G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@barney:

2 xmls is np. I’ll go ahead and finish up SF Rules. Won’t take long. Is no big deal to change either.

OK SFR is ready to Rock. I’ll go ahead and bust out Philly too. No big deal if the plan changes.

I don’t believe it.
It will come to fruition.
Thank you very, very much.

Stars were aligned for this new born San Francisco !
:wink: :-) :-) :wink:

Ok Philly ( or Tesla for ease of testing ) has joined the Party ! Take a bit to get the objectives and DL.

Forgot about the game notes. Be tomorrow before it’s ready.

Peace Out

And San Francisco rules may introduce Philadelphia.
The simpler more familiar leads to the wider game changer.

Easier to give a try to a game with a few HRs, it allows to test things and compare from known experience.
If you like, no, enjoy it, then the other might appeal.
PhiExp is an experimental cost structure which may reveal more bugs than the other which is more an historical enhanced feel of Subwarfare and economical warfare.
Still M3 TP and Cruiser may be a boon or a bane. We don’t know.

Probably one thing that will need a correction is about Sub Stealth move.
It might require to allow DDs to block it somehow.
Good news is that players may enforce it in CM or NCM, and different ratios can be try.
IMO, a 1:1 blocking is an option to play-test.

I imagine a huge pack of Subs roaming and unwilling to engage.
Can be hard to stop with a few Depth Charges @1.
Maybe it might need also two attacks per DDs. IDK.
How AAA phase treat such double roll? 1 roll per target max or as a reg attack each rolls important?
Ex. 2 DD vs 2 Subs, 2 @1 rolls or 4 @1 rolls?

@Black_Elk:

because when you get right down to it pretty much everyone loves buying ships, and the units here are more affordable.

Amen brother. Nothing else is so satisfying.

I agree.
Good plan.
It allows to observe a lot of basic points without going crazy with Subs.
IDK where will lead us SFEx and PEx.
I truly hope one or the other will work great.
It is a cautious approach with baby steps.
I like this.
I new Subs are complex matters, I played 5 different interactions along my whole life.

I will need help to learn how to load all xml files and play by  Forum, to eventually play-test all these features.  :-D :-D

@Barney and @Black Elk, did you sleep, last night?
:-D :-D :-D

I think that the map would benefit from significant adjustment in certain locations. Historical Board Gaming’s 1939 map probably gets closest to the territorial distribution I consider ideal.

Consider giving the French an increased presence in Indochina, which should be divided into a northern Tonkin and a southern Cochinchina. Add two infantry and a cruiser. Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Cut off the bottom of Shan state to create the Kra Isthmus. Expand Indochina in size to allow for the two French territories while preserving Siam.

Enlarge the Philippines so that it is bisected by a pair of sea zones. Consider dividing the Dutch East Indies into smaller districts. Add a neutral cruiser that joins the Allies if an Axis ship enters coastal waters.

Include a Russian destroyer and submarine in the Pacific, along with one tank in Buryatia.

Add a French battleship in SZ92. Swap the French battleship in SZ93 for a cruiser.

Add cities to the map, including Singapore, Tobruk (which eponymous territory should be renamed Cyrenaica), and Vladivostok. Divide Amur into two territories (not inclusive of Vladivostok).

Are you sure you answered in the appropriate thread?

Black Elk

Have you or anybody else that you know of tried to play the G40 tabletop game using the D12 system ? Maybe Triple A ?

What’s funny is I do have room and pieces to setup a G40 game and test D12 (if 1 or 2 guys wanted to try testing ) but I would be strapped for time.
Other is also I only have played 1 G40 game.

And it allows to share a common bases for talking pros and cons of HRs.
Allows people playing via Forum to create an history and archives which may be useful when talking balancing set-up.
And if a lot of player like, for instance, AA Cruiser and Battleship, it can be possible to tweak some initial set-up SZ in G40 which radically change the TUV swing because there is many BBs and Cruisers in same SZ.

Also, it is also possible to create almost my HRs which SS is working on and testing with the optimized air  intensive combat (Fg A2 D2 C7 same SBR, TcB A3 D2 C8 A1 D0 SBR, StB A0 D0 C5 A1 SBR, AAA rolling each combat round, CV A0 D3 C16, 2 hits, carry 3 planes).
So, if it becomes popular, some benevolent hard coders may try to introduce Fg hitting planes first and TcB targeting Tank first, then other units.

This opens a lot of possibilities.
If some optional variants grabs more attention it helps knowing what can be bring into a map review which may integrate no zero IPCs TTy, no amphibious landing on Berlin and other special.

However, it is like Alice following in rabbit hole.
Once entered in Wonderland, hard to return to OOB unified reality.
All players will like different things and might be still impossible to find a most recommended “one” like first we were heading by comparing SFExp vs PhiExp.

