G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Young:

1. Bombers only receive the +2 damage bonus to factories if they have departed from an operational airbase (that’s if the whole SBR system is still recognizable after the redesign).

I like this idea.

Minor Industrial Complexes:  Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only.  Major complexes can build whatever. (Does not apply to the United States (E. USA, C. USA or W. USA prior to being at war.)    IDEA:  These are stripped down, WWI style factories and dry docks.  Game relevance:  Limit major builds to major complexes and thus limit the usefulness of dropping minor complexes everywhere.    ADDON:  Perhaps with the limits, dropping the price to 10 IPC for a minor complex? Â

Change the American NO (Alaska) o “Island Hoping”:  Allied forces control Hawaii, Midway, Carolines, Marshals and Paulau islands (Philippines are already an NO and there’s already way too many NOs regarding the Dutch East Indies…)  The idea here is to reward the United States (and her Allies) for liberating the S. Pacific from the Japanese overlords, instead of just skipping them entirely.  This is a “chain” of islands as well, so it would represent creating a supply line into the S. Pacific for the United States (aka the reason we did it…needed to put fuel, ammo and medical facilities SOMEWHERE!!!)

@regularkid:

b. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:

i. Archangel, sz 125
ii. Persia, sz 80
iii. Siberia, sz 5

As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.

I like this one too.  Never liked the idea of Allied units in Russia and I do think Russia needs another NO when at war with the Axis powers (it’s not reliable enough that they will “spread” communism into Europe…and they lose a lot of land in the East already.) Â

China:  If China owns ALL of it’s original territories (including all the ones that are occupied at the start of the game) it’s fighter can make attack runs over the sea zones adjacent to Chinese territories AND China may move units into NE Asia and SE Asia (i.e. anywhere on the Pacific map that is part of the mainland.)  Basically, it lets them liberate some Russian territories and take Korea…might even be able to liberate India if you happened to lose it…  Again, they have to own ALL of their territories, else their generals won’t let them leave! Â

ADDON:  If China loses a territory, any ground units not IN China are stuck in the territory they are in currently and may not move until China owns all of their territories for one full game round (just like holding an industrial complex.)

Re: FRANCE:  I hate that they really can’t do anything after they lose their capitol, but I have no idea how to negate them in the turn order…you have to give them a turn, even if all they have left are 2 infantry in England…it’s just annoying. Â

I guess you could remove them from the game by making them a pro-allied neutral, but even that isn’t a good solution since you NEED the threat of their navy remnants and their fighter for can opening strategies, blockers and/or attrition units…

Given how we’ve essentially gone back to “gang up on Russia” as the main strategy, perhaps we need a bigger penalty for violating the Russo-Japanese pact?  Maybe, instead of Mongolia, the Russians get 18 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Russian controlled territory on the Pacific map if Japan attacks and if Russia attacks, Japan gets 9 IPC worth of units (their choice) on any Japanese (originally Japanese, not controlled) territory/sea zone?  It might be more of a deterring effect this way.  (18 IPC could be 2 tanks, 2 infantry, it’s nothing to skoff at!  Also, if Russia gives up their shield AND gives Japan money, they might be less enthused with the idea of DOWing Japan and invading China.)

I am going to agree that it is a bad idea to let France go before Germany.  17 IPC of units + Consolidating in Paris = Nightmare for Germany. Â

Again, I really don’t have a solution for France, so I am gunna just stick with “leave it alone.” Â

I think an Airbase put back in Malta (perhaps another in Gibraltar too) like they used to have, might negate he allied bid too.  Might not…but it feels to me that the Allies are weakest in the Med so bids kinda gravitate around there - either troops or ships or what have you.  Might even add an infantry to Gibraltar - it’s not going to add a lot to British combat prowess but it does make Gibraltar harder to take over than just walking in…after all, it was a strategic advantage for England, I can’t see them not garrisoning SOME troops there…

