G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@SS:

Have all Major Factory’s captured  down graded to Minors and then can be upgraded to Majors.
All Minor Factory’s captured or liberated are destroyed and removed.
So if Germany captures Paris they can upgrade factory to major but will cost more to fix then a minor.

@regularkid:

Would make it more difficult to maintain an Allied toe-hold in Normandy and would make Allied liberations of France even less common/strategically viable.

Liberated minors should not be destroyed, at least for that reason.
Maybe captured minors are considered fully damaged instead?
That way,  Normandy’s minor IC would still be there upon liberation.

@Black_Elk:

So if you’ve made it through 41 pages of this thread and are still hungry for G40 redesign ideas that might be classified as “radical”? Here’s another massive thread from a while back that contains many…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

The basic subjects explored there were, a Commonwealth Nation, a single UK economy, and a new production profile for the factory unit (with 3 tiers, Minor, Mid, and Major.)

Although now basically defunct (I don’t know that anyone is still playing), it’s another good example of a broad ranging redraft of G40, with lots of back and forth discussions.

To be fair,  I’m probably one of the most experienced play testers of Halifax rules and some of the Cliffside Bunker house rules are a result of the best of them. The medium IC is a simpler more effective unit than Halifax offered, and the separate UK Pacific nation is the most practical of all Halifax options. By removing the sticky, I didn’t mean to disrespect any of those that helped develop Halifax rules mainly KNP and Black Elk along with myself who came up with most of it, and I wouldn’t be speaking in such absolutes if I didn’t play test all of them vigorously. That said, despite the initial popularity of the “ideas” (+24 votes) I feel that the ideas never translated into actual game play from the community, and traffic on that thread had pretty much stopped for over half a year. With the G40 redesign and now the Cliffside bunker rules on the sticky board, I felt that the Halifax thread had to fall in order to clean up the house rule forum stickies. As primary designers of Halifax rules, I’m happy to name Black Elk and KNP as contributors to the Cliffside Bunker rules due to their work on Halifax which was an inspiration for many of my rules both directly and indirectly.

For my part, I’m eager to test Convoy Raiding rules for 1941 and 1942.2 develop along this thread.
And I’m still a fan of incremental cost of 3 for warships going mostly by 5 (sweetspot for Sub), DD 6, Cruiser 9, Carrier 12, Battleship 15.
Or  1.5 IPCs per combat points.
It feels easier on mind calculator playing game board to add or substract an Infantry cost to try some options during purchase phase.

Seems the direction taken by 1914, Sub 6, Cruiser 9 and Battleship 12. Fighter cost 6.

Instead of usual 2 IPCs per combat point:
Sub A2 D1, 3 pts2= 6 IPCs
DD A2 D2, 4 pts2= 8 IPCs
CA A3 D3, 6 pts*2= 12 IPCs.

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

So if you’ve made it through 41 pages of this thread and are still hungry for G40 redesign ideas that might be classified as “radical”? Here’s another massive thread from a while back that contains many…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

The basic subjects explored there were, a Commonwealth Nation, a single UK economy, and a new production profile for the factory unit (with 3 tiers, Minor, Mid, and Major.)

Although now basically defunct (I don’t know that anyone is still playing), it’s another good example of a broad ranging redraft of G40, with lots of back and forth discussions.

To be fair,  I’m probably one of the most experienced play testers of Halifax rules and some of the Cliffside Bunker house rules are a result of the best of them. The medium IC is a simpler more effective unit than Halifax offered, and the separate UK Pacific nation is the most practical of all Halifax options. By removing the sticky, I didn’t mean to disrespect any of those that helped develop Halifax rules mainly KNP and Black Elk along with myself who came up with most of it, and I wouldn’t be speaking in such absolutes if I didn’t play test all of them vigorously. That said, despite the initial popularity of the “ideas” (+24 votes) I feel that the ideas never translated into actual game play from the community, and traffic on that thread had pretty much stopped for over half a year. With the G40 redesign and now the Cliffside bunker rules on the sticky board, I felt that the Halifax thread had to fall in order to clean up the house rule forum stickies. As primary designers of Halifax rules, I’m happy to name Black Elk and KNP as contributors to the Cliffside Bunker rules due to their work on Halifax which was an inspiration for many of my rules both directly and indirectly.

