Just to reiterate why this adjustment has me so intrigued…
1. It takes the two seperate Europe and Pacific games and brings them together more seamlessly than the OOB second edition rules do. Not only have we simplified the factions in play (by getting rid of one, and expanding another), but we have also simplified the rules pertaining to them.
2. We have dramatically streamlined the overall economy. Taking 30 complex Objectives down to just one basic system that is universal and super easy to understand.
3. Virtually everything we’ve done has a visual/aesthetic coherence. From the roundels, to the factories, to the Cities. All the critical information is displayed more or less directly on the gameboard itself, making it much easier to read at a glance.
4. We give each player, regardless of Side/Nation new strategic options with the promise of more engaging gameplay for all.
5. We have finally given VCs a real influence on the gameplay mechanics, bolstering the NAP and DoW concepts in the process.
Glorious :-D
Ps. I feel reasonably confident that I could take a player who knows how to play Classic Revised or 1942.2 and teach them how to play Global using these Rules. Most of the main obstacles in the learning curve are overcome with this Halifax set up. Basically all a new player has to do now is familiarize themselves with the new unit roster and a couple simple rules about cities and mongolia. Everything else is intuitive and should come very naturally to players who have experience with say 1942.2. This makes me happy
Gave New Zealand their fighter back… NOW IT’S FINISHED!
3 play test games this weekend… new YouTube video to follow.
Nice! I actually prefer NZ with the 2 fighters anyway. It’s one less line in the set up changes, one less thing players have to do to get Halifax up and running. If you want to add the Ontario fighter, that’s fine since these rules are about making Canada part of the Commonwealth. But I really dislike adding/removing units from the starting set up as a way to achieve game balance.
I have made the case to Larry and others elsewhere and so I guess I will make it again here… it’s better to change the starting money or potential income, than it is to change the starting units. If preplacement bids should have taught us anything over the years, it’s that changes to the starting units can torpedo the first round battle balance all over the place. Especially when the change is “official” like the case with the 1941 starter board, when the official set up doesn’t match the boxed materials, it just smacks of poor planning in the original design or rushing to the finish before the design is completed. Its important to preserve historical analogy or constancy along at least one dimension, and to me this should be the starting unit set up (the stuff actually printed on the set up cards). Adjusting the money is one thing, adding or removing units in the field is another. I am far more amenable to rules that alter starting cash or income, rather than rules which ask players to redesign the starting unit set up.
The former (the money) seems inherently amorphous anyway, but that latter (the starting units) should be concrete. Otherwise you might as well concede that these games don’t relate to the situation of forces at the start date in any meaningful way at all. Or that the balance on round 1 battles (which is supposedly designed a particular way for a reason) is in fact irrelevant. So that’s my argument, and the reason I’ve never liked unit adjustment (preplacement bids etc) for game balance. It’s like opening Pandora’s box.
If there is an imbalance in any A&A game it is almost always an economic imbalance (an IPC spread), which people then try to influence indirectly by messing around with units. Instead of just dealing with the issue directly by adjusting starting IPCs or potential income (bonuses) in the first round. Recall in past games the Germans blasting their way through Egypt on G1 to get Axis +X ipcs in Africa, or how just a single sub can sink entire Armadas, and things of that sort. You can try as hard as you want, but you will never convince me that consistency with OOB income trumps consistency with OOB starting Units hehe. Boots on the ground, or ships in the sea, seem fixed and hard, in a way that a 5 dollar bill is not. :-D
When balance can be achieved without altering the unit distribution in substantial ways (e.g. to break some round 1 battle), but achieved instead just by adjusting the starting/overall economy, this is vastly preferable.
Along these lines, we should admit how hard it is to balance an A&A game, and include within the rules our own official “Options” which allow players to tweak the income potential. This is something that was lacking in both 1941 and 1942.2. Those games had no strong options to introduce money (or even tech.) My first resource is always the official rulebook, before I try to alter the unit set up, I always look first to the official “options.” To see if one of those might work. (Which would be like what you did there with the US Warbonds.) I like that. But we should consider a few options. The problem with g40 is there really aren’t any to choose from (except maybe autotech), since the OOB NOs were all designed into the balance as critical and interrelated for the game to function. What we did was to fix all that and give a solid baseline with the City Objectives that remain constant. But this wouldn’t rule out some form of NO or National Advantage on top of this as Optional, if such a thing can correct balance issues before unit adjustment I’d go there first. Basically this is a roundabout way of saying, it would be nice, if a bid is required, to establish that it not be a preplacment bid, but rather some form of direct income adjustment. In other words the old style of bid, to starting income rather than starting units (which provides us with more useful information anyway, ie how much money is really needed to cover the spread, not which battle needs to be broken which is what preplacment shows you! Haha). But before we even get there, let’s assume no Bid until balance is determined.
