Yeah I don’t know how to do the stats with all the multis and the learning games but at least I can document them in the list of all games 😀
G40 Halifax Rules
-
CWO, thanks for the reminder, I do have those British pieces from Pacific. I used to use them for Italians in my other G39 game.
-
@Young:
I’m working off my 1st edition map
A related point is that Canada’s West Coast underwent a jurisdictional change between the 1st ed and 2nd ed maps, with BC and Yukon Territory being fused into “Western Canada”.
-
All British baige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces <<
Minor typo: should be “beige”. I think “baige” would be the Australian pronunciation. :-D
-
@CWO:
All British baige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces <<
Minor typo: should be “beige”. I think “baige” would be the Australian pronunciation.  :-D
Thanks… I will edit.
-
@CWO:
@Young:
I’m working off my 1st edition map
A related point is that Canada’s West Coast underwent a jurisdictional change between the 1st ed and 2nd ed maps, with BC and Yukon Territory being fused into “Western Canada”.
To bad about the roundel error, kinda throws a monkey wrench into an otherwise perfect conversion.
-
It wasn’t that big a deal for me because I just used ANZAC roundels for all Commonwealth territories so I covered up both British and Canadian roundels.
With this game, I am not a fan of having Canada as a separate power. I know that Canada contributed a lot during the real war, but in this game they are just too weak at 7 IPCs per turn. In most of our games, ANZAC never really gets to contribute very much because of their remoteness and small income. I think it would be even worse for Canada. At start they have 1 Minor IC/Minor Factory, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 transport and 1 destroyer. They don’t even have any aircraft (unless you modify the setup) and would take 2 turns just to be able to buy 1 fighter.
I also didn’t like weakening UK’s economy -7 but if you play with a combined UK income then that isn’t such a problem.
Now, Italy also starts with only 10 IPCs per turn, but they are in a more centralized location and start out with a good sized military. So you can get things going pretty good with them depending on what UK does and if they get some help from big brother Germany.
That’s why I like the Commonwealth idea. I include South Africa in it so they start with 20 IPCs and can make more of a contribution and a variety of places to assert that influence. Also, changing the starting Minor factories to Major factories helps too. -
It wasn’t that big a deal for me because I just used ANZAC roundels for all Commonwealth territories so I covered up both British and Canadian roundels.
With this game, I am not a fan of having Canada as a separate power. I know that Canada contributed a lot during the real war, but in this game they are just too weak at 7 IPCs per turn. In most of our games, ANZAC never really gets to contribute very much because of their remoteness and small income. I think it would be even worse for Canada. At start they have 1 Minor IC/Minor Factory, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 transport and 1 destroyer. They don’t even have any aircraft (unless you modify the setup) and would take 2 turns just to be able to buy 1 fighter.
I also didn’t like weakening UK’s economy -7 but if you play with a combined UK income then that isn’t such a problem.
Now, Italy also starts with only 10 IPCs per turn, but they are in a more centralized location and start out with a good sized military. So you can get things going pretty good with them depending on what UK does and if they get some help from big brother Germany.
That’s why I like the Commonwealth idea. I include South Africa in it so they start with 20 IPCs and can make more of a contribution and a variety of places to assert that influence. Also, changing the starting Minor factories to Major factories helps too.Great post KNP,
and I agree, there will be many ways to play it… Here are a few I’ve read so far:
1. New Commonwealth nation will include Canada, and ANZAC for a total of $17, and $38 for the UK (Halifax Rules).
2. New Commonwealth nation will include Canada, ANZAC, and South Africa for a total of $20, and $35 for the UK.
3. Canada is a separate nation with $7, their turn is between ANZAC, and France, double economy for the UK -$7.
4. Canada is a separate nation with $7, their turn is between ANZAC, and France, single economy for the UK -$7.
5. Canada and ANZAC have a combined economy, but separate pieces and roundels (move and fight separately)
6. Canada and ANZAC have a combined economy, but separate pieces and roundels (move and fight together)There are pros and cons to each Commonwealth concept, and although I like the idea of the UK dropping to 35 IPCs using KNPs Commonwealth which includes South Africa, I don’t like taking away a second production facility from them. So instead of the UK having the freedom to build on 3 territories to begin the game, they will only have London and India. It’s a different side of the same coin with The Commonwealth who will have 3 major factories in which to spend only $20, I find this a waste of Allied production capabilities IMO. 2 production units for a nation spending 17 IPCs, and 3 production units for a nation spending 38 IPCs seems a lot more balanced than 3 production units for a nation spending 20 IPCs, and 2 production units for a nation spending 35 IPCs. But I love the diversity in which this Commonwealth nation is manifesting, Halifax is just a universal template for those who wish to experiment with some solid guidelines, it’s the hard core vets who will take this foundation and expand on it in creative ways.
