G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

I am not trying to be purposefully critical or a pessimist on this issue. I do think it is possible to incentivize more activity in PTO; money is an easy way. I just don’t think that you can overcome JCC by doing that alone. The issue goes deeper than simple incentives will fix.

@LHoffman:

The way A&A frames the Pacific board is mostly accurate to reality. The material worth of small South-Central Pacific island chains is small. The strategic worth is only determined by the Japan’s own objectives and the USA’s opposing objectives and/or willingness to engage. The islands should not be framed as objectives in-and-of themselves because they aren’t what Japan was fighting for. They were a means to an end. With the clarity of purpose Japan has in A&A, it is no wonder that they simply don’t care about fighting in the Pacific ocean. Nothing there is worth fighting for. Even if island values were increased to incentivize attention, fighting the US over them doesn’t directly help win the game.

Japan’s stated and implied real-war objectives are decently conveyed in G40; mostly through NO bonuses. Where the game gets a little too simplistic is putting Japan and Germany on a co-equal level with the same objective of actively taking out all the Allies, especially the USSR. Such a grand objective was both beyond the capability and desire of Japan. In the cartoonish world of A&A, Japan actually doing those things is possible. Joining Japan’s fate to Germany necessitates a JCC almost every game because it is the easiest way to win. All the other objectives they hit in the process are either roadblocks they have to overcome or distractions. Japan can putz around in the Pacific and have themselves a nice little empire, but if the big 3 crack Germany, Japan loses too, no matter how well they played and how rich they became. Japan amassing cash in Asia and driving towards Moscow via JCC is easier and less risky than trying to cross the Pacific and attack the industrial giant USA. And clearly, attacking the UK where it hurts the most (England) is entirely out of the question because it is on the other side of the planet.

JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.

Here is the actual victory conditions of Pacific 40.2:

Winning the Game
At the beginning of Japan’s turn, check to see if at least 6 victory cities have continuously been under Japan’s control since the end of Japan’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if 1 of the victory cities that Japan controls is Tokyo. If one of them is Tokyo, or if Japan liberates Tokyo by the end of the turn, Japan wins the game.

At the beginning of each Allied power’s turn, check to see if Tokyo has continuously been under Allied control since the end of that power’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if the Allies also control at least 1 Allied capital (Calcutta, Sydney, or San Francisco). If they do, or if the current power liberates an Allied capital by the end of the turn, the Allies win the game.

Here is the actual victory conditions of Europe 40.2:

Winning the Game
At the beginning of each Axis power’s turn, check to see if at least 8 victory cities have continuously been under Axis control since the end of that power’s last turn (they need not be the same 8 cities). If that’s true, then check to see if at least 1 of the victory cities that the Axis controls is an Axis capital (Berlin or Rome). If one of them is an Axis capital, or if the current power liberates one by the end of the turn, the Axis wins the game.

At the beginning of each Allied power’s turn, check to see if Berlin and Rome have continuously been under Allied control since the end of that power’s last turn. If that’s true, then check to see if the Allies also control at least 1 Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow). If they do, or if the current power liberates an Allied capital by the end of the turn, the Allies win the game.

Here is the actual victory conditions of Global 40.2:

How the War is Won
The Axis wins the game by controlling either any 8 victory cities on the Europe map or any 6 victory cities on the Pacific map for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Axis capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo) at the end of that round.

The Allies win by controlling Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow) at the end of that round.

Here is the actual victory conditions of 1942.2:

On the map are thirteen victory cities crucial to the war effort. As the game begins, Axis controls six of these cities while Allies controls seven of them. The Allies begin the game controlling Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta, Honolulu and San Francisco. The Axis powers begin the game controlling Berlin, Paris, Rome, Shanghai, Manila, and Tokyo. The standard victory condition is if Axis controls nine (9) victory cities at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the U.S. turn), Axis win the war. Allies have to control ten (10) victory cities to win the war.

If you want to use the total victory condition, then after the completion of the U.S. turn, your side must control all thirteen (13) victory cities. Players must agree at the beginning of the game which victory condition will constitute a win. If no specific agreement is made, then nine (9) victory cities will be the standard victory condition.

STANDARD VICTORY 9 VCs for Axis, 10 for Allies
TOTAL VICTORY 13

I don’t have the 1942.2 errata and FAQ, so I slightly change the wording of rulebook.

