G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[Black_Elk]

Here is a two block XML file for G40 to mess around with (same one I threw together for blueiguana in the other thread). It can be used with the Global 40 HouseRules files linked above earlier.

I also have a gamesave attached below, where I just edited out every combat unit on the entire board. It has the OOB bases and factories but nothing else.

You could use this save adjust territory possession or the starting unit distribution on the fly to be whatever. And then use the save as a draft guide for coding the xml for an actual modification, designed to use a collapsed all vs all turn sequence.

Global_40_HouseRules.xml
G40 2 Blocks no starting combat units draft.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Here’s another gamesave concept just building off the above. Rough snap shows how the zoomed out map might look with Anzac given over to UKP, and China to the US.

Frankly I don’t miss the purple people eater, or the grey-blue all that much. The tripleA map still feels like it has a nice distribution of color across the board for Classic sensibilities haha.

G40 2 Blocks Anz to UKP and China to USA.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

1. UK (+Anzac, UKP, Canada or whatever)/China

2. Japan

3. USA/Russia

4. Germany/Italy

I prefer this one because you can start with a blazing Taranto raid and also simulate the Greek repelling Italian forces.
Also, I learned it was an inspiration for Pearl Harbor raid.
So, both big warships battle might be interesting to mark the beginning of EuropeTO first turn and the US starting war event for PacificTO.

And as you said, it would be original:

In either case, you’d have a G40 style game that was pretty distinct from OOB, since Axis would be closing the game round instead of Allies, something that hasn’t really been tried before.

On Vichy, this time each country and armies can be distributed according to history.
Makes Vichy pro-axis neutral kind of (IDK) and other France units be part of Allies (kind of pro-Allies neutral) once a British or US enter their TT.
Instead of a separate power, merging it with the other?

[General 6 Stars]

Without changing anything to setup you mentioned about start date. You’d have to go with this some what.

Turn 1 -  1940 = Summer - Winter
              1941 = Spring - Summer - Winter
Turn 2 -  1942 = Spring
Turn 3 -  1942 = Summer
Turn 4 -  1942 = Winter

Something to this affect. May have to adjust to see US goes to War on a certain turn.
Just give all the countries there normal moves on first turn to keep in time ?

[barney]

@Black_Elk:

Here is a two block XML file for G40 to mess around with (same one I threw together for blueiguana in the other thread). It can be used with the Global 40 HouseRules files linked above earlier.

I also have a gamesave attached below, where I just edited out every combat unit on the entire board. It has the OOB bases and factories but nothing else.

You could use this save adjust territory possession or the starting unit distribution on the fly to be whatever. And then use the save as a draft guide for coding the xml for an actual modification, designed to use a collapsed all vs all turn sequence.

Not sure by your comment if you’re aware of this or not Elk, but once you edit all the units how you want and make a save, you can use that save to create a new xml that will do all the placing for you. Saves a lot of time.

I’ve never done it and don’t remember the specifics of how you do. I ran across it while searching the triplea forum for something else. It seemed relatively straight forward from what I remember

[General Veers]

On the subject of Vichy France, would it be worth considering making Corsica it’s own territory? On the board it would be a simple fix of starting with a French control marker.

The implication of having Corsica would encourage the German player to push for an armistice with the new puppet state so that the UK could not use the island as a landing spot for an alternate raid on SZ 85. It’s not game breaking but it would give the UK player another option.

[Argothair]

I think consolidating all the various British players makes sense – if you’re profoundly concerned about making sure that India’s resources don’t get siphoned off to build 6 fighters in London (or vice versa) then just have a player enforced rule to cap production at any given British factory at 40 IPCs per turn, or something like that.

For the Winter 1940 setup, I would not even bother having a separate French nation – just code the Vichy French territories as pro-Axis neutrals!

Thanks for the tip about generating .xml via a setup … looks like you can access that option from the “Game” menu on the menu bar at the top of the tripleA screen. It’s marked as “Beta”, but it would be really cool if it works! I’ll try it out this week.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I changed Anzac to UKP in the gamesave I posted, because it was quicker then changing all the UKP territories to UKE (there are a ton of zero island islands). I think it probably works if you want to preserve the split economy to prevent too much cash going to either side of the map board for UK. At least this way it’s only two turns (and the movement/combat phases are already joined.) So in terms of pace it would still be pretty fast. At least the division is cleaner, one economy for each side of the map. Or you could make them all a single economy, just takes a bit longer to reassign all the TTs via edit haha.

I also agree about France.

For Corsica and Newfoundland, it would be simple enough to make them separate tiles. Since the Global40 House Rules file uses its own map folder, those kind of tweaks are relatively easy.

If the game leads rapidly into a total war start, I think it would be a lot simpler to assign Chinese TTs to the Americans (using US units or Russian units for Mao.) You could still restrict movement across the western border with the Soviet Union (for Western Units) to keep the Chinese more or less in place. I think that would make the US a more entertaining power to play, and speeds up the Allied turn. Easy enough to just give the US Chinese enough units to maintain at the outset, then just let them be reinforced normally by the US or the Brits. Or I guess you could allow for China AA50 rules for placement of US infantry. But I still think it’s easier/faster to have then US controlled than a separate power.

