That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Part of why I prepared the PDFs is that I thought you wanted to use the 1942.2 redesign as a bridge and testing ground that would pave the way for a G40 redesign. I’m surprised to hear you say now that the 1942.2 redesign playtesting should wait until the G40 redesign is finished.
Yeah, I was discussing the tripleA HR package implementation here. I agree that for the players its easier to go from a 1942.2 redesign to a G40 one. But for the designing in tripleA its basically the opposite. So Barney started with G40 first, because its more complicated. The idea being that, once you handle the tricky stuff in G40, porting it over into 1942.2 is much faster. Crush all the bugs in G40, and see what is doable generally. Once G40 is finished, which should be pretty soon here, it will be a lot easier to bang out something similar (but scaled down) for 1942.2 in tripleA.
-
Regarding the part about Kattegat-Skagerrak straights, the original phrasing "“North Sea <-> Baltic Sea is now a canal” confused me because I thought it was referring to something else: the Kiel Canal – which actually is a real canal, not a straight – which connects the North Sea to the Baltic. It’s not shown on the game map, and I though the proposal was to add it to the map.
Regarding the strait near Singapore, which runs between the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra: its name is the Strait of Malacca, and in real life it’s one of the most heavily travelled sea routes in the world, with about 25% of the world’s traded goods going through it every year. It actually explains why the British colonized Singapore: back in the days when Britannia ruled the waves, the British recognized that the Strait of Dover, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, and the Cape of Good Hope were important maritime choke points and they made sure that they controlled all of them. The Strait of Hormuz, a.k.a. “the jugular vein of the West”, achieved similar importance in the 20th century as oil became a vital strategic commodity.
-
Glad most of it looks doable. Like I said before, if you send me a copy of the HR file you’re working with, I’ll be happy to adjust the PDFs accordingly.
Part of why I prepared the PDFs is that I thought you wanted to use the 1942.2 redesign as a bridge and testing ground that would pave the way for a G40 redesign. I’m surprised to hear you say now that the 1942.2 redesign playtesting should wait until the G40 redesign is finished.
Also, I would strongly caution everyone against releasing a redesign that lacks any mechanism for boosting the importance of the southern and Pacific territories, e.g. Australia. Personally, I think it’s very easy to edit the IPC value of territories in an xml file on TripleA – I’ve done it many times for my own amusement; you just have to edit a couple of clearly organized lines of text by typing in the new IPC values that you want. I will cheerfully make the edits myself if you want to send me the base .xml file. Even if it were really hard, though, it would still be worth doing, because players are understandably low on patience for this entire series. If we release yet another edition (even an unofficial one) that encourages players to ignore South Africa and Australia and Hawaii, then I think we will see some good players give up on the franchise altogether.
I was questioning myself: why Larry and playtesters completely neglect all these TTys and PTO?
Is it because it only draw too much attention from a secondary objective instead of purchasing directly in UK SZs to land ASAP into Europe and perform a KGF?
They try to allow a KJF (in which only money islands matter and stop any southward IJN expansion) but from Japan POV, the only way to help on a KGF was to Center Crush Moscow.
I just wonder how they left this PTO issue unresolved for so long since Classic! -
While on the subject, I think if you’re going to introduce new movement restrictions on the water, it would be worth making the Suez Canal entirely controlled by Egypt alone, as Panama is. In reality the Sinai is part of Egypt, so its kind of bizarre to have Trans-Jordan involved in control of Suez the way it is OOB.
Actually, I can see why the Suez and Panama canals are treated differently for game play. The Panama Canal is part of the North / Central / South America continental structure, which for all practical purposes in the game is either US-controlled or US-friendly, so there’s not much chance of Panama having it north-of-canal and south-of-canal halves coming under the control of opposite power blocks. Suez, on the other hand, is vulnerable to an Axis attack from the west (which Italy controls), and potentially to an attack from the east if Germany violates Turkish neutrality.
-
CWO Marc, I agree that the features you describe are straits. I think there is a term of art in the TripleA code that uses the word “canal” to refer to all restricted waterways, but I couldn’t swear to it, and I am happy to call the waterways straits if that’s what people prefer.
Black Elk, I had the same thoughts you did about Singapore, but I worry that it would be too hard to code a rule like “Ships must halt their movement when entering SZ 35 unless their team controls Malaya.” My compromise was to make Malaya a Victory City.
