@KraytKing said in Operational Realism House Rules:
I am playtesting this week for the first time, I will write up a comprehensive and detailed AAR. I suspect it will be illuminating.
Awesome :)
G40 Halifax Rules
-
Your idea is very good but in the British Commonwealth south africa is in too if you modifie your map the British Commonwealth have 25 IPC and the UK IPC.
just a little idea. -
@Young:
However, I also like the room for peice sculpt creativity for customizers and enthusiasts.
True dat! This is awesome and I am definitely interested.
A couple very minor comments, more cosmetic than anything else, for Black_Elk:
If I were using colored pieces to represent minor and major factories and ICs, with the colors you have used, I would personally configure as…
Minor Factory = RED
Major Factory = Green
Ind. Complex = BLUEThis just seems more color-logical from a fewer = worse and more = better perspective. It is sort of a universally understood thing. However, I suppose it really doesn’t matter.
Secondly, why not buy some HBG pieces to match all your colors and unit types… if that is important?
-
@Young:
However, I also like the room for peice sculpt creativity for customizers and enthusiasts.
True dat! This is awesome and I am definitely interested.
A couple very minor comments, more cosmetic than anything else, for Black_Elk:
If I were using colored pieces to represent minor and major factories and ICs, with the colors you have used, I would personally configure as…
Minor Factory = RED
Major Factory = Green
Ind. Complex = BLUEThis just seems more color-logical from a fewer = worse and more = better perspective. It is sort of a universally understood thing. However, I suppose it really doesn’t matter.
Secondly, why not buy some HBG pieces to match all your colors and unit types… if that is important?
To no fault of your own LHoff, you may have missed the point of the color scheme, all my G40 components are from 1st Edition… so I almost missed it as well. In 2nd Edition G40, there are green chips that represent 3 units, therefore, a minor factory that produces a maximum of 3 units should be green for association purposes (it also helps that a small monopoly house is green). When it comes to Ind. Complexes being blue… that comes from the old A&A paper money color scheme (blue for 10/red for 5/green for 1) and it also helps that a slightly larger monopoly hotel token is red.
-
Exactly! The reason I like it is because it models the chips that come with the box. Green for 3, Red for 5. The blue is basically just a suggestion, because in 1914 there are blue chips that could also be used. I tried to describe the novelty in this image from the previous page. You can see that the blue chip is not exactly necessary (it could be anything, or any color for 10, even the factory chips that come in the box.) I tried to show how, if you wanted you could prechip the factories, and count down in reverse instead of adding chips if you wanted. Or just set them off to the side somewhere so you know the values of each.
Here the Minors are chipped with a green because they are worth 3.
The Majors are chipped with a red because they’re worth 5.
And the Industrial Complex sits atop 2 greys, a green and a red because they are worth 10.It was just a shorthand for reference, but you could use any system you want to represent the 3 factory types, so long as it was consistent, and all your players know what’s worth what :)
-
Your idea is very good but in the British Commonwealth south africa is in too if you modifie your map the British Commonwealth have 25 IPC and the UK IPC.
just a little idea.Yes, South Africa was indeed a Commonweath dominion, and I completly understand that some think that South Africa should be included in this new Commonwealth idea. However, as far as game play goes… I believe stripping the UK of that income would hurt the Allies more than help. So when it comes to this new nation, I think it’s more than acceptable to only identifiy the most significant Commonwealth dominions as separate from the UK, and those which territories are clearly separated with their own roundels printed on the game map.
When I asked my favorite A&A.org historian CWO Marc this question, this was his response…
_Hi YG,
This is just a quick response, but the answer is roughly as follows.
The Canadian contribution to WWII was quite sizable. To give just a few examples, just in terms of military units:
- Canada was assigned one of the five D-Day invasion beaches.
- Canada’s ground force in Europe in 1944 and 1945 grew to a full-blown army in size, the First Canadian Army (about 250,000 men just before D-Day, probably more later). It included formations from other nations (including the US and the UK, if I’m not mistaken), which fought under Canadian command.
- Canada ended WWII with the third largest navy in the world (admittedly mostly consisting of escort vessels, and to a large extent because the Imperial Japanese Navy was now mostly on Pacific Ocean floor.)
So, Canada was definitely an important second-tier power.
