You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
**Right now OOB the US at war gets a ton of objective money for controlling the continental US. If you put it all on Hawaii instead, maybe that’s enough to reorient both sides on Honolulu as a principle objective? Probably simpler in this instance to just use the regular objective scheme since Hawaii is kind of special case in Global.
1942.2 on the other hand, there is no broader objective scheme in opperation, so that’s where a more robust but generic VC = Cash mechanic might be easier to work with. But my thought there is that if a VC economic driver is put in place for 1942.2, the same should carry over into 1940, just for consistency. But then you could use the more standard objective bonuses to further push the gameplay in the desired direction**. Basically make Hawaii a lot more challenging for Japan to take than it is OOB (but not impossible as the SF VC is OOB), and considerably more influential than it is OOB for the American economy. In gameplay terms it would be ideal if, after they have secured themselves economically in Asia and the South Pacific, Japan looks to Honolulu as a serious contender for the prime objective for Axis victory, on par with Calcutta/Cairo or even Moscow. I also agree it would be nice if Anzac was similarly boosted as a main objective. Perhaps connecting directly to a large American or UK (Europe) bonus.
In general, I like the idea of fewer objectives in G40, but with more weight to each. I think the standard bonus should be on the order of 10 ipcs or more, rather than 5 ipcs or less. Fewer objectives to track in total, but with each being a major economic driver, at least relative to capital capture.
I believe both 1942.2 and G40 should have similar victory conditions per theatre.
That way, in 1942.2, Japan will not have to Center Crush systematically.
VCs owned and conquered VCs should help to constitute a warchest which can be use to help the weakest member of the alliance. This does not forbid friendly Axis power to help other for example, helping taking Cairo or Stalingrad but capturing VC in his own Asian theatre might be easier.Probably Hawaii can still be a turning point with an higher IPCs value and VC swing for 1942.2 while, as you said Black Elk, G40 USA might have a 10 IPCs NO on that advance US base, and more if as 1942.2 have an higher IPCs value.
Wellington and Sydney can be considered VCs in both games and get IC and higher value in 1942.2.
All zero Islands should be 1 IPC to still gives incentive to fight around them.Western China should be impassable so it keeps G40 China entanglement similarities.
Why not use a NAP between Japan and Russia in both?
The idea would be to allow Japan both directions viable, East as well as West.
After all, Germany would have been more than happy that Russia fight on two fronts, (usual JCC) but historically, Japan had enough on his hands with China, UK and USA and never fight Russia.
This is what we hope somehow, let us give a few IPCs to Japan under NAP so it can hope to give a real fight in PTO. (So, instead of an hopeless scenario, can it be a working scenario if USA spend too much in ATO.)Do you agree on this principle about 1942.2 Redesign being a mirror-like of G40?
-
Wellington and Sydney can be considered VCs in both games and get IC and higher value in 1942.2.
I just want to check in with you guys for a moment to see what the intended scope of this project is, i.e., to see how deeply people are willing to change the game.
Are we…
- Adding Victory Cities to the 1942.2 map? To the G40 map?
- Changing IPC values on the 1942.2 map? On the G40 map?
- Redrawing the territories (beyond just making Western China impassible) on the 1942.2 map? On the G40 map?
- Adding new sculpts (e.g. tactical bomber) to the 1942.2 game? To the G40 game (e.g. paratroopers)?
I am happy to help design, write up, and playtest any and all of the changes above, and then some, but I know there was some resistance earlier in the thread to making “radical” changes to the map.
I volunteer to try to put all of the house rules we’ve been discussing on one sheet of A4 printer paper in MS Word / PDF format, but before I do that, I want to know which rules are fair game!
-
I’m happy to see your enthusiasm and open mind Argothair.
I cannot say for sure that we are doing 1 to 3 actions of your list.
We are talking to expand Japan viable options on both 1942.2 and G40 outside Center Crush and Tank Drive to Moscow. Trying to get a better feel of WWII theme in combat unit interactions, tactics and strategies.