I don’t have strong feelings about the exact territories that players should control in order to pass through the Skaggerack or the Suez. Keying the Baltic Sea to NW Europe only is more historically accurate, but allowing players to substitute control of Norway is more strategically interesting, because it draws some focus up north, away from the attack on Berlin.
Similarly, the vacant Sinai Desert was technically administered from the British de facto protectorate of Egypt, rather than from the British Mandate of Palestine, but since only a few hundred unarmed Bedouin lived in the Sinai, I’m not sure that it matters where you draw the border for the purposes of a WW2 game. I recently finished a fun book of alternate history called the Moscow Option, in which British forces in Baghdad, Aden, and Jerusalem were desperately containing an Afrika Korps that had crossed the Suez. The author did not even consider the possibility that the Axis would have been able to ship troops through the Suez in that context; he assumed that as long as the region was still being hotly contested, the Suez would have been tactically unnavigable. I think that’s a plausible assumption. Making Trans-Jordan one of the keys to the Suez gives that otherwise unremarkable territory a bit of interest, and allows Italy to close the Suez canal (denying Britain the option to bring naval reinforcements into the Eastern Med) without having to conquer Cairo. This leads to the (in my view) more realistic tactic of reinforcing Egypt from India via the Persian Gulf, where British naval power was strongest, rather than via Alexandria, where British naval power in 1941 / 1942 was quite weak. All of that said, if people want the Suez contained entirely within Egypt, I will bow to popular demand.
Baron Munchhausen, I could not agree more. PTO has been broken since Classic. For the love of napalm, let’s get it right THIS time! No more “intermediate” versions that fail to fix the PTO.
-
@Baron:
Also, I would strongly caution everyone against releasing a redesign that lacks any mechanism for boosting the importance of the southern and Pacific territories, e.g. Australia. Personally, I think it’s very easy to edit the IPC value of territories in an xml file on TripleA – I’ve done it many times for my own amusement; you just have to edit a couple of clearly organized lines of text by typing in the new IPC values that you want. I will cheerfully make the edits myself if you want to send me the base .xml file. Even if it were really hard, though, it would still be worth doing, because players are understandably low on patience for this entire series. If we release yet another edition (even an unofficial one) that encourages players to ignore South Africa and Australia and Hawaii, then I think we will see some good players give up on the franchise altogether.
I was questioning myself: why Larry and playtesters completely neglect all these TTys and PTO?
Is it because it only draw too much attention from a secondary objective instead of purchasing directly in UK SZs to land ASAP into Europe and perform a KGF?
They try to allow a KJF (in which only money islands matter and stop any southward IJN expansion) but from Japan POV, the only way to help on a KGF was to Center Crush Moscow.
I just wonder how they left this PTO issue unresolved for so long since Classic!Baron Munchhausen, I could not agree more. PTO has been broken since Classic. For the love of napalm, let’s get it right THIS time! No more “intermediate” versions that fail to fix the PTO.
I have only played Classic once (a couple years ago), so I assume that you mean it was the last version of A&A in which the US-Japan PTO was a regular occurrence. Funny thing is that when the ‘old guy’ in the room saw Japan (me) not fight the USA and instead go for a JCC, he was moderately shocked, scratched his head and (effectively) said, “Hmmm, never seen that before.” He also laughed and bid me good luck in a somewhat condescending fashion. … Pretty sure the Axis ended up winning that game.
Regarding JCC vs PTO… The way Japan prosecuted the war (in real life) was not as effective as it could have been. Granted Japan had many more complex factors to deal with which are not accurately represented in A&A game mechanics, however the JCC strategy is more sound than what Japan actually chose to do. The Japanese military (navy in particular) were internally compelled to fight a mostly hopeless war against the United States with no proactive strategic objectives after about 6 months of fighting. Many Japanese military leaders realized this, but allowed the momentum of events to push them further into the fight. Continuing to face off against the US without a significant tactical advantage and either losing or drawing even only served to widen the gap of inadequacy between the two thanks to significant US resolve and industry. If Japan had more effective and centralized leadership, their efforts should have been focused on achieving their true objectives against China and the USSR, rather than pointlessly wasting time, material and blood fighting for strategically worthless islands in the South and Central Pacific. I have seen similar arguments against the US strategy of island hopping. It worked, but it may have been more costly and time consuming than was truly necessary. Yes, I am saying that people playing A&A may be fighting the war in a smarter fashion than those who actually fought it; albeit on a far more simplified level.
