G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[amanntai]

Hey guys!
I’ve been away for awhile, and noticed this thread… but 40 pages is a lot of reading.
Can someone summarize the proposed changes, or is there a google doc of all the changes, or something?

[baron Münchhausen]

There is many different ideas.
The thread is changing topic in each 4-5 pages.
In disorder, you can find in this thread:
There is some Triple A files which includes many different but similar units to allow a wide range of play-tests. If you read backward, you will find the latest made by Barney.
There is usually explanations of units and changes on NO.
Some Cruisers and Marines are in it.
BB and Cruiser can load 1 Marines.
There is a Vichy expansion  rule on files too.
Some NOs to increase Pacific action had been discussed.
Some Non-Aggression Pact breaking penalty between Russia and Japan.
An Elite Infantry has been discussed.
A different Convoy Raiding rule is developped, not only for G40, also AA50, 1942.2 and 1941.
A general discussion about the aim of Redesign is on the first pages.
There is a complete change of cost structure for ships suggested.
And different ways of interactions between planes against planes, TcBs against ground units and between Subs, DDs, planes and TPs.
And a few more ideas.

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

**REVISIONS    **

Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

FIGHTER
10 IPCs A3 D4 M4
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D3 M4
TBR: A1 first strike, Damage D6 on AB or NB,
SBR: can do escort mission for StBs without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs No cost change A4 D1 M6
SBR: AA A1 first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage on IC, AB, NB D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s/AB or NB’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

After my discussion with Regularkid on Fighter escorting & intercepting @2, I believe it is necessary to explain and revise some features I suggested to increase and improve SBR/TBR actions.
There was 5 points meant to increase action for both sides making optimized to SBR even with more defenders or to do interception in most cases even when only one or two Fgs defend.

There is one feature which can be discarded : minimum +2 damage if hit by IC’s AAA.
Even if it is an incentive to risk more bombers, the odds doesn’t rise so much.
It should be drop for simplicity.

Second one, Fighter needs to be A2 D2 to have a better incentive to escort and intercept.
And we all know that Fighters were superior in air combat over bombers.

Third feature, 1 StBomber attack must work like AA@1 against up to 2 Fgs interceptor, which ever the lower.
It is required because a large number of attack @1 (first strike or not) is a deterrent to intercept.
That way, if many StBs only are SBR and one single Fg is defending in IC’s TT, or just a couple Fgs, each Fg can intercept and risk only 1 shot @1 against itself.
On the other side, 1 StB can dare to attack up to 2 Fgs (1:2 ratio) without having too high odds against itself (-2.463 IPCs/raid vs - 3.852 IPCs/raid with A2D2 Fg and OOB -0.206 IPCs/raid, IMO this one was too generous and OP) and it can reach parity offense/defense when 1 StB and 1 Fg attack 2 Fgs interceptor (-0.056 IPC/raid) but it needs one incentive: letting bomber being the first target.
Same scenario, only Fg A2D2, gives odds at +0.407 while  OOB odds are high +2.445 IPCs/raid.

Fourth, Bomber as the first target/casualty is an interesting incentive to intercept when there is Fg escort.
That way, one or two escorting Fgs are no more deterrent because it was better to do nothing and suffer bombing damage (+2.583 IPCs/1 StB raid).
First target gives defender a real opportunity to stop some damage and lower the odds against him, even if it risks losing his own intercepting Fg (+2.167 IPCs/raid 1StB+1Fg vs 1Fg).
Otherwise, attacker trade Fg for Fg and all Bombers get an opportunity on IC (+3.694 IPC/Raid 1StB+1Fg vs 1Fg).
In fact, all other kinds of scrambling interceptors worsen odds against defender in a way it is better not to do so. (Fg A2D2 only:  3.694- 2.583 = +1.111 more IPCs damage per raid intercepted instead of letting bombers do direct attack on IC.)(G40 OOB SBR: 3.972 - 2.583 = + 1.389 IPCs)

Finally, fifth aspect, giving @1 first strike to bomber can be a big psychological deterrent for defender while keeping both regular @1 StB (as AA vs 2 planes) and TcB reg @1 is low but attacker has always the advantage to choose where, when and how SBR will be done.
Attacker can wait until there is enough units on his side.