Submarine interdiction:  Transports moving through a sea zone containing submarines or through sea zones adjacent to enemy submarines may be attacked by said submarines (yes even if escorted by surface ships - but those surface ships get to defend against the submarines.)  Submarines are moved into the sea zone in question and attack while transports (and escorts) defend. Â

My hope is this will encourage more Axis submarines in the Atlantic since they can choose to attack or not attack just like you can choose to scramble or not scramble.  If you add this to the above suggested NO for England revolving around no Submarines in the Atlantic then you have a two fold reason to put out a submarine or two a round.  Maybe even split the 10 IPC NO for America in half and make half of it be “no Axis submarines in the Atlantic” so you have a 3 fold reason to put out submarines.  (AKA: Less troops going after Moscow again…cause you are putting out Submarines…) Â

These are just off the cuff ideas…I didn’t think deeply on them.  Feel free to poke holes or fill in gaps in them as you see fit - I won’t get offended, promise!

RE: Minor Industrial Complexes

Good catch, yes Transports would have to be added to that list.

RE: Powers without a Major Complex

I would have no problem adjusting the United States to 1 Major Industrial Complex in E. USA.  The problem is, it still does not solve the build issue in the Pacific.  Another potential solution (regarding the Pacific and still limiting their minor complexes) would be to add a minor complex in Mexico.  They would be barred from BBs, CAs and ACs but could build 6 DDs for instance - prewar that is.

As for turn order…  What about:

Germany
Russia
Japan
ANZAC
England
Italy
France
China
USA

It’s not a “major” change so it won’t upset the balance much, but at least France isn’t out there with it’s own round just to screw with the turn order for no good reason. :P  I swear Larry just put France between Italy and Germany to mess with us forum gamers, lol! (that’s a joke!)

There are lots of interesting subjects in Black Elk’s latest post – too many for me to comment on all at once, so I’ll focus just on a couple of them.

There’s a strong advantage to restricting ourselves, at least in principle, to just the boxed materials, (or some new riff on the box materials), because everyone has access to them. It’s generally easier to tweak an existing unit or existing mechanic than it is to create an entirely new one. So those would probably be the best places to start. <<

I agree fully.  The G40/2 map (perhaps with a few roundel modifications) and the unit categories supplied in the box as sculpts and markers are a good baseline because everyone can be assumed to have them on hand – so a redesign built around those elements is a good idea.  This basic redesign can always be expanded later in more radical ways, for instance to include new unit types or new player powers, but for starters I think it’s very sensible to focus on a basic redesign.

I really like this idea, or at least the general direction of the idea. I think something like this is possible. […] Does anyone else feel that the game might benefit, from some form of randomization to starting income? Randomization within certain limits, of course, but some way to alter those values slightly as a way to create more dynamism in the opening round? <<

I’m not as rushed as I was last afternoon, so I’ll take a shot at developing more fully the very general concept I sketched out yesterday.

In the very abstract example I gave previously, I alluded to the fact that each player power’s starting position is defined by a number of variables.  Some of these variables are purely quantifiable: for example, the number of units of each type a power has on the board, how many IPCs it has in the bank, what its starting IPC income is based on territories held, and so forth.  The turn order specified in the rules is arguably another “purely quantitative” factor.  Some other variables, on the other hand, have “values” that can’t be quantified directly because they involve factors that are qualitative or positional or political in nature.  Examples of these include: where the power’s units are positioned on the game map; what special OOB rules (if any) either give the power a special allowance or place it under special restrictions; what national objectives or national advantages a power has (or might have); and how easy it is for each side to achieve its defined winning conditions.  That last one is a whole subject in and of itself, and as I’ve argued before it’s a fundamental feature of the game that has to be considered at every step of a redesign process; the only thing I’ll say about it now, as far as the quantification issue goes, is just to point out that the OOB rules are built around a huge difference between the Axis and Allied sides.  In pursuing their victory conditions, the Allies are given the challenge of capturing three enemy capitals that more or less equate to capturing most or all of three enemy countries.  (Japan is the most extreme case: by capturing Tokyo, you’re in fact capturing the totality of Japan’s home islands.)  The Axis, buy contrast, has a whole gaggle of Allied “victory cities” to choose from – many of which aren’t even capitals.