The way A&A frames the Pacific board is mostly accurate to reality. The material worth of small South-Central Pacific island chains is small. The strategic worth is only determined by the Japan’s own objectives and the USA’s opposing objectives and/or willingness to engage. The islands should not be framed as objectives in-and-of themselves because they aren’t what Japan was fighting for. They were a means to an end. With the clarity of purpose Japan has in A&A, it is no wonder that they simply don’t care about fighting in the Pacific ocean. Nothing there is worth fighting for. Even if island values were increased to incentivize attention, fighting the US over them doesn’t directly help win the game.
Japan’s stated and implied real-war objectives are decently conveyed in G40; mostly through NO bonuses. Where the game gets a little too simplistic is putting Japan and Germany on a co-equal level with the same objective of actively taking out all the Allies, especially the USSR. Such a grand objective was both beyond the capability and desire of Japan. In the cartoonish world of A&A, Japan actually doing those things is possible. Joining Japan’s fate to Germany necessitates a JCC almost every game because it is the easiest way to win. All the other objectives they hit in the process are either roadblocks they have to overcome or distractions. Japan can putz around in the Pacific and have themselves a nice little empire, but if the big 3 crack Germany, Japan loses too, no matter how well they played and how rich they became. Japan amassing cash in Asia and driving towards Moscow via JCC is easier and less risky than trying to cross the Pacific and attack the industrial giant USA. And clearly, attacking the UK where it hurts the most (England) is entirely out of the question because it is on the other side of the planet.
JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.
-
Yea I don’t think giving the Pacific more dough will make it more popular than JCC. What I’ve found it does do is create more action though. Instead of just blocking and trading Java or whatnot, you can get a lot of smaller battles. More combat overall. Doesn’t always play out that way, but more so than OOB.
-
JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.
This touches on a fundamental paradox of A&A redesign processes, especially for Global 1940 because it’s the biggest and most complex game of them all. The paradox is that the ideal twin goals of redesign processes may be mutually exclusive. Goal one is to fix the OOB game’s many problems. Goal two is to have the proposed solutions find broad acceptability in the A&A community. The difficulty arises from the fact that Global 1940 is a large, complex system with many parts that all interact with each other in complicated ways, and that even a simple change to one part (to say nothing of extensive changes to many parts) can have ripple effects throughout the system, in the same way that flattening one end of a pillow will cause it to pop outward at the other end. As a result, making a change that fixes one balance problem can easily create a new balance problem that didn’t exist before, which then requires that problem to be fixed, and so on and so forth, until the result is a game that potentially looks so different from the OOB original that it doesn’t find broad acceptablility in the community. The same can happen under the more radical methodology of scrapping the OOB rules altogether and starting from a clean slate; that method at least has the advantage of tossing out the straightjacket created by the worst of the OOB rules, but it has the disadvantage of having a greater potential for creating a game that looks totally alien compared to the original and therefore which gets little uptake from the community. I don’t know if there’s a solution to this paradox. The paradox may mean that it’s not feasible to overhaul the game in a way that is both comprehensive and brodly acceptable. Instead, it may mean that the best that can be achieved is an assortment of smaller-scale revisions, each of which differs from the OOB rules in one or two specific ways but otherwise sticks closely enough to the original to be recognizable and acceptable. Alternately, it may mean that one might have to aim for a comprehensive overhaul which is acceptable to one’s local gaming group rather than the community as a whole.
-
I am not trying to be purposefully critical or a pessimist on this issue. I do think it is possible to incentivize more activity in PTO; money is an easy way. I just don’t think that you can overcome JCC by doing that alone. The issue goes deeper than simple incentives will fix.
-
The way A&A frames the Pacific board is mostly accurate to reality. The material worth of small South-Central Pacific island chains is small. The strategic worth is only determined by the Japan’s own objectives and the USA’s opposing objectives and/or willingness to engage. The islands should not be framed as objectives in-and-of themselves because they aren’t what Japan was fighting for. They were a means to an end. With the clarity of purpose Japan has in A&A, it is no wonder that they simply don’t care about fighting in the Pacific ocean. Nothing there is worth fighting for. Even if island values were increased to incentivize attention, fighting the US over them doesn’t directly help win the game.
