G40 Halifax Rules

[Krieghund]

This is going in an interesting direction.  The idea of limiting the units that a minor IC can produce was actually brought up during playtesting, but it was obviously not introduced into the game.  I believe at the time it was suggested that minor ICs could only build units costing 10 IPCs or less, which is pretty much what WILD BILL suggested here, with the exception of cruisers.  (Interestingly, getting Improved Shipyards would allow you to build cruisers at a minor IC under those conditions.)

I have a question.  Your rules say that a Major Factory can never be upgraded to an Industrial Complex, but they also say that a captured Industrial Complex is downgraded to a Minor Factory.  Does that mean that if a power loses an Industrial Complex and recaptures it that it can never again be anything more than a Major Factory from then on, regardless of who controls it?  If so, this is an interesting rule, and it certainly gives you even more incentive to keep from losing your capital.

[Young Grasshopper]

Correct, a territory which had an Industrial Complex downgraded due to capture, may never contain anything greater than a major factory for the rest of the game.

I believe the idea you mentioned above in contrast to Wild Bill’s would also exclude tactical bombers.

Any additions or subtractions you may have to improve these ideas Krieghund would be greatly appreciated.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

[knp7765]

@Young:

Correct, a territory which had an Industrial Complex downgraded due to capture, may never contain anything greater than a major factory for the rest of the game.

This really makes sense to me from a realistic point of view. Say you have a territory with a big Industrial Complex on it. An enemy force attacks and conquers the territory. Then you send in a force to take it back.
With two large battles, that territory is now devastated. Being one of your original territories, you would have the proper resources to restore the minor factory back up to a major factory. After all, you would be more familiar with the area and where the proper materials would be and the local populace would speak your language.
However, the war is still ongoing and as stated, the area is in worse shape than it was during peacetime so you can’t really reinstate a large industrial complex there. Let’s face it, during war some things and abilities will simply be lost and not recoverable.
As for a conquering power, this territory is foreign to you and you would be lucky to be able to reinstate even a Minor factory there. The people here don’t speak your language and they are probably hostile toward you, thus not so willing to help you find the materials needed to construct a major factory. Possible sabotage would be a concern as well.
Also, while we use “factory” pieces for convenience of the game, a Minor Factory wouldn’t necessarily mean an actual production facility but perhaps more of a shipping port or strong beach head where you could be receiving supplies, weapons and new troops to send to the front. For example, when the Allies occupied France and much of Western Europe, they had a lot of Sherman tanks flowing into the theater, but they didn’t actually make those Sherman tanks at a factory located there in Western Europe. They were made back in the States and shipped to Western Europe.
Could you imagine trying to play this game without using the factories? The Allies would never be able to establish a beach head in Europe. Unless you could say that the beach head or ports were available to use upon capture and able to “produce” next turn.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

Not sure, maybe Black_Elk who suggested the name is from there, I myself like it because it sounds like a code name… like “operation Halifax”

[Black_Elk]

Haha I’m actually from San Francisco, (I was thinking about it last night and there was a big 6.1 earthquake!). For some reason the name jumped out at me, since I kind of view this series of rules as a way to sneak Canada into the mix (with a simple and elegant mechanism, by joining them up with the Anzac faction). Here, this charming old timey film clip from the era might do a better job of explaining than I can…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkbaKvRQ4K4#t=134

Basically its a major Atlantic port city that served as a hub for North American war material shipped over for the defense of Britain during the conflicts of the early 20th century.

But yeah, I just thought it had a cool sounding ring to it  :-D

For whatever reason it always seems like the secret code name type titles always want to stick. It’s the enigmatic nature the thing I guess. Just a shorthand for a series of minor tweaks taken together that players like.  Comes out of the old classic type names I guess, that never really explained what they did but instead used normandy invasion code words hehe

These rules are clearly destined to Rock!
Poseidon “the earthshaker” approves! ;)

Nice work

[Young Grasshopper]

Great story about the earthquake, let’s hope these rules send shock waves. I also like the name because I’m Canadian and have been to Halifax… Awesome city.

