G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@vodot

Shoot, my sentence was in the wrong order. I edited it to mean what I wanted to say.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

The increased IPC values in the Pacific Theatre (which reflects both strategic importance as well as oil resources - see Topic that describes the Expanded Pacific Theatre) makes this Battlefield crucial for both sides - in order to turn the tide of War to their own favor.

The Increased Ship Building rule helps both sides to perform major offensives and create multiple Naval Task Forces.

G40 Increased Ship Building.pdf

These rules are part of the Axis & Allies 1940 Global 2E, House Rules Expansion.

These elite combat units bring a new dimension to the game, especially to the fighting on The Eastern Front.

Soviet Guards, Waffen-SS Infantry & Waffen-SS Panzer.pdf

From what I’m reading yes you can move those pieces on your actual turn again.
As midnight said US can make non combat moves to plan.
China have a bit of hope. Lol
Calcutta saved ?
This will give each country some extra planning and moves to think about during turns which was stated to keep players more focused per each countries turn.
Lots of things to check out

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

But how would you know how many IPC Ottomans would have if you didn’t do any study on the economic capabilities of the other nations relating to 31 IPC? How would you know how many infantry they would have in each area if you didn’t study where they even had armies in 1914?

You need to just draw a map with territory borders that allows good player options and is realistic. Don’t redo 1914, that’s garbage. This is redesign, not use what you got

This is not checkers my friend.

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.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.