Japan’s stated and implied real-war objectives are decently conveyed in G40; mostly through NO bonuses. Where the game gets a little too simplistic is putting Japan and Germany on a co-equal level with the same objective of actively taking out all the Allies, especially the USSR. Such a grand objective was both beyond the capability and desire of Japan. In the cartoonish world of A&A, Japan actually doing those things is possible. Joining Japan’s fate to Germany necessitates a JCC almost every game because it is the easiest way to win. All the other objectives they hit in the process are either roadblocks they have to overcome or distractions. Japan can putz around in the Pacific and have themselves a nice little empire, but if the big 3 crack Germany, Japan loses too, no matter how well they played and how rich they became. Japan amassing cash in Asia and driving towards Moscow via JCC is easier and less risky than trying to cross the Pacific and attack the industrial giant USA. And clearly, attacking the UK where it hurts the most (England) is entirely out of the question because it is on the other side of the planet.
JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.
Here is the actual victory conditions of Pacific 40.2:
Winning the Game
At the beginning of Japan’s turn, check to see if at least 6 victory cities have continuously been under Japan’s control since the end of Japan’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if 1 of the victory cities that Japan controls is Tokyo. If one of them is Tokyo, or if Japan liberates Tokyo by the end of the turn, Japan wins the game.At the beginning of each Allied power’s turn, check to see if Tokyo has continuously been under Allied control since the end of that power’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if the Allies also control at least 1 Allied capital (Calcutta, Sydney, or San Francisco). If they do, or if the current power liberates an Allied capital by the end of the turn, the Allies win the game.
Here is the actual victory conditions of Europe 40.2:
Winning the Game
At the beginning of each Axis power’s turn, check to see if at least 8 victory cities have continuously been under Axis control since the end of that power’s last turn (they need not be the same 8 cities). If that’s true, then check to see if at least 1 of the victory cities that the Axis controls is an Axis capital (Berlin or Rome). If one of them is an Axis capital, or if the current power liberates one by the end of the turn, the Axis wins the game.At the beginning of each Allied power’s turn, check to see if Berlin and Rome have continuously been under Allied control since the end of that power’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if the Allies also control at least 1 Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow). If they do, or if the current power liberates an Allied capital by the end of the turn, the Allies win the game.
Here is the actual victory conditions of Global 40.2:
How the War is Won
The Axis wins the game by controlling either any 8 victory cities on the Europe map or any 6 victory cities on the Pacific map for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Axis capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo) at the end of that round.The Allies win by controlling Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow) at the end of that round.
Here is the actual victory conditions of 1942.2:
On the map are thirteen victory cities crucial to the war effort. As the game begins, Axis controls six of these cities while Allies controls seven of them. The Allies begin the game controlling Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta, Honolulu and San Francisco. The Axis powers begin the game controlling Berlin, Paris, Rome, Shanghai, Manila, and Tokyo. The standard victory condition is if Axis controls nine (9) victory cities at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the U.S. turn), Axis win the war. Allies have to control ten (10) victory cities to win the war.
If you want to use the total victory condition, then after the completion of the U.S. turn, your side must control all thirteen (13) victory cities. Players must agree at the beginning of the game which victory condition will constitute a win. If no specific agreement is made, then nine (9) victory cities will be the standard victory condition.
STANDARD VICTORY 9 VCs for Axis, 10 for Allies
TOTAL VICTORY 13I don’t have the 1942.2 errata and FAQ, so I slightly change the wording of rulebook.
The common ground is that Axis is not required to conquer Moscow. But, otherwise Germany/Italy must conquer London or Ottawa.
Victory conditions are based on number of VCs taken.
Europe 40.2 Axis VCs: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw
Allies VCs: Paris, London, Ottawa, Cairo, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Pacific 40.2 Axis VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai
Allies VCs: Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Honolulu, San Francisco.Now, what would happen if G40 Japan receive 10 IPCs each turn to keep NAP with Russia (PTO map only show 9*1 IPC russian TTy)?
And all 5 Zero IPC japanese Islands worth 1 IPC. And all other zero IPC Allies Islands worth 1 each.Does Japan would not be tempted to fight for the 6 VCs in PTO and let the money flow from Russian NAP?
I express the same idea with 1942.2, 5 or 6 IPCs bonus NAP for Japan.
With a few changes like cheaper boats and more viable C5 Strategic Bombers SBRs campaign, might not be impossible for Japan to weaken USA while grabbing money in China, SEAsia and even ANZAC TTies?