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand: let’s assume that we have some sort of system for quantifying these different variables, or at least for expressing their importance. The next step would be to calculate how much all of these factors “add up to” for each of the player powers under the OOB rules.  This will give us a rough idea of how “balanced” the OOB game’s starting setups are, in a very general sense.  The next step would then be to decide by how much we would want these different values to potentially vary under a semi-randomized redesigned setup system.

To explain this, I’ll use a more concrete example than I had time to write yesterday – but an example that will still be purely for illustrative purposes.  It’s not an actual proposal, and it will only focus on one element (unit types) in order to keep the example simple.  The same principle could be applied to the numeric variables I’ve mentioned (IPCs being an obvious candidate) and perhaps be adapted in some way for application to other variables .  The example I’ll use will be France, since it has only a few units at its disposal at the start of the game.

Leaving aside ICs and bases, and ignoring the consideration of where these units are placed on the map, France starts out the game with:

15 Infantry
0 Mechanized Infantry
1 Tanks
3 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
2 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
2 Cruisers
2 Destroyers
0 Submarines
0 Naval Transports

Now let’s assume that we want to replace this starting setup, which uses precise and unvarying numbers, with a setup that offers range brackets.  Using some purely arbitrary figures (which are just meant to illustrate the concept I’m talking about), let’s give France this new setup table:

13-18 Infantry
0-1 Mechanized Infantry
1-2 Tanks
1-4 Artillery
1 Anti-Aircraft Artillery
1-3 Fighters
0 Tactical Bombers
0-1 Strategic Bombers
0 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battleships
1-3 Cruisers
1-4 Destroyers
0-1 Submarines
0 Naval Transports

There are several possible ways these brackets could be used.  Here are the options I’ve been able to think of, though of course there may be more:

1. The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, and there are no limits on the total unit value (TUV) to which these choices can add up.  Obviously this option won’t work because the player will simply choose the highest number in each category.

2. The French player is allowed to choose which figures he’ll use in each category, but the TUV of his choices can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup.  On the plus side, this option would require more thought and involve more compromises than option 1.  On the minus side, this option may eventually neutralize the goal of making the game more variable: players will probably figure out the optimal choices and stick with them from that point forward.

3. The figures are determined by random dice rolls, without any restrictions on the TUV (except of course the built-in restriction that the figures in each category have to stay within a bracketed range).  This could result in individual powers (in this case France) starting out a game with a significantly stronger or significantly weaker opening position than in the OOB setup.

4. The figures are determined by random dice rolls, but the TUV resulting from these random rolls can’t be higher than the TUV of the OOB setup.  This is probably the best option for generating variety from game to game without produding wildly stronger or wildly weaker opening positions.  To make it work, we’d need a mechanism to control the TUV.  I can think of a couple of possibilities for this:

a) Once the random rolls have generated a semi-randomized setup, the player calculates how much unit value has to be subtracted to bring the TUV down to the required level, then chooses himself which units to delete.  The subtractions would not be allowed to bring any category outside its bracketed value.

b) The unit deletions are accomplished randomly by successive dice rolls (combined with some sort of results table) until the required TUV is reached.  Rolls that would bring any particular category outside of its specified bracket would be disregarded.

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […]  Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.

Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions.  Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side.  When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.”  And no, I’m not kidding.  This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game).  A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.

I’m of the opinion that balance is less important than the possibility of being able to do “interesting things.” That kind of approach is, of course, much more viable in a game involving numerous players that will likely end in a negotiated victory for one side rather than in a game of “standard” format with just two players.

The Lend-Lease mechanic is viable even without changes to the map.

A small deck of about 52 cards would allow for an elegant introduction of both random events (e.g., harsh European winter, neutral accession to a particular alliance bloc) and specific strategies that players may choose to deploy for a cost (e.g., activation of a national advantage, deployment of a special unit type).