Halifax should stay stickied.
Houserule is a mess and that one thread received a lot of attention.
Maybe the last post can be a few comments on what you dislike and like to other thread which you develop upon this one.
It let people decide if they want to try this version or a more recent blend you created.

Also, the searchmode on AA.ORG is not a very helpful now (so it is not easy to find Halifax): the format of answers are now messed up with the active thread on the page. It is hard to filter what is the answer and what is on the background page. This issue doesn’t seem to be fixed since the adjustment for cellphone around a year and half ago. Also, often it gives a degraded page without all the color and usual visual of posts on the thread.

It’s back.

@Black_Elk:

Among the major goals I still have…

A game with more variation in the starting conditions, ie. Variable starting unit placement, variable starting income, position in the turn order sequence, optional start dates etc.

Any preliminary ideas on how this could be accomplished? Obviously, you could have multiple time-based start configurations (e.g. 1939, 1940, 1941). Or maybe limited unit placement transfers based on a die roll? Like “Bomber in Eastern US moves to Hawaii with roll of 4-6.” That is pretty limited though and doesn’t give the player much real choice in the matter.

I think I mentioned that I tried something once where I totaled the IPC value of all starting pieces for each nation (A&A Revised) and essentially wiped the board and gave each total amount to the specific power for them to spend as they desired to populate the board at game start. Now that I look back on it, I can see how ridiculous this is and may be the furthest extreme of what you are suggesting. Not recommended.

Semi-related would be an in-game kind of variation using scenario cards. If you remember back to the event/fortune/tactics cards in A&A D-Day, there were cards which affected that turn in a certain way. The way I am envisioning for Global would relate more to weather. Besides the element of surprise, weather is perhaps the least represented variable in gameplay. Given the scale of the Global game, you can argue if involving Weather is somehow too detailed, but I believe that it could certainly be applied.

My vision for a deck of Weather/Fortune cards would be that either one would be drawn per Game Turn or each player could draw one during their Power’s turn. Length of effect of said weather could be variable from an entire Game Turn down to a given Power’s turn. Weather events would be specific and localized with certain restrictions or effects on movement/combat in those areas. For example:

• “South Pacific Typhoon: Ship movement reduced to 1 sea zone for all zones surrounding the Philippine Islands - no amphibious landings permitted.”

• “Low Pressure Zone - North-Central Europe: Low cloud ceilings and poor visibility over Belgium, Western Germany, Netherlands, Finland and Sea Zone X. Aircraft grounded. May not attack or defend.”

• “Winter Blizzard - Western Russia: In territories X, X, X, X, X, Mechanized vehicles and tanks can only move 1 space. Axis infantry defend on 1 this turn.”

• “Sand Storm - Northern Africa: In territories X, X, X, X, mechanized vehicles and tanks can only move 1 space. Fighters attack reduced to @2.”

• “Rough Seas - Northern Atlantic: Amphibious landings on mainland Europe Atlantic coast must do so without naval gunfire support and infantry involved in attack receive no artillery bonus.”

Nothing too crazy, just something to make the game more tactically interesting and a bit more dynamic. Weather scenarios would be based on historical events in the war. My goal would be to generally NOT prohibit players from using their units in weather related situations, but reduce effectiveness so that it makes the player weigh the benefits of making certain moves now, with poorer odds or waiting for a more favorable time.

@Black_Elk:

A game that doesn’t involve so many nation-specific or one off rules, that need to be memorized.

More money introduced through universal objectives, as opposed to just national ones.

Both of these seem to go together. I like this because it simplifies and standardizes things. Deserves more thought, though I believe YG and others have touched on this in the past.

@Black_Elk:

A convoy system that creates a naval economy that is more independent/separate from the land economy (ie. One that focuses on giving value to sea lanes, beyond just those adjacent to land territory tiles.) as way to make the naval game more dynamic.

I do like this one. It becomes more of a revision to the convoy system than something completely new and separate. It would make the ocean supply game so much more significant.

@Black_Elk:

A unit roster where every unit has a unique function, with a specific place in the game and a price point that matches their usefullness.

I like this idea too. I am still for adding a couple pieces to the game and revising abilities, bonuses and costs.

