Awesome post Wild Bill, and thanks for your participation… my poll questions have been related to some house rules our group has been play testing and they have since been finalized.
You can find them here complete with video explanation…
OK, I took a look at your Cliffside Bunker’s G40 House Rules thread. I now see that these rules would exclude FIC from having a minor factory. Also would take Persia out of the picture (amongst many others), interesting.
As a side note, I guess that the minor French coastal factories would be removed from the game G1 with these rules, so why bother putting them there in the first place?
@WILD:
OK, I took a look at your Cliffside Bunker’s G40 House Rules thread. I now see that these rules would exclude FIC from having a minor factory. Also would take Persia out of the picture (amongst many others), interesting.
As a side note, I guess that the minor French coastal factories would be removed from the game G1 with these rules, so why bother putting them there in the first place?
They’re there to honor the original setup and allows me to state that we haven’t removed or added anything from the setup, and that we only changed the type of production units on the territories that already had them. Plus it physically displays how minor factories get removed, while others get downgraded.
Ok, good point, I like how production centers get down graded, and the minor factory gets removed upon capture. Its like a scorch earth policy.
BTW the 42 version of the global game removes the French coastal IC at set-up. I like it that way, seems to have an effect on what Germany does (maybe leave something for Italy). Having them removed also changes the allies strat because they don’t get a free production center on the French coast, and they might try to punch through to Paris because they wouldn’t have anything to lose unless unless they built a minor factory on Southern France (worth 3 IPCs)
Back to your poll:
YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?
@WILD:
Back to your poll:
YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?
Yes… all these recent polls about production in this game has helped me design my house rules, for example: restricting Japan from building an IC in FIC helps to balance the game in a small way that shouldn’t effect things to much. Here are the house rules our group have been playing with some success so far…
@Young:
@WILD:
Back to your poll:
YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?
Yes… all these recent polls about production in this game has helped me design my house rules, for example: restricting Japan from building an IC in FIC helps to balance the game in a small way that shouldn’t effect things to much. Here are the house rules our group have been playing with some success so far…
So you made a house rule saying Japan can NOT build an IC in FIC? That doesn’t seem right to me.
So is FIC totally restricted from IC builds for all nations? Or just Japan?
All nations, there is no victory city and it has an IPC value less than 3 (same goes for Persia).
I know these rules have not gained many fans, but I can’t deny the fun and balance our games have enjoyed lately.
@Young:
All nations, there is no victory city and it has an IPC value less than 3 (same goes for Persia).
I know these rules have not gained many fans, but I can’t deny the fun and balance our games have enjoyed lately.
Don’t know how balanced not being able to build a factory in Persia and not having french factories would be for the allies. I think this actually really hurts the allies a lot. There would be no way to hold the mid east, and it would make it harder to defend Moscow. Granted on the pacific side it helps the allies a little, but in those rules I’d just attack J3 and build a factory in Kiangsu first turn.
I guess these rules only work with our group, as we rarely hold a beachhead in Normandy long enough to use the factory, anyways… Norway is always our first choice for an Allied landing and a factory there is possible. We do however conduct bombing raids on German production, and these rules help the Allies do that. The Allies can build in Cairo, and if the Italians take Cairo, they won’t be able to use the factory the Allies built, it will be removed from the board. The Italians can’t build a factory in Persia either, and that’s a good thing for the Allies if things go wrong early. I know the strategy out there is to use Italy to help Germany rush Moscow, but that will slow down now that the Axis can’t use the Ukraine factory, or build one past Romania. I know now that these rules are unpopular, and thats ok… our group of misfits are having fun with them and they seem to work for us… The changes are small enough to have small ripple effects and not meant to make a big splash. I suppose when you sit with a group of 6 over a 12 hour game, and 2 of those players are teammates with thoughts and ideas of their own, there will exist many more variable than 2 players facing each other and knowing what your opponent will try to do every game. And maybe that’s why they work for our games and wouldn’t be good for tripleA leagues.
Young Grasshopper,
I just checked out your Production Unit rules and now I get what you are talking about with FIC.
