@tincanofthesea thanks! I’m going test it next time I play. Whats your feedback? @GeneralHandGrenade
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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 :)
-
I haven’t coded or edited anything. Crushing through tripleA xmls was never my jam. I’ve done a little bit here and there in the past, but its pretty daunting. For the tripleA implementation its all Barney at the helm at this point, for all that stuff. I’m just stoked that someone is actually putting together a file, because I don’t have the energy or skills to do that myself.
If I seemed hushed, it’s just that I wanted to give Barney a chance to polish up his draft a bit before sharing it around. Was trying not to look too much over the shoulder.
But looks like he’s game to unleash now.
:-DThanks Barney!!!
For the roster you posted Arg, I didn’t mean to skip over it. It’s just that many of the values were similar to what Barney said he was trying to pull off, and it seemed to be fluid, so didn’t want to put my foot in my mouth before he finished hehe.
Only a couple things done slightly differently, from the ideas you mentioned.
I noted in red below from you PDF… some of these can be tweaked on the fly. Others not yet operational.$3 Infantry A1* D2 M1
$4 Artillery A2 D2 M1 Boosts 1 infantry�s attack by +1
$4 Mechanized Inf. A1 D2 M1* Can move 2 spaces in combat and/or blitz when paired 1:1 with tanks
$5 AA Gun A0* D0* M1 Up to 2 pre-emptive shots vs. planes @ 1
$5 Strategic Bomber A0* D0 M6 Can inflict 1d6 points of industrial damage; last casualty
$5 Submarine A2 D1 M2 Can submerge, sneak attack, inflict 1 pt. industrial dmg.
$6 Transport A0 D0 M2* Carries 1 inf + 1 land unit, move 3 zones on non-combat, last casualty
$6 Tank A3* D3 M2
$7 Destroyer A2 D3 M2 Blocks submerge & sneak attack for up to 2 enemy subs$8 Fighter A2 D3 M4 Can intercept Strat. Bombers @ 2 or escort Strat. Bombers @1
$10 Tactical Bomber A3 D2 M5 Boosts 1 tank�s attack by +1, can intercept @ 1
$10 Cruiser A3 D3 M3 Bombards land territories @ 3; max 1 bombard per attacking land unit
$12 Carrier A1 D2 M2 Carries 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, or 1 strategic bomber
$15 Factory Max dmg: 2X Buy up to X units each turn. (X is IPC value). Destroyed on capture.
$16 Battleship A4 D4 M2 2 hits to kill, up to 1 pre-emptive shot vs. planes @ 1, bombards @ 4In the game file above you can see that some of those base values which are different from OOB are handled via tech toggle. Some others not yet fully implemented. Some tech add abilities slightly different. Should all be clarified in the tech doc.
ps. also, you can see that once the file is available, its fairly easy to hack/mod, to try different things. If you want to try different cost structures or different default territories values etc. But the base file builds off OOB for most things, and is basically modular.
The images below show some of what is possible right now for the roster. All of these are strictly optional, and some can have costs/abilities that can be tweaked via tech toggle. Some units in this save have their costs tweaked, so you can see that they have a more descriptive name, usually referring to their cost like C5… If you open the gamefile and mouse over the units (after tech add), you can read descriptions of what’s going with them.
Personally I’m not the sort who would try to build a redesign of G40 around a roster with this many units. For one thing some crowding is certain to occur. But then who am I to judge. For some haVing a bunch of cool sculpts and specialty units is like half the fun of the game.
I’m more interested in basic architecture. Like the other 5 bolded sections in Args pdf. But at least with the G40 units available, it is easier for people to include the things that interest them. Also, with recommended settings, you might want to alter the economy based on which other features are in play. So my thought there is that you use save game files to create the desired mod.
Which can then be tested more easily. Or dropped. Or changed again. Since that’s all likely part of the process.One cool thing already in there is convoy and blockade. And the Pacific island bonus.
But I’m still still excited for other features we’ve just been discussing such as.
Adding more VCS!
25 VC spread?Is it possible? And What should they be?
:-DNew optional Waterways or naval movement restrictions.
Like also in 1942.2 making sz16 an actual option.Or land movement restrictions like Western China, or co-location restrictions/penalties.
Also the NAPI like Arg’s ideas in the pdf for the 1942.2 possibilities. Let’s try for as many of those as we can get working. Sounds cool to me.