Of the other Commonwealth Dominions, Australia would come first in importance. About 400,000 of its 700,000 soldiers served outside Australia during the war. Its navy started out small, but ended the war in 5th place globally. South Africa would be next, I think: 334,000 South Africans served in support of the Allies abroad. I don’t think its navy was very extensive. New Zealand would be in fourth place among the Dominions, with 140,000 New Zealand personnel serving overseas for the Allied war effort and a very small navy – but in A&A Global 1940, remember that it’s paired with Australia to form ANZAC. Honourable mention must be given to Newfoundland, which I think contributed quite a good number of troops proportional to its small population size; they fought as part of Canadian or British units, I think.
India is a special case. It wasn’t a Commonwealth Dominion, it was a British imperial possession – basically, a colony – so it’s not in the same political category as the Dominions. Its WWII effort, however, was enormous: it contributed 2,500,000 – two and a half million! – troops to the Allied cause, and it manufacturing output was huge too._
-
@Young:
To no fault of your own LHoff, you may have missed the point of the color scheme, all my G40 components are from 1st Edition… so I almost missed it as well. In 2nd Edition G40, there are green chips that represent 3 units, therefore, a minor factory that produces a maximum of 3 units should be green for association purposes (it also helps that a small monopoly house is green). When it comes to Ind. Complexes being blue… that comes from the old A&A paper money color scheme (blue for 10/red for 5/green for 1) and it also helps that a slightly larger monopoly hotel token is red.
Ahhhhh… I see! I have played with 2nd Edition rules, but have not bought the 2nd Ed. game. Now I understand. Good system then.
-
Just wanted to say thanks to YG and knp for responding to my concerns about production (all minor IC’s upgraded to major factories at set-up, and able to produce 5 units w/o restrictions). Looks like you guys have a good plan to run with, but are willing to revisit it later if need be (and like you said, there are always house rules).
I have to applaud you for bringing Canada into the fold, this has been on players minds from the early days of G40 especially our Canadian friends to north (well because I live in a northern Detroit suburb, I guess it could be my friends to the south lol). I’m really exited to try it out, and hopefully I can get a game together in the next 10 days or so to give you some feedback.
One thing I was wondering about with this version (in the games you have played) does England still feel threaten by Sea lion? Alpha+3 gave England quite a def boost (talking mostly about AA guns that were added, and taking a hit now).
*UK has a bit more income to start (at the expense of India of course)
*Canada can now better support England if the CAnzac power wants to
*If Germany buys fleet G1, does London still feel as threatened.
*Can UK pull off Taranto, and still max def London because there is more income/resources availableMaybe look at sliding an AA gun across the pond to Quebec?
Just babbling here……
It is common for a power like the US to spend nearly all income in one theater for 2-3-turns to gain an edge, then switch to the other side (that would be playing mostly defense). Have you guys seen this with UK, and CAnzac as well w/all three powers loading up? Much would depend on Japans play.
…I would also think Brazil would be a good grab for Canada. I have been experimenting with an allied Neutral Crush as of late in the G42 version, and my Anzac hit S America taking Chile, then Argentina. Hmmm…wonder how Halifax would work w/G42?
-
@WILD:
Just wanted to say thanks to YG and knp for responding to my concerns about production (all minor IC’s upgraded to major factories at set-up, and able to produce 5 units w/o restrictions). Looks like you guys have a good plan to run with, but are willing to revisit it later if need be (and like you said, there are always house rules).
I have to applaud you for bringing Canada into the fold, this has been on players minds from the early days of G40 especially our Canadian friends to north (well because I live in a northern Detroit suburb, I guess it could be my friends to the south lol). I’m really exited to try it out, and hopefully I can get a game together in the next 10 days or so to give you some feedback.
One thing I was wondering about with this version (in the games you have played) does England still feel threaten by Sea lion? Alpha+3 gave England quite a def boost (talking mostly about AA guns that were added, and taking a hit now).
*UK has a bit more income to start (at the expense of India of course)
*Canada can now better support England if the CAnzac power wants to
*If Germany buys fleet G1, does London still feel as threatened.
*Can UK pull off Taranto, and still max def London because there is more income/resources availableMaybe look at sliding an AA gun across the pond to Quebec?
It is common for a power like the US to spend nearly all income in one theater for 2-3-turns to gain an edge, then switch to the other side (that would be playing mostly defense). Have you guys seen this with UK, and CAnzac as well?