So, with Egypt, since it has a VC (Cairo) then the UK could build a minor factory there. Also, if Italy were to capture Egypt, the UK minor factory would be removed, but Italy could then build their own minor factory there. Right? Same thing with Germany vs. Russia and the Leningrad factory.
However, if Germany captures the Ukraine, the Russian factory is removed and even if Russia were to recapture the Ukraine, they could not build a factory there because Ukraine is only worth 2 IPCs and has no VC in it.
So if Japan captures the Philippines, they can place a minor factory there because of Manila, right?
You mentioned that these rules weren’t gaining much popularity, but I am seeing the appeal. For one thing, it does limit the number of factories that can be built which in some cases I think a little cutback on that was needed. Also it allows factories in a couple of rather odd places that wasn’t allowed before, namely Hawaii and Philippines. At first I thought it odd that the US was NOT allowed factories in Alaska and Mexico yet they could now build one in Hawaii. Then I thought that minor factories don’t necessarily represent actual manufacturing facilities. They can also be staging areas and supply depots. We just use a factory place to represent them because it’s simpler.
This also makes it harder for advances on both sides. You take a factory, you can’t use it like your enemy could. Either you get a lesser production or you have to build your own. A little more realistic if you ask me.
I really like these rules. I am hoping we can play them on Thanksgiving weekend. Black Friday for us is War Party, hehe.
How have your games been with Russia? Can they hold out longer and possibly do something other than retreat? I have another idea to possibly add to these rules to make it even more historic. I can’t remember whose post I was reading, they were saying that Russia should have a complex in Urals but it wasn’t possible because of the numbering of this territory. Do you think adding a minor to Urals at setup would imbalance Russia?
Young Grasshopper,
I just checked out your Production Unit rules and now I get what you are talking about with FIC.
So, with Egypt, since it has a VC (Cairo) then the UK could build a minor factory there. Also, if Italy were to capture Egypt, the UK minor factory would be removed, but Italy could then build their own minor factory there. Right? Correct Same thing with Germany vs. Russia and the Leningrad factory False, Leningrad begins with a major factory, so when Germany captures it, it will be downgraded to a minor factory that Germany can use. However, if Germany captures the Ukraine, the Russian factory is removed and even if Russia were to recapture the Ukraine, they could not build a factory there because Ukraine is only worth 2 IPCs and has no VC in it. Correct So if Japan captures the Philippines, they can place a minor factory there because of Manila, right? Correct
KNP
When I was developing Halifax rules, your mid-level factory idea was by far the most accepted aspect among my group and players at the FMG CON. I wanted to do something that might balance the game by modifying only the production units. Maybe it’s because my group rarely invades Normandy, or builds factories in Alaska or Persia that makes these rules good for us, as these rules have made our games very very interesting without handing wins over to the Allies.
Here is a YouTube video explanation of these rules…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R-BL8m6GqQ
Cyanight
A minor factory in the Urals is fine if you want to add it to the setup, as the setup has factories on territories that wouldn’t be eligible if they were purchased (Normandy, Ukraine, South Africa).
Wait could the Japanese build a factory in Phillipines? That would be pretty awesome for Japan…
In my games Italy isn’t strong enough to take Cairo, but it is Germany, after Moscow has fallen, that runs south to take it. Without the persia factory UK is going to have a lot less units there to defend, and UK won’t be able to make fighters that can in one turn get to Moscow.
I didn’t notice that if You take any minor factory that it is removed. That helps Russia out for sure. In that scenario I would probably wait till T4 to attack with Germany and do a buy something like: T1 6 arty 2 infantry, T2 10 arty 7 mech. That way you would already have the arty there for the final assault on Moscow.
Hey how has your guys games been going since you instituted the Halifax rules? Have you found merging the economies means you don’t need such a high allied bid anymore?
Differences in the Pacific:
Differences in Europe
As for the Halifax rules, as accommodating as my group was for play testing them, there was a belief that the single income with the new Commonwealth nation hurt the Allies more than it helped them. They did however, like the 3 tier production unit profiles, therefore we focused on that when trying to achieve balance and the result was our rules in the link above.
How would it hurt them more than help them? If you don’t play with the merged income rules then is the factory in India still a place where you can place up to 10 units?