General guidelines are: simpler as possible, historically accurate as possible, less radical change as possible, which means to use as most as possible what is already in A&A universe.Once this said, I know for sure that TcB will be tried in 1942.2 Redesign, it totally increase the overall experience and reach our general goals in conjunction with Fighter unit.
And many more units can also be tried in Triple A engine; what will pass the cut to tabletop game IDK.
Some changes are easier to put on Triple A, like adding units, than in real material world, which need sculpts to convey the idea on board. But others are easier to implement, like Impassable Western China because it only requires to enforced it the way some people enforced Dardanelle’s Straight : No warship in Black Sea due to Turkey being Neutral.Black Elk is the Mastermind of all Redesign project and will certainly add is perspective to answer your question.
For now, I would just add that your worries are totally legitimate and I don’t feel these HRs on G40 and 1942.2 Japan Redesign options are ready to roll. More POVs exchange might help get a better start for playtests.
-
I am happy to help design, write up, and playtest any and all of the changes above, and then some, but I know there was some resistance earlier in the thread to making “radical” changes to the map.
I volunteer to try to put all of the house rules we’ve been discussing on one sheet of A4 printer paper in MS Word / PDF format, but before I do that, I want to know which rules are fair game!
That would greatly help, if we could get a Word and/or PDF version of the changes.
-
All changes and new units will be in Triple A notes too.
-
In practical terms its not that difficult to alter the number of VCs, or to go with a Victory Territory scheme (or even change individual territory values via NOs), all that can be achieved with rules wording.
For me, with the VC issue, it’s more about finding a working alternative to sudden death. For those who like sudden death, the main goal is usually just a VC spread that allows for a win at some level without requiring Moscow/London or Berlin/Tokyo. Though that still strikes me as mainly a tournament thing, or a quick game thing. Any number of total VCs in sudden death, will still come down to a single VC do or die situation.
My thought would be a universal system that makes VC capture something on the order of a mini capital capture. Something that will really motivate a VC oriented play pattern throughout, rather than just as a feature of the endgame.
Even if 1942.2 is decidedly less popular than G40, something tells me it will be easier to go from the smaller board to the larger board, than the other way round. If only because the challenge on the smaller board is more pronounced. Probably why I keep drifting into that discussion, despite the title of the thread.
:-DBarney has a pretty extensive doc going on units and some other features discussed in this thread for G40, but it’s not fully complete yet for some other HRs. We will definitely want a doc for those too.
Some things are easy to achieve in tripleA with a single add tech edit at the start of the match. Others might require more active editing while the game is ongoing, or certain things by player agreement/player enforced. I’m kind of holding off until the gamefiles are complete for G40 and 1942.2, to see which of these might be handled by a general wording for both boards, or which might need to be implemented slightly differently for each.
There are also some unit options in the gamefile which are more experimental than others, included more for flexible playtesting or proof of concept, but which don’t necessarily port easily onto the table top. It would be easier for example to add extra VCs with a marker or token FtF, than it would be to get new sculpts for each nation. So allowing for one, it would be hard to dismiss the other as impractical.
I tend to favor stuff right now that doesn’t alter the physical characteristics of the map, unless it is very simple to represent graphically (like with a marker.) People who want to design new maps, either printable or in tripleA, have several options for that. But I think many would like a way to use the official materials, that doesn’t require a trip to the printers or downloading new map files, or buying a bunch of new sculpts. So I’d still take the OOB map/roster as the basis for my recommended HR “settings,” even if many other options are available for those who want to pursue a more radical overhaul.
:-D -
Also, not to throw a new can of worms onto the table mid conversation, but…
What do you guys think about using the Kamikazi graphics/tokens to represent something other than just Kamikazi attacks?
