Liberate them for Free France, correct The way I play it is Vichy France collects there income and hands it straight to Germany. The Allies can cut into Vichy’s income by attacking Convoy zones. Vichy Frances turn is basically only handing money straight to Germany. If an Axis power moves into Vichy France then it’s just like if Germany moves units into Italian territories. The just occupy it together. With the added risk of Vichy France switching sides when it comes to defending it. No they can’t move there units around. Vichy France tired to pretend to be neutral so they tired to stay out of it without angering Germany. The French navy also becomes Vichy. Remember UK attacked the French fleet in the med. because it refused to surrender to the allies. It’s kind of the effect I’m shooting for. Remember Vichy units only fight for one round and only one round all surviving Vichy units then switch sides and become Free French. Now that I think about it Vichy shouldn’t be able to switch by being attacked by only aircraft. A popular UK move is taking the Mech Inf. from Egypt and attacking Syria with no help. Odds are the mech doesn’t hit and the French inf. has only a 33% chance of a hit thus turning it Free French.Hey Yavid,
I like your idea for Vichy/Free France. I have been wanting to incorporate that into the game, but most of the house rules for that seem too complicated. Your rules seem fairly simple. I have a few questions:
1 > If the Allies move into a French territory with no units in it (French Madagascar, French Equatorial Africa, French Central Africa, French Indo-China), those territories are simply liberated for Free France, right?
2 > Vichy France is considered an Axis country and their remaining income goes to Germany during the Vichy France collect income phase. So, after Germany finishes their turn and collects their own income, you add whatever Vichy France has left to the German total for spending next round, right? So it is possible that Allied forces could cut that down a bit.
3 > What happens if Axis forces enter Vichy French territories (e.g. Italy moving from Libya to Tunisia)? Since Vichy is considered Axis, I am assuming that Italy doesn’t actually take control of Tunisia, rather it is simply a shared occupation with the existing French infantry there.
4 > Can French units, once they turn Vichy, move from one French territory to another (e.g. French infantry from French West Africa to French Central Africa)?
5 > I am unclear what happens to the naval units. Are they also Vichy?
A = Do they have to just sit in their sea zones?
B = Or can they move and attack Allied ships?
C = If Allied ships attack Vichy French ships, do they have to sink them or can they turn them Allied?I think that is it. If you could answer these questions, I think I can incorporate this idea into my next game.
G40 Halifax Rules
-
Actually that is a great point L. Hoffman, in the actual game Manual these units have been consistently referred to as Industrial Complexes from the start. At no point have they ever been called “factories” in a game manual. But I know the term Factory has been a popular shorthand for IC with players since Classic, which is why I said they were interchangeable. Not by the rules, but by popular convention. I suppose as long as we enforce a strict definition that agrees with the game manual then perhaps we can encourage proper referencing. So in this case we are encouraging people to use the term Industrial Complex to refer to the units you can’t buy. This makes sense to me.
Knps call, sounds good to me. At least no one can say we didn’t think about it before making a final decision :)
-
Actually that is a great point L. Hoffman, in the actual game Manual these units have been consistently referred to as Industrial Complexes from the start. At no point have they ever been called “factories” in a game manual. But I know the term Factory has been a popular shorthand for IC with players since Classic, which is why I said they were interchangeable. Not by the rules, but by popular convention. I suppose as long as we enforce a strict definition that agrees with the game manual then perhaps we can encourage proper referencing. So in this case we are encouraging people to use the term Industrial Complex to refer to the units you can’t buy. This makes sense to me.
Knps call, sounds good to me. At least no one can say we didn’t think about it before making a final decision :)
Yes, I was interested in keeping the rulebook (if that comes to fruition) clear and consistent. People can (and probably will, as you said) call them whatever they want for shorthand. Thanks for the discussion about it.