For Redesign project, either can work for play-test.
It depends on which Triple A code is easier to implement on StB, first strike AA up to 2 Fgs or regular AA up to two Fgs, which ever the lower.
So, here is the combat values I would like:

FIGHTER
10 IPCs A3 D4 M4 +1AB
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.
Owner still choose which bomber type is taken as casualty.

TACTICAL BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1AB
TBR: A1, Damage D6 on AB or NB,
SBR: can do escort mission for StBs without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D1 M6 +1AB or A3 D2 M6 +1AB
SBR: AA A1 against up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage on IC, AB, NB D6+2

---

Once this said, it should be clear that odds are still much less generous for attacker than OOB SBR.
This can make SBR strategy less paying out because intercepting always reduced the odds for attacker. This wasn’t the case OOB, so most witty people choose, for good reasons, to never risk intercepting at disastrous odds.

[baron Münchhausen]

Since this thread is still open for ideas, I will describe one SBR issue which cannot be resolved only with values changes.
Many players seem to complain about how the game is made in such a way that SBR and Convoy raiding are historically upside-down. Germany is going SBR hard with Dark Skies while Allies are Convoy Raiding, especially Italy.

One point is that Germany has too many ICs (minor and major) that it is a long and time consuming strategy to maxed-out all ICs until Germany needs to repair a few points to be able to produce unit.

Any idea on how to fix this? UK and Russia can be SBR but Germany is virtually immune.

[baron Münchhausen]

Does allowing extra-move for escorting Fgs early on can increase the UK and US audacity in early game, so they can bomb Germany more willingly?

Something like any operational AB allows, for SBR purpose only, Fgs to escort bombers up to 3 TTs away and coming back to this Air Base’s TT only.

What about if D6+3 damage is given to StBs starting from operational AB?
Still assuming, at least, Fg A2 D2 in SBR escort and intercept (and more, see post above).
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1483652#msg1483652

Can these two features would increase SBR on Germany?

Does UK and US can more easily maxed-out Germany’s ICs that way?

Anyway, German’s St Bombers already maxed-out russian’s IC, adding +1 damage bonus will not change things that much.

[Young Grasshopper]

What about…

When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

What about…

When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

I really like this idea.
It reduces Germany’s IC productions conquered over France.
If Germany needs to built ships in med, it would have to built a minor IC in Southern France.
Balance things a bit toward Allies.
Paris becomes a minor IC.
When liberated, does it remain a minor IC?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

What about…

When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

I really like this idea.
It reduces Germany’s IC productions conquered over France.
If Germany needs to built ships in med, it would have to built a minor IC in Southern France.
Balance things a bit toward Allies.
Paris becomes a minor IC.
When liberated, does it remain a minor IC?

It would also slow the German advance toward Moscow.

How about factories only get downgraded when captured, not liberated.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

@Young:

What about…

When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

I really like this idea.
It reduces Germany’s IC productions conquered over France.
If Germany needs to built ships in med, it would have to built a minor IC in Southern France.
Balance things a bit toward Allies.
Paris becomes a minor IC.
When liberated, does it remain a minor IC?

It would also slow the German advance toward Moscow.

How about factories only get downgraded when captured, not liberated.

I agree.
It will still help Allies when liberating Paris.
Also, it is a kind of scorched earth on the way toward Moscow.
Germany would probably need to rebuilt some minor ICs.
Crippling Paris’ IC and West Germany’s IC with SBRs can now become a burden, even for Germany, since it will be either to built a new one or stay with a few IC and repair them.

[General 6 Stars]

Have all Major Factory’s captured  down graded to Minors and then can be upgraded to Majors.
All Minor Factory’s captured or liberated are destroyed and removed.

