edit: This thread is mainly for the gathering of HR ideas for use in G40. Recently some of this material has been organized together in a standard package with customizable HRs for use in tripleA. The goal is to draft and implement House Rules ideas that can be used both on the table top and digitally, so there is a bit of back and forth. There is also a Mod for the Global game in tripleA, called Balanced Mod, which is described in the middle of the thread. One feature of this mod created by regularkid and others, is the Franco-German Armistice ie. “Vichy” rules for use in G40. As well as other concepts, like the Marine unit. This one can be downloaded from the depot for those who are interested. A bunch of other rules and ideas are touched on at various points, including victory conditions, objectives, unit tweaks etc. Have fun digging
:-D
The idea is this, a redesign of G40 from the ground up!
Taking CWO Marc’s suggestion, I thought I would start a new thread and take input from everybody. If at least 10 people express an interest I will move forward with it and begin the process of creating a tripleA game file.
I think for this to work, it would have to be a collaborative design.
Pretty much everything is on the table at this point. Pretty much, although I would suggest the following. That we keep the 1940 start date, and the same essential game materials/ same basic combat mechanics, so its easy to adopt (and port into tripleA.)
Some ideas to get us started…
A new turn order.
A new starting unit set up, distribution.
New Objectives.
New Victory Conditions/treatment of VCs
Stronger China.
A more interesting opener for the minor powers France, Italy, Anzac.
A single UK player nation.
New handling of the Non Agression Pact between Japan and Russia.
New production profiles.
For that last I thought I’d just mention 1 idea that I think might be cool.
Retain the Major factory as the main production hub, but replace the Minor Factory with a new type of base unit.
This “minor factory” forward Base can be placed in any territory (on islands or zero ipc tiles etc) but it only produces infantry, 2 or 3 per turn.
I think such a unit could be used, along with naval bases, air bases and objectives, to create a real war over the Pacific islands. Even more than lack of income, it is the lack of forward production that makes island hoping a rather poor attack plan for Japan/USA. But a simple way to get 3 infantry out of a territory with a starting base, or the ability to buy new bases would I think change this dynamic considerably.
They could also be useful in other areas of the map, such as in Africa, Scandinavia, China etc. Where the ability to produce infantry would still allow the areas to be contested, but without the distorting effects of produce mech/armor, or warships. If captured by the enemy the base is destroyed. What to do with the remaining Major factory unit is an open Q, whether to keep it the same or tweak it to fit with the new scheme.
That is just one idea, I’m not sure if it’s worth pursuing or popular enough to support a redesign of the production scheme. But it seems like a base would be a bit more flexible than a minor factory. Just off the top of the head.
What would you like to see out of a redesigned G40?
Good idea to have started a separate thread on this. I’ll be happy to contribute ideas as the discussion moves along (if there’s the required level of interest from others), though I’ll mainly limit myself to things like general game concepts and historical background, since those are the only parts of the A&A modeling that I feel comfortable with.
Just to clarify what suggestion of mine Black Elk is talking about, he’s referring to my post from today in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36436.45
…which I won’t summarize here, since the original can simply be consulted in full if needed.
Black Elk’s idea to “Retain the Major factory as the main production hub, but replace the Minor Factory with a new type of base unit. This “minor factory” forward Base can be placed in any territory (on islands or zero ipc tiles etc) but it only produces infantry, 2 per turn.” is an interesting one. I don’t know if the minor IC in its current form should be discarded altogether, but I like the idea of a facility (perhaps an addition to rather than a replacement of the minor IC type) that produces only infantry; an idea along these likes was kicked around on an earlier thread somewhere, and I think it was conceptualized basically as kind of army troop-training camp. It doesn’t “manufacture” soldiers in the same literal sense that tanks are manufactured’; rather, it serves as the entry point for infantry on the game board, and in real-world terms it essentially represents the staging ground where troops who’ve already received their basic training in boot camp are assembled and given their final training before being deployed in actual combat. Such camps don’t require the kind of heavy infrastructure that a factory does, so Black Elk’s concept that they could be set up in minor locations like 0-IPC islands would work fine for facilities of this nature. A variant of (or supplement to) this idea might be to make them alliance-specific rather than nation-specific, so that (let’s say) a country like France which has lost its own capital could deploy new infantrymen from (let’s say) a troop-training camp located in British territory.
Yeah that was definitely what I was shooting for, “base camps” or “ground bases.” It’s got a certain ring to it. And then you’d have a base type for each arena of conflict, air naval and ground.
The only reason I thought maybe to nix the minor factory altogether, is so that these cardboard chips would be available to fill the new spot in the roster. The current minor factory has the numeral 3 clearly marked on it, so if going for a replacement scheme (rather than adding a new piece to the mix) this might recommend up to 3 infantry units mobilized at the ground base.
