How’s the map going?
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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.
-
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#msg1483652Can 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.
-
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.
-
@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? -
@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.
-
@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. -
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.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. -
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 -
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.
-
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. -
@Young:
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.
-
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.
-
It’s back.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
-
Great ideas Lhoffman. I know you’re not alone in wishing that the game had some way of involving weather in the game. Even Revised had a National Advantage for the Russian winter. I’ve heard of a couple approaches one might consider. The first was to divide the game into alternating seasons, Summer and Winter, and then depending on which season certain territories, that might face particularly severe conditions during that season, provide certain special effects for units housed therein. So for example Winter in Russia is expected to provide harsher conditions, whereas Summer in dessert territories of North Africa might do the same, or Monsoon rains in South East Asia etc. Another alternative along similar lines would be to divide the game into 4 seasons or 3 seasons instead of just 2. The only potential downside I can see is that it forces a consistent timeline onto the game, where game rounds might advance the sense of progress through time faster than desired, given the other normal mechanics.
Or a more nuanced system a bit like the one you described above, was to have a roll at the beginning of the turn, the outcome of which might result in severe weather conditions for that turn.
Using a deck would be another way. In that case I think my ideal would be to create a 52 card deck, where each numbered card (or number/suit) provided a different event, some of which could involve weather. There has been some discussion of random events in the past, so might be worth seriously considering a system like that.
The idea of using a standard 52 card deck, for various purposes in G40 is something that I think has a lot of potential. The advantage of using a standard deck, as opposed to a custom one, is that pretty much anyone could acquire one. The challenge is that you’d have to create a chart that describes what each normal value card represents for the game. I know I have a thread somewhere but the search function is failing me at the moment. Alas
A quick scan of the HR section on these forums is showing me that I probably have about 30+ separate threads here, either for Global or 1942.2 house rules. Next week I’m going to cycle back through all of those and see if I can summarize them into a single list, just to see which ones might have an application.
That might help me to at least answer some of the Qs just raised, especially regarding set up variability. I know one idea considered was to zero the board of all starting units, and rebuild it from the ground up. A possible approach might be to have a core set up of forces that don’t change, and then a TUV amount on top of this for unallocated units. Imagined a bit like the bid process, but more expansive, and which involves all player nations, instead of just 1 side, and a much larger TUV amount.
I’m with you too baron, the convoy concept needs more testing and refinement. So far I’ve only tested the idea using the 1942.2 game, but I still believe it would work in global.
I’ll do my best over the weekend to hunt down as many of those old HR proposals as I can find, and try to make a schematic of related concepts. At this point in the conversation it’d be helpful just to have a huge list of possible rules (in brief one or two sentence expositions) which is something I know I promised initially, so it’s high time I delivered one. Might make it easier to find alternatives too, or eliminate redundancies to achieve something more cohesive at a glance.
-
About deck cards and weather, you dont need 52 elements.
There is all kind of combinations.
4 kinds
2 colors
1 to 10 numbers
3 figures
2 jokers.
All this can be use as whole or partially (smaller deck) to make any play tests if you have a table which describe the event of a given cards. -
Great ideas Lhoffman. I know you’re not alone in wishing that the game had some way of involving weather in the game. Even Revised had a National Advantage for the Russian winter. I’ve heard of a couple approaches one might consider. The first was to divide the game into alternating seasons, Summer and Winter, and then depending on which season certain territories, that might face particularly severe conditions during that season, provide certain special effects for units housed therein.
Russian Winter and the D-Day cards were definitely the genesis of the idea.
I like the two seasons method in that it could be made pretty consistent, therefore more conducive to scientific balance than the randomness of drawing cards. Some people who play are more the league competition type and for them the whole game is about numbers and being on somehting of an equal footing. The only element of chance they are okay with in the game is die rolls… and even then they try to mitigate that using LL Dice or something. So these kinda mods aren’t really for them anyway I guess. Nevermind that I brought that up.
Or a more nuanced system a bit like the one you described above, was to have a roll at the beginning of the turn, the outcome of which might result in severe weather conditions for that turn.
Using a deck would be another way. In that case I think my ideal would be to create a 52 card deck, where each numbered card (or number/suit) provided a different event, some of which could involve weather. There has been some discussion of random events in the past, so might be worth seriously considering a system like that.
The idea of using a standard 52 card deck, for various purposes in G40 is something that I think has a lot of potential. The advantage of using a standard deck, as opposed to a custom one, is that pretty much anyone could acquire one. The challenge is that you’d have to create a chart that describes what each normal value card represents for the game. I know I have a thread somewhere but the search function is failing me at the moment. Alas
Playtesting with a 52-card deck would be fine for standardization purposes, but as you said, you will still have to write down what each card means and how it is implemented. Ultimately, if a ruleset were accepted for Weather cards, you would probably want to create a custom deck and then make it available for everyone via Artscow or pdf download to print at home. At least, that is what I would do.
Ultimately, I do want to finalize some of my own ideas and share them with others for them to incorporate in their own games as they see fit. I very much enjoy the collaboration that a community project brings, but as many people find out (even HBG), there is a seemingly never-ending list of revisions over time when a group of people is involved. As we can all see, A&A has evolved over the years too and can still use revisions in its current form, but that doesn’t mean it is unplayable or unenjoyable with a few imperfections. The trouble with a House Rule set is that (unless it were to become universally popular) it will never be “official” and therefore the real need for a clear line of being done simply doesn’t exist.
Just the nature of the game I guess. Though I think we all find the process a lot of fun or we wouldn’t do it.
Suggested Topics