Not so tragic knowing Redesign will be a real newborn A&A game, which get somehow a life on its own.

If anyone is working the zero-IPCs case Islands this post from CWO Marc provide an interesting historical background start-up:

I have to put this post in it because it is also related to the actual topic:
@CWO:

Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers.

The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

@CWO:

As promised, here’s a summary of the information I was able to find about the zero-IPC islands on the Pacific 1940 map.  The sources I consulted weren’t as detailed as I’d hoped, so the summaries below are basically an estimate of what the general situation was for each island group.  Some of these assessments could be off the mark, so if anyone has access to better data please feel free to correct whatever errors exist or to provide supplementary information.

Aleutian Islands
Important naval base(s)? No, just a US naval station (pre-war and onward) at Dutch Harbor whose facilities were very limited.
Important air base(s)? To some degree.  Several US forward airbases were established (pre-war and onward), with larger bases like Elmendorf in Alaska proper.  The Aleutians have very poor flying weather.

Caroline Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Truk was a major Japanese naval base, pre-war and onward.  The Japanese did not make significant use of Ulithi Atoll, but after the American capture of the Carolines the US developed Ulithi into a major forward naval base that was used in the last year of WWII.  
Important air base(s)?  Yes, as an adjunct to the naval bases.

Dutch New Guinea
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.   Hollandia had a good anchorage which both the Japanese and (from 1944 onward) the US used to some extent, but its facilities were minimal.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  Various airfields were built by the Japanese after their occupation began, and were used by the US from 1944 onward.  There was an airstrip at Hollandia.

Fiji
Important naval base(s)?  No, but there was a good harbour at Suva.  
Important air base(s)?  No, just a UK wartime airstrip built after 1941.

Note: The Ellice Islands, geographically located about halfway between Fiji and the Gilbert Islands but not appearing on the Pacific 1940 map, were used as naval and air bases by the US in WWII.  In particular, there seems to have been an important airbase on Funafuti Atoll.

Gilbert Islands
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Port facilities at Tarawa were almost nonexistent.  
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  An airstrip was built by the Japanese on Tarawa in 1942; it was taken over by the US in late 1943.  The nearby Phoenix Islands, under joint US/UK control, had a number of airstrips established on them during WWII, for instance on Enderbury Island and Canton Island.

Guam
Important naval base(s)?  No.  At the beginning of WWII it only had a small harbour with few facilities, though there were some good anchorages here and there, notably at Apra.  Captured by Japan in December 1941; recaptured by the US in August 1944.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.

Johnston Island
Important naval base(s)?  No, served only as US sub refueling base.  It had no port and no decent anchorge.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.

Line Islands
Important naval base(s)?  No.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  There was a US naval air station on Palmyra Atoll, pre-war and onward.  Palmyra was well positioned to control part of the airspace lying directly on the U.S.-to-Australia route.  Nearby Christmas Island also had some US airfields.

Marianas
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Tinian lacked a proper port.  
Important air base(s)?  Yes.  It had a Japanese pre-war base.  Tinian was captured by the US in mid-1944 and was developed by them into a massive airbase.  Fleets of B-29s operating from Tinian bombed Japan extensively; the two A-bomb missions took off from there.

Marshall Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Japanese naval and air bases of various sizes were established there in the late 1930s, notably at Kwajalein, Majuro, Eniwetok and Bikini, but the Japanese did not develop them to the extent that they could have.  After the capture of the Marshalls by the Americans in January 1944, the US Navy used Majuro as a major forward naval base.  
Important air base(s)?  Yes.

Midway
Important naval base(s)?  No, except as a US submarine base.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.

New Britain
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Rabaul, which has an excellent harbour, was the largest Japanese base in New Guinea during the 1942-1945 occupation.
Important air base(s)?  Yes.

New Guinea
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.  Allied-controlled Port Moresby apparently had limited use as a port, but the town itself and the bases around it were important Allied staging areas.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, several, established both by Japan and the Allies (who controlled different parts of the island) during the war.

New Hebrides
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.  Espiritu Santo only had a small port and a small airfield, but it saw a lot of use by the Allies during the war.  Nearby Free French-controlled New Caledonia (which is not part of the New Hebrides, but is located nearby to the southwest) was an important Allied forward base in the early stages of the war; it had a small pre-war French naval and air base, good anchorages in the area and a small port at Noumea.  The Santa Cruz Islands, northwest of Espiritu Santo, were not used by the Allies despite their advantageous position because the local strain of malaria was too virulent.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.

Palau Island
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Peleliu had no port facilities.
Important air base(s)?  No.  There was a Japanese airfield on Peleliu, though apparently not an extensive one.  The US captured Palau in late 1944, but made little subsequent use of it to support its operations in the western Pacific.