So far all we’ve done here is take factories already in existing locations and substituted new abilities/restrictions for them. Likewise for the combat units, with the exception of the Ontario fighter, all we have done is substitute Canadian units for existing British ones. Everything thus far has been substitution rather than addition, which is why I like it. Players can set the board as normal, and then just make a few simple substitutions, instead of throwing their set up cards in the trash haha. At least we are keeping one fairly important thing constant, the basic set up and values of combat units.
Can’t wait to hear the results and to see the new video! Also my first draft delta deck arrived today. Those cards look way slick! Look forward to the next run, with the Dominions :)
Great work
One last modification to the Halifax rule document in post #1…
South Africa is now part of the new Commonwealth nation.
Guys please don’t take this the wrong way, I think your Idea’s are pretty awesome.
When I first found this thread I was really excited to try G40 with a unified UK, and the Commonwealth expanded (new CAnzac). WE got a much needed new mid level IC, and things started to roll.
I know that some tweaks to the NO’s were to be expected as it went into the testing phase. After just a couple games YG thought that the UK/CAnzac were to weak economically (toyed with adding S Africa to Commonwealth) and probably needed more obtainable NO’s. I figured that we might see a no German subs in the Atlantic NO for the UK again, maybe even allow CAnzac the same NO (Canada took over much of the convoy duties). Maybe keep both Anzac NO’s intact etc….
Now you’re scrapping out the original NO’s in favor of a VC based bonus, and changing the Mongolian rules etc… This went from a simple variant to the G40 game to a game that no longer resembles the original G40 game IMO. I guess that I’m more of a purest then I thought, because I wanted to play Halifax with the G40 rule set. I will still do that, but the way you’re trending it probably won’t be your finished product. Plus I also figured that once you got this thing up and running you might start a thread over at Larry’s site and get some feedback from him. It would fair better w/o major changes to the existing rule-set IMO.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the VC bonus is worth looking into, and I have passed on my thoughts about a Capture bonus (multi round), and Liberation bonus (one timer) to Black_Elk. I’m assuming he started a separate thread for that so it wouldn’t side track Halifax (but looks like it may have anyway). I just think you’ve went beyond the scope of Halifax. You’re pretty much looking at another Delta project here IMO.
Anyway, I would love to play just Halifax, then maybe look into playing a new version of Global with the other stuff that would include Halifax later.
I understand completely Wild Bill, I’ve got no problem creating 2 options.
@Young:
I understand completely Wild Bill, I’ve got no problem creating 2 options.
Cool, just need some more test runs, get cracking (we need this yesterday mister lol)
@WILD:
@Young:
I understand completely Wild Bill, I’ve got no problem creating 2 options.
Cool, just need some more test runs, get cracking (we need this yesterday mister lol)
LOL… You just reminded me of Nick Nolte in “The Thin Red Line”.
@Young:
I understand completely Wild Bill, I’ve got no problem creating 2 options.
DONE!
Gonna play option 1 for all 3 games this weekend, easier to sell it to the group than #2… gonna be a great test.
Made last minute refinements, going off to war now for 3 games in 3 days with the following Halifax rules… wish me luck.
G40 HALIFAX RULES
A special thanks to knp7765, afrothunder12, Black_Elk, and Wild Bill for their contributions to the development of these rules.
New Production Unit Profiles:
Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured
Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
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*
There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:
*1. The 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.
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
New Single UK Economy:
The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital. The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.
New Commonwealth Nation:
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as South Africa and South West Africa will now be know as the British Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian and South African territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zones #106 and #71).
The Commonwealth nation does not have a capital, and as long as the Commonwealth controls Ottawa and/or Sydney, they may collect an income and build units. However, if both Ottawa and Sydney are under enemy control, the Commonwealth must immediately relinquish all IPCs to the bank, and remove their roundel from the income tracker until at least 1 of these two original victory cities are liberated.
If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada, as well as South Africa and Western South Africa.
New National Objectives
All national objectives for the United Kingdom and ANZAC have been removed, and are now replaced with the following:
United Kingdom National Objectives:
5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya
5 IPCs if there are no Axis Submarines in the Atlantic
The British Commonwealth National Objectives:
5 IPCs for control of all original Commonwealth territories
5 IPCs if the Allies control all original Dutch territories in the Pacific
New Rule Modifications
Setup Adjustments:
American War Economy:
During each collect income phase in which the United States are at war, they may roll 2 dice and collect the amount shown in IPCs.
