G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

@all-encompassing-goose

Hi, these rules are cool. I did not base my rules off of this. This was developed independently.

A different take on “free for all”. Being able to make alliances though means it should be called “shifting alliances” rather than “free for all”.

I have looked for threads that deal with this but they are sort of rambling and don’t quite answer all my questions. If you can point me to a thread or pdf that explains it all, that would be great. Otherwise a response here for these questions/comments will be greatly appreciated. Also, the Notes tab in the game itself does not address most of these. And I am interested in what the Triplea rules are now, not the original game rules. Thanks.

If Japan attacks Dutch islands, UK can declare War on Japan, correct? Does that include Anzac can do the same? Or do one or both automatically go to War with Japan if Dutch are attacked? And does AI handle properly?

If French Indochina is attacked, same question. UK/Anzac can declare war or are they immediately at War? AI handles properly?

For both 1. and 2. above, I assume that if they are at War with Japan automatically, that the US can then declare War on Japan? OR, if UK/Anzac simply can choose now to go to War, then if they attack Japan, the US can not go to War until the proper turn?

Can Anzac and UK declare War on Japan at any time in all cases? If that is the case, then the answer should be that an attack on the Dutch or French IS an act/declaration of war by Japan and that US can then also go to War in their next turn.

With Russia, I have noticed that it is very hard to not have the Mongolians join Russia, even if Russia declares War 1st. But, am I correct in remembering that if Russia attacks Manchuria first, then Mongolians will not join Russia even if Japan takes back Manchuria and attacks Amur?

Thanks!

Ok, if anyone is interested, I’ve added this to the Canadian Mod. There are a lot of changes which I could go into, I expect it will be a bit like Balanced Mod in that early on Allies will have the edge but if it gets popular and people understand how to play it a bit more, Axis will start to win out.

Anyone interested in playtesting? Tried one game against myself which the allies look like winning.

I’m reviewing all Vichy rules available out there, as I plan to make a unique mod, because I like historical realism and simplicity, with minimized luck of dice, and some “asymmetric balance”.

Some major points I’ve posted elsewhere in the forum:

The main issue for this expansion is how to develop French neutrality, while at the same time providing a bonus to Germany. Apparently ignored by most players, in real life (IRL), Germany economically exploited Vichy, which had to richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France. Therefore, in the game, it only makes total sense that Germany gets the 3 IPCs from Vichy Southern France.

Another related major issue is what to do with French colonies in terms of neutrality/occupation and IPC flows. I agree that the Vichy setup should reflect what happened IRL: North Africa, Syria, and Indochina go to Vichy, while other French colonies stay Free. However, it messes up Italy’s incursions into North Africa (as IRL, Hitler denied French colonies to Italy). I’m not sure yet as to the best approach to subjecting these colonies to invasion, occupation, and who gains IPCs (other than agreeing that Japan has easy access “rights” over Vichy Indochina), and also remote units…

Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game. Just remove Vichy units.

The uncertainty surrounding local pre-battles is quite interesting (will Vichy troops welcome or resist Allies in North Africa?..). However, I’d try to minimize dice randomness that is often used to decide some outcome. IRL, Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, then there should be no battle but quick surrender. Or, make it highly unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I’m now working on my own house rules, for an expansion (HBG lingo) that is quite realistic, fun yet simple. If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll be happy to share my rules when ready…

phd_angel@yahoo.com

Chicago, December 2020

@eddiem4145:

I have downloaded the rule book from Xeno games before. In fact I printed it out. I would be willing to fax it to you if they do not have the download still.

Incidentally, I have played their online (so to speak) email version. I bought it in 2004 with the promise of a newer more practical version. Yes it has been 6 years. They are still working on it. I never asked for my money back. There last update was october of last year. If they ever get it out, it probabbly will be great.

eddiem4145@yahoo.com

These guys make WOTC look good.

@onetthome:

These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though  :|

I appreciate the compliments from you and from Georgemak!

I’m currently putting the final touches on another rules set–a more advanced one. As is also the case for the rules set under discussion, this rules set is designed with a global war in mind. But that being said, I wouldn’t object to a custom map designer creating a Pacific scenario.

Every time I create a rules set like this, I try to build something generic enough that a custom map designer will have a lot of room in which to work. Working within the general framework, a custom map designer could create his own starting map, nations list, national advantages, disadvantages, and available technologies for each nation, starting unit setup, and other adjustments. The rules set is intended to give map designers plenty of room in which to exercise their creativity.

But my greatest current need is for a software developer. If anyone here is a developer or knows a developer who might be interested in something like this, please PM me.

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

Each nation is established with a basic starting income and this does not change, except by possible investments into the economy to grow it to full war making potential.

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

possible benefits:

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.