The HR file for v5, doesn’t exist yet. So I have no way to send it over. Barney was going to put one together for us after this. Which hopefully he’s still down to do, since it’s way beyond me. I’m still having my mind blown at what he’s cranked out so far with the changer concept for G40. Hoping for something similar with v5 1942.2 and v6 1941, because that would be glorious.
Gotta turn in early, work tomorrow. But I also would like to get to that point where we can put it into practice, with savegames.
-
This is out of date but the bulk is correct:
“Global 40 HouseRules”
Game starts with 2nd edition OOB rules,techs and units. A player named "Changer will go first. His purpose is to activate certain technologies so the game may begin with them. There are 7 of these techs. Each one has “ChangerMustActivate” at the end of them.
Changer has only 1 turn, so if techs are not activated then, you will be unable to activate them later. All the techs are listed for the rest of the players. This is for information purposes only. For example, even though Germany has “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”, he cannot activate it.
Excluding the OOB techs, Germany activates the remaining techs for all players, except for those that end in “GiveToAll”. These must be given to each player in order for them to have the tech ability.
Germany needs to activate techs at the start of Changer’s turn.Here is the Tech Tree for “Global 40 HouseRules” minus the OOB techs:
“Changer”
1) “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”
Bombers are now a A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB C5 unit. They may perform SBR attacks only. They do not participate in the Air Battle with interceptors. They do 1-6 damage. They no longer receive a +2 to an SBR attack.
2) “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”
Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.
The Destoryer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”.
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.In addition to their normal unit stats, Fighters and Tac Bombers now have ASA1 ASD1 each.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will not stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Ftrs/Tacs, the sub will only undergo 1 ASA/D shot.3) “TacticalBomberCost10_ChangerMustActivate”
The price of Tactical Bombers are reduced to C10.4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.5) “Escort_Carrier_ChangerMustActivate”
Adds The Escort Carrier. Escort CV is a A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C9 unit. It also has the Destroyers Sub blocking ability. It can carry 1 Fighter or Tactical bomber.If “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate” has been activated, it becomes a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C9 with 1, ASA1 ASD1, each. It’s ASA/D shots stack same as Destroyers. It can carry 1 Fighter or Tactical bomber.
6) “FactoryLimited_ChangerMustActivate”
Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and new construction minor factories may only produce artillery, AAguns, armor, mech infantry, mobile infantry, marines and infantry. If a NB is present you may also build subs, transports, escort carriers and DDs. If a AB is present you may also build fighters and TBs.ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in factories on originally owned territories that also has an AB. In addition, Bombers may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung:Egypt:Norway:Alaska:West India:Korea. May not build at a AB with 3 or more damage.
NBs are required to build all naval units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. These TTs must also have a NB. May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.
New Zealand receives a Minor Factory to allow ANZAC Air builds. Quebec receives a NB to allow for naval builds. The Central United Staes receives a NB to allow for additional pre War naval builds.
This addresses Capital Ships and Bombers being built in newly conquered territories. It should also be noted that UK may only build Air Units in UK at game start. This makes the UK AB a prime Axis target.
7) “AAGunC4_ChangerMustActivate”
Changes the AAGun into a A0 D1 M1 C4 unit. It has 2AA shots. May not fire more than 1 shot per plane. Blocks movement and can conquer/capture Territories and Infrastructure.Germans
Category
“San Francisco Rules”1) AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.2) “UpGun_BomberA0C5_GiveToAll”
If “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate” has been activated, this tech will give Bombers A1 in Air Battles and Fighters A2 D2. This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.If this tech is activated without activating “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”, Bombers will have A2 in Air Battles. Fighters will have A2 D2. This will be changed in the future so it’s not possible.
3) Naval_M3_GiveToAll
Gives +1 Movement to Cruisers and Transports
This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.4) “AirfieldM2”
Airfields now give +2 Movement to Bombers and Fighters. It is reccomended to only use the additional +1 Movement for fighters when they are escorting Bombers on SBR missions. This is Player Enforced.5) “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.6) “TacticalBomberCost10_ChangerMustActivate”
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.Category
“Redesign”1) “PacificIslAndPU_Change”
Gives all valueless Pacific Islands 1 PU when Japan is at war with any of the Western Allies. Must be at war to receive bonus.
