G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Can you explain again why the Warchest is collective for both the Axis and the Allies, and why they get to distribute as they want? As opposed to each country getting the bonus $ for the VCs it controls by itself?

I like more VCs and more money in circulation because of them, means we get to buy more stuff.  :evil:

However, if both sides can choose to dump all their bonus VC cash into one power, I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that it will just heighten the Germany-USSR clash. Germany is easily the most vulnerable and important of the Axis and can always use more cash. Pretty much the same can be said of the USSR. And if one side chooses to dump in either of those areas, the other side is almost certainly going to have to follow suit, or otherwise risk being outbuilt and overmatched.

I think ^ situation is only exacerbated if VCs are worth more than $1 each. Not saying that more than $1 per is bad itself, the distribution of the total is the problem.

@Black_Elk:

Well just seemed like it would provide some degree of strategic flexibility, where you could pool resources to stretch the value of the ipcs.

If it’s overpowered, you could put a ceiling on the total amount that any one nation could receive from the warchest.

I liked the idea, because it made coordination between teammates more of a once a round type decision, instead of an every turn type decision. (Avoiding somewhat of the more extreme versions of the latter, where one teammate is pleading with his teammates to send fighters or hitpoints etc, because they’re getting beat up on, and the game starts dragging into team arguments. Here you’d have a way to give that guy some direct economic aid, and then let them decide how to use it for their needs.

I think the concern that it all just gets dumped into the same place every game (German/Soviet front) is legitimate. But if you capped the total aid that could be recived, maybe you could get around that problem, while still providing the same essential economic coordination flavor to the gameplay?

I think a cap of some sort would be beneficial to prevent the overpower aspect. The question is what kind of cap; percentage, set dollar amount (would be hard to do), even split not counting remainders, minimums that need to be given to certain countries… In any event it is a little more complicated that simply you get what you own, because calculations will need to be made or ratios remembered.

I personally have never seen an issue with cooperation among sides during gameplay. It would be nice to limit that strategic conferencing to once a round rather than letting the deliberation occur on every person’s turn. Warchest may actually just end up adding an economic round of strategizing as opposed to removing some of the tactical nature (sending fighters here or ships there). The way the game is set up now, if the USSR is in danger and I can send my UK fighters over to help, I am definitely going to do so whether USSR asks for it or not. So for me, it wouldn’t eliminate that aspect of the game. After all, it is group survival… It’s bad for the UK if the USSR is struggling, or vice versa. Means Germany is winning.

All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.

Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.

@LHoffman:

All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.

Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.

Here is general guidelines I tried to answer or aim at with 1942.2
It needs to put Victory conditions by theatre in perspective too. How many is needed to win?

Is it possible both theaters have same or similar number of Axis owned VCs while Allies can have way more.
Assuming Axis will capture some fast.

Is it possible there an all Axis collective number of ICs from both theaters which can be provide Victory condition?

Based on what I try with 1942.2, you have to find the number of VCs required in PTO for Japan to win.
This number will determine what kind of expansion/growth Japan need to get.
Then, you have to look at how many inland Asia and ETO are within Japan grasp and make sure it is not enough in itself to gain Victory. That way, Japan would have to conquer some other VCs in Pacific (like Honolulu, Wellington, Victoria, Sydney, Singapore, Manila, Shanghai, Vladivostok, etc.) to reach a winning turning point somehow.
Not always, San Francisco or Calcutta have to be the missing VCs to win war.

@Black_Elk:

With other possible HRs in effect, wouldn’t it be easier to just pick the VCs and then design the Japanese economy (via NAP etc) to figure out how Japan can expand best for those VCs in the PTO?

If the VCs will determine victory mechanics, then they’re really the most important single element being introduced.

In the draft above there are 14 total VCs, on the Pacific side of the map.

Africa/Mid East/Southern Russia/S. America have 7 more somewhat nearby on the Europe side (excluding the Russian capital), that could conceivably be contested by Japan, in a game where are they pushing hard.

Europe still has the majority of VCs at 22, but these are basically distributed in a way that they could change hands more often. With the main hotspots in North Africa, Med/Mid East, and Europe proper. In this last, West Europe, Balkans and Scandinavia also make for a somewhat more alluring prize in opening a second front.

I don’t know, feels pretty clean to me at a glance. Not too overwhelming, but still stitches the map together in an interesting way for the Warchest.

so, if there is 14 VCs in PTOs, if Japan can get hands on 11 VCs (So you don’t need to capture India, San Francisco and Victoria, or India, Sydney and Wellington or San Francisco, Honolulu and Victoria, etc.), it will be a win.

