Hi surfer,
As barnee and the General correctly said - barnee is working on it:+1:
You’ll find both RULEBOOK threads under Customizations - House Rules section - as well as the Strategy Guide and Rules Clarification.
G40 update: Testers we need your help!
-
@CWO:
@Young:
It might be more useful as a pro allied neutral, any historical beef with that?
Sierra Leone was a British possession at the time. There was nothing neutral about it as far as I know.
No problem, would have been more effective to the allies that way… can’t see a reason for all the fuss, aren’t there numerous map errors just like this one?
-
I agree there are lot of fun things that could be done with the addition of bases or swapping out existing bases for bases of another type.
There is a really strong argument behind Scapa Flow for example, mentioned elsewhere, since it was the main naval base for the Royal Navy during this period. There are others I can think of, that’d probably be great for the gameplay.
I’ve tempered my expectations quite a bit lately, since experience has taught me it’s pretty hard to get any change adopted as official these days. I’ll admit to being rather strategic in picking my battle here with Sierra Leone, trying to make the case as unassailable as possible. Even though I agree with pretty much everyone here, as far as corrections go it leaves quite a bit to be desired. There are of course many other alterations I can think of off the cuff, that would suit the balance needs of the game better than Sierra Leone ever could. But it just so happens that this territory was a very clear cut map error, and thus harder to ignore.
I’d say that while I agree with YG that it’d be more useful for the gameplay as a pro-allied neutral (since America has more ready cash to spend on bases than UK does) a pro-side neutral status doesn’t really fit the historical argument, since it wasn’t neutral at all, but a British colony.
As noted above, neighboring Liberia actually would make complete sense as a pro-Allied neutral rather than a true neutral, though that space is much less valuable strategically, such that I can’t really envision any situation (even a rare one like I tried to envision with Sierra Leone) where Liberia actually comes into play.
Another difficulty with changing any space from True Neutral to Pro-Side Neutral, is that the boxed materials don’t include a ready way to easy identify that graphically on the map/board. A starting control marker for UK is easy enough, but there are no Pro-Side neutral control markers available, so you’d have to ask players to use other custom materials which is a little problematic from an ease of use standpoint.
I did sort of hope that Sierra Leone might serve as a kind of genie out the bottle, that could potentially lead to other discussions of tweaks to the OOB game, but I’d anticipate reluctance on the part of the designers to open the floodgates.
I will say this much. I don’t think you actually need Wizards of the Coast to cook up a 3rd Edition reissue of the game map, to actually get a 3rd Edition ruleset/manual up and running. I think a lot of players would be more than happy to use the existing map/boxed materials to play an updated version of the ruleset or explore an updated scenario…
All that is really required for a 3rd Edition, or whatever you’d like to call it (an LHTR redux maybe) is an addendum to the manual (simple text, or in the form of a downloadable PDF) that Larry and Krieghund can get behind. That’d probably be more than enough to garner the necessary enthusiasm for an alpha like process to be jumpstarted and essentially run by the player community, with some arbitration and periodic guidence from the designers. Clearly a new board would be awesome, but if that’s too much of a pipe dream, I’d still have fun working with what we’ve already got.
Also still really intrigued by the War Room idea that was mentioned a little while back.
-
@Young:
No problem, would have been more effective to the allies that way… can’t see a reason for all the fuss, aren’t there numerous map errors just like this one?
It would be even more effective if the US could spend its money to build bases on Allied territory, regardless of whether or not the US owned the territory.
Marsh
-
All that is really required for a 3rd Edition, or whatever you’d like to call it (an LHTR redux maybe) is an addendum to the manual (simple text, or in the form of a download able PDF) that Larry and Krieghund cam get behind.
There might be a conflict of interest there depending on the distribution rights and license contract for the brand. Let’s say Larry and Kevin start designing a 3rd edition via online through an “Alpha 4” project, all of a sudden sales for 2nd Edition crash, wizards are angry… you get the picture.