No problem Wild Bill, and thank you for your support and for contributing. To answer your question about Sealion, I remember playing G40 before the Alpha projects and to me it was a no brainer to go sealion turn 3. However, many members said they don’t and I never understood that, I mean as Germany you would get a 6 IPC territory, all the UK Europe’s money, and a 5 IPC NO. But the biggest reason I would do it is so that the UK couldn’t build units, that was the key right there, but still… some didn’t feel that the risk was justified. Than Alpha+2 came along, then +3, and eventually +3.5 (2nd Edition) and although there were some amazing transformations (better SBR rules, the 3 dice per AA gun rule, and the Mongolian rules) there was also a huge build up against Sealion, and that pissed a few people off. Nevertheless, the game was much much better than OOB 1st Edition G40.
2nd Edition brought about new strategies for the Axis because the Allies were always winning. Many of the arguments were surrounded by to much money for America, Japan has to fight 5 different enemies in 5 different directions, and there was no chance for sealion. From these issues came a lot of power thinking from hard core players. The first breakthrough for me came from A&A.org members ROCmonster, and Cow (don’t ask me who thought of these things first or you’ll start a war, precisely why I’m so adamant to credit contributors as I go). They suggested that if Japan attacked turn 1 or no later than turn 2, that the Japanese would dominate the Pacific, and although they met strong resistance,… they were right (remember, this is my experience about what happened, it’s different for others). As for Germany, the debate about Sealion being worthy or not was out the door, the clear winning strategy was to rush Moscow, and worry about the west when they have Russia’s bank roll in their pocket. Both these gambits are still dominating the game today and the only way to beat an experienced player who has successfully run these strategies over and over, is to depend on their own lack of execution.
Of course Larry Harris and his team have declared G40 2nd Edition as is the last, and I don’t blame them. First the fans were screaming bloody murder because the Allies couldn’t be beat, and now the forums are on fire saying the Allies always lose. Back to your question… it’s difficult to answer for a few reasons, we have play tested these Halifax rules without the new production units, where there were complaints that the production limits on India were to restrictive (I’m hoping the new production unit profiles will help that). It’s also difficult to answer because when your playing in a 6 man table top game, some players aren’t always executing the strategies that the hard core experience players on this forum would do. Therefore, a 9 hour play test game goes in a total different direction that you thought it might (the main reason why I’m contemplating doing a play test game by myself this weekend). As for Sealion, I have seen enough 2nd Edition games that have had a successful Sealion landing to make me think that the strategy is not completely dead. After the UK spends the standard 6 men and a fighter turn 1, they start to get lazy even though they see Germany with 5 transports and a lot of air units. So even though it’s not the slam dunk turn 3 grab that it used to be, it’s still very viable.
As for Halifax rules, I have stated before why I like them and I will paste it again here. although it’s easy to say that the Allies will spend heavily in one theater and leave the other untouched, that has proven to be dangerous. the latest strategy for America when playing G40 2nd Edition against experienced Axis players is to go 100% Pacific. I don’t think a $17 swing for a multi national force is gonna turn the tide too much (although Krieghund has mentioned a power strategy that would be end game if UK had a single economy, but that was before we peeled off the Canadian territories). These Halifax Rules are a template that might serve as an equalizer between the two sides, and if the Allies start winning their share off games, then that’s great to challenge for new Axis strategies. Actually, Halifax Rules eliminates one of my favorite house rules which was to only give the +2 SBR bonus to Strategic Bombers departing from an airbase. Now with the increased production units, it’s not needed and we can go back to giving Bombers the +2 damage bonus no matter where they left from.
Here’s what I like about Halifax Rules, and how it might help balance G40:
-
With a single UK income, the removal of the Canadian territories will dilute the UK economy a little, but not to much.
-
A single UK economy will make the overall game slightly easier to manage, as well as provide the UK player with more freedom as to where they place new units.
-
New production units make it more difficult for Japan to bomb the Pacific economy into the ground, with larger factories that can take more damage points, it will be much easier for India to absorb damage as well as pay it off.
-
With a larger Allied economy in the Atlantic, the idea of Germany steam rolling to Moscow is less viable because the Allies can build a D-Day force faster.
-
With more strategy options open to the Allies, we’ll see more games go off in different directions, but not so much that they go off the road and crash.
-
With the minor factory limitations, there will no longer be massive fleets spawning in the middle of nowhere.
-
With the Canadian territories having Canadian emblems on them and not British, it’s almost as if the map was made for this idea.
-
The alternative British roundel once used to track UK pacific income can now easily be used to track the Commonwealth income.
-
With the ANZAC and Canadian incomes as well as production options combined, the Allies have more freedom to buy more significant units on either the Europe side, or the Pacific side.