Do you think 11 VCs can be the new Victory conditions in PTO? Or 10 VCs is more reasonable?

P.S. I rather prefer Victoria because it provides another target in PTO than FreeTown or Edimburg.

@Black_Elk:

Not sure, the 36 VC crystal ball is still glowing too brightly for me to see it all play out.
:-D

But it would certainly be cool, if split victory conditions by map side (in a one sided game where Allies go mainly Europe) then Japan takes 10/11 for the win, or right in that range on the Pac side. It would be fun because they could basically choose from a few different attack patterns to get at what they need.

Overall the promise of a possible 18/18 split globally seems like it would be cool, offers some interesting purchase potential, if the two teams ever managed to fight each other into an even standing, just splitting the 36 right down the middle at some point in the Mid-Game haha. Seems not entirely unlikely, given that we introduce 17 more VCs on the map altogether this way.

Why so many?
Too much reduces there individual worth.
14 PTO vs 16 ETO, for example is also a way to make both Theaters VCs balanced and worthy by side.
I’m not trying to dictate specific numbers but assuming a given number of VCs give more money and eventually victory to Axis, it seems that Japan gains (which are more difficult due to a lot of amphibious landing ops) might convey at least the same importance.

If it is about a high warchest, it can still be 24 VCs with 2 IPCs per VCs, for a 4 IPCs swing each time.
So 48 IPCs would be total IPCs to split. Or 30 VCs for 60 IPCs to split.

Also, I rather prefer to give more VCs to Allies at the beginning. Let Axis fight for them.

On that point, I always see it as each VCs IPCs belongs to owner but he can share it according to his will. So, there will be no confusion about who get what. You give your own Warchest to other powers, only if you want.

12 IPCs CAP might be better (4 Infs or 3 Arts or 2 Tanks, etc.) to rethink purchase faster.

24 and 36 have a more numerologically appealing look to the them, just on a superficial level at a glance. It’s the kind of thing that maybe Sargon’s scribes would have approved of hehe. Better than a straight doubling of the OOB numbers to 26, or 38 anyway. And I like that 24 and 36 play off of that original Dozen VCs introduced in Revised.

Especially if all this was all supported by a warchest mechanic that relates the VC’s to the purchasing gameplay, in a fun way at the end of each game round.

On numbers, I can say that 18, 24, 30, 36 are more interesting because they are even numbers which can be divided by 3.

Since, it is harder to find important targets in PTO, I believe 12 or 14 VCs, are about the maximum numbers you can get.

So, is it possible to downsize ETO, still focusing on what kind of strategic pattern make for interesting play for both Italy and Germany.
Africa needs a few VCs, Europe still but Moscow is a great magnet anyway. You don’t need that much milestones along the Eastern front.
Does Germany have to fight to keep Scandinavian assets?
And Middle East should be a bit more interesting (Irak?) for trying to figure Oil Fields resources.

Also, there is NOs which can adds a lot of IPCs too.
This may be a few ideas to downsize ETO VCs candidates.

@Black_Elk:

I think the added VCs would end up reinforcing each other. And create victory pockets in every region of interest.

**With 36 you can basically give each player nation an extra VC.

It’s not so much about the warchest bonus, as it is in creating a more layered representation around the globe. I think the warchest could be adapted to fit the number of VCs.

To me it just seems easier to accept a VC like Wellington or Cape Town, if you already have more of the actual battleground cities represented.** Instead of just picking somewhat arbitrarily (or with less regard to the historical battlegrounds) for the purposes of trying to give the Pacific side equal weight, at 36 I was thinking that you basically have all the major cities one could ask for.

Seemed to me that the OOB games were always erring on the side of fewer VCs rather than more, and it always felt nerfed. Why not just tip it in the other direction, and put these VCs in all the active theaters.

If you think of a region like South East Asia, or the Balkans, North Africa or Scandinavia, South Pacific etc, they each have a nice little VC pocket of connected territories. So it’s not like you have to fight across half a continent to get to the next VC. Instead they are traded more regularly. Around various choke points. To me it doesn’t seem like any single VC loses out on significance, just that they become more part of a regional picture rather than towering solo territories that are too few and far between. Which is how they’ve felt to me in most games.

I guess 30 would be better than 24 would be better than 18. I’ll push high.
:-D

You can reign me in, but I just went with the number that seemed to pop out at me for the visual appeal. Some areas in Europe might seem more crowded with VCs, but those are also regions where the Allies can fight along the coast, and trade VCs with Axis, without always having to do massive D Day style landings to stay competitive, since there are just more targets on offer in a given round.