One goal that might be worth pursuing, is not to change any of the information that is graphically represented on the map. So if G40 says territory X = Y ipcs, and Y is drawn on the map, it’s probably best not to change this.
For the Major factory at least, we’d likely need to keep with the OOB scheme, or at least something similar to it, where the production value of the factory is not tied to the Ipc value of the territory where it’s housed (as opposed to say the 1942.2 scheme, where production caps at the ipc value of the territory.) This is because Global features several territories, which are only worth 3 ipcs or less, but which are intended as major production hubs. For example Moscow is only worth 3, but can produce 10 units from the Major factory.
In the past, an idea was explored to increase the number of production profiles from the 2 factory types in OOB, to 3 factory production types: Major, Mid, Minor etc, but I’m not sure that is necessary if you had a ground base for infantry. For one thing, it would be a bit simpler to just have 1 type of factory. You have major production centers “Industrial Complexes” for the heavy hitting units, and then minor infantry-focused bases to help get the fodder to the front. This would mitigate somewhat the need for so many transports, and would likely allow us to keep the current costs/abilities of the transport unit, with less grumbling from players about how weak they are for the cost. The bases would take some of the burden off the transport units.
I think it would also help to manage the Japanese tank drive, which often relies on the spamming of minor factories OOB. Here they could still expand, with their ground bases, but the unit type they spawn is exclusively infantry from such bases, which would mean a more limited scope of attack (against China/India/Russia for example).
I think there are probably several instances where a major factory could be all we’d need in the unit roster. Instead of downgrading it, it could just be destroyed when captured. You could keep similar restrictions in place as to where they can be located (only originally controlled territories at 3 ipcs or greater in value) but the cost could probably be reduced from 30 ipcs, if you wanted to make them “autodestruct” upon capture.
This reminds me of another goal I think it would be worth exploring…
New Capital Capture rules…
Some players have expressed an interest in ideas like, ‘capital capture only loots half of the vanquished nation’s treasury.’ Or have mentioned a preference for a system where a conquered power can still collect income or produce units, declare a new capital, or other alternatives of that sort. As opposed to the OOB dynamic, where the Capital is always the “ultimate end”, and once their capital is captured the vanquished nation is effectively out of play.
Changing the rules for looting a capital, or for changing the way capitals connect to the rest of the game would definitely change one of the main drivers of the current gameplay patterns OOB. I am particularly interested in how VCs might be made more significant to the gameplay. Perhaps nerfing the “loot” when you take a capital, but compensating for this by providing a cash incentive or looting incentive for the conquest of VCs. Basically reducing the Capitals significance from the be all end all (as it is currently), but at the same time transforming VCs into mini capitals of their own. You know where some cash bonus or penalty attends to them, the way it does to capitals OOB.
I think this would be extremely helpful in “encouraging” alternative play patterns, and giving the game a different thrust than OOB, but still using the same basic G40 map and core materials.
Any thoughts?
Here’s another, perhaps simpler question to consider… Is there anything specific in the starting unit set up, or production spread that you would like to see?
Anything unit-wise in the OOB game that seems off from a gameplay perspective? or particularly out of sync with the history and the historical distribution of forces in 1940?
I know in previous mods we’ve seen requests for things like…
*An air base and fighter in Ontario, RCAF “Air Training command.”
*An air base in Alaska, “Northern Trace.”
*A strategic bomber for Russia, “Night Witch.”
*A few more tanks in the Soviet interior, “Tankograd.”
*Another fighter in China, for more aerial kung fu, “Dual Flying Tigers.”
*A naval base and a decent French force in West Africa, “Dakar.”
(this could bring up the additional question of how to handle French ‘liberated territory’, when their capital is kaput. Whether control of the territory should be awarded to the first nation who moves units into the space? or some other similar scheme)
Or just more generally, some bases of one type or another, on various island territories that don’t otherwise have much gameplay value OOB, such as Sicily, Marshall islands, Marianas, Crete etc. “No more worthless islands”
Any other ideas along these lines?
We did this once for Revised (back before AA50 came out) with a tripleA game called Pact of Steel. It was meant to demonstrate the possibility of Italy as a player nation, which was still novel at the time. We could do something similar with G40, modding the OOB game to explore new ideas. Unlike Pact of Steel though, I think we should try to use the OOB territory and sea zone divisions, and the OOB ipc distribution (not redrawing the map), with a focus mainly on starting units and objectives.
Assuming that the OOB board is at least somewhat historically accurate in its distribution of forces, we could begin as we did with Pact of Steel in Revised, by building backwards from the OOB set up, but adding or substracting units (within reason) to create a new gameplay dynamic (especially for the opener, but also the endgame), while retaining the same basic feel.
Takers?