About deck cards and weather, you dont need 52 elements.
There is all kind  of combinations.
4 kinds
2 colors
1 to  10 numbers
3 figures
2 jokers.
All this can be use as whole or partially (smaller deck) to make any play tests if you have a table which describe  the event of a given cards.

@Black_Elk:

Great ideas Lhoffman. I know you’re not alone in wishing that the game had some way of involving weather in the game. Even Revised had a National Advantage for the Russian winter. I’ve heard of a couple approaches one might consider. The first was to divide the game into alternating seasons, Summer and Winter, and then depending on which season certain territories, that might face particularly severe conditions during that season, provide certain special effects for units housed therein.

Russian Winter and the D-Day cards were definitely the genesis of the idea.

I like the two seasons method in that it could be made pretty consistent, therefore more conducive to scientific balance than the randomness of drawing cards. Some people who play are more the league competition type and for them the whole game is about numbers and being on somehting of an equal footing. The only element of chance they are okay with in the game is die rolls… and even then they try to mitigate that using LL Dice or something. So these kinda mods aren’t really for them anyway I guess. Nevermind that I brought that up.

@Black_Elk:

Or a more nuanced system a bit like the one you described above, was to have a roll at the beginning of the turn, the outcome of which might result in severe weather conditions for that turn.

Using a deck would be another way. In that case I think my ideal would be to create a 52 card deck, where each numbered card (or number/suit) provided a different event, some of which could involve weather. There has been some discussion of random events in the past, so might be worth seriously considering a system like that.

The idea of using a standard 52 card deck, for various purposes in G40 is something that I think has a lot of potential. The advantage of using a standard deck, as opposed to a custom one, is that pretty much anyone could acquire one. The challenge is that you’d have to create a chart that describes what each normal value card represents for the game. I know I have a thread somewhere but the search function is failing me at the moment. Alas

Playtesting with a 52-card deck would be fine for standardization purposes, but as you said, you will still have to write down what each card means and how it is implemented. Ultimately, if a ruleset were accepted for Weather cards, you would probably want to create a custom deck and then make it available for everyone via Artscow or pdf download to print at home. At least, that is what I would do.

Ultimately, I do want to finalize some of my own ideas and share them with others for them to incorporate in their own games as they see fit. I very much enjoy the collaboration that a community project brings, but as many people find out (even HBG), there is a seemingly never-ending list of revisions over time when a group of people is involved. As we can all see, A&A has evolved over the years too and can still use revisions in its current form, but that doesn’t mean it is unplayable or unenjoyable with a few imperfections. The trouble with a House Rule set is that (unless it were to become universally popular) it will never be “official” and therefore the real need for a clear line of being done simply doesn’t exist.

Just the nature of the game I guess. Though I think we all find the process a lot of fun or we wouldn’t do it.

The trouble with a House Rule set is that (unless it were to become universally popular) it will never be “official” and therefore the real need for a clear line of being done simply doesn’t exist.

If I have a wish it is about Fg firing at planes.
I tried a few different things and the most interesting IMO is still
Fighter
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 4
Cost 6 or 7
All hits are allocated to planes first, then AAA. After that, casualty is as usual.

Combined with 3 planes Carrier, it is working well when I tried it.

That all I can say.
Everything else depends on the attractivity of the idea and the authority of the poster.
I hoped that it gains some general interest in expectation it can be part of something in A&A rules and game mechanics.
And big changes are more subject to controversy, hence more difficult to get any widespread agreement.
So, it seems that universal approval between players on A&A games can be on minor points, or because it is coming from Larry or Wizard of the Coast official endorsment.
So any real overhaul of rules or board map is doomed at the start.

What can be another criteria to adopt what can be (or hope to be) seen as improvement then?

“The trouble with a House Rule set is that (unless it were to become universally popular) it will never be “official” and therefore the real need for a clear line of being done simply doesn’t exist.”

A community-developed game mod (i prefer the term “mod” to “house rule” which is so parochial sounding and, thus, a bit self-defeating) can absolutely again enough support among players to make an “official” blessing from the original game creator irrelevant. It happens all the time in computer gaming. And, I believe, it is happening in G40.

@regularkid:

“The trouble with a House Rule set is that (unless it were to become universally popular) it will never be “official” and therefore the real need for a clear line of being done simply doesn’t exist.”