I think the goal should be a turn that doesn’t take much longer than 30 minutes per side on the forst turn. And hopefully faster once things get going.

[baron Münchhausen]

IDK if it can be workable.
All this discussion makes me thing about a kind of more or less powers according to the number of players.

There is still a minimum number of 5 power (as 1942.2): US+China / Russia/ UK (Euro+Pac+ANZAC+Canada)(+France outside Europe and North Africa)  / Germany+Italy+Vichy (Europe+North Africa) / Japan

2 Axis player: (Germany & Italy merged) and Japan
3 Axis player : G, Italy, Japan

3 Allies player or less: UK, USA+China, Russia

If we start with UK, it allows to merge Italy and Germany more easily than if Germany play first, then Allies, then Italy.
The idea is to create a 1942.2 kind of setup at the Global scale.
It is a way to limit time consuming purchase decision, collecting IPCs and special turn for minor power if not needed.

When more players available, above 5, you can continue to allocate all specific unit and make a minor power until all players have 1 power to deal with:

6- you may split Italy from Germany (3 Axis vs 3 Allies) or UK PAC from UK Europe (2 Axis vs 4 Allies),
7- you split both (3 Axis vs 4 Allies)
8- you may either separate ANZAC from UKPac or Canada from UKEurope. (3 Axis vs 5 Allies)
9- both ANZAC and Canada (3 Axis vs 6 Allies)

3 Axis power
Allies: Russia, USA+China, Canada, ANZAC, UK Pac, UK Euro (French african TTs except North Africa),

It makes room for up to 9 players, or 10 if you split China.

And China can be given to a player playing either ANZAC only or Canada only. That way, it makes more action.

For minor powers zone of influence can be restricted, you can decide that at most 20 or 25 IPCs can be built from Italian (as German), UKPac (as UK), ANZAC (as UK), Canada (as UK) IC. And main IC from UK has a caps of 40 or 50 IPCs.

[CWO Marc]

I’m wondering too about the basic rationale of this merger idea.  If I understand correctly, the idea is to take all the minor powers in Global 1940 and merge them into the major powers (so that we basically end up with five powers rather than nine), in order to make the game faster to play.  It seems to me that this is attacking the problem from the wrong direction, and that it involves using the counterintuitive solution of treating the units from Country X as if they were really part of Country Y.

Rather than artificially changing the nine-power Global 1940 game into a rather convoluted five-power game, wouldn’t it be simpler to just play 1942, which is already a five-power game?  If the basic complaint is that Global 1940 is too big, has too many powers and takes too long to play – in other words, that it’s not sufficiently like A&A 1942 – it seems to me that the obvious solution is to play the 1942 game, not to eviscerate the 1940 game of some of its fundamental characteristics.

[Black_Elk]

To clarify, I was talking about an attempt make an All Axis vs All Allies turn order functional on the G40 map. The concept is already proven on the smaller 5 man boards, but my point was that to do the same on a map the scale of G40, having 7 separate Allied turns (each with a what 7 phases?) would take like an hour just to get through the Allies each round, where the Axis player is doing nothing but rolling defense.

For a PBEM game it doesn’t really matter, since you could take all day if you wanted, but in a live game I dont think you can do it, without boring the Axis player to tears. You’d already be looking at an Axis turn that takes 20 minutes to a half hour, so I was just thinking of a way to make the Allied turn about the same. Giving a play pace for the All vs All sequence that is more realistic for an FtF game.

Also I don’t know that the appeal of G40 is necessarily the 10 OOB player nations. The larger scale map itself and larger economy  has an appeal all its own. So if it’s possible to play the gamemap with a 5/6 man set up, that might be pretty cool.

The Anzac and French sculpts (or Italians in the case of a 5 man) could just be cosmetic. Allowing the player to switch them out at any point, without altering the gameplay consequences.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

To clarify, I was talking about an attempt make an All Axis vs All Allies turn order functional on the G40 map. The concept is already proven on the smaller 5 man boards, but my point was that to do the same on a map the scale of G40, having 7 separate Allied turns (each with a what 7 phases?) would take like an hour to get through the Allies each round, where the Axis player is doing nothing but rolling defense.

Ah, I see.  Sorry for misunderstanding what you were referring to.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I don’t know what the popularity of such an idea would be. But it was mentioned a few times by IL and others. So just trying to think of a way that the big map might work for such an idea.

Personally I think it’s a bit much to have the whole team moving in sequence, but perhaps some would dig it. I just think you’d need to do something more than simply rearranging the 10 OOB nations in sequence to pull it off, (like merging the minor powers, or reducing the number of starting units) otherwise the pace would really grind, especially in the first round.

[baron Münchhausen]

The concept is already proven on the smaller 5 man boards, but my point was that to do the same on a map the scale of G40

How was this done?

@CWO:

I’m wondering too about the basic rationale of this merger idea.  If I understand correctly, the idea is to take all the minor powers in Global 1940 and merge them into the major powers (so that we basically end up with five powers rather than nine), in order to make the game faster to play.  It seems to me that this is attacking the problem from the wrong direction, and that it involves using the counterintuitive solution of treating the units from Country X as if they were really part of Country Y.