I’d play a redesign. Probably don’t want to change too much at once, Sounds like you already got a pretty good list for starters with the soviet/japan nap, turn order, valueless islands, new NOs, new factory unit etc…
Maybe make a hard list and let people comment on that. Kinda like redrum did with the ai. Just for a starting point anyway.
Personally I like the islands being worth a buck. Throw in a couple 3 island group NOs that would double them to 6 bucks or something to that effect. Small enough you might go for them but not so big you say screw it. I give the med guys a buck as well.
IDK if you’d want to totally 86 the minor because I could see a lot of air hevy/ infantry combos out there at the expense of mech. But IDK you’ll obviously have to test all of it. Get something playable and improve it from there. Of course you already know that :)
I think in terms of turn order, something that has 6 roughly equal blocks (equal in terms of play-time/relevance to the game round.) Or to put it another way 6 save games in a PBEM, PBF back and forth. Alternating exchanges where each of the 3 minor Allied nations is attached to one of the Major Allies, separated in the round by the 3 Axis nations. Or at least, that this should be the way it breaks down after the first round leading into the second.
For something cohesive that isn’t too distorted might try
USA, China
Germany
Russia, France
Japan
UK, Anzac
Italy
If you dislike the idea of allowing the USA to have 1 free round to purchase/build and start the game, you could always open with China and close the round with USA. The same basic sequence described above would develop, as USA/China naturally piggy pack turns/saves from round 2 on.
Or some similar grouping, where each Major Allied Nation is followed by a Minor one.
Right now I was thinking the above order would be interesting even on the OOB board with the OOB DoW rules.
USA gets 1 round to build, and China goes before Japan so they can position defensively.
Then Germany opens.
Russia and France are fairly straightforward, but depending on whether you design France to fall on G1 or G2, you could give those nations more to do initially.
That’s another thing. What are your thoughts on the starting Russian naval units?
This seems like a good oppertunity to build some small Russian fleets into the set up. Give those sculpts some use. But where? And of what unit composition? I think it would be nice to see a Russian battleship for once.
Sounds like a pretty huge project, I will try to participate in a small way as I am currently taking on a massive customization.
There have been some interesting ideas surrounding the whole Vichy France dynamic, but thats a bit of a Pandora’s box. For now I would like to propose some small changes that might be widely accepted.
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).
2. Damaged battleships may not conduct shore bombardments, the penalty for keeping an aircraft carrier damaged is that they can’t hold planes, damaged battleships should suffer greater consequences as well (that’s if the whole naval combat system is still recognizable after the redesign).
that’d be a interesting turn order. IDK if having ANZAC canopen for the US would cause Japan some major problems or not
On the other hand though, an Anzac can opener might be just the ticket, to making that player nation feel a bit more relevant to the War.
:-D
Again thinking more on Russian ships. A naval base in Amur might be fun. Or a mini fleet in sz 5. Something like this might allow for a more interesting Soviet investment in the events of the Pacific, or perhaps could be used somehow for the NAP dynamic with Japan. Another candidate would be sz 128 the Caspian sea. Which might be interesting/relevant to the game if it housed a transport and a warship. Sz 100 could likewise support a transport and some ships I think. Sz 4 with the lonely sub, might get a tiny upgrade. Things of that sort. Just thinking it might be enjoyable if a few more soviet naval sculpts had a reason for existing in the box. Who knows, if they had something to start with, the Russians might even expand their naval ambitions at some point haha. Though really, the idea is mainly for novelty.
Ps. Another idea for a land base that’s been kicked around before, is that they are used to mobilize units from an Industrial complex (units that already exist, during the non combat phase) rather than spawning new units per se.
In that case you might make the base like a suped up transport. It can mobilize 2 infantry units from your Industrial Complexes to your base during non combat.
This could embody whatever historical logistics would have made sense from the IC to the base. Whether an island base in the middle of the sea, or like a rail hub at the end of a long line. The ground base unit could be abstracted to cover both. But it’s a one time movement, IC to Base, moving the units out (not base to base, or base to IC.)
2 inf per base might be a bit less overpowered than 3 inf, but would still provide a definite advantage for infantry movement. Then reserve the transports for the movement of the heavy equipment (or yet more infantry) the way they currently do.
I admit my main motivation in trying to come up with a workable base idea (as an alternative to the minor factory spam) is as a way to prevent the Mech drive from Japan. If desired you could transport them over or spawn them in Korea, but it wouldn’t be this endless train of mech and tanks spawned at coastal factories and them slamming across China into India/Russia.
It would also make the spawning of fleets a bit more realistic since that would have to be done at a coastal IC.
Basically just a couple ICs for each power and then supplemented where it makes sense by starting bases of one sort or another.