So if Germany captures Paris they can upgrade factory to major but will cost more to fix then a minor.

[barney]

@Young:

What about…

When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.

This seems worth exploring. majors are already reduced to minors but nothing happens to minors, ( unless they’re in China ). I’ve thought about increasing the amount of damage to minors and bases. Might encourage more bombing. One could try lowering the major in Germany to a minor as well. I imagine someone has tried that.

[regularkid]

Would make it more difficult to maintain an Allied toe-hold in Normandy and would make Allied liberations of France even less common/strategically viable.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

Have all Major Factory’s captured  down graded to Minors and then can be upgraded to Majors.
All Minor Factory’s captured or liberated are destroyed and removed.
So if Germany captures Paris they can upgrade factory to major but will cost more to fix then a minor.

@regularkid:

Would make it more difficult to maintain an Allied toe-hold in Normandy and would make Allied liberations of France even less common/strategically viable.

Liberated minors should not be destroyed, at least for that reason.
Maybe captured minors are considered fully damaged instead?
That way,  Normandy’s minor IC would still be there upon liberation.

[Black_Elk]

So if you’ve made it through 41 pages of this thread and are still hungry for G40 redesign ideas that might be classified as “radical”? Here’s another massive thread from a while back that contains many…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

The basic subjects explored there were, a Commonwealth Nation, a single UK economy, and a new production profile for the factory unit (with 3 tiers, Minor, Mid, and Major.)

Although now basically defunct (I don’t know that anyone is still playing), it’s another good example of a broad ranging redraft of G40, with lots of back and forth discussions.

Now that G40b (aka Balanced Mod) is established, and YG has finalized and summarized his own house rules in the Cliffside Bunker sticky, I’m thinking that the main purpose of this thread should basically be the continued exploration of radical redesign ideas, that go beyond or builds yet further on the sort of stuff covered in those ruleset.

For me the ultimate G40 adaptation has yet to be realized, but the board and boxed materials provide an excellent foundation to build on.

Among the major goals I still have…

A game with more variation in the starting conditions, ie. Variable starting unit placement, variable starting income, position in the turn order sequence, optional start dates etc.

A game that doesn’t involve so many nation-specific or one off rules, that need to be memorized.

More money introduced through universal objectives, as opposed to just national ones.

A political system that allows more freedom to explore things like non aggression pacts or changes in alignment, using cash incentives and disincentives, rather than strict prohibitions or round based restrictions.

A convoy system that creates a naval economy that is more independent/separate from the land economy (ie. One that focuses on giving value to sea lanes, beyond just those adjacent to land territory tiles.) as way to make the naval game more dynamic.

A way to give each territory tile (specifically the zero IPC tiles) an in game value that can be easily quantified.

An alternative method of determining victory, that goes beyond capital capture/concession.

A unit roster where every unit has a unique function, with a specific place in the game and a price point that matches their usefullness.

That’s still pretty broad, granted, but it’s where I’m at with this thing. Still hunting for perfection.
Still kicking ideas around until we get there, or the sun explodes.
:-D

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

So if you’ve made it through 41 pages of this thread and are still hungry for G40 redesign ideas that might be classified as “radical”? Here’s another massive thread from a while back that contains many…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

The basic subjects explored there were, a Commonwealth Nation, a single UK economy, and a new production profile for the factory unit (with 3 tiers, Minor, Mid, and Major.)

Although now basically defunct (I don’t know that anyone is still playing), it’s another good example of a broad ranging redraft of G40, with lots of back and forth discussions.