I think the inclusion of minor nations, particularly the British Far East Command, the Dutch East Indies, and maybe even a Portuguese Empire, would also be a great way to spice up the game.

@Black_Elk:

Fantastic! Can’t wait to see the charts.

They’re now ready and posted over here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

They ended up being structured very differently than I had originally expected, but I think they work better this way.

My global (no pun) perspective on G40 and its operational mechanics can be generally defined as political constraint and strategic flexibility. Unless you don’t mind screw-ball scenarios like the the UK joining the Axis or a land war in South America, there needs to be some level of political constraint imposed upon Powers which allows them to operate beyond the “One, two, three… fight!” script, but not deviate to the point of historic implausibility. That is my view anyway… otherwise, as Marc said, you have a game which uses the rough 1940s geo-political premise, but is decidedly not about the Second World War.

When we played as younger kids, we would make jokes about coup d’etats and deposing Hitler and ridiculousness like that… Seems like some people are looking for that kind of flexibility, where you can just totally ignore history and create your own rules. I suppose that is fine if it is what you are into, but it defeats the premise of the game to me.

A Tri-Team Game:   Somebody talked about this and it really intrigued me. I have never heard this suggested before, but it actually makes a lot of sense. USA-UK (and UK Empire holdings + pro-Allies) vs. Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy) vs. Soviet Union (+ pro Allies?)

This truly could work. It would more accurately represent how the war was fought and the political/geographic motivations for each side. A more distinct winner could be crowned based on the accomplishing of specified objectives. Heck, you might even be able to (or maybe should) split the Axis into Germany-Italy and Japan. They would still be allies, with benefit to cooperation, but have individual victory conditions that may or may not be co-dependent. China is another problem, since you have both pro-USA-UK forces and pro-USSR forces, but that could be worked out. US-UK and USSR would still be nominal allies as well, but the interplay between them would more accurately reflect the real-life suspicion and ambitions between the Free Market Economies and the Communists.

I don’t envision an “8-ball” style clean-cut win like Black_Elk is looking for, but it would change how you view victory in the game.

I thought someone posted a link about this Tri-Team idea being discussed in the past… if so I would really like to investigate it further.

@Cmdr:

Minor Industrial Complexes: � Limited to Infantry, Artillery, Submarines and Destroyers only. � Major complexes can build whatever. (Does not apply to the United States (E. USA, C. USA or W. USA prior to being at war.) �  � IDEA: � These are stripped down, WWI style factories and dry docks. � Game relevance: � Limit major builds to major complexes and thus limit the usefulness of dropping minor complexes everywhere. �  � ADDON: � Perhaps with the limits, dropping the price to 10 IPC for a minor complex? �

Change the American NO (Alaska) o “Island Hoping”: � Allied forces control Hawaii, Midway, Carolines, Marshals and Paulau islands (Philippines are already an NO and there’s already way too many NOs regarding the Dutch East Indies…) � The idea here is to reward the United States (and her Allies) for liberating the S. Pacific from the Japanese overlords, instead of just skipping them entirely. � This is a “chain” of islands as well, so it would represent creating a supply line into the S. Pacific for the United States (aka the reason we did it…needed to put fuel, ammo and medical facilities SOMEWHERE!!!)

Submarine interdiction: � Transports moving through a sea zone containing submarines or through sea zones adjacent to enemy submarines may be attacked by said submarines (yes even if escorted by surface ships - but those surface ships get to defend against the submarines.) � Submarines are moved into the sea zone in question and attack while transports (and escorts) defend. �

My hope is this will encourage more Axis submarines in the Atlantic since they can choose to attack or not attack just like you can choose to scramble or not scramble. � If you add this to the above suggested NO for England revolving around no Submarines in the Atlantic then you have a two fold reason to put out a submarine or two a round. � Maybe even split the 10 IPC NO for America in half and make half of it be “no Axis submarines in the Atlantic” so you have a 3 fold reason to put out submarines. � (AKA: Less troops going after Moscow again…cause you are putting out Submarines…) �

I like these as well.