You could actually attempt a similar mobilization scheme for all base types. Spawned at the factory on placement, 1 or 2 units can be moved from the IC to a base on non combat (a base of the corresponding type: air, naval, or ground.) That would be a fairly dramatic tweak to the game’s normal system of logistics and movement, but it might be fun. It would definitely allow for some interesting movement strategies, IC to base movement, with the repositioning of forces on non com.
I think this would feel somehow more realistic within the vague outline of time that the game tries to capture. If the number of units that could move this way was restricted to some small number per base.
I suggested 2 infantry. But even if it was just a single air or naval unit for those base types that might be entertaining.
One fighter at a base where you need it. One battleship. Or 2 infantry units.
Again just musing here. I’ll try to keep a list, and add to it as I get more feedback on what interests people.
Oh and I like the SBR and damage rules that YG mentioned.
Things like this would help to further enhance the role and importance of “operational” bases in the game. One cool thing about a 3rd base type on the ground, is that it could serve as another bombing target!
If damaging a base also prevented unit mobilization, this would be a huge incentive to use the Tactical bomber the way it was originally intended… As a way to bomb bases!
Here the TacB would have a real role to play in the game, since the ability to shut down a unit mobolization might be worth the risk of built in aa fire, even if the cost in ipcs is comparatively minor.
Lots of detailed proposals to read here, which is great. I’ll go through them today as time permits and post any comments that I might have.
Regarding the proposed new facility that would serve as the entry point for infantry, I’d favour a short, simple, fairly generic term like “army base” or “army camp.” Something close, in other words, to the existing facility terms of “air base” and “naval base.” As for this element…
“The only reason I thought maybe to nix the minor factory altogether, is so that these cardboard chips would be available to fill the new spot in the roster. The current minor factory has the numeral 3 clearly marked on it, so if going for a replacement scheme (rather than adding a new piece to the mix) this might recommend up to 3 infantry units mobilized at the ground base.”
…my feeling is that this wouldn’t be optimal for a number of reasons. First, it gets rid of an existing facility on the grounds that its marker is needed for a different new facility, not on the grounds that the existing facility itself is problematic. I see the minor IC as being a valid and useful unit, filling a niche between a major IC and no IC at all. Second, the minor IC marker is conceptually problematic for use as an army camp marker because it conveys the impression that soldiers are manufactured in factories (which they aren’t), because part of the rationale for allowing the army camps to be built in minor locations is that they don’t require as much infrastructure as factories, and because 3 might not necessarily be the best choice for the number of infantry that enter the game through army camps (though it may very well be fine). My feeling is that it would be better to seek an alternate marker for army camps. One possibility would be these HBG special forces markers…
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Special-Forces_c_301.html
…which are nation-specific in design. My preference would be for a generic army camp marker (which perhaps HBG might consider producing, preferably as one of its attractive square acrylic markers), but on the other hand purchasing one set of special forces markers for each player power would provide each player with about a dozen army camp markers, which sounds like a convenient number to me.
This seems like a good oppertunity to build some small Russian fleets into the set up. Give those sculpts some use. But where? And of what unit composition? I think it would be nice to see a Russian battleship for once.
Just as background information: in WWII, the USSR basically had two major and two minor fleets. Its largest numbers of warships, and its most powerful warship types, were allocated to the Baltic (based near Leningrad) and the Black Sea (based in the Crimea). The USSR had much smaller fleets, consisting mainly of light forces, in the White Sea (based, I think, at Arkhangelsk) and on its Pacific coast (based at Vladivostok).
Or just more generally, some bases of one type or another, on various island territories that don’t otherwise have much gameplay value OOB, such as Sicily, Marshall islands, Marianas, Crete etc. “No more worthless islands”
That’s a good idea, could add air bases to Sicily and Malta to spice up the Mediterranean like Oztea did in his 41 scenario. Would also add a naval base to West Indies. Not terribly useful but represents Vieques as well as our presence in Guantanamo and Culebra.
Also I’m biased since I work for a company with a sister office in Bombay but it would be nice for that side of India to get representation as well, so all is not lost when Calcutta falls. Maybe a minor IC and a naval base, and to compensate the major in India is downgraded to a minor.
Ps. Another idea for a land base that’s been kicked around before, is that they are used to mobilize units from an Industrial complex (units that already exist, during the non combat phase) rather than spawning new units per se.
In that case you might make the base like a suped up transport. It can mobilize 2 infantry units from your Industrial Complexes to your base during non combat.
This could embody whatever historical logistics would have made sense from the IC to the base. Whether an island base in the middle of the sea, or like a rail hub at the end of a long line. The ground base unit could be abstracted to cover both. But it’s a one time movement, IC to Base, moving the units out (not base to base, or base to IC.)