To be fair,  I’m probably one of the most experienced play testers of Halifax rules and some of the Cliffside Bunker house rules are a result of the best of them. The medium IC is a simpler more effective unit than Halifax offered, and the separate UK Pacific nation is the most practical of all Halifax options. By removing the sticky, I didn’t mean to disrespect any of those that helped develop Halifax rules mainly KNP and Black Elk along with myself who came up with most of it, and I wouldn’t be speaking in such absolutes if I didn’t play test all of them vigorously. That said, despite the initial popularity of the “ideas” (+24 votes) I feel that the ideas never translated into actual game play from the community, and traffic on that thread had pretty much stopped for over half a year. With the G40 redesign and now the Cliffside bunker rules on the sticky board, I felt that the Halifax thread had to fall in order to clean up the house rule forum stickies. As primary designers of Halifax rules, I’m happy to name Black Elk and KNP as contributors to the Cliffside Bunker rules due to their work on Halifax which was an inspiration for many of my rules both directly and indirectly.

[baron Münchhausen]

For my part, I’m eager to test Convoy Raiding rules for 1941 and 1942.2 develop along this thread.
And I’m still a fan of incremental cost of 3 for warships going mostly by 5 (sweetspot for Sub), DD 6, Cruiser 9, Carrier 12, Battleship 15.
Or  1.5 IPCs per combat points.
It feels easier on mind calculator playing game board to add or substract an Infantry cost to try some options during purchase phase.

Seems the direction taken by 1914, Sub 6, Cruiser 9 and Battleship 12. Fighter cost 6.

Instead of usual 2 IPCs per combat point:
Sub A2 D1, 3 pts2= 6 IPCs
DD A2 D2, 4 pts2= 8 IPCs
CA A3 D3, 6 pts*2= 12 IPCs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

So if you’ve made it through 41 pages of this thread and are still hungry for G40 redesign ideas that might be classified as “radical”? Here’s another massive thread from a while back that contains many…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

The basic subjects explored there were, a Commonwealth Nation, a single UK economy, and a new production profile for the factory unit (with 3 tiers, Minor, Mid, and Major.)

Although now basically defunct (I don’t know that anyone is still playing), it’s another good example of a broad ranging redraft of G40, with lots of back and forth discussions.

To be fair,  I’m probably one of the most experienced play testers of Halifax rules and some of the Cliffside Bunker house rules are a result of the best of them. The medium IC is a simpler more effective unit than Halifax offered, and the separate UK Pacific nation is the most practical of all Halifax options. By removing the sticky, I didn’t mean to disrespect any of those that helped develop Halifax rules mainly KNP and Black Elk along with myself who came up with most of it, and I wouldn’t be speaking in such absolutes if I didn’t play test all of them vigorously. That said, despite the initial popularity of the “ideas” (+24 votes) I feel that the ideas never translated into actual game play from the community, and traffic on that thread had pretty much stopped for over half a year. With the G40 redesign and now the Cliffside bunker rules on the sticky board, I felt that the Halifax thread had to fall in order to clean up the house rule forum stickies. As primary designers of Halifax rules, I’m happy to name Black Elk and KNP as contributors to the Cliffside Bunker rules due to their work on Halifax which was an inspiration for many of my rules both directly and indirectly.

Halifax should stay stickied.
Houserule is a mess and that one thread received a lot of attention.
Maybe the last post can be a few comments on what you dislike and like to other thread which you develop upon this one.
It let people decide if they want to try this version or a more recent blend you created.

Also, the searchmode on AA.ORG is not a very helpful now (so it is not easy to find Halifax): the format of answers are now messed up with the active thread on the page. It is hard to filter what is the answer and what is on the background page. This issue doesn’t seem to be fixed since the adjustment for cellphone around a year and half ago. Also, often it gives a degraded page without all the color and usual visual of posts on the thread.

[Black_Elk]

Just wanted to save the link here for reference purposes, since I couldn’t find it when I did a search. I don’t see a need to maintain that discussion thread as an independent sticky purely for archival purposes, after its run its course, especially if I can just link to it here. Better to save those sticky slots for stuff that is still active.
:-)

But running through it again reminded me of some ideas I had since forgotten, and which might still have applications for others. I agree with Baron that this section can be a bit difficult to navigate without some kind of roadmap to follow, so I’ll probably drop a few more links as I trek back through previous discussions, and recall other ideas worth highlighting.