-
YG, I think you have a good point about the UK being able to support S Af better then CAnzac (income). Plus the UK needs to protect its interest in Africa, and support Egypt/Mid East. Its a long way from London, and India has it own problems. CAnzac units (in S Af) wouldn’t be able to fight with the UK units already in other parts of Africa including navy from the Med or Gib (only defend).
-
@WILD:
YG, I think you have a good point about the UK being able to support S Af better then CAnzac (income). Plus the UK needs to protect its interest in Africa, and support Egypt/Mid East. Its a long way from London, and India has it own problems. CAnzac units (in S Af) wouldn’t be able to fight with the UK units already in other parts of Africa including navy from the Med or Gib (only defend).
Absolutely, I forgot about the difficulties of attacking with a multi-national force… good perspective. These small details add up as disadvantages for the Allies, and the purpose of a Commonwealth should be to help them so that a bid is not necessary.
-
Yeah, you guys have a point. Putting S Africa in the Commonwealth does restrict the UK too much. Plus, the UK really need South Africa to protect Africa and Egypt from the Italians.
Also, it does seem kind of silly for the Commonwealth to have 3 Major Factories in order to spend 20 IPCs. I think the next time we play, I am going to adjust the Commonwealth back to 17 IPCs and put S Africa back into the UK. -
Yeah, you guys have a point. Putting S Africa in the Commonwealth does restrict the UK too much. Plus, the UK really need South Africa to protect Africa and Egypt from the Italians.
Also, it does seem kind of silly for the Commonwealth to have 3 Major Factories in order to spend 20 IPCs. I think the next time we play, I am going to adjust the Commonwealth back to 17 IPCs and put S Africa back into the UK.“These are not the droids you’re looking for…. move along”
-
I would have to disagree with saying that making SA part of the Commonwealth would make the allies weaker. I think it makes them much stronger. It would make taking Africa almost impossible for the Axis since they could just place 5 mechs a turn in SA. I think I would do this every game, and almost every turn. Imagine how hard it would be for Italy or Germany to take out Egypt if there are 5 more units there every turn? UK could then focus on defense for UK/India, and possibly build a minor in Egypt to get a fleet. Since they don’t have to worry about having defensive ground units in Africa as much.
My buy in most games as UK would be 3 inf 2 art, or mech, in India, and 6 inf for UK. While SA purchases 5 Mech every turn to defend the middle east/Africa. This alone might be enough to warrant no bids needed, and I love it :)
-
You realize that the Commonwealth (if it includes S Af) would start with only 20 IPCs right. 5 mech would drain there entire income leaving nothing for Canada or Australia. They could make as bit more w/NO, but I don’t think they could afford to do that one turn, much less over several turns. Then there is still the problem that UK/Commonwealth units can’t attack together (only def), so as an attack force those Mech by themselves would be pretty weak.
-
I think they could. Why does Canada need to produce anything unless you want to build up a transport force with UK/US and have Canada build DD’s for defense. Also Anzac doesn’t need to build anything, at least on the first turn, since US just got 100% after Japan. You almost deny an axis win in Europe by building 5 mech a turn in SA, so why not do that and have US just ignore Germany all together? This would of course be coupled with UK having a factory in Egypt and Persia/Iraq, or maybe West India. UK should be building then 11 ground a turn in Egypt, India, and Persia/Iraq/West India. This alongside the 5 ground that Anzac builds for at least the first 2 turns in SA means that Germany and Italy are really hard pressed to take Egypt. After the first couple turns you can focus your builds more towards Pacific if you like, while still building a couple units in SA.
-
I think the important thing to remember weather you’re playing a Commonwealth nation with or without South Africa, is the incredible amount of strategic diversity that would make each game different. At this point, I would use my Commonwealth money to help the UK sustain a viable fleet in the Atlantic while the Americans go 95% Pacific.
-
Another thing you could do for sure, but I don’t know if a fleet would be enough pressure on Germany/Italy to stop him from taking Egypt anyways. Without US there in Mass, Italy doesn’t need much to defend Western Germ/Southern Italy. In other words your fleet wouldn’t be as valuable as say all ground and fighters.
