@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.
I have given this some more thought and I think we should stick with YG’s original naming for the different production centers:
Industrial Complex = 10 units
Major Factory = 5 units
Minor Factory = 3 units
Yeah, with this we would be changing “Minor ICs” to “Major Factories” but we are also changing production limit from 3 to 5. So we are not really “changing” them but more like we are eliminating “Minor ICs” all together.
The main consideration for me is the fact that the Industrial Complex is not only the biggest production center, but also the most un-replaceable. If an Industrial Complex or a Major Factory is captured, either one is downgraded to a Minor Factory.
If that territory is liberated, the original owner can upgrade the Minor Factory to a Major Factory for 10 IPCs.
However, NEITHER a Major Factory nor a Minor Factory can ever be upgraded to an Industrial Complex. Once an Industrial Complex is lost, it is gone forever. Thus, that production unit has a name that is different from the lower production units.
I think this is a good naming for the different production levels and I really don’t think it adds that much complexity or confusion. Most of us that will be implementing these rules are well versed in all the nuances with this game already and should be well able to differentiate the different production levels. As for newbie players, this whole game is full of complex rules and terms even out of the box so a change to the production units would just be one more thing. New players shouldn’t be playing this game alone anyway. They need to have one of us more experienced players that can explain the rules to them until they get a few games under their belt.
Anyway, I am going with YG’s original naming of the different production levels in my games. It just seems more reasonable to me.
Thanks everyone for listening.
Thanks knp… and everyone should remember that you can call these units what ever you like around your own game table according to your own preference. You can even copy and paste them into a word document and change the titles as you wish.
The important thing now is to get the word out about these Halifax rules, to play test them, and promote them whenever we can. Krieghund has already called these rules “intresting” and that’s huge. If we can show him that Halifax works, and it has the support of the whole G40 community, we might just be able to get his endorsement some day.
We are all begging for a fun modification to the rules so that G40 can feel more balanced without using the boring bid system. Lets all use our voting power and hit the +1 arrow in the first post of this thread, lets get it sticky, and lets get it official.
*May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs
There are only two conditions in which production unit upgrades are allowed:
*1. An original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.
Talking about names: “upgrade” sounds like an improvement.
But the rule states it is a kind of restoration or recovering from a devastated IC or Major Factory…
@Young:
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
Incapable of building capital ships and/or strategic bombers
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs (must be the original owner of the territory)
In my mind, a capital ship is a 2 hits warship: either a Fleet Carrier or a Battleship.
So it is allowed to buy a 12 IPCs Cruiser but not a 12 IPCs Strategic Bomber?
Maybe if you don’t want to allow Cruiser, maybe you should lower the cost of Minor Factory to 11 IPCs.
The line will be drawned by both the cost of the unit and the cost of the Factory.
Tactical Bomber (11 IPCs) would be allowed because it would cost the same as the purchasing price of the Factory.
So no costlier units (12 IPCs and above) could be built.
@Baron:
@Young:
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
Incapable of building capital ships and/or strategic bombers
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs (must be the original owner of the territory)In my mind, a capital ship is a 2 hits warship: either a Fleet Carrier or a Battleship.
So it is allowed to buy a 12 IPCs Cruiser but not a 12 IPCs Strategic Bomber?Maybe if you don’t want to allow Cruiser, maybe you should lower the cost of Minor Factory to 11 IPCs.
The line will be drawned by both the cost of the unit and the cost of the Factory.
Tactical Bomber (11 IPCs) would be allowed because it would cost the same as the purchasing price of the Factory.
So no costlier units (12 IPCs and above) could be built.
Or the line is that a Factory cannot built any units which is at the same price or higher than its purchasing cost (12 IPCs).
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
@Young:
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
Sorry, I didn’t notice that the opening post was edited more recently than the one quoted.
@Baron:
@Young:
All that has since been edited, it now reads… Minor Factories may only produce units that cost 10 IPCs or less.
Sorry, I didn’t notice that the opening post was edited more recently than the one quoted.
No problem, the 10 IPC or less idea was provided by Kieghund.
Is South Africa still part of the UK then?
Is South Africa still part of the UK then?
Yes, all territories with a UK roundel printed on them will contribute to the UK’s income.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
That’s what I did. I used ANZAC roundels on all the Canadian territories.
I really do like this idea and the ability to direct production should prove interesting. The only change I would like to make to my own version is to keep Canada and ANZAC separate nations but having a shared bank. Its a preference I would like to see Canadian roundels in the game with Canadian pieces as well. It shouldn’t change much because ANZAC and Canada are on different sides of the board. You could get the roundels and a UK expansion set for Canada if you chose to this instead of replacing Canada with ANZAC pieces and roundels.
Cyanight, I’m going that route also. Have Canadian roundels now and will paint or buy troops for Canada. Be nice to see Canadians attacking in Normandy or Europe.
Q: Does this include British Columbia? Or should well allow roundel replacement here?
Second edition Pacific 1940 shows a UK roundel in British Columbia rather than a Canadian one. Sadly
I believe this was a misprint. I suggest placing an Anzac roundel here.
It is indeed a misprint, as has officially been stated here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAPacific1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf
Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
July 14, 2014
Errata
The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United
Kingdom.
I really do like this idea and the ability to direct production should prove interesting. The only change I would like to make to my own version is to keep Canada and ANZAC separate nations but having a shared bank. Its a preference I would like to see Canadian roundels in the game with Canadian pieces as well. It shouldn’t change much because ANZAC and Canada are on different sides of the board. You could get the roundels and a UK expansion set for Canada if you chose to this instead of replacing Canada with ANZAC pieces and roundels.
Canadian roundels can be obtained from HBG:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Custom-Roundels–Canada_p_1378.html
For Canadian units, I use the butternut-grey British-pattern ANZAC units from Pacific 1940 1st edition, augmented by a few ANZAC anti-aircraft artillery units from the 2nd edition (since this unit type was lacking in the 1st ed). Under this arrangement, the butternut grey colour = the Commonwealth Dominions (except Eire, which was neutral). The Canadian units can be extended to cover Newfoundland. South Africa can be represented either by the Canadian or 2nd-ed ANZAC units, depending on one’s preference.