The main interest I have with that ruleset is the exploration of different ways to reassign ownership of starting territories on the G40 board through roundel control marker adjustment, and the sort of income/production distributions they resulted in and kinds of objective/cash bonuses required to make it work, when trying to reorganize the UK/UK pacific/Anzac player nations in different ways. Also some good historical notes in there that might be worth referencing in the future.

[Young Grasshopper]

It’s back.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

Among the major goals I still have…

A game with more variation in the starting conditions, ie. Variable starting unit placement, variable starting income, position in the turn order sequence, optional start dates etc.

Any preliminary ideas on how this could be accomplished? Obviously, you could have multiple time-based start configurations (e.g. 1939, 1940, 1941). Or maybe limited unit placement transfers based on a die roll? Like “Bomber in Eastern US moves to Hawaii with roll of 4-6.” That is pretty limited though and doesn’t give the player much real choice in the matter.

I think I mentioned that I tried something once where I totaled the IPC value of all starting pieces for each nation (A&A Revised) and essentially wiped the board and gave each total amount to the specific power for them to spend as they desired to populate the board at game start. Now that I look back on it, I can see how ridiculous this is and may be the furthest extreme of what you are suggesting. Not recommended.

Semi-related would be an in-game kind of variation using scenario cards. If you remember back to the event/fortune/tactics cards in A&A D-Day, there were cards which affected that turn in a certain way. The way I am envisioning for Global would relate more to weather. Besides the element of surprise, weather is perhaps the least represented variable in gameplay. Given the scale of the Global game, you can argue if involving Weather is somehow too detailed, but I believe that it could certainly be applied.

My vision for a deck of Weather/Fortune cards would be that either one would be drawn per Game Turn or each player could draw one during their Power’s turn. Length of effect of said weather could be variable from an entire Game Turn down to a given Power’s turn. Weather events would be specific and localized with certain restrictions or effects on movement/combat in those areas. For example:

• “South Pacific Typhoon: Ship movement reduced to 1 sea zone for all zones surrounding the Philippine Islands - no amphibious landings permitted.”

• “Low Pressure Zone - North-Central Europe: Low cloud ceilings and poor visibility over Belgium, Western Germany, Netherlands, Finland and Sea Zone X. Aircraft grounded. May not attack or defend.”

• “Winter Blizzard - Western Russia: In territories X, X, X, X, X, Mechanized vehicles and tanks can only move 1 space. Axis infantry defend on 1 this turn.”

• “Sand Storm - Northern Africa: In territories X, X, X, X, mechanized vehicles and tanks can only move 1 space. Fighters attack reduced to @2.”

• “Rough Seas - Northern Atlantic: Amphibious landings on mainland Europe Atlantic coast must do so without naval gunfire support and infantry involved in attack receive no artillery bonus.”

Nothing too crazy, just something to make the game more tactically interesting and a bit more dynamic. Weather scenarios would be based on historical events in the war. My goal would be to generally NOT prohibit players from using their units in weather related situations, but reduce effectiveness so that it makes the player weigh the benefits of making certain moves now, with poorer odds or waiting for a more favorable time.

@Black_Elk:

A game that doesn’t involve so many nation-specific or one off rules, that need to be memorized.

More money introduced through universal objectives, as opposed to just national ones.

Both of these seem to go together. I like this because it simplifies and standardizes things. Deserves more thought, though I believe YG and others have touched on this in the past.

@Black_Elk:

A convoy system that creates a naval economy that is more independent/separate from the land economy (ie. One that focuses on giving value to sea lanes, beyond just those adjacent to land territory tiles.) as way to make the naval game more dynamic.

I do like this one. It becomes more of a revision to the convoy system than something completely new and separate. It would make the ocean supply game so much more significant.

@Black_Elk:

A unit roster where every unit has a unique function, with a specific place in the game and a price point that matches their usefullness.

I like this idea too. I am still for adding a couple pieces to the game and revising abilities, bonuses and costs.