I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around this one…I guess mainly because I’m not sure what you’re visualizing here, at least in real-world terms. The deployment of units in WWII from factory to battlefield varied tremendously depending on multiple factors. For example, a US tank in 1945 might be manufactured in a Detroit factory, shipped by rail to the East Coast, transported by freighter across the Atlantic and shipped by rail to a point near the front, where it would drive by road and ultimately cross-country into combat. By contrast, some Soviet tanks in 1941 and 1942 drove more or less out the factory doors and straight into battle. Ships were built on slipways or in drydock, launched, fitted out, sent on builder’s trials, accepted by the navy, commissioned, sent on shake-down and training cruises, and eventually deployed for operations; in all of these operations (except the journey to the fitting-out basin), they were essentially self-propelled. US-manufactured aircraft with sufficient range would be picked up at the factory by military pilots, ferried across the ocean under their own power using the shortest route possible (such as Newfoundland to Ireland) or multiple hops (stopping to refuel at places like Hawaii) and eventually they’d reach their assigned bases; smaller planes with insufficient range would be delivered fully-functional by aircraft carriers or shipped disassembled in crates.
I’ve been thinking about the issue of victory conditions. It’s a pretty fundamental aspect of the game because all the actions of the players (if they want to win) ultimately have to take into consideration whether they advance the players towards fulfilling those conditions. (To express it in circular terms: the way to win the game is to do what it takes to win the game.)
I don’t have any kind of detailed system to propose as an alternate to G40’s current model of using victory cities, but I’ve been trying to think about what kind of other approaches might be worth considering. My first notion was to try to figure out how Germany and Japan could actually have won WWII, but I quickly dropped that line of inquiry for various reasons. First, this approach assumed that Germany and Japan could actually have won the war, or at least (and perhaps more achievably) fought the Allies to a sustainable stalemate. That assumption would have produced some lively debate (including in my own mind). Second, this approach wouldn’t necessarily have resolved the issue of what the victory conditions for the Allies should be in the game. So I decided to explore other avenues.
The notion I’m currently looking at is this. What if the victory conditions for the game somehow (and at this stage I have no idea of how this “somehow” would work) depended on how well the Allies and the Axis were respectively “doing” in various sub-components of the war? By sub-components, I’m referring to certain specific types of campaigns that were fought in certain specific theatres of WWII. In my first (and so far only) look at this concept, I deliberately ignored whether any of these campaigns are actually modeled into the existing OOB G40 game; instead, I took a big step back and tried to look at the history of WWII from an extremely broad perspective, so see if I could identify and isolate the most significant regional campaigns of the war.
In doing this analysis, I decided to exclude from consideration the earliest and latest phases of both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. In the early phases of both conflicts, Germany and Japan rolled over their opponents in a seemingly unstoppable way. In the late phases, both countries were being driven back relentlessly by the Allies. Both phases were relatively short and highly unbalanced, so in this sense they’re not good representations of the central period of the war when the global fight was at its height and its outcome was still an open question. So in my analysis, I excluded from the European side the period from the start of the war (September 1939) to the fall of France (June 1940), I excluded on the Pacific side the period from the start of the war (December 1941) to the fall of the Dutch East Indies (March 1942), and I excluded from both sides the period from June 1944 onward (which I picked because that’s when D-Day fundamentally changed the war in western Europe).
I was hoping that I’d end up with an equal number of campaign/theatre pairings for both the Europe and Pacific sides of the G40 map, and I was pleased that I was able to achieve this equal distribution without distorting the war too much – though I did have to be very selective about what to include and what to leave out. Here’s the list I eventually came up with:
EUROPE MAP
Eastern Europe
Western and Central Europe
The Atlantic and the North Sea
The Mediterranean
PACIFIC MAP
The Central Pacific
The Southern and Western Pacific
Southeast Asia
China
As I said, this isn’t a victory condition system because this list makes no connection at all with any of the A&A game mechanics. It’s simply something I’m tossing into the discussion in case it’s of any use for the development of an alternative (or supplement) to the current victory city model.
Great feedback!
First to the army base idea, its probably reasonable to assume that, anyone who is willing to mod the whole game, is probably willing to find a gamepiece marker that could represent this base, which would remove the need nix the minor factory.
Trying to change the OOB production profiles might just be more effort than its worth, but the adding of a new base unit is probably doable.
I mentioned the idea just as a jumping off point, and was trying to highlight the bases a bit, just because they are the unit (even moreso than Mech or TacBs) that makes the G40 game feel pretty distinct from its predecessors.
On the whole, I’m still not even sure that I like the OOB base units haha. But they certainly introduce another layer of complexity to the gameplay. At least from a PBEM/PBF standpoint, scrambling at Air Bases definitely stalls the exchange, but then again in a face to face game, the scramble can be fun hehe. I’ve often wondered how the OOB G40 map would play, if base units were just removed from the roster altogether? and if the map would even be fun to play without bases. I think the map could probably have been designed without base units and still be functional, but trying to remove ABs and NBs at this point would probably cut out the fun and run into serious resistance.