The common ground is that Axis is not required to conquer Moscow. But, otherwise Germany/Italy must conquer London or Ottawa.
Victory conditions are based on number of VCs taken.
Europe 40.2 Axis VCs: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw
Allies VCs: Paris, London, Ottawa, Cairo, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Pacific 40.2 Axis VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai
Allies VCs: Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Honolulu, San Francisco.

Now, what would happen if G40 Japan receive 10 IPCs each turn to keep NAP with Russia (PTO map only show 9*1 IPC russian TTy)?
And all 5 Zero IPC japanese Islands worth 1 IPC. And all other zero IPC Allies Islands worth 1 each.

Does Japan would not be tempted to fight for the 6 VCs in PTO and let the money flow from Russian NAP?

I express the same idea with 1942.2, 5 or 6 IPCs bonus NAP for Japan.

With a few changes like cheaper boats and more viable C5 Strategic Bombers SBRs campaign, might not be impossible for Japan to weaken USA while grabbing money in China, SEAsia and even ANZAC TTies?

The idea is to not act as Axis victory condition is like Allies, which needs to grab Capital VCs, but only VCs.

What if Singapore (Malaya) and Wellington (New Zealand) are considered PTO VCs too, and 7 VCs now becomes the Axis victory conditions for Japan?
So, the VCs list would be:
Pacific 40.2 Axis VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai
Allies VCs: Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Singapore, Honolulu, Wellington and San Francisco.

For 1942.2 Victory conditions can also be considered per each Theatre or for the whole map (20 VCs):
Instead of 9 VCs for Axis, it needs 7 VCs to win but per theatre or 12 VCs as a whole:

Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs:  Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cape Town (South Africa),  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila,
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.

Keeping the end of game round phase, it is possible to give for each VC 1 IPC and 2 IPCs for each conquered VC.

Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 3 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 6 IPCs
USA 4 IPCs

While Allies Victory conditions might simply be capturing either Germany or Japan or 4 more Axis VCs from whole map (17 VCs out of 20).

It’s a reasonable warning, LHoffman. In addition to the extra money, we are also adding extra VCs, the rougher border in western China, the A0 turn, faster boats, weaker bombers, and other changes that should help shift the center of the game away from 100% center crush.

I agree that, historically, a stronger attack on India, Siberia, and/or China would have made more sense than heavy defense of the Caroline Islands, but America and Britain were willing to risk war to cut off Japan’s supply of oil, so Japan really only had three choices: seize Borneo with its military, triggering war with the Anglos, or withdraw from China to ease the sanctions diplomatically (leaving Japan critically short of iron and wood) or else watch its navy and air force choke for lack of oil. Some conflict between Japan and the Anglos was close to inevitable, from Japan’s point of view.

I don’t want to eliminate the center crush as a viable strategy, or even as the preferred strategy, but a Japanese player who wants to head south or east needs to be allowed to do so without forfeiting, and an Allied player who wants to hit Japan first needs to be able to do so competitively.

To CWO Marc’s point, finding a stable equilibrium is hard, but I believe it’s worth the challenge, and I will not give up unless and until I see that our efforts are actually being repeatedly thwarted.

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

JCC is the logical choice. Barring revision of individual Axis Victory conditions, it always will be. Trying to refocus Japan-US combat to the Pacific by increasing island values will not work because it does not address Japan’s root motivation with its Axis partner. Attempting to replicate a historical PTO in A&A is admirable, but I don’t think it is realistic given OOB game structure.

This touches on a fundamental paradox of A&A redesign processes, especially for Global 1940 because it’s the biggest and most complex game of them all.  The paradox is that the ideal twin goals of redesign processes may be mutually exclusive.  Goal one is to fix the OOB game’s many problems.  Goal two is to have the proposed solutions find broad acceptability in the A&A community.  The difficulty arises from the fact that Global 1940 is a large, complex system with many parts that all interact with each other in complicated ways, and that even a simple change to one part (to say nothing of extensive changes to many parts) can have ripple effects throughout the system, in the same way that flattening one end of a pillow will cause it to pop outward at the other end. As a result, making a change that fixes one balance problem can easily create a new balance problem that didn’t exist before, which then requires that problem to be fixed, and so on and so forth, until the result is a game that potentially looks so different from the OOB original that it doesn’t find broad acceptablility in the community.  The same can happen under the more radical methodology of scrapping the OOB rules altogether and starting from a clean slate; that method at least has the advantage of tossing out the straightjacket created by the worst of the OOB rules, but it has the disadvantage of having a greater potential for creating a game that looks totally alien compared to the original and therefore which gets little uptake from the community.  I don’t know if there’s a solution to this paradox.  The paradox may mean that it’s not feasible to overhaul the game in a way that is both comprehensive and broadly acceptable.  Instead, it may mean that the best that can be achieved is an assortment of smaller-scale revisions, each of which differs from the OOB rules in one or two specific ways but otherwise sticks closely enough to the original to be recognizable and acceptable.  Alternately, it may mean that one might have to aim for a comprehensive overhaul which is acceptable to one’s local gaming group rather than the community as a whole.

