G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[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?

[General Veers]

The designers must have lumped it with Sardinia to avoid the UK using it on the first turn, since the game is built on France falling. As IL said a 1941 start makes that moot but it would be nice to have that option available to the UK in a 1940 game if the players don’t opt for Vichy rules. The nitpicker in me would rather not have it printed but it’s too big to ignore.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a peculiarity, maybe it would be best to rename “New Brunswick Nova Scotia” to “Canadian Maritimes” or “Atlantic Canada” and leave mainland Labrador on it’s own.

[baron Münchhausen]

There is a long evolutionary process about SBR rules:

AA50 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, AAgun unit first on Fg and StB, then dogfight phase.
Damage D6

Spring 1942 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, dogfight phase first, then IC’s AAgun on StB only.
Damage D6

G40.1 SBR
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A0 C12, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
Tactical bombers cannot attack bases.

1942.2 SBR
Fg A1 first strike D2 C10, StB A1 first strike C12, dogfight first, then IC’s AAgun on StB only.
Damage D6
First strike means you have to remove immediately defender’s interceptors casualty and cannot roll to hit.

G40.2 SBR
Fg A1 D1 C10, StB A1 C12, TcB A1 C11, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6+2
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

---

Triple A for 1942.2 (WWII v.5) SBR
Fg A1 D1, StB A1, dogfight first, then IC’s AAgun.
Damage D6

Triple A for AA50 (WWII v.3) SBR
Fg A1 D1, StB A1, dogfight first, then AAgun unit on Bombers only.
Damage D6

---

Redesign SBR 3 combat values options to be playtested:
Global and 1942:

Option #1
Fg A1 D1 C10, StB A0 C5, TcB A1 C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

Option #2
Fg A2 D2 C10, StB A0 C5, TcB A1 D1 C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

Option #3
Fg A1 D2 C10, StB A1 C5, TcB A1  C10, dogfight first, then IC’s or Bases AAgun on bombers.
StB Damage D6
TcB Damage D6 on bases only.

AA50 Original SBR rules:

Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 (2 if the attacker has the Jet Power research breakthrough) and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round.

After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s Noncombat Move phase begins. If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.

AA50 FAQ and Erratas

Global 1940, first edition SBR rules

Strategic Bombing Raids
A strategic bombing raid is a direct attack on a facility. During this step, you can bomb enemy industrial complexes, airbases,
and naval bases with your strategic bombers. When you damage these facilities, their capabilities are decreased or eliminated,
and your enemy must spend IPCs to repair them in order to restore those capabilities. These repairs will be made by the units’
controlling player during his or her Purchase & Repair Units phase (see Purchase and Repair Units, pg. 10).

To conduct a strategic bombing raid, the attacking player moves his or her bombers to the targeted territory on the map. Fighters (not tactical bombers) can also participate in strategic bombing raids as escorts and interceptors. Escort fighters (those accompanying the attacking bombers) can escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. They cannot participate in any other battles during that turn, including a battle in the territory in which the bombing raid is occurring. This applies whether or not the defender commits any interceptors.

Any number of defending fighters based in a territory that is about to be strategically bombed can be committed to participate in the defense of that territory’s facilities. If the defender has elected to commit fighter interceptors, an air battle will be fought immediately before the strategic bombing raid is conducted. This air battle is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with the following exceptions:

• The attacking bombers and fighter escorts and the defending fighter interceptors will be the only units participating in this special combat.

• The attacking strategic bombers will not fire in the battle, but they can be taken as casualties. Players select their own casualties based on the number of hits received during the air battle.

• The combat lasts for only one round.

• The fighters have an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2.

So, having bombers with zero attack capacity has been done in the history of A&A.

[Black_Elk]

Been laid up with the flu all week. Missed a test game with Simon and have been pretty dead to the world, since staring at screens kept making me dizzy. Instead I’m just hovering over the mapboard periodically until I can rejoin the living.

Well it’s good to see the a0 concept was tried once or twice before, though I’ll admit to totally ignoring dogfighting in AA50. I always felt like bombing was potent enough in that game and already highly risky without introducing rules to make it even more expensive. For me it only really makes sense with the heavy reduction in the cost of the bomber unit, so I can see why it didnt last with a c12 combat bomber. To me improved escort/intercept is still the icing on the cake, but the real substance is the single role bomber concept itself (even independent of dogfighting, since I think it works as a stand alone thing.) Good to know though.

Corsica could be interesting. Not sure why its given to Italy in 1940? Having it as a separate tile, it would certainly a bit more significant under French control. Maybe the map makers were just so used to previous boards, that they forgot it wasn’t occupied by Italy until 42? Or maybe it was meant to be ignored? The lack of a roundel would seem to suggest it maybe wasn’t intended as a separate tile.