Adding a new “land base” unit of some sort seems like it could create some new interest for the game. In practical gameplay terms, I had conceived of the army base as a nerfed factory (a factory that produced only infantry) and didn’t do much beyond that. There are other ways though, that an army base might be conceived, ways a bit more like the other two base types Air/Naval.
One earlier idea that was discussed involved a land base conferring some movement advantage to infantry units (in the same way Air Bases or Naval Bases grant bonuses to units of those types.) The rail base was discussed as a possible concept here, though I had in mind something more abstract.
The more I was thinking about this idea, the more it seemed a bit too overpowered to allow infantry a movement bonus when moving “out of” a base territory, the way ships/air get one when moving out of a base. On the other hand the idea of a movement bonus “going to” the base somehow, instead of going out of it might be workable. It’s been described before like this…
Infantry units are spawned at factories (just just like every other combat unit), but once built could, in the following round, move directly from the Industrial Complex to any army base territory under the nation’s control, some set number of infantry units. Maybe 3? Air Bases can scramble 3 fighters, so perhaps 3 infantry units would seem reasonable. So in this sense the base is not spawning units per se, but allowing existing armies to move into position in a way that confers a movement bonus. The movement bonus for any individual infantry unit is basically only conferred in a one-way direction, from IC to Base. You can imagine it like the initial deployment, a sort of one time movement bonus for the units at the Industrial Complex. The army units get out of basic training, and received their deployment orders to base “such and such.” Only a limited number per base.
That was an idea I’ve heard proposed, strictly for infantry, but it would still be pretty useful. In fact it might be so useful, that it’d make sense only to allow a very limited number of infantry unit per base to move this way. Perhaps 3 inf is too many. Or perhaps cap the total number of infantry that can be moved from an IC in this way per turn (in the case of multiple base units across the whole map) to the value of the Industrial Complex territory?
I’m not sure how the introduction of such a unit would play out with Japan. Amusingly the word Tycoon, indelibly associated with railroads to western ears, is actually a Japanese word haha. But again my idea of the base was more generic than a rail hub. If an army base or two was already in place in Japanese occupied coastal China, perhaps it would mean fewer minor factory builds? Hard to say
Perhaps it’s just easier to keep the OOB roster, not worry right now about the land base concept and just focus on the units that already exist. Given that Japan spams minor factories all along the coast, I think the Allied starting unit balance needs to account for the mass mech build/air blitz strategy that Japan tends to adopt out of them.
For the Russians, if the smallest surface fleet that we can represent with a unit is the destroyer, then perhaps a destroyer in sz 127 and sz 5 would be nice? A starting battleship in sz 115 or sz 100 seems like it could probably be worked out.
Also great feedback on the major deep war campaigns of the mid war. Those are the campaigns I think we need to design the mechanics and gameplay incentives to emulate. If it was attached to the ultimate victory conditions, or at least the ultimate economic balance, I think that would be very helpful.
Of the campaigns mentioned I think the ones that could use the most help are probably, the Atlantic and North Sea, The Med, The Central Pacific, and the Southern and Western pacific. Somehow more incentives need to go into those areas (whether they are purely cash incentives, or bases, or if those campaigns are somehow involved in some broader ‘victory achievements’ scheme.)
Eastern Europe and Burma/Inda and China already have some strong incentives in play. The could be better I think, with some unit balance tweaking, but those areas are pretty much guaranteed to see action.
Central Europe bombing campaigns by the Anglo-Americans would depend I think on how advantageous our SBR mechanic is. Right now its rather difficult to wage a very effective bombing campaign against Germany, but perhaps if it involved some further bonuses. Like +X ipcs, if a Germany factory is max damaged, or something along those lines.
I’m pretty convinced that any victory scheme, whether it be based on Cities, or achievements, probably needs to have some kind of cash incentive/gameplay-driver in order to compete with the “Victory by Capital Capture” structure that most A&A games have adopted in the past. I know YG has experimented with a system that uses tokens for Victory in G40. In AA50 I used to play with rules that granted a cash bonus to capturing a VC.
Perhaps you could create some sort of hybrid system? I think as long as the Victory condition is something that was actually achievable by either side, this would help. The OOB conditions are not like that, it’s an Axis game to loose, and the Allied victory conditions are basically impossible within the timeframe of most games, or the patience of most players.
TripleA uses the 14 VCs threshold by default, but I think there most players still approach the game as if it were being played to concession (eg. focus on capitals first, and total VCs only after your capital goals are secured, or definitively thwarted haha)
Have recently been play-testing some modified G40 rules/National Objectives with players on TripleA. Mostly, the changes have been an attempt to correct the pro-Axis slant of the game, while also adding some historical interest.
