G40 Halifax Rules

[Young Grasshopper]

Thank you everyone for all the compliments, I spent all night adding subtitles just to see this morning that they didn’t show up in the video… URG!!! I will try to see what happened and fix it. I love those settlers of Catan houses… more later.

[Black_Elk]

Don’t stress it dude,  you’re doing a great job stitching this all together. I can’t wait to see a real D-Day with the Dominions in on the action. Subtitles will be great for some our players for whom English is not their first language, but the visuals alone make it so much clearer. So much of the game is so much easier to pick up when someone is there showing you what’s what’s instead of reading it in a rulebook.  Video is very helpful! Thanks for all the hard work put in on this.

Just a quick side note about London falling with UK unified… I think my preference would be a game where London collapse isn’t built into the set up. Sea Lion breakers if they crop up could be handled with other tweaks if needed. But already, I am enjoying the set up a lot more under these rules than the OOB. I think they will be my standard

[Young Grasshopper]

Just repaired the video which should now contain about 10 speech ballon notes… can someone please confirm that they show up in the video when you watch it?

Thanks.

[cyanight]

Yes they are working.  Excellent job YG!

[Young Grasshopper]

@cyanight:

Yes they are working.  Excellent job YG!

OK, Thanks… That’s really weird because they show up when I play the video on my Mac laptop, but not on my iPhone.

[Black_Elk]

Using Halifax in the next game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Bp-VBlur8

As an alternative to the National Objectives outlined in this helpful set up/explanation video, we are attempting to play with a generic Objective (control of VCs). Basically because Canzac is going to nix the OOB National Objectives for Anzac and UK no matter what, we thought this would be a good scenario to test a VC bonus, since it simplifies the objectives for all nations and reduces them to just one type: control of cities for +5 ipcs.

The VC bonus option shows Canzac making a pretty solid faction. Trying this out to test balance.

Basically its the OOB game, but without NOs. A VC bonus instead after the first round, +5 ipcs for control on collect income. Aiming to put things at roughly…
Germany 15
Russia 15
Japan 15/20
USA 15/20
UK 15
Italy 5
Anzac 10

This in addition to normal income, so all players are creeping upward at the start.

Seems to balance fairly well for us, with Canzac collecting closer to a full faction. Basically giving everyone a VC in contention. We are trying this first without the DoW, to see how it plays stripped down. The thing I’ve found is that, when they collect for the VCs, the Commonwealth Dominions have a much stronger naval potential.

Under this set up we are looking at UK control of SA. Since we suspect the bonus for Canzac if it included S. Africa might be too overpowered on the ground. On the other hand, the bonus allows for more air bases or naval builds out of Canada or Australia when the bonus is concentrated with production restricted to Canada/Australia.

I’m excited to play! :-D

The coolest aspects to me remain the production possibilities, and the new simplified factions. I think its fun to see how this will play with just the basic Halifax set up adjustment, and then using the VC bonus as a draw. So essentially simplifying all NOs into the same type of objective for everyone. Call it the VC objective for simplicity. The Commonwealth here has a stronger potential defense on Syndey, or to provide a legit counter against the full press by Japan to punish India. Or, on the other side of the world, the option to build an Atlantic fleet, or an Airbase and Aircraft to launch on Europe or Africa. The cash bonus here is somewhat easier for players to retain, and much easier to memorize. The NOs are harder to disrupt here, a simple outlying island or minor territory is not enough to deny your enemy their bonus. To disrupt it you have to take a city. This would put Canzac into the 20s without requiring SA and sets up a solid Pacific square with 4 corners Japan, India, Australia and W. USA, with 4 contested VC territories between them (Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines and Hawaii). A broad Pacific front with battle lines drawn down the middle.

