Submarine solution (G40)

I am thinking of adding a third research table to our G40 games. I believe one or more might have been suggested already.

1. Self-Propelled Artillery Artillery can move 2 spaces and can blitz when paired with tanks. Infantry and mechanized infantry paired 1:1 with SPA attack at 2.
2. Super Carrier Aircraft Carriers can transport 3 aircraft (fighters and tactical bombers).
3. High Speed Transport Destroyers can transport 1 or 2 infantry
4. Convoy Escorts Enemy units disrupting convoys ignore roles of 3 or more.
5. Mine Layers Destroyers can lay mines instead of moving, attacking or defending. Anti-Submarine rules are not applicable when laying mines. SZ that is mined do not impact friendly units. Enemy units entering a mined SZ roll 1d for each ship. Each ship that rolls a 6 is hit by a mine. Aircraft on carries that hit a mine can fly to a friendly territory or carrier up to 5 spaces away; if there are no applicable territories or carriers then aircraft are lost. Mined SZ is cleared after enemy contact.
6. Improved Transports Transports can carry 2 infantry plus one additional ground unit

@hengst Just found Siredblood’s Italian Rule. Did not realize how similar it was. Holy moly.

This rule is part of the G40 House Rules Expansion

Please note, that this set up is in addition to the OOB set up.

The fighting in The Pacific Theatre now has a new dimension. “Island Jumping” is a crucial part of the Total Economy for both sides.

As part of the intense fighting in The Pacific, the Increased Ship Building rule is also implemented (soon to be posted at this site).

G40 Expanded Pacific Additional Set Up.pdf

I don’t see an option to share the deck publicly on there site. I have the images saved. I could upload them or send them to you if you want them.

About VC IPCs bonus,
do you think it could be an interesting reward if a conqueror of a not initially owned VC received a +6 bonus IPCs only at the start of his next turn and as long as he holds it a complete round of play?
So this reward comes only after you kept it for a whole turn.
As long as the Victory City is exchange back and forth there is no reward.

If a lost VC is reconquered, it should be a one time +6 bonus to the one Nation which fought back to retrieve it, not the original owner.
For instance, UK captures Leningrad and the IPCs from territory goes to the Russian player,
while UK gets the one time 6 IPCs bonus if Leningrad is still kept in Allies hands at the beginning of UK’s next turn.
Of course, if it is Russia who retrieve Leningrad, Russia will also get his one time extra bonus on his next turn.
We can apply the same mechanics and bonus for Capital Cities.
There is no need to add a higher reward since you already get the opponent’s money.

So this will be a separate IPCs distribution from all others regular and NO calculations.
VC would be treated differently compared to other ordinary conquered territories.

And players will be waiting with expectations to see if they can hold the VC till their next turn to get their rewards.
This will somehow put the emphasis on Victory Cities.
And it gives time to the opponents to not let go a VC too easily since the stakes are high.
It is a 6 IPCs bonus because it is easier to spent right away to not disturb a well prepared buying strategy if at the last minute the bonus is lost.
You can buy 2 Infs or 1 Tank or 1 Sub.
What do you guys think about this? Still a too high reward?

Maybe it should be just a 4 IPCs bonus? especially if playing 1942.2.
So you can at least buy right away an additional Artillery.

@Baron:

Hope UK Pacific new turn order will help smooth the game flow.
Do you intend to merge it with ANZAC when you have less players around the table?

I don’t think so, the group loves the speed of the game with the separate UK nations… but they want something a little closer to oob rules. Also, it’s believed that the new victory objectives help balance the game the way a combined UK Pacific and ANZAC combo once did. It still needs a few tweeks to the NOs.

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  :-D

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  :wink:

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

@Flashman:

Modify US entry: Start @ turn 5.

Every time the CPs invade a neutral (non-aligned) moves US entry 1 turn sooner.

Every time the Allies invade a NAN moves US entry 1 turn later.

First RR or Fall of Moscow moves US entry 1 turn sooner:

That’s a great mechanic.

@Flashman:

The first time the RR is eligible to occur, consider this the first (February) revolution, bringing a Republican, but pro-Allied government to power (welcomed by Washington). The CPs may, but are not obliged to, sign a treaty with this government, or they may choose to fight on. They may decide to delay acceptance in order to gain control of more Russian tt before the armistice, or attempt to take Moscow.

The 2nd time the RR condition occurs (October - Bolshevik crew) the CPs get their last chance to sign a treaty.

If the CPs sign a treaty with the Republicans, the war ends for Russia and no 2nd Revolution (Communist takeover) occurs.

This gives the option of allowing the treaty to occur or not instead of it being automatic. Gives the CPs the power to choose depending on the situation of the war in each game. I like that better that playing with the optional rule or not: Make the rule automatic but the option is up to the Central Powers.

@Flashman:

In all cases, if the CPs either sign a treaty with Russia OR capture Moscow for the first time, they get a release of POWs of 1 infantry per full round played per power still at war with Russia.

Indeed this should be a general rule for countries that lose a capital; they must return POWs to all their active opponents @ 1 inf per power per completed round.

In the case of USA or (turn 2 entry) Italy the number must be calculated from their starting “at war” round.

That’s the best idea I’ve heard in a while, and not just for this version of the game but for any A&A game. I’d like to see the idea of POWs explored.