-
I’ve been waffling all morning about whether or not I should enter this discussion. I have no strong feelings about the subject itself (so I was inclined to stay out of it), but I also do like terminology that’s precise and clear and correct and (ideally) simple – so for whatever it’s worth, here’s my two cents.
It would be nice if whatever terms get used for the three factory/complex types could immediately and unambiguously express how big they are relative to each other when the three terms are seen side-by-side, and preferably even if they’re seen in isolation. It would also be nice if the chosen terminology didn’t deviate too much from established A&A practice. The official rules call these units Industrial Complexes (hence the handy acronym IC). The term is, in my opinion, conveniently generic (potentially covering everything from a single factory building to a whole industrial city), in the same way that IPCs are a generalized and abstract representation of gross domestic product rather than dollars. On the other hand, the IPC sculpts that were part of the older games look like a single factory building, not like what we’d call an “industrial park” today. Their design, however, is a conventional abstraction for industry in general (see the examples below from Frank Capra’s Why We Fight films), so it can plausibly stand for more than just a factory building.
By the way, just to toss in an extra item from everyone’s favourite unofficial source of information, Wikipedia’s view on the subject is that:
Industrial complex may refer to:
A factory or collection of buildings relating to industrial production
Military-industrial complex, the term referring to a close and symbiotic relationship between a nation’s armed forces, and its private industry.
Anyway, taking as a starting point LHoffman’s comment that…
“factory implies an isolated and singular building where production takes place (i.e. small, focused and not widely developed). An Industrial Complex implies an undefined number of multiple production elements grouped together in a large and expansive conglomerate.”
…my suggestion would be to use these terms:
Major Industrial Complex
Minor Industrial Complex
Single Factory -
Here are the pictures I mentioned. Forgot to attach them.
-
Great post as always CWO Marc… but here lies the problem:
_…my suggestion would be to use these terms:
 Major Industrial Complex
 Minor Industrial Complex
 Single Factory_How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?
-
@Young:
How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?
Well, to turn the question around: what are you planning to use as your three markers types? Three cardboard tokens with different values printed on them? Three different sculpt types, differentiated by size or by number of smokestacks or something?
-
@CWO:
@Young:
How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?
Well, to turn the question around: what are you planning to use as your three markers types? Three cardboard tokens with different values printed on them? Three different sculpt types, differentiated by size or by number of smokestacks or something?
Myself personally, I’m using…
Industrial Complex - gray 1942 oob plastic ICs (painted blue for 10)
Major Factory - Plastic monopoly hotel (red for 5)
Minor Factory - Plasitic monopoly house (green for 3) -
@Young:
How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?
I still don’t see why this is a big problem. If the Halifax rules are intended to better gameplay by altering parts of the game… then it should be expected that a change like this will occur. People will have to just accept the fact that production facilities have changed slightly and new game pieces may be needed to represent this. I don’t think this will be too hard for everyone to grasp or accept. They have been doing it for a number of years.
And as I said before, remembering a couple minor changes here are quite insignificant compared to the vast swath of information needed to play G40… which we are assuming has already been memorized.
-
Thanks for the additional information, YG. I’m beginning to think that whatever these units end up being called, their names are in a sense the least important thing about them. To echo what LHoffman said (“remembering a couple minor changes here are quite insignificant compared to the vast swath of information needed to play G40… which we are assuming has already been memorized”), in practical terms, what matters during game play is for players to know and remember:
- What they look like (shape and colour)
- What their production number is (10, 5, 3)
- The various rules that apply to their purchasability, upgradeability, damage-resistance, etc.
Players need to keep all these details straight in their minds to use the units properly, and changing any of these things would affect how the units function. Their names, however, have no effect on anything. It would make no difference if you called them 10s/5s/3s, blues/reds/greens, Class-A/Class-B/Class-C factories, or any of the other nomenclatures that have been discussed here. The names are labels, not performance specifications, so in principle anything would do. Their sole purpose is to help the players mentally categorize them, and it would therefore be advantageous to have a nomenclature system that’s as straightforward and unambiguous as possible.