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if the pool cue analogy is worthwhile, but Axis and Allies needs an 8 ball. Or hell, maybe 8 ball is the wrong way of thinking about it, maybe 9 ball is better? Where the underdog always has a chance at recovery, if the leading side screws up. Most games don’t resolve the way Axis and Allies does, with one player surrendering. […]  Ideally both players should have incentives to continue playing until the actual resolution occurs. This doesn’t really happen right now in A&A. A&A isn’t the only game where this sort of thing occurs, often it happens in games that take a very long time to conclude. Risk and Monopoly come to mind. The losing player frequently quits before the game is technically finished. This strikes me as a little problematic, and something it would be worth working on a bit more.

Here’s a very radical suggestion on how to give a losing player an incentive to keep playing, while at the same time adding a potentially dramatic curveball to the victory conditions.  Add a rule which says: “At the end of the Collect Income phase for their particular power, the player who controls the United States, the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union can announce that his or her country is leaving the Allied side and is joining the Axis side, and the player who controls Germany, Japan or Italy can announce that his or her country is leaving the Axis side and is joining the Allied side.  When a player announces that his or her power is changing sides, any other powers whose turns that player controlled are transferred to the control of another player with whom the departing player was formerly partnered.”  And no, I’m not kidding.  This could add a very interesting inter-player dynamic to the game, not unlike the one that exists in Diplomacy: the need to keep your allies on your side, and the need to consider whether it would be in your interest to be the first one to jump from the losing side to the winning one (especially if only one power is allowed to defect from any given side in any one game).  A single-country defection would also increase the chances that a game could actually be played to a clear victory, while a two-country defection (if this were permitted) would pretty much guarantee it.

I don’t particularly like this, as you may have guessed. Too much flexibility.

Totally unrelated to my other comments, but I just thought of this:

What if every nation just HAD war bonds?  I mean, it really doesn’t make sense as a “technology” anyway (what, you have to do a national search for the best artist or something?) However, it would add a lot of flexibility and dynamics to the game!

I am thinking major powers only:  Germany, Russia, Japan, United States, England and Italy  (3 Axis, 3 Allies) otherwise it wouldn’t be fair.

I would put ANZAC in there as well. It would make them more fun to play same as it does for Italy.

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

I agree with Jennifer and Black_Elk, a war bonds idea is a fun way to get more units on the table (who doesn’t want more units?!). Call it Lend Lease for the smaller powers, war bonds, whatever, but I agree that a simple 1d6 is a fun way to add a bit to it. Maybe this can be increased to 2d6 at some “desperate” part of the game? Like when a home territory is taken, Southern Germany for example, the Germans can role a 2d6 to show they are stripping the country bare of resources in a last ditch effort. Or maybe each nation is allowed a 2d6 just three times a game at their discretion.

@Argothair:

Just checking in to ask a couple of project-management questions:

1. How long do we want to spend brainstorming ideas before we start picking a few of them to implement? A week? A month? A year?

2. Once we have a definite list of the features we’re looking for, are we going to try to assign the design of specific features to individual people? To separate threads? Or are we just going to keep hacking away at the overall project as a group in this thread, even if it takes a thousand posts?

I also agree with Argothair, which goes along with what I was saying a few days ago. You can brainstorm all day, but at some point the groundwork needs to be laid with what you definitively want done and tweak from there. That could rule out a bunch of suggestions on here and get more to the point of what you really want input on.

Sounds good to me. I think this thread is putting a number of good and reasonable ideas out there that I would personally incorporate into my games. I don’t play TripleA, but more power to those of you who are and can figure out if some of this stuff will work or not.

I’m good with it in the second round.

A little more concerned with the difference in income for allies vs axis.  That might be scaled down a bit if you limit the technology until a nation is “at war.”