Samoa (American Samoa and New Zealand Samoa Mandate)
Important naval base(s)?  No, just a minor US naval station that existed (pre-war and onward) at Tutuila; harbour traffic increased for the first half of the war but decreased thereafter.   The principal port of American Samoa, Apia, only had limited facilities.  
Important air base(s)?  Yes. US Tafuna Airfield (in American Samoa) existed pre-war and grew in wartime. The US built Faleolo Airfield (in New Zealand Samoa Mandate) in 1942; it was used by US.  There was a decent airfield at Apia.

Solomon Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Little or nothing exietd pre-war, but the US and Japan both established several naval bases in the area from 1942 onward.
Important air base(s)?  Yes.  Little or nothing existed pre-war, but the US and Japan both established a large number of airfields in the area from 1942 onward, Henderson Field on Guadalcanal being perhaps the most famous one.

Wake Island
Important naval base(s)?  No.  It had no anchorage.
Important air base(s)?  No, just a airfield useful for reconnaissance planes and Marine garrison aircraft. Captured by the Japanese in 1941; surrendered in September 1945.

@SS:

This is what I have so far.

AIRBASES             NAVAL

Caroline            Caroline
            Midway        Dutch New Guinea
          New Guinea       New Zealand
           Okinawa           Philippines ( west side only )
           Formosa            Singapore
            Malta                   Java
                                     Gibraltra

Here is the list of 1942.2 seven Zero IPCs Islands (Midway is the last one):
@Baron:

Here is my proposition for 1942.2
Give +1 IPC to these 6 Japanese Islands:
1- Formosa
2- Okinawa
3- Iwo Jima
4- Wake Island
5- Caroline Islands
6- Solomon Islands

Give +1 IPC to 3 UK territories (bigger islands):
1- Western Australia
2- Eastern Australia
3- New Zealand

Give +3 IPCs to 2 US Islands:
1- +2 To Hawaiian Island
2- +1 Midway Island

All this increase in IPCs will be received at the end of the first turn for the next, second round purchase.

This increase in 6 IPCs can easily be put into this costlier naval war.

@Der:

@Baron:

Why not just using this mechanics: paying 2 IPCs from the looser to the winner, instead?

I personally don’t care for that idea, the main reason is it is an exception to all the rest of the rules of taking territories. In order for this game to be learnable and enjoyable, the rules should be consistent with as few exceptions as possible.

The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.

1. Morale - if an island is lost on Japan’s perimeter, the citizens would feel bad about it EVERY turn the island was in enemy hands. Not just the first turn.
2. Shipping - islands taken from your defensive perimeter would result in enemy forward bases and thus better recon for directing submarine attacks, etc.  This would continue to damage your economy EVERY turn, not just the first.

@CWO:

@Der:

The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.

The concept of having islands be worth IPCs because of shipping efficiencies is pretty solid, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but I’m dubious about the whole “morale value = IPCs” concept for a couple of reasons.  First: the strategic bombing campaigns against Britain, Germany and Japan showed that populations in wartime can “keep calm and carry on” to a remarkable degree even when their own homes and family members are being blown to bits by enemy bombers, and that wartime industries can keep functioning as a result.  If wartime populations remained resilient (and industrially productive) in the face of having their towns demolished and/or incinerated, I doubt that their productivity would have been seriously dented just from reading bad news in the papers.  Second: there’s no guarantee that wartime citizens would even have learned that a particular island territory had been lost to the enemy – especially in dictatorships like Germany and Japan, where the media was tightly controlled.  Japan in particular was notorious for suppressing bad news; as an example, survivors of the sinking of the Yamato were put into detention when they returned to Japan to prevent them from talking.  Even in the US and Britain, which were democratic states with a free press, the government sometimes filtered bad news to some degree: delaying its release, providing few details on security grounds, putting a positive spin on events and so forth.  Wartime governments of all stripes are always happy to play up their successes (to the point sometimes of exaggerating or inventing them, such as when Japan portrayed Midway as a great victory for the IJN), but they’re understandably reluctant to discuss their failures.

@Black_Elk:

Another one just mentioned, but which has been kicked around before.

Team Coordination Rules:
Unit co-location restrictions
For G40 and 1942.2

Rule: Basic formulation = (Nation’s) units cannot end their turn in (Teammate’s) “starting” territories, if those territories were still under friendly control at the start of the turn.*
So…

Japanese units cannot end their turn in European Axis starting territories.

European Axis units cannot end their turn in Japanese starting territories.

Western Allies units cannot end their turn in Soviet starting territories.

Soviet Units cannot end their turn in Western Allies starting territories. **

*If the territory in question was under enemy control at the start of the turn, then it may be liberated by a teammate, but the liberator must leave the following turn or be in violation of the rule. If the units are unable to leave a liberated territory on the following turn they will be automatically removed.