I like this recall for being cautious.
Probably the best approach is to not first pushing map changes and overhaul NOs, but considering it as a second phase of play-tests on Redesign project. The first being the more familiar to player, adding units and various interactions without radical changes to set-up and overall game.
Somekind of taste testing on a new food, enjoying by itself before offering recipes for this given product.

I respectfully and firmly disagree. Cautious, incremental changes mean that people will continue to be deeply frustrated with the game. Any unofficial version starts with the heavy disadvantage that it’s not official. It needs an equally heavy advantage to make up for that! Merely introducing a few cool new units will not be enough to make up for the disadvantage of being unofficial. To earn and keep the attention of the community, we will have to actually solve most of the structural problems with Axis & Allies. We can’t solve those problems just by tinkering around the edges.

Also, because of the “domino effect” identified by CWO Marc, we can’t plan on adding rules that are designed to fix Problem A, playtesting them, then adding new rules to fix Problem B, and then playtesting those new rules. The rules that fix Problem B might re-open Problem A, or open a new Problem C, and so on all down the line. It really is all or nothing – if you spend time playtesting an intermediate version, then you are mostly wasting your time, because any “lessons learned” from the early playtesting will have to be thrown out as soon as you add the next batch of rules.

To be clear, if you want to tinker with a couple of house rules because your friends enjoy them, that’s great. But our common project here that we’ve been working on together for 67 pages is a reboot, not just minor tinkering. I think we’re really close. Let’s not throw away our progress.

I’m not considering not trying to wholly Redesign these games, just that it might be possible to have 2 agendas.
1- which ask what do you think of these units in the roster (C5 bombers, C5 DDs, CAs and TPs with M3, BBs and CAs with AA, etc.), how do you like the more in depth historical depiction it provides?

2- Building from 1, we can suggest the wholly redesign G40 and 1942.2 with additionals VCs, NAPs, NOs, captured Capital rules, maps changes (including giving +x IPC to such and such TTy), and set-up changes, etc.

I don’t understand why splitting the redesign into two tracks, one of which only focuses on changes to the unit roster, would help us reach our goal more quickly. Can you explain that, please?

@Argothair:

I don’t understand why splitting the redesign into two tracks, one of which only focuses on changes to the unit roster, would help us reach our goal more quickly. Can you explain that, please?

I can be wrong, but I forsee more negative reactions to novelty.
For those of us which are already sold to the idea there is no split tracks you need to use redesign roster (1) (for whatever it can be ultimately) to work with more important changes (2) (maps, straits, ICs, VCs, victory conditions, etc). There is no big learning gap.

For those which are naturally suspicious, the benefits of (1) can be use as a way to attract more attention to the whole overhaul.
If you pretty much like (1), it can be natural to see where it can goes to improve all aspects of both games Redesign.

Actually, Triple A options pack might allows to make a learning curve with new roster and units (1) without changing radically set-up and all other things. Other more complex options pack can include all features develop in phase 2.

For example, you may immediately dislike C5 bomber A0 D0 D6 damage and SBR dogfight with Fg A1 D1. And dislike how DDs C5 are working against Subs and how Subs are working against surface warships and Destroyers.
If the case for just a few unit variants, why will you see an interest to learn more about Redesign other complex ideas which can be further away from OOB?
However, some players may rather prefer to play with all these new units and explore the Redesign options pack with OOB set-up in background.