-
@Marshmallow:
@Young:
No problem, would have been more effective to the allies that way… can’t see a reason for all the fuss, aren’t there numerous map errors just like this one?
It would be even more effective if the US could spend its money to build bases on Allied territory, regardless of whether or not the US owned the territory.
Marsh
Maybe if they have a land unit there, or a boat in an adjacent sea zone.
-
In that case maybe don’t call it a 3rd edition, or anything like that, just “Tournament Rules.” If it was coming from Larry? If it used the regular boxed game as its basis?
You could really do quite a lot with the addition of more bases. Even if it was just a couple more starting bases in select territories, that would add considerable interest and replay value to the already existing game.
I agree with Marsh. A rule allowing the US to build bases in British/Anzac territories as an expression of the unique situation attending to the Anglo-American alliance would be really quite cool. It would have interesting and wide ranging implications for the broader gameplay patterns, opening up countless options for the Allies due to the turn order, once the US is at war. That right there would be better than any bid I can think of, and it doesn’t really require a whole lot of rules overhead to implement. Basically you’d get a whole new game out it.
-
What I feel is the real problem here is the problem with bases. Bases are for one, too expensive, and two, if the Allies can liberate each-others territories, whats restricting them from building bases on them? America should be able to build bases all over French territory, and even be able to Build on UK as well, on the historical basis that the US kept the UK war effort running with endless military supplies.
I’m all for a Sierra Leon change, but what all of us really want is more flexibility of bases.
-
What I feel is the real problem here is the problem with bases. Bases are for one, too expensive, and two, if the Allies can liberate each-others territories, whats restricting them from building bases on them? America should be able to build bases all over French territory, and even be able to Build on UK as well, on the historical basis that the US kept the UK war effort running with endless military supplies.
I’m all for a Sierra Leon change, but what all of us really want is more flexibility of bases.
It’s a good idea, but again… if the territory don’t belong to the US, there should at least be an American land unit there before they can build a base.
-
That’d be a cool way to prevent an all out base spam and restrict somewhat their initial influence, while still allowing the Americans to open things up down the road for the British/Australians, once they started actually moving out into territories around the globe. By requiring that the territory have an American ground unit, before it can support a base, you give them an incentive to send out expeditionary forces a little earlier, as opposed to just stacking and waiting. Sure the initial expeditionary force (or transport carrying it) might have to be sacrificed, but the work they do in establishing a network of bases around the globe would make it easier for the reinforcements coming along after them.
This seems pretty historical to me, since the Americans built bases in locations all over the British Empire during this period.
-
Couple of things
If you make it a british colony, then the british integrity can be lost by losing it. Â If it doesn’t have any income, it doesn’t matter. Â Its just another square on a gigantic board.
The desire for extra bases “for accuracy” is a stretch, because you can build bases anywhere you want. Â Just build them. Â They are NOT overcosted. Â One movement space opens massive possibilities. Â In quite a few of my games, Russia, ANZAC or UK builds bases in the sticks. Â They often are part of a gambit, and they have a devastating effect. Â Making UK or Russia buy the base with a 30 ish income is perfect; Â in order to do it at all they have to make a substantial sacrifice.
Larry doesn’t own AxA. Â He created it, was paid for that, and the relationship was mutual. Â I think a lot of people do not understand that this is a VERY low margin product, and you only buy it once. Â Those AxA miniatures? Â Now a segmented product, that’s a cash cow. Â
Well designed, attractive products that ONLY cost $90 are farily unusual anymore. Â Now add that 4 people have played 100 games, the cost per person per game is about $1. Â Â
These are truly great games. Â They are among the best wargames, for their simplicity compared to the rest. Â
However, it is a very mature franchise, and there will not be AxA lunchboxes, pencils etc. Â All the products that we could have conceived of in the milleu have pretty much been created (and totally dismissed by the community, eg WW1, Dday). Â
That is the context of an update. Â They already updated this game one time. Â It isn’t all that balanced, but its a lot more balanced than most of the people here think. Â And, its a lot more affordable/complete/comprehensive/understandable than most of the people here imply too.