Halifax with the Red 5 factories to start and the new Commonwealth faction has the most promise for a set up revision I’ve seen yet. On balance I think it will make the Axis game more challenging but that is ideal, given the OOB situation. Commonwealth can help tie down some of that ridiculously huge Japanese airforce now, and more effectively than Anzac could alone. The European theater feels more intriguing as well, since there is a new Canadian option to bolster the UK in the battle of the Atlantic and against fortress Europe. I like using this foundation as the basis for the other G40 adaptations I like. Things will work better now with the basic Halifax Rules layed out. I can start building off of it to do other things I like with minor HR tweaks, knowing that the core concept is well worked out. Thanks for bringing it all together here guys.  :-D

[Young Grasshopper]

I am nothing if not humble…

Had a play test game today and found it extremely difficult for the UK to defend London and Calcutta properly, let alone supply South Africa with anything. Although the UK did produce a few units in South Africa, the Commonwealth clearly has the best chance to make the 5 unit factory in SA viable. Axis won easily and I believe that it had to do with the 3 following issues…

1. The UK not able to spend in South Africa with pressing issues in London, India, and the middle east.
2. A lack of National Objective income for both the UK and the Commonwealth
3. An inability to take advantage of the 5 unit major factories they own.

I plan to solve these issues right away with the following changes to Halifax Rules…

1. Include South Africa and Western South Africa as the Commonwealth (as suggested by many)
2. Add a second UK National Objective…
  - 5 IPCs for no Axis submarines in the Atlantic
3. Add a second Commonwealth National Objective…
  - 5 IPCs if the Allies control all original Dutch island territories

These new Commonwealth territories are a fall back to all of afrothunder’s ideas, I understand now that it is the best foundation in which to go forward with Halifax Rules, and for the Allies as a whole. The Halifax Rules YouTube Video will be erased, and I will create a new video after the FMGC this weekend where I will be play testing even further. Also, I will be looking into editing my custom map file to better accommodate Halifax and these new Commonwealth territories.

Cheers

[Witt]

Thank you for the report. Sorry it did not go as planned.

I think the problem is Russia’s weakness. (Sorry to bring up a different problem/issue.)
Russia making 20, when Germany makes 60 T5-7 is the problem .
Why should it be a German NO to hold Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Caucasus, but not a Russian one? Surely it is as much a Russian political victory to hold them? Playing more and more against good Axis players (here on the forum )who storm Russia, has
made me see the futility of the Allied game.
If is wrong that the UK should rescue Russia and have yo come up through the Middle East. Russia held in real life and always had tonnes of Inf.

Don’t mean to be a pain. Always good to hear what you are thinking and planning YG.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I suspected that UK might not be strong enough to defend London, Africa and India at the same time with OOB NOs. However under the set up I was planning UK receives substantially more IPCs per round on the VC bonus.

I would not object to the commonwealth including south Africa.

For consistency all Dominions should probably get chipped to Commonwealth.  So Newfoundland, S.A, S.W. Africa.

I tend to agree with Wittman. I don’t see why all nations couldn’t get a bonus for VC control. 15 ipcs to Russia would be very helpful. Likewise a VC bonus to UK, America, or AfriCanzac could be helpful on balance. I’m basically opposed to NOs in general, but I understand that these are views which others might not share. Still, if new NOs are introduced on balance I would definitely suggest keeping them as simple and straightforward as possible.

Ps. Along those lines, I think an NO that references the “Atlantic” could be confusing for some. For example how exactly is the Atlantic defined spatially? Does it stop at the north sea? The English channel? etc. To me attaching NOs or geneic bonuses to VCs just seems simpler overall, so that’s my plan for it. But I can definitely see the argument for giving more income to UK.

[Young Grasshopper]

Black Elk, I skimmed over your previous posts, but could you explain to me in the most simplistic way how this VC bonus rule instead of NO bonuses works?

[Black_Elk]

You could strip all this down pretty easily into just a single universal NO:

+5 ipcs for control of a victory city.