I’m not going to frame the following as a recommendation, because I’d be very surprised if you liked the idea, so I’ll just frame it as an abstract argument. I’d argue that the most unambiguous approach would be to completely scrap the terms “major” “minor” and “industrial complex” because they replicate words that have very specific meanings in the official A&A rules; thus, any use of them is likely to create confusion in your house rules. You pointed out that it would be a confusing deviation from the original rules to keep the name Minor Industrial Complex and give it a new output value of 5 rather than 3. Fair enough…but I’d argue that it’s just as much of a confusing deviation from the original rules to have a unit retain its output value of 5 but to rename it a Major Factory rather than a Major Industrial Complex, and to have Industrial Complexes take on a new meaning separate from the original major/minor dichotomy. (After all, when players use house rules, they know that they’re using rules which, by definition, deviate from the official ones, so it should come as no surprise to them to run into units whose numbers or values have been changed from their by-the-rulebook origins.) So I think the possible issue here is that the OOB terminology is being retained but partially re-wired and redefined, rather that either being kept completely intact (in which case they wouldn’t be a house rule) or being replaced with an entirely new and unambiguous nomenclature that breaks cleanly with the OOB wording.
-
I like what we have, but I suppose it would be helpful if we had a third stand alone term, like…
Complex, Factory, and ___________
or
Industrial Complex
Industrial Centre
Industrial Factoryor
Industrial Complex
Industrial Factory
Industrial Plantor
Large Factory
Medium Factory
Small Factory -
@Young:
I like what we have, but I suppose it would be helpful if we had a third stand alone term, like…
Complex, Factory, and ___________
Sweatshop
-
@Young:
I like what we have, but I suppose it would be helpful if we had a third stand alone term, like…
Complex, Factory, and ___________
Sweatshop
THAT’S AWESOME HOFF…. LMAO :-D :evil:
-
@Young:
Complex, Factory, and ___________
“Plant” might work.
-
scrap the terms “major” “minor” and “industrial complex”
Yes! I think this is the best approach for overall clarity. Rather than trying to retain terms that already have definitions but change those definitions, it’s probably easier to find substitutes for all 3 if possible. Sorry I opened such a can of worms haha
-
@CWO:
@Young:
Complex, Factory, and ___________
“Plant” might work.Â
funny for those who smoke weed playing this game “I want to buy another plant… hehehe”
-
Hehe a green plant ;) sign me up
-
@Young:
@Young:
I like what we have, but I suppose it would be helpful if we had a third stand alone term, like…
Complex, Factory, and ___________
Sweatshop
THAT’S AWESOME HOFF…. LMAO :-D :evil:
Can only be built by China and placed in Asian territories.
-
@Young:
funny for those who smoke weed playing this game “I want to buy another plant… hehehe”
“Can only be built in a Latin American country.”
-
Just heard from knp through PM, he prefers to keep the names as they are, and I support his decision.
-
That’s fine with me. knp originated the rule so his names can stick.
For the record though, I think CWO Marcs point is exactly what Wild Bill and I were driving at, just worded in an even clearer and more forceful way ;)
Fair enough…but I’d argue that it’s just as much of a confusing deviation from the original rules to have a unit retain its output value of 5 but to rename it a Major Factory rather than a Major Industrial Complex, and to have Industrial Complexes take on a new meaning separate from the original major/minor dichotomy. (After all, when players use house rules, they know that they’re using rules which, by definition, deviate from the official ones, so it should come as no surprise to them to run into units whose numbers or values have been changed from their by-the-rulebook origins.) So I think the possible issue here is that the OOB terminology is being retained but partially re-wired and redefined, rather that either being kept completely intact (in which case they wouldn’t be a house rule) or being replaced with an entirely new and unambiguous nomenclature that breaks cleanly with the OOB wording.
Suggested Topics
