you tell them instead: “you can’t do this due to balancing reasons†most of them will start to argue. Especially when you present them rules you’ve invented by yourself instead of the original OOB rules. At least that’s my experience concerning house rules; no matter if you are talking of tabletop or board games.  :wink:
Shure, the allies had their difficulties working together – if you think of Generals like Patton and Montgomery; or the various discussions about the distribution of resources – but if you look at the differences inbetween the US (or Japanese) army and navy, you also have these troubles within one nation itself.
With your examples you’ve nearly give a nearly complete list of the whole western allied campaign to liberate Europe from 1943 onward. I think this is a little bit more than a few examples. Sure, they had their troubles, but in general they were working very effective together; especially concerning the grand-strategic level A&A tries to simulate.
Maybe a better way to smoothing the game a little bit and to eliminate “can-openers†would be two combined turns per game-turn
a) for the axis in Europe a combined German/Italian turn (as you’ve stated correct, the various axis nations in Europe (Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and to some degree even Finland) needed German assistance).
b) For the allies in the Pacific a combined US/ANZAC turn (since they coordinated their naval operations e.g. the campaign for the Solomon’s).
I wouldn’t include the British Pacific forces into this allied combined move, you prevent discussions why they can’t attack together in the European TOW and btw. the UK-Fleet in the Pac is no match for the IJN and there is no money expand it or rebuild it once  it’s gone.
In general I would say: if a system isn’t broken, don’t fix it! (And I’m not sure the system “turn-order†is broken.  :wink: )
@The:
In general I would say: if a system isn�t broken, don�t fix it! (And I�m not sure the system �turn-order� is broken. � :wink: )
I completely agree. My suggestion was more theoretical because Turn order OOB has never stood out to me as one of the bigger faults of the game. There are minor issues with it, but I don’t think they warrant a complete overhaul unless said overhaul is easy to implement and has even fewer issues.
@The:
I think it�s much easier for players to accept that they are prohibited from invading the same space due to their separate turns like in the standard games. If you tell them instead: �you can�t do this due to balancing reasons� most of them will start to argue. Especially when you present them rules you�ve invented by yourself instead of the original OOB rules. At least that�s my experience concerning house rules; no matter if you are talking of tabletop or board games. � :wink:
Yeah, this could be a problem. There is one guy I play with who is pretty inflexible in his interpretations of rules. He started out playing Classic in the 90s and sort of has his idea of how things are ‘supposed’ to work.
The problem with House Rules in general is that they are difficult to initiate with strangers who may not be used to them or convinced of their benefit. They may think they are at a disadvantage for not having played with said rules before. If you have a developed, core play group you can all agree on things and standardize your own gameplay. My view is that as long as your rules are simple enough and well explained, there should be no issues. The OOB rulebook is not the best and greatest version of the game, IMO.
This combined-turn joint-attack situation falls under the category of reasonable and logical explanation. To me, ‘balance’ is a pretty good reason in-and-of itself because it implies a focus on fairness. However, arbitrarily not allowing joint-attacks is perfectly justifiable because you are simply retaining that mechanic from the OOB rules.
@The:
Shure, the allies had their difficulties working together – if you think of Generals like Patton and Montgomery; or the various discussions about the distribution of resources � but if you look at the differences inbetween the US (or Japanese) army and navy, you also have these troubles within one nation itself.
With your examples you�ve nearly give a nearly complete list of the whole western allied campaign to liberate Europe from 1943 onward. I think this is a little bit more than a few examples. Sure, they had their troubles, but in general they were working very effective together; especially concerning the grand-strategic level A&A tries to simulate.
The differences between service branches in any one country is far too detailed of an example. A&A is ill-equipped to model such interactions, so I would move that your comment be stricken from the record. Heh… :wink: But seriously, if we got that far into it, Japan would implode every single game.
The list I gave was of the larger, initial battles (save M-G) and not the more tactical-level of campaigns through Africa, Italy or Western Europe; where forces tended to be split. For A&A scale, there really is no tactical-level, as you alluded to. So, purely as it relates to scale, the Western Allies should be allowed to attack the same territories simultaneously.
@The:
Maybe a better way to smoothing the game a little bit and to eliminate �can-openers� would be two combined turns per game-turn
a) for the axis in Europe a combined German/Italian turn (as you�ve stated correct, the various axis nations in Europe (Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and to some degree even Finland) needed German assistance).
b) For the allies in the Pacific a combined US/ANZAC turn (since they coordinated their naval operations e.g. the campaign for the Solomon�s).