-Players may be more concerned with protecting their territories with Industrial Complexes knowing that a downgraded IC may never be built again.
-
Although these rules might seem to overwhelmingly favor the Allies, consider that not a single extra unit or IPC has been given to the Allies, in fact they lost a couple of national objectives.
-
Although I’m gonna paint my plastic ICs blue for Industrial Complexes, red for Major Factories, and green for Minor Factories… monopoly hotels and houses could also work well.
-
Having colored production units will help players associate the max amount of units allowable for each facility (blue for 10 units on an Industrial Complex, red for 5 units on a Major Factory, and green for 3 units on a Minor Factory).
-
Very easy to now play a 7 player game… Germany / Russia / Japan / America / Commonwealth with China / Britain with France / Italy.
-
-
@Young:
Of course Larry Harris and his team have declared G40 2nd Edition as is the last, and I don’t blame them.
Just to add a slight nuance here: Unless Larry issued a follow-up statement of which I’m not aware (which is quite possible), what he actually said was that there were no plans at this time to create a 3rd edition of G40. No quite the same as saying that the 2nd edition will be the last one.
-
@CWO:
@Young:
Of course Larry Harris and his team have declared G40 2nd Edition as is the last, and I don’t blame them.
Just to add a slight nuance here: Unless Larry issued a follow-up statement of which I’m not aware (which is quite possible), what he actually said was that there were no plans at this time to create a 3rd edition of G40. No quite the same as saying that the 2nd edition will be the last one.
Thanks CWO Marc, I hope a 3rd edition comes out… any reason to keep playing G40 is fine with me.
-
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
-
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
-
I think 12 , as it now.
-
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
They’re 12 IPCs at this point, although, newly purchased minor factories can never be upgraded, minors that have been downgraded due to capture can be upgraded back to a major factory (but never an Industrial Complex) after liberation for 10 IPCs.
-
@Young:
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
They’re 12 IPCs at this point, although, newly purchased minor factories can never be upgraded, minors that have been downgraded due to capture can be upgraded to a major factory after liberation for 10 IPCs.
Oh, okay. Understood.
I am not sure. If you are trying to make new production centers less common, then 15 is good. I think it is a suitable amount. Personally, I like the idea of being able to upgrade to a major if it was yours to begin with (not-purchased), however, I think this may have already been hashed out. Besides, there might only be 3 or 4 powers on the board that are able to do so.
-
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
-
@Young:
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
True. After all, people didn’t just drop centers of production wherever they wanted during the war. It should be an expensive venture.
-
@Young:
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
True. After all, people didn’t just drop centers of production wherever they wanted during the war. It should be an expensive venture.
I’m also comparing a production facility which is $12 to an air base which is $15, doesn’t add up for me even with the unit restrictions on minor factories.
-
If you want putting Minor Factories to be somewhat prohibitive, do you think raising them to $15 is enough? I mean, that’s basically one less infantry you could buy that round. If I’m Japan and I want to put several factories along the Asian coast, I would still do so at $15.
Now, if you bumped the price up to $20, that might cause players to think twice. It’s like wanting to buy a battleship. That would definitely make UK think twice if a Sealion was feared. As for Japan, that would just drain their resources too much. It’s hard enough with them at $12.
That being said, I don’t think I would be a fan of increasing the cost of Minor Factories. I think their build limitations is enough.By the way, if you use the UK Strategic Advantage “Commonwealth Aid”, which lowers the cost of non-infantry units by $1, could a UK Minor Factory then build Tactical Bombers?
-
If you want putting Minor Factories to be somewhat prohibitive, do you think raising them to $15 is enough? I mean, that’s basically one less infantry you could buy that round. If I’m Japan and I want to put several factories along the Asian coast, I would still do so at $15.
Now, if you bumped the price up to $20, that might cause players to think twice. It’s like wanting to buy a battleship. That would definitely make UK think twice if a Sealion was feared. As for Japan, that would just drain their resources too much. It’s hard enough with them at $12.
That being said, I don’t think I would be a fan of increasing the cost of Minor Factories. I think their build limitations is enough.Than 12 IPCs it shall stay.
By the way, if you use the UK Strategic Advantage “Commonwealth Aid”, which lowers the cost of non-infantry units by $1, could a UK Minor Factory then build Tactical Bombers?
Not to confuse visitors here in the Halifax thread when talking about Delta… but yes it could.
Suggested Topics