That is the most basic way I can think of to put it.  :-D

To see why we might do this, first look at the complex way OOB handles things regarding NOs…

Consider this, in OOB there are nearly 30 achievable objectives! Each one has its own complicated wording, and paragraphs of associated text in the rulebook. Most of these are weighted towards the Axis. Lets just look at Germany alone: Germany has five distinct OOB National Objectives, which taken together can produce up to 41 ipcs of additional NO money for Germany!!! This is because of how the first and last german NO read, (allowing +5 or +2 for multiple territories.) Is it really necessary for us to have such a complex NO system in Halifax?

Note also, that unlike AA50 where NOs were written down on the unit box set up card, in g40 these things have to be referenced out of a rule book. A VC bonus by contrast is simple, as all VCs are written directly on the map (thus everyone can see what’s what, and know who stands to gain which amount of objective cash.)

Then if more money is needed on top of this, you could add in distinct NOs one at a time. Start perhaps with just 6, one for each nation (plus the VC thing.)

Honestly, just compare the OOB NOs for Germany with Russia. The former is collecting a huge pot each round from the very begining, the latter collects practically nothing, as most of their objectives are not achievable! Or at best they’re not achievable until the game is pretty much decided anyway. Not only are the OOB NOs not evenly distributed, their values are inconsistent, and many are just downright confusing. Read the first Russian NO for example. Could it be any more wordy? hehe

So anyway, that’s my take on it. I think you could get a lot accomplished with the VC objective made generic, and then just add whatever else is needed on top. We already have to get rid of NOs for UK/Anzac regardless, I say we just go the full distance and simplify things for all nations like that.

How about this…
Generic Objective +5 for control of a VC
National Objective +10 for (something specific)

At least then you could make it a +10 spot that was easy to remember. And if it was necessary to give one nation an easy +10, while making another’s +10 very hard to acquire, then you can. Its easy. Essentially I’m saying, before we add just a bunch of NO stuff, lets cut out the fluff first.

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Also, think about the potential advantage here of creating a board set up that leaves “National” Objectives optional. THAT would be HUGE!

Instead of all the OOB national objectives, step one is “scrap all OOB National Objectives.” Since any new objectives have to be written down regardless, isn’t it better to start with a fresh clean page? Or a brand new Objective card for each Nation?

This would allow us a convenient way to take the OOB 30 NOs down to just 6 really well balanced NOs, of the necessary type/value to achieve rough balance by sides under this set up. If we want to make it more expansive after that point, then you could give each nation a second optional set for a total of a dozen NOs (only if you wanted to though, something that could be left at the player’s discretion.)

With the Generic Objective +5 for VCs, you could still add in a cool “gameplay affecting” optional NO for each nation.

So say you want Japan or USA to have an NO that deals with zero ipc islands in the Pacific, and makes them contested. You could give Japan a single National Objective +10 that involves those territories specifically. Likewise you could have one for America that does the same.  Or for a Nation like Russia, say you wanted to give them a bonus that makes sense you could add a single NO +10 for that. If an OOB NO seems particularly awesome and apt, then adapt it to the new National Ojective card, if not ditch it for an new NO that works better.

The overriding idea though, is keep it simple.
1 NO for each or
2 NOS (at most) for each Nation

On top of the basic VC thing

[Black_Elk]

or how about this… say you wanted to create a rough parity between the new production rules/values and the new Objective rules/values.
maybe…

National Objective +10
Major Objective +5 for control of a VC
Minor Objective +3 (for some minor but novel accomplishment)

Then you have them at basically the same values as the 3 tiered factory. Green, Red, and Blue objectives. And the VCs are already printed on the gamemap with a red dot anyway, so it all fits visually.

This would give you a way to basically balance the sides along a couple different dimensions. The VC objective would be the same for everyone and allow a much needed way to get some basic extra money into the game.

Each Nation gets a single Minor NO, and a single Major NO.
How easy they are to achieve can be determined by the gameplay or balance requirements. So for example, one nation might have a fairly easy Major NO, another might have one that’s very challenging. The same thing could be done with Minor NOs.