I wouldn�t include the British Pacific forces into this allied combined move, you prevent discussions why they can�t attack together in the European TOW and btw. the UK-Fleet in the Pac is no match for the IJN and there is no money expand it or rebuild it once � it�s gone.
Are you saying that the GER/ITA combined turn and US/ANZ combined turn would take place every Round? Or just two times during the whole game?
I completely agree. My suggestion was more theoretical because Turn order OOB has never stood out to me as one of the bigger faults of the game. There are minor issues with it, but I don’t think they warrant a complete overhaul unless said overhaul is easy to implement and has even fewer issues.
I’ve been wondering: as a theoretical exercise (not necessarily as an actual proposal for the G40 redesign, unless it turns out to be totally practicable), to what extent could one of the two basic mechanics of Diplomacy be transplanted into G40, i.e. the mechanic in which the players secretly (and simultaneously) write out their orders, then simultaneously implement them? Diplomacy has a second mechanic (i.e. the resolution of combat via its “attack / hold / support” action categories) which treats all ground units as equal and all sea units as equal, and which therefore would be boring and undesirable to adapt for use in G40…but the writing-down mechanic might be another story.
Of the six phases in the G40 sequence, three of them…
1. Purchase and Repair Units
5. Mobilize New Units
6. Collect Income
…sound as if they could easily be adaptable to being handled simultaneously by all the player powers via pre-written orders. It’s the other three that would pose more challenges, and about which I’d be interested in hearing opinions from people. I’ve dashed off a few quick thoughts below, without looking too deeply into the idea.
2. Combat Move (Powers at War Only)
The rules say that “Movement in this game is separated into combat movement and noncombat movement phases. During the Combat Move phase, all movement must end in a hostile space, with a few exceptions. Movement into a hostile space counts as combat movement whether that space is occupied or not.” In principle, pre-written movement orders ought to be compatible with this rule because a hostile space doesn’t have to have enemy units in it to be considered a hostile space. In other words: if Player X writes orders to move his forces into Hostile Territory Y, the hostile status of that territory won’t be affected by anybody else’s planned moves. More specifically, a pre-written combat move by Player X into Territory Y, which contains an enemy force, would remain legitimate regardless of whether or not the enemy has pre-written orders to move his force out of Territory Y (in order, let’s say, to make a combat move into Territory W, which is a hostile territory from the perspective of Player X’s enemy). So in principle, a legitimate written order for a combat move would simply be an order which directs a player’s forces to move into a territory which has a hostile status at the time when the player writes his orders.
3. Conduct Combat (Powers at War Only)
In this phase, players would obviously only be able to conduct combat in territories or sea zones in which opposing forces are in contact with each other. This would be determined by the result of adding up all the pre-written moves made in the previous game phase – a result which could lead to some unexpected situations. Player X, for instance, might have written orders to move his forces into Hostile Territory Y (which was occupied at the time of the order-writing part of Phase 2) with the aim of attacking an enemy force located there…only to discover (after the order-implementation part of Phase 2) that the enemy has moved his forces out of it. Alternately, Player X might discover that Player Z (one of his partners) has likewise moved some of his own forces into Territory Y. In principle, however, Player X should never run into the situation in which an enemy force pops up in an unoccupied Territory Y because, from the enemy’s viewpoint, Territory Y is a friendly territory and he therefore can’t make a combat move into it.
The players would need to check the board after Phase 2 is complete and make an inventory of all the places where enemy forces are in contact, to determine what battles need to be fought. I guess there would be two ways of actually fighting them. One would be as a purely sequential set of individual battles. The alternative, which would speed things up and would keep more people busy with fewer time-outs, would be to run as many simultaneous battles as could be managed at a time. For instance, there could be a Germany-versus-USSR battle + an Italy-versus-UK battle + a Japan-versus-US battle, followed by a Japan-versus-UK + a Japan-versus-US battle, and so forth.
4. Noncombat Move
This one may actually be quite straightforward. The rules say “In this phase, you can move any of your units that didn’t move in the Combat Move phase or participate in combat during your turn.” The “didn’t move” criterion is determined by what happened in Phase 2 (as recorded by the written orders) and the “didn’t fight” criterion is determined by what happened in Phase 3 (as recorded by the inventory of forces needing to be involved in battles), so it would be easy to identify the remaining unaffected units which would qualify for non-combat movement. Likewise, the criteria pertaining to which friendly territories or zones can be moved into or through would be easy to apply, since they simply depend on the map status of territories or zones that resulted from the previous phase.
All of this, of course, would be a major departure from how A&A normally functions – so even if it was workable, it might be too radical from a redesign point of view.