The idea is to not act as Axis victory condition is like Allies, which needs to grab Capital VCs, but only VCs.
What if Singapore (Malaya) and Wellington (New Zealand) are considered PTO VCs too, and 7 VCs now becomes the Axis victory conditions for Japan?
So, the VCs list would be:
Pacific 40.2 Axis VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai
Allies VCs: Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Singapore, Honolulu, Wellington and San Francisco.
For 1942.2 Victory conditions can also be considered per each Theatre or for the whole map (20 VCs):
Instead of 9 VCs for Axis, it needs 7 VCs to win but per theatre or 12 VCs as a whole:Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs: Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila,
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.Keeping the end of game round phase, it is possible to give for each VC 1 IPC and 2 IPCs for each conquered VC.
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 3 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 6 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsWhile Allies Victory conditions might simply be capturing either Germany or Japan or 4 more Axis VCs from whole map (17 VCs out of 20).
-
It’s a reasonable warning, LHoffman. In addition to the extra money, we are also adding extra VCs, the rougher border in western China, the A0 turn, faster boats, weaker bombers, and other changes that should help shift the center of the game away from 100% center crush.
I agree that, historically, a stronger attack on India, Siberia, and/or China would have made more sense than heavy defense of the Caroline Islands, but America and Britain were willing to risk war to cut off Japan’s supply of oil, so Japan really only had three choices: seize Borneo with its military, triggering war with the Anglos, or withdraw from China to ease the sanctions diplomatically (leaving Japan critically short of iron and wood) or else watch its navy and air force choke for lack of oil. Some conflict between Japan and the Anglos was close to inevitable, from Japan’s point of view.
I don’t want to eliminate the center crush as a viable strategy, or even as the preferred strategy, but a Japanese player who wants to head south or east needs to be allowed to do so without forfeiting, and an Allied player who wants to hit Japan first needs to be able to do so competitively.
To CWO Marc’s point, finding a stable equilibrium is hard, but I believe it’s worth the challenge, and I will not give up unless and until I see that our efforts are actually being repeatedly thwarted.
-
@CWO:
JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.
This touches on a fundamental paradox of A&A redesign processes, especially for Global 1940 because it’s the biggest and most complex game of them all. The paradox is that the ideal twin goals of redesign processes may be mutually exclusive. Goal one is to fix the OOB game’s many problems. Goal two is to have the proposed solutions find broad acceptability in the A&A community. The difficulty arises from the fact that Global 1940 is a large, complex system with many parts that all interact with each other in complicated ways, and that even a simple change to one part (to say nothing of extensive changes to many parts) can have ripple effects throughout the system, in the same way that flattening one end of a pillow will cause it to pop outward at the other end. As a result, making a change that fixes one balance problem can easily create a new balance problem that didn’t exist before, which then requires that problem to be fixed, and so on and so forth, until the result is a game that potentially looks so different from the OOB original that it doesn’t find broad acceptablility in the community. The same can happen under the more radical methodology of scrapping the OOB rules altogether and starting from a clean slate; that method at least has the advantage of tossing out the straightjacket created by the worst of the OOB rules, but it has the disadvantage of having a greater potential for creating a game that looks totally alien compared to the original and therefore which gets little uptake from the community. I don’t know if there’s a solution to this paradox. The paradox may mean that it’s not feasible to overhaul the game in a way that is both comprehensive and broadly acceptable. Instead, it may mean that the best that can be achieved is an assortment of smaller-scale revisions, each of which differs from the OOB rules in one or two specific ways but otherwise sticks closely enough to the original to be recognizable and acceptable. Alternately, it may mean that one might have to aim for a comprehensive overhaul which is acceptable to one’s local gaming group rather than the community as a whole.
I like this recall for being cautious.
Probably the best approach is to not first pushing map changes and overhaul NOs, but considering it as a second phase of play-tests on Redesign project. The first being the more familiar to player, adding units and various interactions without radical changes to set-up and overall game.
Somekind of taste testing on a new food, enjoying by itself before offering recipes for this given product. -
I respectfully and firmly disagree. Cautious, incremental changes mean that people will continue to be deeply frustrated with the game. Any unofficial version starts with the heavy disadvantage that it’s not official. It needs an equally heavy advantage to make up for that! Merely introducing a few cool new units will not be enough to make up for the disadvantage of being unofficial. To earn and keep the attention of the community, we will have to actually solve most of the structural problems with Axis & Allies. We can’t solve those problems just by tinkering around the edges.