[Black_Elk]

For anyone with tripleA who hasn’t done so already, you should definitely check out Frostion’s Iron War map. It’s pretty glorious.
I anticipate it will keep me preoccupied for many late nights haha…

Barney tipped me off to its existence a little while back, but I only just now had a chance to delve into it. Had a lot of fun for a first time out.
:-D

[Black_Elk]

It has some cool features like resources, aid, and a D10 combat system…

Just been messing around with it for the past several hours. Figured some people here might dig it.
:-D

[vodot]

sweet! D10.  Do you know if anyone has done a complete “Space Empires” -style conversion with D10s for attack + defense (armor) ratings + individual unit-by-unit targeting? I would LOVE to figure out something like that.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah it’s pretty glorious I’ve played a couple dozen games this past week, as it’s one of the few tripleA games that’s actually entertaining vs the AI. Going that route it plays a bit like the total war games but WW2 themed of course. And somehow more satisfying since the combat mechanics are more transparent than in those CA games, where all the combat stuff happens under the hood. Here everything is out in the open based on dice rolls.

I know the same dude made a Star Wars and Star Trek themed map. I haven’t played those yet, but maybe they are d10 too?

What I like most about Iron War is the relative costs in the unit roster. It’s done in such a way that the hitpoint spam for infantry is a lot less pronounced than in typical A&A games. The production spread and the resources requirement to construct or move certain units, makes for more varied purchasing. I find d10 is just a lot more dynamic for combat. It allows so many more possibilities than d6, and pretty easy to get the hang of.

I’m sure this map will suck months of my life away haha
:-D

[Argothair]

I wasn’t super impressed with the Star Trek or Star Wars games, but I did really enjoy the Star Control / Ur-Quan Masters game – it’s extremely well-done. Very theme-y, and very well-balanced, although it does use d6 dice.

I like the A&A: WW1 mechanic where you need at least one infantry to hang out with your other units, or else they get degraded to infantry. That goes a little bit of the way toward making infantry good for something other than cannon fodder. I would also like to see infantry defend better than some other unit types, e.g., infantry defend at 3 and artillery only defend at 1 or 2, something like that. It’s fine if infantry are the cheapest unit, and it’s fine if they occasionally get sent in as cannon fodder, but ideally unit selection should mostly be a matter of finding the right tools for the right jobs, instead of just building mostly infantry as fodder and then throwing in a couple extra units of whatever you can afford.

I don’t think anyone has coded .xml that would let you individually target units. Armor is definitely something you can approximate; there’s code available to reduce the attack strength of various numbers or kinds of enemy unit(s), which basically amounts to armor. I am not in love with the Space Empires: 4X board game, but if anyone (including vodot) wants to collaborate on a re-imagining of SE:4X, then that’s a project I might want to work on. I wonder if there’s anywhere we could get useful graphics.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.
Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

It seems that all considerations about Tank busting capacity of Tactical bomber is more mythical than historical…

Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8 ) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.

Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/#Kursk 43: the Luftwaffe’s Story

So, it seems that insisting about TcBs targeting capacity is anachronistic at best.
It is not a worthy aspect to bother adding on a Redesign project.
It only adds complexity without deserving accurate historical depiction.

It seems better to keep +1 bonus to TcB attack factor when paired with Fighter or Tank.

What about increasing defense factor when paired with Tank and Fighter too?

Does TcB deserved to be less efficient against incoming ground attacker?

Or, they seems to be much better combat units against Naval units…
Maybe, this would imply to increase targeting on Carriers, Cruisers and Battleships.
Making them more dangerous at sea, somehow?

So, it leads to table top HR when “1” roll from TcB allows to hit either a plane (owner choice) or select a warship of TcB’s owner choice…

While Fg keeping the “2” or less allowing for hitting an enemy’s aircraft.

This would keep this general idea to allow plane to fight against plane.
It would be consistent with SBR dogfight values:
Fighter A2 D2
TcB A1 D1
StB no value.

But TcB would get a special niche against both Sub (for Anti-Sub attack and defense @1) and a special attack against warships.
Of course, it can not work in Triple A actually.

But, if working with 3 planes Carrier and more Air intensive such as:

Fg A2 D2 C7 hitting planes first.
TcB A2-3 D2 C8 hitting warship of your choice, this might be much more interesting.

This will keep the rock, paper, cisor dynamic if both Cruiser and BB have AA capacity and Carrier, being carrier for Fgs.

Alongside with a 3 IPCs scaled cost for CA 9$ and Carrier and BB at 15$.
It might not be unbalanced.
Just exploring a few consequences of this debunking…
:-)

[Trenacker]

Have modifications to the rules for the cruiser already been discussed?

Would there be any benefit to adding naval mines to G1940?

The Grafton Axis & Allies group uses a house rule allowing players to distribute up to 4 entrenchment tokens per turn. They are passive pieces that can absorb hits during combat.

Maybe strengthen the Dutch garrison in the East Indies?