What is you top choice for G40?

Ok, if it is not about warchest.
I’m not against 36 VCs 14 PTO and 22 ATO.
I just feel it was a lot to manage and keep focused on.

Probably have to watch what impact have the Allies end of round over collecting IPCs for VCs.
This will first benefit them, as most heavier Axis are first in round order.
Allies would have room to react to such capture.

@Black_Elk:

What I was thinking here is that anywhere you might go to contest a VC, there would be one or two more VCs right nearby, to create more of a back and forth incentive. Each new VCs kind of balances off an existing one, or pulls another VC into its gravity to support it. These pairings just kind of show how a VC might connect to one nearby on a given round.

1 Berlin/Oslo
2 London/Antwerp
3 Stalingrad/Bucharest
4 Rome/Tripoli
5 Paris/Algeria
6 Cairo/Cape Town
7 Shanghai/Chonqing
8 Calcutta/Bangkok
9 Sydney/Singapore
10 San Francisco/Victoria
11 Tokyo/Vladivostok
12 Honolulu/Wellington
13 Washington/Rio
14 Hong Kong/Manila
15 Warsaw/Helsinki
16 Moscow/Ottawa
17 Belgrade/Sofia
18 Athens/Baghdad

So you’d have some way to trade, or strike back, or counter balance within the VC spread on a round by round basis. Instead of just climactic build ups to stack slayings on the VC territory, trading could be more regular within a given region.

Or instead of pairs, you can think of them as forming little triangles of VC doom hehe.

I don’t know, maybe its overkill. But usually on the OOB maps, people gripe about there being “two few VCs” for such and such a map. At least here you could totally duck that potential complaint. It’s got pretty much every VC one could wish for, unless I left out something glaring.
:-D

Far better order.
16 Moscow/Ottawa should be 16 Moscow/Leningrad
Ottawa is also within Washington sphere of influence.
But from Commonwealth POV: 2 London/Antwerp Ottawa is a better match.

Allies 12 PTO VCs:
1 Berlin/Oslo
2 London/Antwerp
3 Stalingrad/Bucharest
4 Rome/Tripoli
5 Paris/Algeria
6 Cairo/Cape Town
7 Shanghai/Chonqing
8 Calcutta/Bangkok
9 Sydney/Singapore
10 San Francisco/Victoria
11 Tokyo/Vladivostok
12 Honolulu/Wellington
13 Washington/Rio
14 Hong Kong/Manila
15 Warsaw/Helsinki
16 Moscow/Ottawa
17 Belgrade/Sofia
18 Athens/Baghdad

Allies 12 ETO VCs
1 Berlin/Oslo
2 London/Antwerp Leningrad
3 Stalingrad/Bucharest
4 Rome/Tripoli
5 Paris/Algeria
6 Cairo/Cape Town
7 Shanghai/Chonqing
8 Calcutta/Bangkok
9 Sydney/Singapore
10 San Francisco/Victoria
11 Tokyo/Vladivostok
12 Honolulu/Wellington
13 Washington/Rio
14 Hong Kong/Manila
15 Warsaw/Helsinki
16 Moscow/Ottawa
17 Belgrade/Sofia
18 Athens/Baghdad

AXIS ETO VCs
1 Berlin/Oslo
2 London/Antwerp
3 Stalingrad/Bucharest
4 Rome/Tripoli
5 Paris/Algeria
6 Cairo/Cape Town
7 Shanghai/Chonqing
8 Calcutta/Bangkok
9 Sydney/Singapore
10 San Francisco/Victoria
11 Tokyo/Vladivostok
12 Honolulu/Wellington
13 Washington/Rio
14 Hong Kong/Manila
15 Warsaw/Helsinki
16 Moscow/Ottawa
17 Belgrade/Sofia
18 Athens/Baghdad

I think Black Elk’s list of 36 VCs is good. I’m not in love with Sofia – if Belgrade, Athens, and Bucharest don’t motivate you to open a Balkans campaign, then I don’t think a 4th Balkan VC will help – and I agree w/ Baron Munchhausen that one more Pacific Ocean VC would be useful.

Truk?
Mexico City?
Anchorage?
Santiago?
Buenos Aires?
Batavia??
Chelyabinsk???

I support Victoria over Edinburgh, and I favor at least 11 Pacific VCs for a solo win. If Allies have Calcutta, ChongQing, Honolulu, San Francisco, Victoria plus one more Pacific VC, then no solo win.  If Allies are pushed off of entire Asian coast and entire Pacific Ocean and all of ANZAC with no toe hold between Hawaii and India, then Japan should win.