Also gives 1 PU to the following: Malta:Crete:Cyprus:Gibraltar:Alexandria:Tobruk:Sardinia:Sicily:Nenetsia:Vyborg:Bessarabia:Turkmenistan:Iceland:Eastern Persia.
Removes 1 PU from:Ontario:Rhodesia:Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba.
Japans “Strategic_Defense_Perimeter” National Objective is replaced by “Strategic_Islands”. They now receive 3 PUs for control of “Midway:Wake Island:Guam” when at war with ANY of the Western Allies.
The USA also acquires the “Strategic_Islands” National Objective when at war with Japan.
When at war with each other, Japan and the Western Allies will receive 2 PUs every time they conquer a 2 PU value Island or less (excepting the Philippines).
The Western Allies will receive 2 PUs every time they take control of Celebes,Sumatra,Borneo,Java or the Philippines from Japan. The Japanese will receive 2 PUs every time they take control of Celebes,Sumatra,Borneo,Java or the Philippines after round 3.With originally controlled territories, this gives Japan an additional 5 PUs, America 6 PUs, UK Pacific 4 PUs and ANZAC 3 PUs.
Russia will receive an additional 4 PUs, Italy 3 PUs and UK 1 PU.Strategically, the Axis can conquer Bessarabia and Vyborg quite easily from Russia for a previously unavailable 2 PU boost. UK Pacific may activate Eastern Persia for an easy 1 PU.
Japan can become quite strong, quite fast using this modification so it is suggested to counter that with some Chinese modifications, which will be available in the same tech category.
It is suggested to use the “ConvoyAndBlockade” tech, which is explained next, in conjuction with the “PacificIslandAndPU_Change” tech.2) “ConvoyAndBlockade”
This adds Blockade zones to Sea Zones:64,86,91,103,118 and 123. In addition to interdicting Land Territory PUs, Blockade Zones also interdict Sea Zones with PU value when adjacent to said Zones.
It also adds “Convoy Zones” to Sea Zones:7,77,95,104,117,123 and 124. Convoy zones allow interdiction of Land Territory PUs. They are as follows:
Sea Zone 7:Buryatia and Sakha. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.
Sea Zone 77:Caucasus. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.
Sea Zone 95:Sicily. 1 PU total. Italian owned.
Sea Zone 88:West Indies. 2 PUs total. American owned.
Sea Zone 90:Southeast Mexico. 2 PUs total. American owned.
Sea Zone 102:Central America. 2 PUs total. American owned.
Sea Zone 104:Gold Coast and Nigeria. 2 PUS total. British owned.
Sea Zone 117:Quebec. 2 PUs total. British owned.
Sea Zone 123:New Brunswick Nova Scotia and Iceland. 2 PUs total. British owned.
Sea Zone 124:Nenetsia and Vologda. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.Sea Zones 104 and 117 are also worth 1 PU.
Sea Zones 88,90,95 and 102 are worth 2 PUs.
Sea Zones with PU value do not have their PUs transferred to an enemy, even when that enemy controls the Sea Zone. Sea Zones with PU value are not collected if enemy controlled.Land Territory changes are:
Eastern United States: 12 PUs
Central United States: 10 PUs
Western United States: 12 PUs
Mexico: 1 PU
Southeast Mexico: 2 PUs
Central America: 2 PUs
West Indies: 2 PUsYou or your Ally must control the Convoy Zone at the “Collect PU” phase of your turn to receive the PUs from the corresponding Land Territories.
Submerged Subs do not control Convoy Zones. If there is a Sub controlling a Convoy Zone and it is attacked and survives the attack by submerging, control of the Convoy Zone will revert to the Original Owner.
The UK has their “British_Original”(controls all original territories) National Objective reduced to 3 PUs.Strategically, certain Sea Zones(91,103) may inflict substantial damage. Sea Zones 104 and 117 add an additional 2 PUs in income for the UK.
The majority of added Convoy and Blockade Zones are Allied controlled at the start. This is to encourage more Sub activity primarily in the Atlantic.