-
Dang, now theROCmonster makes a good point. By using Commonwealth (CW) units to defend Egypt, UK is basically defending Egypt with no expense. Also, Canada and ANZAC don’t really need to spend anything in those areas, at least for 2 or 3 rounds.
I’m going to really have to think hard about which way I want to incorporate the CW.
-
Dang, now theROCmonster makes a good point. By using Commonwealth (CW) units to defend Egypt, UK is basically defending Egypt with no expense. Also, Canada and ANZAC don’t really need to spend anything in those areas, at least for 2 or 3 rounds.
I’m going to really have to think hard about which way I want to incorporate the CW.
I wrote a long post but somehow lost it while sending… UHG! too tired to rewrite :cry:
I found great tokens for my production units, blue, red, and green wooden houses from my Settlers of Catan game.
-
Love settelers of catan! Great game to drink and play with friends :)
-
I’ve been setting up for two basic trials. One with regular Canzac (Canada + Anzac) and one with South Africa included in the Commonwealth.
I find that when using the 1st ed Pac map combined for Global then I prefer the former (using the Butternut Canadians purely for aesthetic definition) because the Canadian roundels are already in place. Like Knp I dont like seperating them off, because I think global has too many factions already. When using the 2nd ed maps I am already chipping out all of Canada with Anzac roundels anyway, so 2 down in South Africa and S.W. Africa doesn’t seem too difficult.
I’ll admit to a preference for cleaner starting numbers. 35 seems cleaner than 38, and 20 seems cleaner than 17. Purely from the standpoint of starting cash hand! haha. But it’s harder to say which is best stragically for balance. Canzac SA seems better for spamming ground, but UK SA seems better from a naval and transport launch perspective.
My buddy and I are also quite fond of replacing all units to match the roundel (whatever the territory spread chosen), so we are definitely considering the possibilities of French units in England changing to Brit, and Anzac in Malaya and Egypt changing to Brit. We both find Co-Located starting units annoying as it is requires more space with multinationals co-locating at the outset. That’s an optional aside, but might be helpful for UK balance if needed.
Still under consideration for us is whether to replace ships in adjacent sea zones for Canzac, or to leave the ships UK.
My main interest in g40 is also to find a way to play Halifax without NOs, (or using only generic objectives), which may play a factor in whether we end up deciding to go Canzac or UK for South Africa.
Just at a glance spamming Canzac infantry in SA in the first round looks like it could be rather effective in locking down the continent in subsequent rounds. I do rather agree with Roc that when SA is an option then production in Canada itself becomes somewhat irrelevant. Not sure whether I like this or not though. Sure it helps Allies control Africa, but it kind of makes commonwealth more of a one trick deal.
We are also considering other tweaks to the standard Halifax, such as retaining a Capital in Sydney to see if it can function as a bait for Japan, and incentive for US Pacific engagement.
In its most basic form we read the Halifax set up as a
Unified UK/UK pacific with 3 tiered Industrial Complexes (at the values outlined in this thread)… But with the final part of the set up, which specific territories to make Commonwealth, we are leaving things open to interpretation.Canzac or AfriCanzac? :-D
Seems like an open question still.
I favor Canzac for Simplicity, but I’m intrigued by the potential of that 3rd front too. As of now I lean toward regular Canzac just for ease of set up and to see if they can work in the Atlantic (or if the money just always gets dumped in the Pac.) I suspect that UK in SA will be our first trials, but if we go AfriCanzac and it doesn’t bust the set up to hard, might check it out in our next game with battle bonus and VC bonus instead of NO to see how that effects things. Our general rule for VCs gives a +5 at collect income for control, which has the potential to make Canzac more effective Atlantic since they could get up to 10 extra instead of 5 for the standard NO. I’m hopefully we might strike a good balance with the VC bonus since I’ve long hoped for a game on this map without the need for National Objectives, but that remains to be seen. Still whatever the spread ends up being I already know I prefer it to OOB, just for the production and UK stuff!Also another aside but Midway is playing on my TV right now, and CWO Marcs call on the war room was dead on (whichever thread he mentioned that in) makes me hungry for battle in the pacific. Canzac Pacific game with or without SA will surely be improved by these rules and that excites me as much as the Atlantic and African prospects.
Should be fun!
Suggested Topics