Actually, from what I understand of Barney’s work-in-progress, all his own play-tests (to see if the engine is stable and don’t crash) and feedback are made under this paradigm of actual G40 set-up and OOB map.
Eventually, after a lot of Triple A play-tests and table top tests with the full Redesign overhaul (2) and considering dominos effect, some consensus may appear from player’s feedback about what work and what need finer tuning and what can be tossed aside. Then, Redesign might be readier for a real “Third edition expansion project”.

Actually, I see Redesign as a rabbit hole into Wonderland. We need to give just enough to satisfy both curiosity and learning steps so more people will be willing to try and comments.
I really believe if it is too far away from known OOB Triple A experience, some might not be interested to follow the rabbit.
Barney’s options package give all players the possibility and freedom to familiarize with Redesign at their own pace.
Almost like a self-served buffet.
But this doesn’t forbid us to cook the best meal from all the ingredients available.
For now, I just believe no one is knowing for sure what “best meal” it can be.
We have just discovered how Triple A with Barney’s help can be “Hell’s kitchen” to create and try all kinds of meals.

I may also add that in some case there will be simpler way to play tabletop than directly copying Triple A, however this software provides us some fast proof of functionality for some concepts with a few try against oneself or the IA.

For what it’s worth, I think having a menu of options that users can check or uncheck when starting a tripleA game is a great idea. I said so a few pages ago, and I still say so now.

~~I started actively posting on this thread because it looked to me like the group was ready to start assembling a complete package of rules for a 1942.2 reboot, and I wanted to help with that. Now I’m hearing that the 1942.2 reboot on tripleA needs to wait until the G40 reboot is done, and that face-to-face playtesting will mostly be done with a handful of rules changes at a time.

It is always hard to figure these things out on the Internet, where you can’t see people’s faces or hear their tone of voice, but I am also getting a very strong impression that Black Elk and Barney want to write the reboot rules themselves, with other forum members limited to providing feedback and comments. I say this because I’ve asked to see a copy of their .xml file or unit roster three times, and I’ve offered to help code or edit the .xml file twice, but these offers and requests have all been ignored. When I wrote my own unit roster, instead of critiquing it, Black Elk just noted that my roster had some values that were “slightly different” than the values in his private .xml doc, and called it a “good jumping off point.” I really have no idea what Black Elk is talking about – who is going to use the PDF I made as a jumping off point? Where are they jumping off to? Black Elk already has his own rules document, and I believe that’s the one Black Elk and Barney are going to use.

Ultimately, that’s fine. I’m sure they’ll do a good job! I wish Black Elk and Barney had said explicitly that they want to handle the reboot on their own, because it would have saved me some time and energy, but I owe Black Elk at least a couple of favors for his thousands of words of expert strategy advice, his consistently insightful commentary, and his thoughtful feedback on many of my proposed house rules. Despite my frustration over the way this reboot project is being handled, I am still in Black Elk’s debt.~~

EDIT: Turns out I made a big deal about nothing. It happens! My apologies for any drama, and thanks very much to Barney for creating and sharing the .xml file, and to Black Elk for all of his thoughtful comments.

Sorry you got that impression Argothair. Here’s the latest file:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/lrm22j

There’s a tech doc that is incomplete and not up to date but I’ll post it too.

Yea this is just a bunch of house rules that people can configure however they like. Not a specific mod. Jump on in :) The more the merrier :)

This is out of date but the bulk is correct:

“Global 40 HouseRules”

Game starts with 2nd edition OOB rules,techs and units. A player named "Changer will go first. His purpose is to activate certain technologies so the game may begin with them. There are 7 of these techs. Each one has “ChangerMustActivate” at the end of them.

Changer has only 1 turn, so if techs are not activated then, you will be unable to activate them later. All the techs are listed for the rest of the players. This is for information purposes only. For example, even though Germany has “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”, he cannot activate it.

Excluding the OOB techs, Germany activates the remaining techs for all players, except for those that end in “GiveToAll”. These must be given to each player in order for them to have the tech ability.
Germany needs to activate techs at the start of Changer’s turn.

Here is the Tech Tree for “Global 40 HouseRules” minus the OOB techs:
                        “Changer”     
        1) “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”                         
            Bombers are now a A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB C5 unit. They may perform SBR attacks only. They do not participate in the Air Battle with interceptors. They do 1-6 damage. They no longer receive a +2 to an SBR attack.
        2) “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”                               
            Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.

When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.

The Destoryer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.

Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”.
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.

In addition to their normal unit stats, Fighters and Tac Bombers now have ASA1 ASD1 each.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will not stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Ftrs/Tacs, the sub will only undergo 1 ASA/D shot.

3) “TacticalBomberCost10_ChangerMustActivate”
            The price of Tactical Bombers are reduced to C10.

4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
            The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.

5) “Escort_Carrier_ChangerMustActivate”
            Adds The Escort Carrier. Escort CV is a A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C9 unit. It also has the Destroyers Sub blocking ability. It can carry 1 Fighter or Tactical bomber.

If “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate” has been activated, it becomes a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C9 with 1, ASA1 ASD1, each. It’s ASA/D shots stack same as Destroyers. It can carry 1 Fighter or Tactical bomber.

6) “FactoryLimited_ChangerMustActivate”
            Air and Naval Bases now cost 12. All captured and new construction minor factories may only produce artillery, AAguns, armor, mech infantry, mobile infantry, marines and infantry. If a NB is present you may also build subs, transports, escort carriers and DDs. If a AB is present you may also build fighters and TBs.

ABs are required to build fighters, TBs and bombers. Bombers may only be built in factories on originally owned territories that also has an AB. In addition, Bombers may not be built in the following territories: Kwangtung:Egypt:Norway:Alaska:West India:Korea. May not build at a AB with 3 or more damage.

NBs are required to build all naval units. BBs, CVs and CAs may only be built in TTs with originally owned starting factories. These TTs must also have a NB. May not build at a NB with 3 or more damage.

New Zealand receives a Minor Factory to allow ANZAC Air builds. Quebec receives a NB to allow for naval builds. The Central United Staes receives a NB to allow for additional pre War naval builds.

This addresses Capital Ships and Bombers being built in newly conquered territories. It should also be noted that UK may only build Air Units in UK at game start. This makes the UK AB a prime Axis target.

7) “AAGunC4_ChangerMustActivate”
            Changes the AAGun into a A0 D1 M1 C4 unit. It has 2AA shots. May not fire more than 1 shot per plane. Blocks movement and can conquer/capture Territories and Infrastructure.

Germans
                            Category
                        “San Francisco Rules”

1) AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate
    Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

2) “UpGun_BomberA0C5_GiveToAll”
            If “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate” has been activated, this tech will give Bombers A1 in Air Battles and Fighters A2 D2. This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.

If this tech is activated without activating “AttackOCost5Bomber_ChangerMustActivate”, Bombers will have A2 in Air Battles. Fighters will have A2 D2. This will be changed in the future so it’s not possible.

3) Naval_M3_GiveToAll
    Gives +1 Movement to Cruisers and Transports
            This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.

4) “AirfieldM2”
            Airfields now give +2 Movement to Bombers and Fighters. It is reccomended to only use the additional +1 Movement for fighters when they are escorting Bombers on SBR missions. This is Player Enforced.

5) “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”
            Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

6) “TacticalBomberCost10_ChangerMustActivate”
            Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

Category
                              “Redesign”

1) “PacificIslAndPU_Change”
    Gives all valueless Pacific Islands 1 PU when Japan is at war with any of the Western Allies. Must be at war to receive bonus.
    Also gives 1 PU to the following: Malta:Crete:Cyprus:Gibraltar:Alexandria:Tobruk:Sardinia:Sicily:Nenetsia:Vyborg:Bessarabia:Turkmenistan:Iceland:Eastern Persia.
    Removes 1 PU from:Ontario:Rhodesia:Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba.
    Japans “Strategic_Defense_Perimeter” National Objective is replaced by “Strategic_Islands”. They now receive 3 PUs for control of “Midway:Wake Island:Guam” when at war with ANY of the Western Allies.
            The USA also acquires the “Strategic_Islands” National Objective when at war with Japan.
    When at war with each other, Japan and the Western Allies will receive 2 PUs every time they conquer a 2 PU value Island or less (excepting the Philippines).
    The Western Allies will receive 2 PUs every time they take control of Celebes,Sumatra,Borneo,Java or the Philippines from Japan. The Japanese will receive 2 PUs every time they take control of Celebes,Sumatra,Borneo,Java or the Philippines after round 3.

With originally controlled territories, this gives Japan an additional 5 PUs, America 6 PUs, UK Pacific 4 PUs and ANZAC 3 PUs.
  Russia will receive an additional 4 PUs, Italy 3 PUs and UK 1 PU.