A community-developed game mod (i prefer the term “mod” to “house rule” which is so parochial sounding and, thus, a bit self-defeating) can absolutely again enough support among players to make an “official” blessing from the original game creator irrelevant. It happens all the time in computer gaming. And, I believe, it is happening in G40.

Unless you are a Wizard of the Code (and this can be an additional criteria because you provide a rule with the way to try it), major changes can be hard to implement. (Example: a different Convoy Mechanic.)
But you are right, computer game allows much more play-tests with a wide variety of players.

It can get general interest more easily, hence universality criteria.
But who would have introduced TcB or new AAA?
There is a point where game developer status is the only way to get a change.

@regularkid:

A community-developed game mod (i prefer the term “mod” to “house rule” which is so parochial sounding and, thus, a bit self-defeating) can absolutely again enough support among players to make an “official” blessing from the original game creator irrelevant. It happens all the time in computer gaming. And, I believe, it is happening in G40.

I agree with Baron here. There are material and, I believe, psychological differences between modding a board game that has been around since the 1980s and a computer game that has been around for maybe 15 years or less. The material nature is such that A&A is a physical game that most people play on their tables with other people. Computer games (including TripleA) are extremely malleable in that a few keystrokes in the code can seamlessly alter how the game is presented or played. And that can be done for everyone around the world essentially simultaneously. You cannot do that with a board game, nor with the longstanding rules that have been in people’s minds for years. This applies particularly to people who aren’t here on the forums, aren’t on the cutting edge of game advancements with TripleA or HBG’s Global War. That doesn’t mean just old dudes, but even young people who simply aren’t exposed to it.

In the fluid digital realm of TripleA, changes happen all the time and a given mod can generate a lot of players and even gain acceptance as “the best version” to play. But that version is still one among a multitude of other versions available and is generally confined to the relatively small community of TripleA players.

Even if a game mod or particular mechanic is good and popular, official blessing from the creator isn’t totally irrelevant, but it also isn’t necessary. Actually, when I posted what I did above I was less concerned with the mod becoming official and more intended to convey that unless it were to become a canon rule, or overwhelmingly accepted by the community, there would be no impetus for an endpoint. Or to stop the further development. Being deemed “official” is the best way for that to happen, but unless it were a truly golden single idea, I don’t see Larry or WotC making a lot of tinkering changes with game mechanics, even if they are wholesale improvements over existing. If it isn’t going to impact the $ figure on sales in a positive fashion, why do it?

Ultimately, the point was that it would be great for some of these ideas to get to the point of being fully developed and set in stone, as it were.

Marc posted this somewhere else regarding works of art and I think it applies to game mods too:

“A work of art is never truly finished, only abandoned.” - Michaelangelo

I like the idea of a master thread for House Rules. A difficult undertaking for whoever wanted to compile them (you Black_Elk?)

Ideally, I would think you want to limit the postings strictly to House Rule listings, descriptions and relevant background info. Commentary and discussions could derail the purpose of the thread and really muck it up with a lot of fluff. The point would be for it to be a rule thread not a development thread, correct?

The problem is how can you really organize it or categorize the rules? You are limited to a very linear progression of posts on a forum thread. So unless you intended to keep re-editing the first post with a giant list, the best way to compile a categorized list may be to put all the data in a Word or Excel file and provide a link to the constantly updated version. You could then be the sole organizer of the list and people could submit their HRs to you via the thread.

Just some ideas. Based on the volume of popular and obscure house rules, you have a tall task ahead.

What you wanna do is create a thread and lock it, over time you cut and paste ideas like a house rule scrap book. A trick is to make 50+ posts all at once from yourself and than lock it, that way when you wanna make a post… you just modify one you have so the thread gets buried while you’re editing it. when it’s big enough it can be stickied, just make sure to lock it when you’re done.

Just my 2 cents.
I know there is a few threads about topics on zero IPCs TTs and way to increase action in Pacific TO.

Maybe a way to stay motivate in diggin House Rule forum can be to follow 1 small rabbit hole at a time and on subject you want to think about.
Sometimes, small topic can help stay focus.
A single thread with multiple posts, and 1 post per topic with full of links to actual thread on a specific subject can be cool.