Rather than artificially changing the nine-power Global 1940 game into a rather convoluted five-power game, wouldn’t it be simpler to just play 1942, which is already a five-power game?  If the basic complaint is that Global 1940 is too big, has too many powers and takes too long to play – in other words, that it’s not sufficiently like A&A 1942 – it seems to me that the obvious solution is to play the 1942 game, not to eviscerate the 1940 game of some of its fundamental characteristics.

IDK how far is it necessary to let some ANZAC units attack Italy and German armies by itself while UK’s units wait their turn.

Black_Elk addressed the attractiveness of Global map scale, number of units and variety.

Maybe you saw something of meaning in making each minor power playing its own turn even by the same player which have done the same for a major ones?

What I’m thinking about is units sculpts may be kept specific (cosmetic) but all specific NOs pertaining to a minor power would work for the merged major power.

For example, if Canada needs to control all his original TTs to get 5 IPCs, then UKEurope (Canada merged into) get it too.
If ANZAC gets 3 IPCs for Control of Malaya and UKPac too, then UKPac+ANZAC gets 6 IPCs if Malaya is under control.

So, in my view, the historical aspect is saved.

What is deleted is the special purchase phase, Combat move, separate combat resolve, NCM, incomes, rolling for Convoy Disruption, collect incomes.

All these specific phases would be done within the major power turn’s specific phase.

You loose the can-opener effect and tactics however…

Even on that point, it might be possible to think about special rules to allow Fgs or TcBs sculpts from minor to land in a just massively conquered TTy by major power ground units. Making only main power air units to land in already controlled TTs.

[Argothair]

I lean toward five or six powers for a game that uses the Global map because UK Pacific, Canada, Anzac, China, and Vichy France are all very awkwardly sized. They typically do not have enough income to buy a navy or airforce. China is not even allowed to purchase heavy equipment, and Vichy France isn’t allowed to buy anything at all. A single 5 IPC “national objective” can be worth half of a minor power’s economy, which more or less forces that power to dedicate its entire strategy to holding its objective. These powers are mostly just on the defensive for the entire game…by design, they are speedbumps to slow down the expansion of major powers. I think they take up too much time and brainpower for the limited strategic interest that they offer.

[Black_Elk]

I think in large part what is missing from the boxed game is a more stripped down and focused way to play on the larger gameboard. There is nothing inherently more complicated about just having more territories on a game map, or a larger per round income for each nation. Even the expanded roster is fairly simple to grasp. All the complexity enters into it with the special political rules, and special restrictions, and tracking. From a time management and game enjoyment standpoint having 9/10 nations in the sequence doesn’t really allow 9/10 players to have a fun playing experience. Being new to the map, jumping in as the 7th or 8th player, and getting stuck with Anzac or China, would be kind of frustrating I gotta imagine.

I know it’s meant to be an expert game, but when you’re already dropping like 200 dollars, it would be nice if the game was a bit more adaptable at different play scales. So you don’t necessarily need to drop another 60 bones for 1942.2 to have the simpler version, but could just use what you already have in the G40 box. I suppose G42 is meant to satisfy that need, but it’s not even mentioned in the manual. You’d have to stop by a place like this already anyway, and print out new set up charts and such. So at that point, I think it’s worth considering more options for a streamlined game with a late 1940 or 1941 game. I like Oztea’s mod a lot, and G42 has a certain charm, but even there you’re still dealing with 9 player nations, and a pretty elaborate sequence and unit set up. I think a more basic 6 man might be fun. Whether that’s best as a 2 block sequence or a 4 block sequence, who can say. I lean towards 4 blocks myself. But you could probably do both, and still have room to make each feel unique.

[Imperious Leader]

Corsica was Vichy controlled, as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Madagascar, Levant states, FWA, FEA, and southern France.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Here’s another gamesave concept just building off the above. Rough snap shows how the zoomed out map might look with Anzac given over to UKP, and China to the US.
Frankly I don’t miss the purple people eater, or the grey-blue all that much. The tripleA map still feels like it has a nice distribution of color across the board for Classic sensibilities haha.

I understand that China can be played by US player, but I don’t understand how you would use USA income to purchase Chinese units and be limited by the amount of troops you may built in Chinese TTy if you have access to the big Uncle Sam pocket…

Giving China to US player is also a way to keep him busy until he can DOW…

[Argothair]

There are a number of creative solutions. You could start China off with a couple of destroyable factories, or say that the U.S. can spend cash to buy and place up to 1 unit per Chinese territory (maybe limited to inf, art, and fighters), or spend up to X IPCs per turn to buy and place units in Chinese territory, or some combination thereof.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Corsica was Vichy controlled, as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Madagascar, Levant states, FWA, FEA, and southern France.

What can you do about Corsica, it is within Sardinia SZ?
Would you make it a zero IPC Vichy Island?
Modify SZ to make it into SZ93?
So controlling Southern France make it the same for Corsica? But keeping Sardinia SZ95?
That would work the same way than New Foundland and Labrador?