Strategically, the Axis can conquer Bessarabia and Vyborg quite easily from Russia for a previously unavailable 2 PU boost. UK Pacific may activate Eastern Persia for an easy 1 PU.
          Japan can become quite strong, quite fast using this modification so it is suggested to counter that with some Chinese modifications, which will be available in the same tech category.
  It is suggested to use the “ConvoyAndBlockade” tech, which is explained next, in conjuction with the “PacificIslandAndPU_Change” tech.

2) “ConvoyAndBlockade”
    This adds Blockade zones to Sea Zones:64,86,91,103,118 and 123. In addition to interdicting Land Territory PUs, Blockade Zones also interdict Sea Zones with PU value when adjacent to said Zones.
    It also adds “Convoy Zones” to Sea Zones:7,77,95,104,117,123 and 124. Convoy zones allow interdiction of Land Territory PUs. They are as follows:
    Sea Zone 7:Buryatia and Sakha. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.
    Sea Zone 77:Caucasus. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.
    Sea Zone 95:Sicily. 1 PU total. Italian owned.
    Sea Zone 88:West Indies. 2 PUs total. American owned.
    Sea Zone 90:Southeast Mexico. 2 PUs total. American owned.
    Sea Zone 102:Central America. 2 PUs total. American owned.
    Sea Zone 104:Gold Coast and Nigeria. 2 PUS total. British owned.
    Sea Zone 117:Quebec. 2 PUs total. British owned.
    Sea Zone 123:New Brunswick Nova Scotia and Iceland. 2 PUs total. British owned.
    Sea Zone 124:Nenetsia and Vologda. 2 PUs total. Russian owned.

Sea Zones 104 and 117 are also worth 1 PU.
    Sea Zones 88,90,95 and 102 are worth 2 PUs.
    Sea Zones with PU value do not have their PUs transferred to an enemy, even when that enemy controls the Sea Zone. Sea Zones with PU value are not collected if enemy controlled.

Land Territory changes are:
    Eastern United States: 12 PUs
    Central United States: 10 PUs
    Western United States: 12 PUs
    Mexico: 1 PU
    Southeast Mexico: 2 PUs
    Central America: 2 PUs
    West Indies: 2 PUs

You or your Ally must control the Convoy Zone at the “Collect PU” phase of your turn to receive the PUs from the corresponding Land Territories.
    Submerged Subs do not control Convoy Zones. If there is a Sub controlling a Convoy Zone and it is attacked and survives the attack by submerging, control of the Convoy Zone will revert to the Original Owner.
    The UK has their “British_Original”(controls all original territories) National Objective reduced to 3 PUs.

Strategically, certain Sea Zones(91,103) may inflict substantial damage. Sea Zones 104 and 117 add an additional 2 PUs in income for the UK.
            The majority of added Convoy and Blockade Zones are Allied controlled at the start. This is to encourage more Sub activity primarily in the Atlantic.
            The Pacific has enough Blockade possibilities that further additions were deemed unnecessary other than the Russian Convoy Zones, which are added to interdict additional Russian PU potential when “PacificIslandAndPU_Change” and “Russian National Objectives” (which will be explained next) are activated.

3) “RussianNationalObjectives”
            Reduces Russia’s Sea Zone 125 Lend Lease Objective to 2 PUs. Also reduces their “Spread of Communism” Objective to 2 PUs per Territory and limits those Territories to originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis Euoropean neutral territories.
These Territories are:“Bulgaria:Finland:Greater Southern Germany:Slovakia Hungary:Western Germany:Romania:Poland:Germany:Norway:Denmark:Holland Belgium:Northern Italy:Southern Italy”

Adds the following NOs to Russia:
“The Great Patriotic War” Theme:Soviet Sphere of Influence.
3 PUs if no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.

“The Northern Trace” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Northwest Staging Route.2 PUs if SZ 5 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), Amur is Russian controlled and there are no Allied units in any original Russian TTs.

“Persian Corridor” Theme:Acess to Allied Lend-Lesae via the Trans-Iranian Supply Route. 2 PUs if SZ 80 has no enemy warships (all sea units except transports), Persia is Allied controlled and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.