The island territories in Kamakazi zones, especially Marianas, Iwo, Okinawa, Formosa, are not particularly well served by having yet another reason for the Allies to avoid them. Seems to me that a better use for these materials (which are included in the box) would be to create some kind of Pacific campaign bonus around them. Not that one needs to remove the Kamikazi feature per se, just that it would kind of make sense if the Allies (and the US in particular) had a clear gameplay incentive to control these sea zones/associated islands.
They are already unattractive targets OOB, and the Kamakazi attacks just make them even more unattractive, with no real trade off for the Allies.
Any thoughts?
-
Maybe give a 5 icp NO to any country controlling up to so many sea zones next to kami token or symbol ? Or they attack or blow up the symbol and get some kind of bonus.
Treat it like an island or a Kami base. You can damage it. Can’t launch any Kami’s in those sea zones until repaired.
-
It sounds like changing territory values would require marking up the map in a way that’s more permanent / radical than people might want.
Is everyone OK with introducing a “minor factory” into the 1942.2 overhaul? By combining minor factories and national objectives, we can make fringe territories like New Zealand more important without the need to change their actual IPC value
As a Plan B, I guess you could say that either all factories get +2 to their production capacity or that all VCs get +2 to their production caps, but I don’t think those solutions are nearly as elegant. Giving all territories +2 to production takes too much pressure off of Caucasus, London, India, etc., and giving only VCs +2 to production introduces a new mental step that players have to think about when figuring out how many units they can produce.
Minor factories could be represented with a factory token over a green chip in face to face games (or if you have the older 3-D style factory sculpts left over from Revised, you can use those for major factories and save the 2D chits for minors).
-
On TTy IPCs values, I think about it and it is quite easy to adjust by using a few dedicated control marker with the new number inside. For instance, I may use my UK NatConMark and write a 3 in center and put it on TTy like Eastern Australia.
I can do 1IPC NCM for zero IPC island.
You need one per TTy and use blank NCM as usual when capturing such TTy. -
Vote up this comment if you want to increase production caps by directly increasing territory values (e.g., using Baron Munchhausen’s national control marker idea).
-
Vote up this comment if you want to increase production caps by adding minor factories to the 1942.2 overhaul.
-
Vote up this comment if you want to increase production caps using a global bonus (e.g. +2 production for all territories).
-
@SS Yeah, something along those lines is what I was thinking. Right now Kamakazi attacks aren’t a big feature of the gameplay, mainly because the US just avoids those zones whenever possible. I think the idea is novel, to acknowledge this aspect of the Japanese final defense, but just wasn’t implemented in a way that encourages the conditions necessary for the mechanic to be commonly used.
On the factories, I think any of those 3 solutions is workable. Another alternative to marking up a control roundel, is to simply place a die on the territory with its value facing up, since most will be under d6.
My preference for the +2 idea is that it activates more territories on the map, without requiring additional materials or special treatment, and leaves production expansion more at the players discretion. I think it comes down to whether you are more interested in introducing money or just production capacity. It also allows you to try other things, such as restricting the bonus only if the factory is under control of the territory’s original owner. Or you could cap the bonus in other ways, restricting it just to infantry etc. Some of the lower value territories such as Caucasus, Karelia, India, Italy etc might end up more balanced under such conditions, since taking pressure off still requires the investment of resources.
From an initial map design standpoint, I think direct adjustment to ipc values would have been simpler. But for a redesign of the existing map, I think this may be somewhat less appealing visually.
The inclusion of a minor factory or some other kind of army base that spawns infantry, certainly seems doable to me.
In general I think the game is more entertaining if you allow more entry points for new units, rather than fewer (which seems to be the trend on the recent boards.)
Ps. Also, just to clarify, the +2 idea was suggested as is, because that particular tech basically already exists in both games haha. So pretty simple to get it working. All you’d have to do in tripleA is remove the line that restricts these advanced factories to starting territories worth 3 ipcs or more, so they can be placed wherever. Then assign the tech to everyone via edit mode.