By far the best change has been increasing fighter attack/defense in air-raids to 2.
Here are new national objectives.
1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.
2. Control of Mediterranean Shipping Lanes: Allied control of Sicily, Malta, Cyprus, and Crete gives UK +5 PUs.
3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas, Marshall Islands.
4. No Enemy-Subs in Atlantic: No enemy subs in the Atlantic (excluding szs 112 and 125-127) gives UK +5 PUs.
5. Revised Russian National Objectives
a. Spread of Communism: Bonus for Russian control of originally Axis/Pro-Axis territories is confined to mainland Europe (excluding Africa, Iraq, mid-east Islands, etc.).
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.
All of these NOs (along with the revised air-raid values for fighters) have been programmed into a playable TripleA saved game. If any y’all would be interested in play testing, shoot me a message.
My only comments so far relate to adding, subtracting or moving units on the board at the start of the game.
Just keep in mind, and I am sure it is pretty obvious, that each unit on the board represents more than just a single or a few units on a real-life scale. The Soviet cruiser and sub in SZ 115 represent, as of 1940/41, (2) modern cruisers, (2) older battleships, many destroyers and well over two dozen submarines.
Adding an extra fighter in China may not swing the balance of the game, but it may be a case of over-representation. The 1st AVG only had about 60 operational fighters at any one time. Supposedly that one fighter on the G40 board is equivalent to all 60 of those aircraft. While the Eastern US begins with only one fighter to represent even more than that.
So throwing another infantry in Canada for the Yellowknife Native Rifles or a battleship in Hawaii for “battleship row” may not be the best idea.
I am all for seeing more units on the board too; heck that is why I want a the largest practical board possible (whatever that may be…). But you really have to be careful and look at balanced increases around the map so as not to tip the scales. Best way IMO to increase the number of units is to give everyone more IPCs to spend. Well, not give, but increase territory values.
I’m pretty convinced that any victory scheme, whether it be based on Cities, or achievements, probably needs to have some kind of cash incentive/gameplay-driver in order to compete with the “Victory by Capital Capture” structure that most A&A games have adopted in the past. I know YG has experimented with a system that uses tokens for Victory in G40. In AA50 I used to play with rules that granted a cash bonus to capturing a VC.
Perhaps you could create some sort of hybrid system? I think as long as the Victory condition is something that was actually achievable by either side, this would help. The OOB conditions are not like that, it’s an Axis game to loose, and the Allied victory conditions are basically impossible within the timeframe of most games, or the patience of most players.
I’m still only thinking at a very broad conceptual level, but here’s a slightly more developed version of the idea I floated yesterday about an alternate victory condition system.
The system would revolve around the eight theatre/campaign pairings I described yesterday, or around some variation of it (for instance if it’s considered impractical to model the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign within the A&A game system). For purposes of convenience I’ll assume in this post that the eight-pairing concept is being used, but the ideas outlined below don’t depend on those particular pairings being used.
Each theatre/campaign pairing would have its own specific set of victory conditions. These conditions could vary in nature from one theatre/campaign pairing to the next. In one theatre, for example, the victory conditions might involve the capture of cities, while in another they might involve the kind of cash incentive that Black Elk mentioned, while in another they might involve economic factors (such as ship tonnage sunk or percentages of bombers shot down or percentages of factories destroyed). In a given theatre, the winning conditions might be identical for the Axis and the Allies (example: the need for either side to control x number of cities), or they might be reciprocal (the Allies trying to get as many cargo ships across the Atlantic safely as possible, and the Axis trying to sink as many of them as possible), or they might even be completely different in nature (provided that they’re fairly balanced).
The victory conditions would have to be easily quantifiable, regardless of their nature. All the players should be able to tell easily how close each side is to achieving its victory conditions in any given theatre. The concept of “how close” does not mean that players would be required to achieve total victory in any particular theatre; rather, what players would be required to achieve is a position of clear dominance in a particular theatre, based on criteria which are appropriate to the particular type of campaign being fought in that theatre. To put it in very abstract terms (for purposes of convenience), achieving a “position of clear dominance” (or PCD) in a particular theatre could be defined as “achieving 70% or more of the player’s objectives in that theatre.” For example, this could equate to controlling at least two-thirds of the islands in the Central Pacific, or controlling at least two out of three victory cities in a theatre, or depriving the opponent of at least two-thirds of his IPC income, or whatever. (I’m using 70% just as an example, but the figure could be different and it might even vary from theatre to theatre instead of being uniform.)