-
I wouldn’t disagree with anything you said there taamvan. But if the product already exists, and the overhead involved in updating a couple rules or options on a website FAQ doesn’t really cost you anything, then I think there is a certain value to be had from that, just in keeping players engaged with the product. Even after it has been out for a while and ceased to deliver big returns. If anything I see it as a way to encourage continued sales, by demonstrating the continued vitality and support for the game by its makers.
A new boxed game is a lot more ambitious than anything I’m advocating here. But an addendum that expands the shelf life of the existing boxed game, is something that could be done on the cheap (relatively speaking anyway) and would go a long way towards keeping everyone excited for some time to come.
-
Thanks for the reply mr elk.
I agree that there is room for improvement and variation, the community has created that. G40 is great. Balanced Mod is ok, the NOs are very fun and creative. Far from discouraging this or acting hurt because of the implicit criticism, our guru has often blessed and participated in these discussions where appropriate.
But this is WoTC’s toy, and they decide how we get to play with it in officialdom. We can create as many mods as we want, they are hardly being suppressed for copyright reasons. They have to have a way to monetize the addition.
“You BUY the pieces, but you PAY for the rules”
That means that without a box to sell you, or a kickstarter, there isn’t much to monetize that isn’t being already.
Obviously, all of us would appreciate some more of Larry’s input and hard work, but I feel like he has already given us plenty to play with, so much so that we have problems thinking of new things to request (market garden? that’s about all…)
When I try to play the variant games with my group (Fortress America, WW1, guadal, dday, ikusa, I have ALL of these) they say nay, nay nay, we want AxA and we want it big….
We got that, there aren’t other WW2s in history to inspire us. The Napoleonic Era, Civil War and Cold War wont have the spark of schwerpunkt and still be remotely true to that period.
-
The desire for extra bases “for accuracy” is a stretch, because you can build bases anywhere you want. � Just build them. � They are NOT overcosted. � One movement space opens massive possibilities. � In quite a few of my games, Russia, ANZAC or UK builds bases in the sticks. � They often are part of a gambit, and they have a devastating effect. � Making UK or Russia buy the base with a 30 ish income is perfect; � in order to do it at all they have to make a substantial sacrifice.
I submit that including Scapa Flow would have more of an impact on the game than including Liberia as a UK territory from the start of the game. With Scapa Flow present, Germany has a much bigger incentive to destroy the UK fleet in sea zone 111 before the UK can use it. While Germany often goes after that fleet, Germany also sometimes leaves that fleet untouched because it cannot escape anyway if Germany wants to kill it on G2 and it cannot make the Mediterranean until UK3. With Scapa Flow in the game on G1, Germany would have to seriously consider the fate of the fleet in 111 on G1 during combat movement.
Yes, the UK could build that base on UK1, but by then Germany has already had a turn in which to kill the fleet and the UK really has higher priorities since the base would really only be useful on UK1. The base is really only useful if it exists on G1, since it has strategic implications that must be taken into consideration by the player running Germany.
Marsh
-
What I feel is the real problem here is the problem with bases. Bases are for one, too expensive, and two, if the Allies can liberate each-others territories, whats restricting them from building bases on them? America should be able to build bases all over French territory, and even be able to Build on UK as well, on the historical basis that the US kept the UK war effort running with endless military supplies.
I actually think naval bases are far too cheap. They repair unlimited capital ships per turn at no cost and with no penalty to the ability to use those same capital ships during your turn, and they boost movement of those ships on top of it! (At the very least, the ship being repaired should be out of combat for the turn IMO, but that is another discussion entirely!)
Marsh
-
@Marshmallow:
It would be even more effective if the US could spend its money to build bases on Allied territory, regardless of whether or not the US owned the territory.
For that matter, the US should also be able to produce units at the factories in France (as a whole) on its turn even after France (the territory) has been liberated. Historically, the US provided everything for the French army after the liberation of Paris – the French could not supply their own army at all after Paris was liberated.
Marsh
Suggested Topics