Because the VC thing is universal, its easy to remember.
All the rest you have reduced to a simple Dozen. One Major and one Minor Objective for each nation.

Then we could print a slick new card for each Nation that has them written down for easy reference. :-D
On each card the Major Objective written in blue (since its worth 10) and the Minor Objective written in green (since its worth 3), the Generic universal Objective “control of VC” could be written in Red (since its worth 5.)
Any takers?

[Young Grasshopper]

I’ve been calculating in my head and the 5 IPCs per VC is very promising, if that “city” is at war. For example: the UK would get 5 IPCs for London and 5 IPCs for Cairo, but not 5 IPCs for Calcutta if not at war with Japan. This would also change my mind about SA as a Commonwealth.

[Black_Elk]

Sounds cool to me. Do you dig this color consistency?

National Objective = +10 ipcs (one specific goal for each player nation)
Major Objective = +5 ipcs for control of each Victory City (generic goal for all player nations)
Minor Objective = +3 ipcs (one specific minor goal for each player nation)

The wording of the +5 VC Major objective could be whatever is needed, so if at war is best, then I’m down. I just think it has a nice simplicity to it, and could match the sort of visual representation we’ve been using all along here at 10, 5, 3.

On the cards the colors for objectives could also match up.  :-D

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

Sounds cool to me. Do you dig this color consistency?

National Objective = +10 ipcs (one specific goal for each player nation)
Major Objective = +5 ipcs for control of each Victory City (generic goal for all player nations)
Minor Objective = +3 ipcs (one specific minor goal for each player nation)

The wording of the +5 VC Major objective could be whatever is needed, so if at war is best, then I’m down. I just think it has a nice simplicity to it, and could match the sort of visual representation we’ve been using all along here at 10, 5, 3.

On the cards the colors for objectives could also match up.  :-D

That’s cool, but at this point I’m only interested in how the $5 per VC plays out.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah exactly,  start with the VC +5 thing (which is convenient since VCS are marked on the map with a red dot.) See how the set up balances.

Then if necessary or desired, add in the next level with National Objectives, or Minor objectives, balanced for the gameplay based on just the simple VC situation.

Who knows though maybe we get lucky just on the VC balance, such that you don’t even need the extra layer on top unless you want it. Then the NOs would truly be optional, which would be kind of rad.

[Young Grasshopper]

Here’s what might happen in most games using VCs worth $5 each (cities at war only) instead of NOs…

Round 1

Germany - NOs = $10 / VCs = $15
Russia - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
Japan - NOs = $10 / VCs = $10
United States - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
China - NOs = $6 / VCs = $0
United Kingdom - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
Italy - NOs = $0 / VCs = $5
Commonwealth - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
France - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0

Axis - NOs = $20  / VCs = $30  
Allies - NOs = $16 / VCs = $20

Round 2

Germany - NOs = $10 / VCs = $15
Russia - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
Japan - NOs = $0 / VCs = $20
United States - NOs = $20 / VCs = $15
China - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
United Kingdom - NOs = $5 / VCs = $15
Italy - NOs = $5 / VCs = $5
Commonwealth - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
France - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0

Axis - NOs = $15  / VCs = $40  
Allies - NOs = $30 / VCs = $40

Round 3

Germany - NOs = $5 / VCs = $15
Russia - NOs = $5 / VCs = $15
Japan - NOs = $5 / VCs = $20
United States - NOs = $20 / VCs = $15
China - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
United Kingdom - NOs = $0 / VCs = $15
Italy - NOs = $5 / VCs = $5
Commonwealth - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
France - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0

Axis - NOs = $15  / VCs = $40  
Allies - NOs = $30 / VCs = $55

Round 4

Germany - NOs = $5 / VCs = $15
Russia - NOs = $8 / VCs = $15
Japan - NOs = $5 / VCs = $20
United States - NOs = $20 / VCs = $15
China - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
United Kingdom - NOs = $0 / VCs = $15
Italy - NOs = $10 / VCs = $10
Commonwealth - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
France - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0