The system of individual theatre-based winning conditions would be attached to a system of game-winning conditions. This could potentially be something very simple such as (to pick some figures out of the air purely as examples): The Axis wins the game if it can achieve and maintain a position of clear dominance (PCD) in at least six of the game’s eight theatres for two back-to-back game rounds. The Allies win the game if they can [either do the same or fulfill a different set of game-winning conditions, depending on whether we want the two sides to have identical or different criteria for victory]. Different numbers could be used, depending on whether PCD scale is considered more important that PCD duration: let’s say, sustaining a PCD in seven theatres for one round, or in five theatres for three rounds, rather than in six theatres for two rounds.
I’m a big fan of regularkid’s national objectives; they sound promising. I also like the idea of a rail base or army base, although I think the rail base idea needs a little more work. It might make sense to have the rail base give infantry and artillery a movement bonus on non-combat – e.g., up to 3 ground units that start in the territory with the rail base can move up to 3 territories (instead of 1 territory) during non-combat, if and only if the rail base is operational. I don’t like the idea of having army bases cause infantry to be instantly transported, overseas, from factories to the front lines – it’s hard enough to get an effective naval blockade going in A&A without opponents having the option to build bases that magically ignore your submarines.
I agree with BlackElk that a major objective for the redesign has to be improving the ‘fun factor’ of France, China, and ANZAC while making the blitz-to-Moscow-with-mechanized infantry-and-planes less of a dominant/mandatory strategy for Japan. I’d also suggest that Italy’s experience needs to be made less variable – it’s not that Italy is overpowered or underpowered, but some games it sits around doing very little, and other games it takes over the bloody Southern Hemisphere. Often this has little to do with the Italian player’s choices; it’s just a matter of whether Germany wants to attack London and whether the USA wants to reinforce Africa.
So – how to do that? How can France, China, and ANZAC all be given extra strength while nerfing one of Japan’s best strategies and getting Italy to be more ‘average’, without turning the redesign into a hopelessly Allied-friendly map?
For starters, it’s not going to make sense to keep Japan away from Moscow by nerfing Japan – you can’t nerf Japan and buff three of the Allies and still have a balanced game. Instead, I suggest my trusty stand-by of making capitals less tasty: instead of wrecking your whole economy forever, losing a capital should be a noticeable but recoverable defeat. This might mean losing one turn of production, it might mean shifting to a backup capital, it might mean losing half your treasury – but it cannot and should not mean a total loss of your ability to deploy new units. This should free Japan to expand in a variety of directions as called for by the individual game situation, instead of always being drawn to Moscow like some kind of experimental supermagnet.
As far as regulating Italy, I suggest two plans: first, separate the Italian fleet from the British fleet a little bit, so that Britain can’t unilaterally decide that the fleets should wipe each other out on turn 1. Maybe put a blocking Italian destroyer in the way, or even give Italy a spot in the turn order before Britain and give Britain a blocking destroyer. A bit of naval brinksmanship is one thing, but considering how long the British and Italian fleets spent avoiding a direct engagement in the actual war (years), it’s both unfun and ahistorical to have a starting setup that strongly encourages sinking every dang boat in the Mediterranean on turn 1. Second, beef up South Africa – give it both a starting minor industrial complex and a starting garrison of 4-5 units. It’s one thing for Italy to build up some momentum and become a major player in and around the Mediterranean and Red Seas – that was its goal, and if all went well, it could have happened. It’s another thing to have Italy parading around Antarctica like some kind of global superpower. They didn’t have the population, the supply chain, or the ideology to make anything like that happen, and having a strong British base in South Africa should help flatten out the upper end of Italy’s curve without immediately stopping Italy from making early gains in North Africa.
As far as France, China, and ANZAC, I think most of the boost they need is just a chance to go before their respective Axis opponents. France should go before Germany, and China and ANZAC should go before Japan. I’d also support giving China a second fighter. It’s ahistorical, but it’s boring for China to be essentially limited to one weak attack per turn just because they only had 60 operational fighters, or whatever. It’s much more interesting for China to get two fighters and to have to choose between one strong attack or two weaker attacks per turn. That should get us 90% of the way there – we can tweak the national objectives. Finally, as I’ve written on other posts, France really needs a territory that it can use as a backup capital / factory site after Paris falls. It’s ridiculous to model France as an independent player and then lock France out of participating meaningfully in 90% of games after turn 1 or 2. The Free French are a fun, exciting, historical part of World War II, and we’ve gotta make some room for them. If we don’t put the French backup capital in Quebec because of concerns about historical accuracy, then it should go in the West Indies, French West Africa, or French Equatorial Africa. I don’t like the idea of the French backup capital being in London, because it undercuts the idea of the Free French as an independent player. As a disclaimer, neither me nor any of my close friends or family have any French ancestry – I could give two hoots about the French on a personal level, I just think that as a matter of good game design, having an independent French player demands having an independent French backup capital.