The Pacific has enough Blockade possibilities that further additions were deemed unnecessary other than the Russian Convoy Zones, which are added to interdict additional Russian PU potential when “PacificIslandAndPU_Change” and “Russian National Objectives” (which will be explained next) are activated.3) “RussianNationalObjectives”
Reduces Russia’s Sea Zone 125 Lend Lease Objective to 2 PUs. Also reduces their “Spread of Communism” Objective to 2 PUs per Territory and limits those Territories to originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis Euoropean neutral territories.
These Territories are:“Bulgaria:Finland:Greater Southern Germany:Slovakia Hungary:Western Germany:Romania:Poland:Germany:Norway:Denmark:Holland Belgium:Northern Italy:Southern Italy”Adds the following NOs to Russia:
“The Great Patriotic War” Theme:Soviet Sphere of Influence.
3 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.“The Northern Trace” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Northwest Staging Route.2 PUs if SZ 5 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), Amur is Russian controlled and there are no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.
“Persian Corridor” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route. 2 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), Persia is Allied controlled and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.
An increase of +2 PUs per Lend Lease Route goes into effect if Russia is at war and Japan declares war on Russia. Allied units may be present in Russia.
A Russian Destroyer is added to Sea Zone 5. It must remain adjacent to original Soviet territory while the Soviet Union is neutral to Japan.
4) “ChineseMilitia”
Adds the “Militia” unit for China. A0 D1 M1 C2. This helps China produce a few more units and allows them to purchase when they only have 2 PUs. Helps slow Japan down a little.5) “PrimitiveTerrain”
Places a “Primitive” image in basically all of Asia, excepting most Costal Territories, and up to the Ural Mountains in Russia. When starting in a primitive TTy, M2 units have their movement reduced to 1. Does not affect aircraft.This helps slow Japan’s push through China and discourages early Soviet Far East invasions.
6) “FactoryLimited_ChangerMustActivate” "
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.Category
“New Units and Unit Changes”1) “BBandCA_AA”
Battleships and Cruisers now have 2 AA shots. They behave the same as regular AAGuns.2) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.3) “Mobile_Artillery”
Adds a Mobile Artillery Unit. A2 D2 +1D w/tank, C5. Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or Mech Infantry. May blitz. Does not provide blitz ability to other units.+1D w/tank represents their use as anti-tank weapons and to prevent tank buys from being adversely affected.
4) “Escort_Carrier_ChangerMustActivate”
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.5) “AAGunC4_ChangerMustActivate”
Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.6) “MilitiaForAll”
Adds the Militia Unit to all players. A Player may have no more than 8 Militia at any one time. May only be placed in originally owned Territories.This is to prevent spammage. It is also suggested to wait until Round 3 before activation. This represents full manpower mobilization and prevents an early UK stack to prevent Sea Lion. “Chinese Militia” is still suggested for Round 1 activation. If not activated, China will also gain the ability to purchase Militia when “MilitiaForAll” is activated.
Category
“New Units and Other Changes”1) “Marines”
Marines are a A1 D1 M1 C3 Unit. They receive +1A when making an amphibous attack. They may be transported into battle by Battleships on a 1:1 basis.2) “Escorts_Interceptors_A2D2_GiveToAll”
Escort Fighters are now A2 Interceptors D2. This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.Got a few things I’m trying to sort out. Hope to be done soon because I got to split before long. I’m gonna throw the whole thing up on github so anybody can access.
-
Here is a gamesave with pretty much everything set to “on”…. Well everything except the standard OOB techs.
And it doesn’t use the C8 Transport tech (which is the Classic transport, for anyone who still can’t dig defenseless transports lol.)
There is also an option to upgun the bomber and escort/intercept dogfighting, but right now I have that set to default C5. The upgun gives those aircraft more power.
But anyway, you can use it to see all the crazy stuff, with just everything switched to on. That would be highly experimental. Techs activate on Germany’s turn, and for the others when G ends their first turn.
:-DOr also just deactivate whatever you don’t like (since that can be faster, than loading it all up in the settings.) Switch off basically.
Here’s a save below just to mess around with…
And also another screenshot of purchase, showing how you can mouse the cursor for the description.
-
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?
IDK if we need that much VC.
Here is what I suggested earlier:
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.
Axis: 7 VCs
Allies: 13 VCsKeeping 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).
I tried to add Singapore (for Strait importance, as Argothair and CWO Marc emphasized).
But it makes 21 VCs, I like 20 because it is a well-rounded number.I didn’t add Cairo but it is a stranglehold to access Cape Town.