[Slovenehero]

Excellent work. Have tested this with proficient G40 2nd ed. players and works a treat !

We decided to include cruisers as capital ships as far as minor IC production is concerned. Also USA is allowed to build on Philippines - was this intended ? Great job nonetheless.

[WILD BILL]

Nice to see players using “Halifax”.

I think cruisers could go either way for production at minor IC’s. The navies that are represented by the new CAnzac power did have a handful of cruisers, and set-up gives them a cruiser (sz63). I know these ships were built at UK shipyards. Some were ordered and paid for by the Commonwealth Navies, others re-commissioned to them. The cruiser in this game isn’t purchased to often (whole debate about cruisers vs destroyers), so I don’t see much of a problem allowing this newly merged power to build them to give them a little bite.

With that said I could also see also players house ruling the production abilities of all three ICs. If this was the case though some of the starting minors would probably need to be upgraded at set-up.

Maybe this, or some variation:

Minor builds units up to 8 IPCs: Inf, art, mech, tank, AA, destroyer, transport.

Major builds units up to 12 IPC: adding cruisers, ftr, tac, bombers

IC builds all units

BTW the Phil doesn’t start with production ability, and as an island can’t be added either.

Here is a site that list the individual allied navies

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/

[Young Grasshopper]

Wild Bill,

Players will always house rule house rules, but if someone like Krieghund were to officially support or endorse this, then I would lock this thread as to not change what has been approved and call it Alpha+4  :-D. With that said and after much thought, the only change I’m making today is to explain production from a minor factory being any units that cost 10 IPCs or less. I like it because it’s easier and cleaner to explain without listing all units that can’t be built by a minor, and I also like the idea of listing Krieghund as a contributor to the development of Halifax rules. You are still credited as a developer of this game mechanic because if not for you sharing your idea, Krieghund would maybe never have come here to share his own (which was pretty much the same idea as yours with a small twist).

[General Veers]

I love the additional historical flavor this adds, and gives ANZAC some punch in the Pacific. I do wish Western Canada were 2 IPC so it could have a minor factory. Could launch ships and air from there to help out the US in the North Pacific.

[WILD BILL]

Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

Like I said the cruiser in my mind could have gone either way. The Commonwealth didn’t have the shipyards to produce the larger ships, but acquired a few from other means (mostly from UK).

I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units. This is somewhat of a testament of what they had at the start of the war, how their own production abilities grew as the war progressed, and what the UK commissioned to them along the way (or could have). Yeah, they may not have been able to build a heavy cruiser or even an escort carrier, but many of the battle groups were formed by multiple nations. The game doesn’t allow for multiple nations to attack together, so allowing the CAnzac power to have them if they invest is a good compromise.

Canada built a lot of aircraft (including bmrs), and ended up with the 4th largest navy in the world at wars end although it was comprised of mostly of smaller vessels, and escort ships. This mechanism allows for this.

PS YG just a clarification.

When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

“May not be purchased, or upgraded”

I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

Is the intent of  “May not be purchased” under major to force a 2 stage build-up, or was it simply an oversight? Maybe you don’t want a power to drop 22 IPCs in one turn to build a major (which would be pretty cool BTW if they couldn’t)

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

No problem… and I may agree with you about the Alpha+4 bit, I may even be treading in copyright waters.

I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units.

Not sure, but you may have misread the intended rules which say that all original minor industrial complexes in the initial setup become major factories. Therefore Canada and ANZAC both have major factories that can produce up to 5 units of any type to begin the game.

PS YG just a clarification.

When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

“May not be purchased, or upgraded”

I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

Yes, in order to have a major factory on a territory like Egypt, the UK must first build a minor factory, and then upgrade it to a major during their next turn. I will edit the rules to better clarify this.

[Young Grasshopper]

Took Krieghund’s name off the credits for now, thought I would ask him first before slapping his name on this as a contributor.