-
So what about a +2 bonus to all factories that’s limited to infantry production? E.g., a factory in New Zealand can produce one unit of any type (because it is worth 1 IPC) plus 2 infantry (because all factories can do that).
A factory in the Caroline Islands can produce only 2 infantry.
The factory in India can produce three units of any types (because India is worth 3 IPCs), plus, if desired, 2 additional infantry.
Would that get the job done as far as production caps? I think it’s an elegant compromise.
-
Yeah I think that would be pretty simple. Probably the easiest solution though, is just to create a new unit called army base, that does exactly this (produces infantry and nothing else).
Then if you wanted to assign a starting army base to all territories with an existing Industrial Complex you could, or you could only give it to certain select territories with starting ICs as part of a set up mod, or just leave it as a purchase option. And if someone wants to build one in India or Caucasus or wherever they could do so, but you don’t necessarily need to mod the set up, just the purchase roster.
-
Somewhere I read about a suggestion to allow VCs to produce infantry, even without an industrial complex. I think the limitation was similar to the first bullet point. The others may be realistic considerations:
-
non-capital VCs automatically produce 1 (or 2) infantry per turn for the controlling Power.
-
non-capital VCs can mobilize up to the territory’s production value in infantry units per turn (must be purchased by controlling power)
-
combination of the two above, but complicates things: automatically produce 1 infantry per turn, can mobilize a number up to territory production value if purchased.
In OOB G40, that mostly benefits Germany (Warsaw) and Japan (Shanghai) and the UK in both Cairo and Hong Kong. For the UK that could be significant given the critical nature of both those territories. Other than that, such a rule would hardly affect gameplay as most VCs already have factories on them.
-
-
Yeah I used many different riffs on that rule in AA50.
I think attaching some moderate amount money, or some kind of basic infantry production capacity to VCs is a pretty simple way to make those territories more significant to the gameplay. But it still doesn’t really create the kind of conditions that would allow them to surpass Capital Capture as the main driver in a game played to concession. To get closer to that I think you need some kind of looting based on VCs, or an economic bonus/penalty that scales based on the total number gained/lost.
For a sudden death game they work reasonably well OOB, but the problem is that sudden death just isn’t a very popular way to play. Often times, it pulls the rug out from under the game, at precisely the point when things are starting to get interesting. Also ceates situations with the turn order, where it’s often too late (by the time one side realizes that the game is about to end), to do anything about it. I think the main reason that happens OOB, is because VCs don’t do anything to the gameplay (other than just ending the game) so people aren’t really encouraged to pay close enough attention to what’s happening with them on a turn by turn basis. They only come into play once one side realizes they’re behind the 8 ball, or within striking distance of a win. Often this happens mid-round, but, the game being what it is, it usually takes longer than a single round to set anything up in response. It’s a bit like chess, if you skipped over check straight to checkmate. No red flags in the OOB gameplay mechanics, to indicate that one side is about to take the game, until it’s already past the point of no return.
In that respect, pretty much anything would better than nothing, even if it was just a single infantry unit or even a single ipc Though I like the idea that the closer you get to the “win” the more influential indivudal VCs become to the overall economy.
-
I don’t know if your interested in this scenario, it has to do with inf in the Victory city’s.
For each Victory city in a territory there is a certain amount of inf and even though you capture the territory, you still have to attack the Victory City next turn to control it.Germany - Berlin = 3 inf in Capital. So enemy must take German territory and then on next turn attack the Capital. You can declare all or most troops in Germany are now in Berlin. But of course you leave a piece or 2 in Germany so it takes the attacker an extra turn to capture Victory City.
You start the game with so many inf in each City so you don’t lose it on paratroopers if in game. The starting inf in cities can not come out to surrounding territory to defend.
-
Yeah I think that would be pretty simple. Probably the easiest solution though, is just to create a new unit called army base, that does exactly this (produces infantry and nothing else).
For whatever it’s worth, the concept of an infantry-producing army camp was discussed way back on page 1 of this thread.
Suggested Topics