Also, because of the “domino effect” identified by CWO Marc, we can’t plan on adding rules that are designed to fix Problem A, playtesting them, then adding new rules to fix Problem B, and then playtesting those new rules. The rules that fix Problem B might re-open Problem A, or open a new Problem C, and so on all down the line. It really is all or nothing – if you spend time playtesting an intermediate version, then you are mostly wasting your time, because any “lessons learned” from the early playtesting will have to be thrown out as soon as you add the next batch of rules.
To be clear, if you want to tinker with a couple of house rules because your friends enjoy them, that’s great. But our common project here that we’ve been working on together for 67 pages is a reboot, not just minor tinkering. I think we’re really close. Let’s not throw away our progress.
-
I’m not considering not trying to wholly Redesign these games, just that it might be possible to have 2 agendas.
1- which ask what do you think of these units in the roster (C5 bombers, C5 DDs, CAs and TPs with M3, BBs and CAs with AA, etc.), how do you like the more in depth historical depiction it provides?2- Building from 1, we can suggest the wholly redesign G40 and 1942.2 with additionals VCs, NAPs, NOs, captured Capital rules, maps changes (including giving +x IPC to such and such TTy), and set-up changes, etc.
-
I don’t understand why splitting the redesign into two tracks, one of which only focuses on changes to the unit roster, would help us reach our goal more quickly. Can you explain that, please?
-
I don’t understand why splitting the redesign into two tracks, one of which only focuses on changes to the unit roster, would help us reach our goal more quickly. Can you explain that, please?
I can be wrong, but I forsee more negative reactions to novelty.
For those of us which are already sold to the idea there is no split tracks you need to use redesign roster (1) (for whatever it can be ultimately) to work with more important changes (2) (maps, straits, ICs, VCs, victory conditions, etc). There is no big learning gap.For those which are naturally suspicious, the benefits of (1) can be use as a way to attract more attention to the whole overhaul.
If you pretty much like (1), it can be natural to see where it can goes to improve all aspects of both games Redesign.Actually, Triple A options pack might allows to make a learning curve with new roster and units (1) without changing radically set-up and all other things. Other more complex options pack can include all features develop in phase 2.
For example, you may immediately dislike C5 bomber A0 D0 D6 damage and SBR dogfight with Fg A1 D1. And dislike how DDs C5 are working against Subs and how Subs are working against surface warships and Destroyers.
If the case for just a few unit variants, why will you see an interest to learn more about Redesign other complex ideas which can be further away from OOB?
However, some players may rather prefer to play with all these new units and explore the Redesign options pack with OOB set-up in background.Actually, from what I understand of Barney’s work-in-progress, all his own play-tests (to see if the engine is stable and don’t crash) and feedback are made under this paradigm of actual G40 set-up and OOB map.
Eventually, after a lot of Triple A play-tests and table top tests with the full Redesign overhaul (2) and considering dominos effect, some consensus may appear from player’s feedback about what work and what need finer tuning and what can be tossed aside. Then, Redesign might be readier for a real “Third edition expansion project”.Actually, I see Redesign as a rabbit hole into Wonderland. We need to give just enough to satisfy both curiosity and learning steps so more people will be willing to try and comments.
I really believe if it is too far away from known OOB Triple A experience, some might not be interested to follow the rabbit.
Barney’s options package give all players the possibility and freedom to familiarize with Redesign at their own pace.
Almost like a self-served buffet.
But this doesn’t forbid us to cook the best meal from all the ingredients available.
For now, I just believe no one is knowing for sure what “best meal” it can be.
We have just discovered how Triple A with Barney’s help can be “Hell’s kitchen” to create and try all kinds of meals.I may also add that in some case there will be simpler way to play tabletop than directly copying Triple A, however this software provides us some fast proof of functionality for some concepts with a few try against oneself or the IA.
-
It may be my fault for introducing the concept of the HR tripleA package into this broader redesign thread, but I think what Baron is talking about is building off that idea of the a la carte menu. Basically the approach there is to introduce more HR functionality into a standard gamefile, so that players have a way of implementing things they like, and the option of ignoring those they don’t. That’s where the incremental aspect is coming from.