Axis - NOs = $20  / VCs = $45  
Allies - NOs = $33 / VCs = $55

Round 5

Germany - NOs = $10 / VCs = $20
Russia - NOs = $8 / VCs = $10
Japan - NOs = $5 / VCs = $20
United States - NOs = $20 / VCs = $15
China - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0
United Kingdom - NOs = $0 / VCs = $15
Italy - NOs = $12 / VCs = $5
Commonwealth - NOs = $5 / VCs = $10
France - NOs = $0 / VCs = $0

Axis - NOs = $27  / VCs = $45  
Allies - NOs = $16 / VCs = $50

Here’s what happened:

G3 DOW and a J2 DOW
Italy took Cairo I4
UK liberated Cairo UK5
Germany took Paris GI
Germany took Leningrad G5

[Black_Elk]

Very interesting YG! This is good stuff! Keep it comin’ :-)

Its interesting to see how that “at war” condition can effect things. Question though, wouldn’t it make more sense to do the DoW aspect for the entire Nation (and all VCs under its control) rather than by specific city? Because I think to be at war with anyone should be enough to activate them. I am leary of anything for example, that treats Calcutta differently from say London. If UK is at war with Germany, then it seems like India should count towards that effort, even if the war with Japan has yet to begin.

To keep everything as simple as possible at the outset, I am still testing a basic +5 at collect income for everybody just to see what values it produces. From the player’s standpoint this is really easy to add in, since you just count up the Red dot VCs under your control and take a 5 dollar bill from the bank for each one.

If, as expected, this basic lay out takes us from Axis always win, to somewhere on the “Allies win” side, then that is likely a small victory. Because what we could do then, is just add in whatever NOs we need on balance. So say for example that in the basic VC +5 game, Germany and Italy end up weaker, but Japan ends up stronger. Then when you add in the Axis NOs you could make the German and Italian ones easy, but the Japanese one hard to achieve. Likewise you could make all the Allied NOs hard to achieve relative to the Axis NOs.
Or Vice Versa, if the opposite balance is needed. Basically you see where the balance shakes down under the VC scheme first, and then bring NOs into it as needed.

Especially if you had two tiers of objective cash beyond the +5 VC (the +10 National Objective, and +3 Minor Objective) to work with. You could make these easier or harder to achieve by nation/side based on the new Halifax conditions rather than the OOB conditions.

This is an opportunity to be creative if we want, when it comes to which National or Minor objectives come into play, and how the values for them break down. The reason I like the automatic +5 for VC control is that its very easy to read. You don’t have to worry about “what just happened” with the territory, whether it was just captured or just liberated or not, whether its at war or anything else, the only thing you need to know is who controls it currently. Red dot for +5 at collect income, as basic as I could think to make it.

Right now it looks like this most basic bonus produces a set up more amenable to Allied victory. If it works, then solid, if not, we can still tweak it down to restrict the conditions for when the VC +5 is to be collected. (Whether at War or not, or if some other condition needs to apply, like being newly captured/re-captured etc.)

[Black_Elk]

National Objective = +10 ipcs (one specific goal for each player nation)
Major Objective = +5 ipcs for control of each Victory City (generic goal for all player nations)
Minor Objective = +3 ipcs (one specific goal, or series of related goals, for each player nation)

Thinking about this some more, right now there a pretty much two kinds of NOs OOB, ones that deal with unit location (like naval NOs) and ones that deal with territories controlled.

I think you could put the wording on Major and Minor Objectives to give the flavor of both if you wanted.

The Major Objective +10 might read (+10 for control of territories A and B and C)
The Minor Objective +3 might read (+3 for control of any territory X or Y, or Z)
These for the Nations where Objectives like that make sense.

For other Nations you might have the Objectives read something like +10 or +3 for something related to Navies.

Basically whichever Objectives makes sense for that faction, and its income needs on Game balance. Does that make sense?