How would it hurt them more than help them? If you don’t play with the merged income rules then is the factory in India still a place where you can place up to 10 units?
The distribution of units to protect both London and India is like walking a tight rope, the Commonwealth takes a piece of the UK income and builds units on the outside (Ottawa, SA, Sydney) when that money is needed to protect the inside (London, Cairo, India), and no… you can’t build 10 on India with Halifax rules. Thats what we have found anyways, we prefer the modified production units only, however, a different group may find a way to use the Halifax rules to the Allies benefit, but we are not using the single income, or Commonwealth… just the 3 type production units.
Ah I see what you mean. If Germany bought a carrier and 2 transports first turn it could be pretty tough for India.
My concern with the India factory not being able to produce 10 units is that would make Japan much more likely to wait to attack the allies in the pacific since UK can only put down 5 infantry at most a turn. I think the bombing of India’s IC is not as big a problem as some have put on here that it is.
I myself make it a point to bomb India early and often while I secure the Islands, even with a major factory that maxes out at 10, I can neutralize India into a harmless territory that can’t buy anything. Also, when I play against a Japan player who doesn’t invest in such a campaign… I take a sigh of relief.
@Young:
How would it hurt them more than help them? If you don’t play with the merged income rules then is the factory in India still a place where you can place up to 10 units?
The distribution of units to protect both London and India is like walking a tight rope, the Commonwealth takes a piece of the UK income and builds units on the outside (Ottawa, SA, Sydney) when that money is needed to protect the inside (London, Cairo, India), and no… you can’t build 10 on India with Halifax rules. Thats what we have found anyways, we prefer the modified production units only, however, a different group may find a way to use the Halifax rules to the Allies benefit, but we are not using the single income, or Commonwealth… just the 3 type production units.
I don’t know, I’ve been playing a variant of the Halifax rules commonwealth version 2, and I enjoy it quite a lot. What we do in my playgroup is to eliminate all National Objectives, and replace them with general objectives for control of VCs, and a consistent DoW bonus +5 for neutrality which works the same for all nations (simplifies the neutrality rules). No restrictions on when nations may make their DoW. We set factory locations from the outset, all VCs have a minor factory at the start of play. No additional factory units may be purchased. Minor factories cannot be totally destroyed, but can be damaged by the owner on scorched earth withdraw. Commonwealth capital is at Sydney, to provide a 3rd major pacific target, to counterbalance for Calcutta, and we treat the Commonwealth power like all the others, no special rules pertaining to it. The production profiles as outlined in standard Halifax. Then we add in a minor at all VCs, and that’s it factory-wise. No more production can be purchased anywhere on the gameboard. This means Japan can have their initial starting factories, and factories they can capture, but that’s all. The affected territories are Poland, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, Hawaii, Cairo and Ontario which all have a minor at the start. I find it an elegant and a much simpler way to play the G40 game. Uses the 3 tiered scheme, but eliminates the production unit as a purchase option from the game completely. Most will get knocked to minors by the end, but we don’t remove the minor factory unit completely on capture, instead we have captured factories max damage when taken, but the locations are always set from the beginning in terms of where new units can be spawned.
The basic idea being that if you reorient Japans production, and restrict new production from entering the board altogether, that you can dramatically simplify the gameplay. All VCs have a minor, and then there are the Majors on the board from the standard set up. (I was open to adding a minor at Korea and Romania as a possible option on the set up, if you really want to give a nod to Axis, but nothing more beyond that.) Essentially just picking all the places you want to have production, fix it from the beginning, and remove the units from the purchase roster. I’ve tried doing this with 8 nations UK/Commonwealth and 7 (China under USA), though I favor the latter. In such games there could never be a factory on FIC, Malaya, Persia etc. Balance for the situation is handled through adjustments to starting income, and by the general bonus objectives. I have fun with it, though I suppose I understand if others are less willing to alter the set up to that extent.
I don’t think its all that hard to get the Canada and South Africa, Single UK economy up off the ground if you use the +5 per VC controlled method over regular NOs. It brings more money to everyone as a way to achieve game balance and restricts the potential production locations at the same time.