**1942.2 Option: US supported starting Chinese territories are not considered “Western” for the rule as stated above. Soviet units may end their turn in Chinese territories, but American units (including those in China) still cannot end their turn in starting Russian territories. So the movement across the border of Western China is one way, from Russia to US supported China, but not the other way around.

Purpose: To prevent gamey and ahistorical unit movements by teammates. For example, by the US/British in Soviet starting territories, by the Soviets in British starting territories, by the Japanese in European Axis starting Territories etc. Restricts aircraft transits in particular, to prevent the worst abuses. Likely creates some balance issues by sides.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39465.0

I’m not sure anything short of this, will ever give us a way to develop a proper balance on the center, or a proper incentive for a dual theater war, and present a game that actually looks like WW2.

Everything we’ve seen OOB (from the NAP, to Russian NOs etc) has all been half-measures. I’m thinking we need to go all the way, or it will always be gamey as all hell, with fighter transits and can-openers and propping up teammates along one dimension/theater while totally ignoring the other theater.

No idea what might be possible in tripleA, or if anyone would have the energy to create/test the game under such conditions. The idea is admittedly pretty sweeping, but I honestly can’t think of a simpler way to go with it.

If this rule was the bedrock, then it would be possible to actually build a balanced set up that didn’t totally rely on such gamey and ahistorical distortions.

I prefer self-imposed sound strategy rather than special rules.
G40, at least bring NO IPCs to Russia when no Allies on its TTys.

I’m still wondering about creating a different game dynamics for Japan against USA.
What motivate Germany toward Moscow is clearly a lot of IPCs, even Africa is a kind of diversion and fool’s gold.
It cuts a few IPCs from UK into Germany’s purse. But, it cost a lot of units.

In 1942.2, you need more incentive to conquer islands and Crush San Francisco.
San Francisco rule needs to be well named.
It needs deterrent to not do Japan CCrush and incentive to go JSF Invasion.

A) Deterrent to JCC
1-If you make Sinkiang and Szechwan impassable toward Russia (like Sahara or Mongolia) for both ground and air units.
It forces Japan to go north or south or both. Which is still (M3) not too difficult via India. It just take more land units to put North or South coming from Asian IC. It also makes Kwantung IC very far from Moscow. FrenchIndoChina appears better starting place.

2- I once proposed a Non-Agression Pact bonus for Japan only, with a bonus to Moscow if Japan broke it.
Maybe this can be a start to create a different dynamics, leaving Germany to his own fight while US being much absorbed by Japan in PTO.
For example, giving 5 IPCs to Japan (1 DD or 1 StB) while Moscow received 0 IPC can be an incentive to not break NAP.
But, if Japan breaks it, Moscow received immediately 15 IPCs (1 Fg+ 1 StB) and 5 IPCs each round while Japan none.

Number are indicative, of course.

1. Moscow can fight a one dimensional war with increased income from Soviet Far East, Buryatia, Yakut SSR to Evenki TTy not taken by Japan (near 5 *1 IPC TTy, if Novosibirsk is included. )
2. Japan gets enough money to fight war against USA: 35 vs 42.
3. If all six japanese zero islands worth 1 IPC, it rise to 41 vs 42.
4. USA will be dragged down to not let Japan keep PTO Islands.
   And try to increase his income faster.

B. Incentive toward San Francisco

Japan needs to fight for PTO Islands and get some reward.
All zero PTO island should received some values or even a simple 3 IPCs when conquered and zero after might help.
This bonus may include all islands and Australia, too.

Another trick is any zero island taken from Japan cut 2 IPCs from Japan income.

Midway, Hawaii, Mexico and Alaska may simply get +2 IPCs.
So USA, after first turn would rise to 50 IPCs. (Or on set-up.)
IDK, but need to find a way to make it worth the cost of naval war.

We need to find a few older ideas about this in the House rule thread and put it into Master list.

Barney added this option into G40. IDK how far it works. But, at least, it is a starter for incentive.

If we want that Japan fight toward USA instead of Center Crush, it needs some kind of incentive as SS stated:
@SS:

What I mean is like you said have some islands worth more or all so it would be worth fighting for these islands due to the increased value of territories. Midway 3 icp’s, Solomans island 3 icp’s for samples and then have it where certain land territories are worth more where there is back and forth fighting. Like some land territories between Germany and Russia increased values.

So, if it requires that many rounds to get 5 IPCs from Russia invasion, it becomes a better strategy to turn westward or southward. It also indirectly help Germany because USA will not repel Japan without a massive investment.

So JSFI becomes like a third scenario:
Germany vs Russia & UK.
Japan vs USA & UK.

KJF seems to me:
Germany vs Russia.
Japan vs UK, USA, Russia

KGF is usually:
Germany vs Russia, UK & USA
Japan vs UK (India) & Russia

This NAP can still be broken and reverse to standard situation but Russia will get a few more IPCs which might balanced things out.