So, Moscow, Stalingrad and Cape Town can be battled coordinated between Axis powers.Wellington should be part of VCs with Sydney to let US more time to prepare counter-strike before Japan secures his victory conditions.
So, southwest or southeast strategy would be available for Japan: Calcutta or San Francisco, if Honolulu, Sydney and Wellington are captured.Germany have to capture 3 more VCs amongst Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, Ottawa, Rio of Janeiro or Cape Town. Probably, besides all 3 russian VCs, it can be Rio or Cape Town instead of Moscow.
Also, it gives a cooperative victory if Japan takes two amongst Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington or Honolulu and gets either Moscow or Cape Town (total: 6 VCs).
(while Germany grabs Leningrad and Stalingrad, total: 6 VCs)Allies may also captured 4 amongst Paris, Rome, Warsaw, Hong Kong or Manila reaching 17 VCs. So, no need to take Tokyo or Berlin. But, it will not be easy because usually, one Axis power is growing monster.
It is still possible to add Cairo and Singapore into the mix of 22 VCs:
needs 8 VCs to win per theatre or 14 VCs as a whole:Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs: Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cairo, Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila, Singapore
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.
Axis: 8 VCs
Allies: 14 VCsAt 1 IPC per VC,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 4 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 7 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsIn that VCs configuration, both Axis power start with 4 VCs and have to capture 4 others to win.
Besides Leningrad, Stalingrad and Cairo, Germany must then either grasp Moscow or Cape Town or London. -
But territories like New Zealand, and Brazil are so far afield.
Isn’t that just like adding more Ottawas?
-
Regarding Victory Conditions, I want to pose a couple questions. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to see what people think or how they play the game.
Is an Axis victory acceptable or legitimate if they do not take at least one of the 3 major Allied Capitals? (Do you think your Allied opponent would feel cheated in that he was not truly defeated and still had the ability to continue fighting and/or eventually win the game?)
OOB rules state that the Allies win by taking all 3 Axis Capitals. If the Allies took either Berlin or Tokyo (not both) and held the big 3 Allied Capitals, is that enough to declare Allied victory?
Should the Allies have have a victory condition in which they do not have to take either Berlin or Tokyo to win the game?
At this point I am just putting stream-of-consciousness into words. I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are the core of the game. I can tell you what I think and how people I know normally play.
There is no such thing as a minor victory. The only victory cities that really matter are Tokyo, Berlin, Washington, Moscow and London. Maybe that is a holdover from starting out on Revised. If the the Allies take either Berlin or Tokyo, and retain their own capitals, the Allies win. If the Axis take any of the Allied capitals (and hold it more than one turn, while keeping their own), game over; Axis win. Most times victory is projected via the eye test.
This doesn’t go along with the rule book exactly, but it works for person-to-person play. You can examine the board, unit placements, turns, income and at a certain point see who is going to win. We all can do that, in everything but the tightest of games.
I asked the questions above because I think I may need to let go of some habits and defaulting to historical accuracy in order to allow the game to be more dynamic. I think the root cause of sameness among games is that victory is only considered legitimate if one of the enemy capitals are taken. This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
-
But territories like New Zealand, and Brazil are so far afield.
Isn’t that just like adding more Ottawas?
Sydney and Wellington are both 1 SZ away from Guadalcanal and 2 SZs from Carolines Islands or Hawaii.
ANZAC can only have these two main VCs.
Conquering them incarnate the Japanese crushing 1 PTO enemy (minor) power.That one is a way to compel Japan to mainly fight in PTO.
Brazil in 1942.2 is a 3 IPCs TTy which is not that far from Gibraltar and had a lot of natural resources.
I agree Brazil is still far.
So what can be an other which is not in Germany TTy?P.S.
I tried to answered you Hoffmann but my Pad froze and I lost every words when I was upon to send it. :xIn too short: 1942.2 Allies mostly win by conquering 1 Capital while Axis win with economic like win via VCs captured.
Otherwise, it will remain a Center Crush on Russia.This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
I agree on that one.
-
Yeah I can see how Wellington and Cape Town might be fun.
Rio still seems a little bit problematic, difficult to contest. I think the more VCs you have the less either of those would stand out. But there are many cities that would seem to jump ahead of it in line.