An increase of +2 PUs per Lend Lease Route goes into effect if Russia is at war and Japan declares war on Russia. Allied units may be present in Russia.

A Russian Destroyer is added to Sea Zone 5. It must remain adjacent to original Soviet territory while the Soviet Union is neutral to Japan.

4) “ChineseMilitia”
                  Adds the “Militia” unit for China. A0 D1 M1 C2. This helps China produce a few more units and allows them to purchase when they only have 2 PUs. Helps slow Japan down a little.

5) “PrimitiveTerrain”
                Places a “Primitive” image in basically all of Asia, excepting most Costal Territories, and up to the Ural Mountains in Russia. When starting in a primitive TTy, M2 units have their movement reduced to 1. Does not affect aircraft.

This helps slow Japan’s push through China and discourages early Soviet Far East invasions.

6) “FactoryLimited_ChangerMustActivate” "
                  Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

Category
                        “New Units and Unit Changes”

1) “BBandCA_AA”
          Battleships and Cruisers now have 2 AA shots. They behave the same as regular AAGuns.

2) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
          Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

3) “Mobile_Artillery”
          Adds a Mobile Artillery Unit. A2 D2 +1D w/tank, C5. Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or Mech Infantry. May blitz. Does not provide blitz ability to other units.

+1D w/tank represents their use as anti-tank weapons and to prevent tank buys from being adversely affected.

4) “Escort_Carrier_ChangerMustActivate”
          Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

5) “AAGunC4_ChangerMustActivate”
          Must be activated by Changer. Explained above.

6) “MilitiaForAll”
          Adds the Militia Unit to all players. A Player may have no more than 8 Militia at any one time. May only be placed in originally owned Territories.

This is to prevent spammage. It is also suggested to wait until Round 3 before activation. This represents full manpower mobilization and prevents an early UK stack to prevent Sea Lion. “Chinese Militia” is still suggested for Round 1 activation. If not activated, China will also gain the ability to purchase Militia when “MilitiaForAll” is activated.

Category
“New Units and Other Changes”

1) “Marines”
    Marines are a A1 D1 M1 C3 Unit. They receive +1A when making an amphibous attack. They may be transported into battle by Battleships on a 1:1 basis.

2) “Escorts_Interceptors_A2D2_GiveToAll”
    Escort Fighters are now A2 Interceptors D2. This tech must be activated by each player in order for them to receive the tech ability.

Got a few things I’m trying to sort out. Hope to be done soon because I got to split before long. I’m gonna throw the whole thing up on github so anybody can access.

@Black_Elk:

So just in case it is possible to add VCs via a tech edit, what is the optimal number/victory spread for both boards?

For 1942.2 I think at the very least the AA50 VCs should be available. That gives us 18 total… Adds Stalingrad, Warsaw, Hong Kong, Sydney, Ottawa (this last always struck me as a poor choice, more for a Canadian nod than gameplay interest, but what can you do hehe). Again though, this just doesn’t seem terribly exciting, doing a rehash of the same thing that’s been done already in AA50. The next progression would be to backload all 19 Global VCs into 1942.2, throwing Cairo as well. Still feels like it doesn’t add a whole lot that we haven’t already seen.

What if we went more extreme?

25 total VCs?

Is it even really even necessary to have a different number of VCs in 1942.2 and Global?

I mean we could conceivably use the same total number of cities, and the same victory spread for both maps, and make this be a point of consistency between the two boards. VCs aren’t that complicated of a concept, reducing the number involved doesn’t really make the game any simpler, increasing the number doesn’t really make it more difficult.
If the tech toggle works, you could just call it “25 VCs” and make the option available for either map.

That would give us 6 new cities to work with (beyond what we see in global), so we could distribute these across the map in ways that provide the maximum amount of gameplay interest.

Top contenders?

IDK if we need that much VC.

Here is what I suggested earlier:

For 1942.2 Victory conditions can also be considered per each Theatre or for the whole map (20 VCs):
Instead of 9 VCs for Axis, it needs 7 VCs to win but per theatre or 12 VCs as a whole:

Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs:  Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cape Town (South Africa),  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila,
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.
Axis: 7 VCs
Allies: 13 VCs

Keeping the end of game round phase, it is possible to give for each VC 1 IPC and 2 IPCs for each conquered VC.

Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 3 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 6 IPCs
USA 4 IPCs

While Allies Victory conditions might simply be capturing either Germany or Japan or 4 more Axis VCs from whole map (17 VCs out of 20).