[knp7765]

Okay, hold on here. Why are we changing the factory rules?
First we had the following:
Industrial Complexes – Only available on setup (and US entry into the war). Once captured and downgraded to a Minor Factory, can NEVER be an Industrial Complex again. Can NOT be purchased!
Major Factories – All existing Minor ICs at setup are replaced by Major Factories. India’s Major IC is replaced with a Major Factory.  Once captured it is downgraded to a Minor Factory. Can NOT be purchased!
Minor Factories – Only purchasable factory available. Can be placed in any territory worth 2 IPCs or more except for islands.
UPGRADES – If an Industrial Complex or Major Factory is captured and reduced to a Minor then retaken, the ORIGINAL owner may upgrade the Minor to a Major Factory for 10 IPCs. This is the ONLY upgrade available.

Now you are saying a country may purchase a Minor Factory, place it, then upgrade it to a Major Factory next round? I am not liking this development. There was supposed to be NO UPGRADES with the exception of ex-ICs and ex-Majors that are recaptured by the original owner. Now you are going to have Major Factories all over the place. I thought these new rules were a way to restrict production in odd places. This will actually boost production.
Also, I saw someone mentioning the US producing units in the Philippines. I thought we were sticking with the “no ICs/factories on islands” rule. Have we done away with that too?

[Young Grasshopper]

So the only allowable upgrade would be from a minor factory to a major factory, and only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex, and only if made by the original owner of that territory?.. I’m OK with that. As for ICs on Islands, that suggestion was never entertained. I’m hoping to put a lock on these rules quickly… thanks for your help KNP.

[WILD BILL]

@Young:

@WILD:

I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units.

Not sure, but you may have misread the intended rules which say that all original minor industrial complexes in the initial setup become major factories. Therefore Canada and ANZAC both have major factories that can produce up to 5 units of any type to begin the game.

You’re right YG, I misread that part (my bad). I thought the only Major Factory (Mid level) was awarded to India at the start, and the others stayed as Minor Factories that could be upgraded at some point (if on your own soil) if you wanted to make that investment.

I will say that when Krieghund sited the testing minors with a 10 IPC limit, it kinda sounds like they might have been looking at keeping most of the starting minors as minors to restrict certain areas? I don’t want to put words in his mouth though.

Obviously we weren’t privy to what else they looked at, but there must have been some discussions about India’s production abilities in the development phase before they went with 10 units (maybe they looked a a mid level IC and scrapped it?).

To knp7765 about Major factories popping up all over being a concern. Being you can’t upgrade a minor fac to a major fac on foreign soil most powers won’t get more production in remote, or forward bases with the exception of the UK. At least it would take a couple turns to get it to 5 units and again it has to be on your original territory to do so.

My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

@Young:

@WILD:

My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

There have been discussions in other threads and more play testing is obviously needed, however, I believe that the Allies are at such a disadvantage (due to many cases of Axis domination even with large bids) that having all minor IC’s begin as major factories is more than acceptable to equalize the balance. Especially if we consider that with Halifax rules, the Allies don’t get any extra units, or extra IPCs to spend (actually some might argue that they have less with the UK and Commonwealth NOs being reduced), in fact the only thing the Allies have been given is the freedom to buy more units in the same places with less restrictions. Weather all this is to little or to strong is still in question, but I kinda like what we got to work with.

[knp7765]

@WILD:

My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

I can understand what you are saying about the Commonwealth pouring too much of their income in either Sydney or Quebec, but really that should be that player’s choice. In most cases, if they concentrate on one side while the other side gets smashed, it will hurt them in the long run.
I am more for giving them Major Factories to start mainly for the limitations placed on Minor Factories – no units over 10 IPCs. Not so worried about the Commonwealth buying battleships or aircraft carriers, but with this limitation they can’t even build cruisers or tactical bombers. Also, I would be more inclined to allow them strategic bombers.
Plus, with Calcutta no longer being a capital, if Germany goes Sealion then Japan might press Sydney really hard. They should be able to produce 5 units per turn without having to upgrade their capital factory for a good defense. Japan may still take Sydney, but it won’t be a cake walk.