If it has to be Allied maybe Chunking or Vladivostok? Putting more VCs on the Center route, or Eastern front seems a bit counterproductive, though again if there were more total, it might make Athens or even Kiev or Minsk worth considering.
There are also territories on the German periphery that might work, like Oslo or Algiers or even something like Amsterdam. Provided the Allies can trade one of these on balance early on, until one of the others VCs comes into contention.
To me it seems like G40 at least could support an upscale over 20. I was willing to go over 20 even for the smaller board, just to add more flavor haha.
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
-
@Baron:
P.S.
I tried to answered you Hoffmann but my Pad froze and I lost every words when I was upon to send it. :xIn too short: 1942.2 Allies mostly win by conquering 1 Capital while Axis win with economic like win via VCs captured.
Otherwise, it will remain a Center Crush on Russia.This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
I agree on that one.
Hate it when that happens!
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
Economic bonus for VCs would definitely help.
I was just admitting that I will need to change my perspective on how the game is played to be satisfied with a non-capital victory. I think a lot of people would feel the same way. If that perception can be changed or at least suspended, I think it opens up alternate avenues of play like you would really like to see Black_Elk. I think it would be kinda fun and new myself. It’s just that if an Allied capital always needs to fall, then I fear it will be the USSR (JCC/German USSR crush) 99% of the time, as usual.
-
So one of the things that happens in tripleA which I like, is that you can set the victory conditions beforehand in the game file options tab.
When a Victory is achieved a little prompt comes up at the end of the round saying ‘Allies/Axis Achieve victory (Major/Minor) with X number of VCs.’ A little audio clip plays with cheering fanfare hehe.
And then, perhaps more importantly, it asks If you want to end the game or play on.
Sometimes you can scan the digital board, and it’s pretty easy to say, “well yup, looks like they won.” Other times its like “Hell no! Let’s not throw in the towel just yet. There’s still beer, and no work tomorrow!” And then you play longer till unconditional surrender.
But at least up until that point, there is a bit more incentive to pay attention to the VC’s.
Even still, sometimes it jumps out at you, like wait a minute, when did they get another VC?!?
Which is where the bonus would really help.Especially if it occurred at the end of the game round.
I’m really hoping this may be possible, and not too difficult to include. Because then you have some advanced warning. Like “Uh oh, how are they raking in so much dough!? Come on team, we need to focus on VCs next round! So we don’t lose!”
:-DFor that I think having the message delivered to all players at once, with cash, will go a long way towards encouraging closer tracking.
I still think we could go higher on total count to 24 or 25 or whatever.
Or just have 2 options, one with a lower VC total and one with a higher VC total. -
Yeah I can see how Wellington and Cape Town might be fun.
Rio still seems a little bit problematic, difficult to contest. I think the more VCs you have the less either of those would stand out. But there are many cities that would seem to jump ahead of it in line.
If it has to be Allied maybe Chunking or Vladivostok? Putting more VCs on the Center route, or Eastern front seems a bit counterproductive, though again if there were more total, it might make Athens or even Kiev or Minsk worth considering.
There are also territories on the German periphery that might work, like Oslo or Algiers or even something like Amsterdam. Provided the Allies can trade one of these on balance early on, until one of the others VCs comes into contention.
To me it seems like G40 at least could support an upscale over 20. I was willing to go over 20 even for the smaller board, just to add more flavor haha.
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
That why I believed a 3 IPCs swing (1 IPC owned and 2 IPCs conquered) into Warchest per VCs conquered is an avenue to investigate.
The Warchest is an interesting feature because it allows to put money where it is most needed.
Whether it is a center crush (Russia) or more peripheral expansions (UK).If an Alliance conquered a few VCs in short time it allows to add more pressure to finish off the opponents.
Usually in 1942.2, if not Russia which is conquered, it is rather UK which is craving for IPCs.
That way, with NAP and VCs swing, UK can becomes the prime target of both Germany in Africa and IJN into SouthEast Asia. And Japan can gives all his Warchest to Germany to finish off UK and keeping at bay Russia.USA is more difficult to strangle economically: China, Hawaii and Alaska can be targeted but, after this, it is no piece of cake.
Brazil and Rio as VCs was an M3 TP and Cruiser distortion effect. So, forget about it.