For example, some people may be really interested in trying a new unit roster in isolation. Others may be more interested in using economic bonuses or things of that sort in isolation. Still others might want to build a game that uses both ideas, and all the rest, to create a more integrated mod.
My experience here has lead me to think that achieving HR concensus is pretty difficult, so the incremental approach is just an expediant for popularizing some of these independent concepts we’ve been kicking around. Just among the dozen or so people who regularly post in this thread, there is still a pretty broad range of opinion.
For my part, I’ve been somewhat reluctant to explore a new unit roster until pretty recently, but have always been willing to try things that involve economic adjustment. Others might feel the opposite way, and be very reluctant to alter the economy, but have no problem trying new unit values. So in the HR package everything is modular to accomodate a broader cross section of players who are willing to try HRs in the first place (already a smaller group.)
But I do take the point. For a full redesign mod to take off, it has to offer something pretty substantial that the OOB game does not. I just think it will be a lot easier to build what we want once more of the quick fix elements are in place.
-
So just in case it is possible to add VCs via a tech edit, what is the optimal number/victory spread for both boards?
For 1942.2 I think at the very least the AA50 VCs should be available. That gives us 18 total… Adds Stalingrad, Warsaw, Hong Kong, Sydney, Ottawa (this last always struck me as a poor choice, more for a Canadian nod than gameplay interest, but what can you do hehe). Again though, this just doesn’t seem terribly exciting, doing a rehash of the same thing that’s been done already in AA50. The next progression would be to backload all 19 Global VCs into 1942.2, throwing Cairo as well. Still feels like it doesn’t add a whole lot that we haven’t already seen.
What if we went more extreme?
25 total VCs?
Is it even really even necessary to have a different number of VCs in 1942.2 and Global?
I mean we could conceivably use the same total number of cities, and the same victory spread for both maps, and make this be a point of consistency between the two boards. VCs aren’t that complicated of a concept, reducing the number involved doesn’t really make the game any simpler, increasing the number doesn’t really make it more difficult.
If the tech toggle works, you could just call it “25 VCs” and make the option available for either map.That would give us 6 new cities to work with (beyond what we see in global), so we could distribute these across the map in ways that provide the maximum amount of gameplay interest.
Top contenders?
-
For what it’s worth, I think having a menu of options that users can check or uncheck when starting a tripleA game is a great idea. I said so a few pages ago, and I still say so now.
~~I started actively posting on this thread because it looked to me like the group was ready to start assembling a complete package of rules for a 1942.2 reboot, and I wanted to help with that. Now I’m hearing that the 1942.2 reboot on tripleA needs to wait until the G40 reboot is done, and that face-to-face playtesting will mostly be done with a handful of rules changes at a time.
It is always hard to figure these things out on the Internet, where you can’t see people’s faces or hear their tone of voice, but I am also getting a very strong impression that Black Elk and Barney want to write the reboot rules themselves, with other forum members limited to providing feedback and comments. I say this because I’ve asked to see a copy of their .xml file or unit roster three times, and I’ve offered to help code or edit the .xml file twice, but these offers and requests have all been ignored. When I wrote my own unit roster, instead of critiquing it, Black Elk just noted that my roster had some values that were “slightly different” than the values in his private .xml doc, and called it a “good jumping off point.” I really have no idea what Black Elk is talking about – who is going to use the PDF I made as a jumping off point? Where are they jumping off to? Black Elk already has his own rules document, and I believe that’s the one Black Elk and Barney are going to use.
Ultimately, that’s fine. I’m sure they’ll do a good job! I wish Black Elk and Barney had said explicitly that they want to handle the reboot on their own, because it would have saved me some time and energy, but I owe Black Elk at least a couple of favors for his thousands of words of expert strategy advice, his consistently insightful commentary, and his thoughtful feedback on many of my proposed house rules. Despite my frustration over the way this reboot project is being handled, I am still in Black Elk’s debt.~~
EDIT: Turns out I made a big deal about nothing. It happens! My apologies for any drama, and thanks very much to Barney for creating and sharing the .xml file, and to Black Elk for all of his thoughtful comments.
-
Sorry you got that impression Argothair. Here’s the latest file:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/lrm22j
There’s a tech doc that is incomplete and not up to date but I’ll post it too.
Yea this is just a bunch of house rules that people can configure however they like. Not a specific mod. Jump on in :) The more the merrier :)
Suggested Topics