I tried to add Singapore (for Strait importance, as Argothair and CWO Marc emphasized).
But it makes 21 VCs, I like 20 because it is a well-rounded number.

I didn’t add Cairo but it is a stranglehold to access Cape Town.
So, Moscow, Stalingrad and Cape Town can be battled coordinated between Axis powers.

Wellington should be part of VCs with Sydney to let US more time to prepare counter-strike before Japan secures his victory conditions.
So, southwest or southeast strategy would be available for Japan: Calcutta or San Francisco, if Honolulu, Sydney and Wellington are captured.

Germany have to capture 3 more VCs amongst Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, Ottawa, Rio of Janeiro or Cape Town. Probably, besides all 3 russian VCs, it can be Rio or Cape Town instead of Moscow.

Also, it gives a cooperative victory if Japan takes two amongst Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington or Honolulu and gets either Moscow or Cape Town (total: 6 VCs).
(while Germany grabs Leningrad and Stalingrad, total: 6 VCs)

Allies may also captured 4 amongst Paris, Rome, Warsaw, Hong Kong or Manila reaching 17 VCs. So, no need to take Tokyo or Berlin. But, it will not be easy because usually, one Axis power is growing monster.

It is still possible to add Cairo and Singapore into the mix of 22 VCs:
needs 8 VCs to win per theatre or 14 VCs as a whole:

Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs:  Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cairo, Cape Town (South Africa),  Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila, Singapore
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.
Axis: 8 VCs
Allies: 14 VCs

At 1 IPC per VC,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 4 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 7 IPCs
USA 4 IPCs

In that VCs configuration, both Axis power start with 4 VCs and have to capture 4 others to win.
Besides Leningrad, Stalingrad and Cairo, Germany must then either grasp Moscow or Cape Town or London.

Regarding Victory Conditions, I want to pose a couple questions. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to see what people think or how they play the game.

Is an Axis victory acceptable or legitimate if they do not take at least one of the 3 major Allied Capitals? (Do you think your Allied opponent would feel cheated in that he was not truly defeated and still had the ability to continue fighting and/or eventually win the game?)

OOB rules state that the Allies win by taking all 3 Axis Capitals. If the Allies took either Berlin or Tokyo (not both) and held the big 3 Allied Capitals, is that enough to declare Allied victory?

Should the Allies have have a victory condition in which they do not have to take either Berlin or Tokyo to win the game?

At this point I am just putting stream-of-consciousness into words. I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are the core of the game. I can tell you what I think and how people I know normally play.

There is no such thing as a minor victory. The only victory cities that really matter are Tokyo, Berlin, Washington, Moscow and London. Maybe that is a holdover from starting out on Revised. If the the Allies take either Berlin or Tokyo, and retain their own capitals, the Allies win. If the Axis take any of the Allied capitals (and hold it more than one turn, while keeping their own), game over; Axis win. Most times victory is projected via the eye test.

This doesn’t go along with the rule book exactly, but it works for person-to-person play. You can examine the board, unit placements, turns, income and at a certain point see who is going to win. We all can do that, in everything but the tightest of games.

I asked the questions above because I think I may need to let go of some habits and defaulting to historical accuracy in order to allow the game to be more dynamic. I think the root cause of sameness among games is that victory is only considered legitimate if one of the enemy capitals are taken. This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.

@Black_Elk:

But territories like New Zealand, and Brazil are so far afield.

Isn’t that just like adding more Ottawas?

Sydney and Wellington are both 1 SZ away from Guadalcanal and 2 SZs from Carolines Islands or Hawaii.
ANZAC can only have these two main VCs.
Conquering them incarnate the Japanese crushing 1 PTO enemy (minor) power.

That one is a way to compel Japan to mainly fight in PTO.

Brazil in 1942.2 is a 3 IPCs TTy which is not that far from Gibraltar and had a lot of natural resources.

I agree Brazil is still far.
So what can be an other which is not in Germany TTy?

P.S.
I tried to answered you Hoffmann but my Pad froze and I lost every words when I was upon to send it. :x

In too short: 1942.2 Allies mostly win by conquering 1 Capital while Axis win with economic like win via VCs captured.
Otherwise, it will remain a Center Crush on Russia.

This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.

I agree on that one.