I don’t want to give too much VCs on Axis side at start, but if we take Cairo and Cape Town and still require 4 VCs per Theatre, maybe this can work.
But all this is probably linked to set-up ICs put in South Africa, same for Australia and New Zealand.
So UK can make war on the fringe of the map. -
Sounds pretty cool. I guess in 1942.2 I’m fine with 22 (though I still think 24 might be cool.)
But just to push the crazy idea a little further… Keeping with Global (since that’s the file we got going at the moment) I’ve heard the following suggested at various points for additional VCs over the standard 19…
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Oslo (Norway)
Kiev (Ukraine)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Bucharest (Romania)
Amsterdam (Northwest Europe)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Tripoli (Libya)Algiers (Algeria)
Athens (Greece)
Victoria (W. Canada)
Rio (Brazil)Is it possible to give a High VC count game option that just does like all of them?
Probably more have been mentioned in the past, and maybe there are better cities than those listed, but they seem fairly well distributed across the board, such that everyone gets a couple.If you went with all of those you’d have 36 total. Which might allow for an even split somewhere in the midgame, like 18/18.
At +1 ipc per VC, that’s still only 18 a round in extra warchest cash to either side, if they manage to develop an even split. Doesn’t seem too terribly crazy to me.
It basically almost doubles the total number of VCs in contention. Sure it means every third or fourth territory is likely a VC contender, but would that really be so bad?
For the bean counting, it doesn’t seem too intense. 36 territory tiles, out of a couple hundred total territories and sea zones on the map, still seems pretty manageable in G40. -
To keep things in perspective, 24 IPCs is 1942.2 Russia income.
If Allies give all to Russia, it is around +16 IPCs to help. Making 40 IPCs.
Which, BTW, is a pretty interesting depiction of Lend-lease help.
Germany might be around 46+ 10 giving 56 IPCs.
Or 58 IPCs if Cairo and Leningrad worth double upon conquest.I hope Triple A might allows a double count for conquered VCs, simply because I believe the TUV swing is a simple mechanics which helps those which are moving toward victory and the more you get the more it will appear in hard money.
G40 maybe another beast with all NOs, Convoy disruption, and VCs may count 1 IPCs but get a lot.
Nonetheless, Italy may get a major boost from warchest if given 18 IPCs.If worth double, 18-18 becomes 9-36 if a side captured 8 VCs.
36 IPCs is almost double money than minor Power economy.In both games, it is still possible to make it on agreement and edit mode after a complete round.
Counting all VCs per side and rise total money in hand for a given power via edit mode. -
Something about 24 VCs for 1942.2 and 36 VCs for G40 just has a nice feel to me.
Revised had exactly 12 VCs when the Victory City concept was first introduced. So it kind of makes a little pattern here, scaling up by a dozen hehe.
:-DJust going with the crazier number first. In G40 that would give you…
Axis starting:
Berlin (Germany)
Warsaw (Poland)
Rome (Italy)
Tokyo (Japan)
Oslo (Norway)
Amsterdam (Holland)
Bucharest (Romania)
Tripoli (Libya)
Shanghai (Kwang)+9 to start
Allies OOB starting Cities 14 plus… :
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Algiers (Algeria)
Victoria (W. Canada)That gives +24 to the Allies to start, but many of these will fall in the first round.
So as long as you said that Victory can’t be declared in the first game round, or until US/Japan are at war, it will likely even out to be a lot more manageable once the Axis open. In G40 at least, the Warchest shouldn’t be collected until the nation is at war, so likewise the Allies/Axis team really should not be able to claim a Victory until they are at war. Basically their VC control doesn’t count until they are a belligerent.
Then you’d also have more than a single neutral VC, so it wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb.
Athens (Greece)
Rio (Brazil)+2 in the neutral pot haha.
Guess you could switch out some of the Allied VCs listed above for Sofia or Helsinki, Baghdad or Tehran, or similar, if you wanted fewer Allied VCs to start, and more of the VCs in the spread allotted to neutrals.
If the cash is too high with this many VCs, you could go from 1:1, to 1:2.
Like +1 ipc to the warchest for every 2 VCs controlled by the team (round down.)
And still have a doubling mechanism for that for the endgame if desired.
*edit. Think I got the above numbers correct now. Forgot Shanghai there for a minute on the Axis side.
:-D
Suggested Topics