Okay, maybe I missed something but I am not understanding why you messed with the US Production facilities and their DOW.
Your rule states that upon the US DOW on the Axis or an Axis DOW upon the US, the US can upgrade ONE (1) of their major factories to an industrial complex.
All three US factories are supposed to upgrade to industrial complexes upon the US entry into the war. This is supposed to indicate the US ramping up from peacetime production to wartime production.
I mean, we all thought that the US wasn’t making enough money so you gave them the War Bonds so the US would have more money to spend. Then you nerf their production like this? Suppose they choose the EUS factory to upgrade to an IC, then on the Pacific side they will not be able to compete with Japan productively because they can only produce 5 units per turn there. Even if they build minor factories in Mexico and Alaska, the units they can build there is still limited.
Are you thinking people will upgrade the WUS factory to an IC? In which case the US could produce 10 units on each side as the CUS and EUS would produce 5 each and both territories feed into SZ 101. So do you just not want the US to be able to produce 20 units into the Atlantic?
I think you should remove that stipulation. This is just my opinion and these rules are yours so it is up to you. I will say that we will not be using that part in our games.
@Young:
Gonna play option 1 for all 3 games this weekend, easier to sell it to the group than #2… gonna be a great test.
I agree that ppl would be more inclined to play Op#1 (at least in the beginning). That was my point, and I’m glad to see you re-focus in that direction (for now). Think its important to get a viable (dare I say basic) scenario up and running before you introduce the other things that were mentioned.
I was also wondering about the US restricted to only one upgrade (knp outlined it well)?
Looking forward to hear your game reports YG
No problem guys, thought it would be an interesting choice for the Americans, but I can see how it’s unnecessary. Went back to this…
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
Thanks for keeping me on track, my goal is to get an endorsement from Krieghund, and the tweaks have to be minimal for that to happen.
What do you guys think about the rest of it?
Looks good… Just curious, why did you add South Africa to the Commonwealth?
Looks good… Just curious, why did you add South Africa to the Commonwealth?
I don’t want to put words in YG’s mouth, but in the test game he reported the UK had its handful with London/India and kinda neglected the S African IC (lack of funds). Not sure if the Commonwealth would be much better off though because they have even less income. The thought was the CW might be able to spend there early in games. Plus there was a couple posts of a heavy CW investment in S Af to fortify Africa that gained some interest.
Since then though I think UK got a new NO to help with that, so maybe it was a bit premature to pull the plug on a UK controlled S Af. Even in regular G40 games S Af can get neglected, and the UK is supposed to feel the squeeze (especially early). I think it is good to test it both ways, and maybe he’ll give it another shot in one of the test games this weekend.
Finished our first play test game today, and I’m ready to give a brief report… (gotta get up early for the FMGC).
Wild Bill is correct about why I decided to go with a Commonwealth that included SA, and it was confirmed today. The UK has a huge responsibility protecting London and Calcutta, the SA factory had cobwebs when controlled by the UK (both Halifax and OOB). At least this way, the Commonwealth can ignore Ottawa and build in SA if needed, in fact… the freedom to spend on 3 factories allows the Commonwealth the prioritize their income better than the UK, because Britain has more demanding strategies to adhere to.
As for our game today… the Axis won easily using the same dominate strategies as always. It was decided before the game that the US would only get 1 dice for extra income, however, as the game was reaching its end, it became clear that the US indeed needs 2 dice. The UK became very confident with their new economic situation and built a minor factory in Egypt turn 1. At the time it looked like a safe bet, however, things turned fast in the Med and the Italians captured the factory for good round 6. The situation was bleak and it proved to be the beginning of the end for the Allies.
My new philosophy for the UK (based on many games and not just today’s) is to not build a factory in Egypt or Persia unless crazy not to. I’m convinced that the UK money should be used to protect London and India, and if there’s money left over… start building an invasion force for liberating Europe (I’ve never seen Rome fall where it couldn’t be taken back next turn… fruitless). It’s still to early to remove the Japanese air units in Manchuria, but I’m sure Halifax may be headed there. As the US player, I rolled a 6,1,3,1,5,3, and 5 in 8 rounds of play (which took us 11 hours due to all the chit chat we indulged in).
The production facilities work awesome… placing units, bombing, repairing, and just the overall look of the table was flawless, although still in the air as to how it helps the Allies, at least there’s no doubt that it should help them in theory. Gonna try again tomorrow, although it might be an odd game of Halifax as my friend Mike will be teaching and integrating his oil barrel production house rule (which I find very interesting, but to left field for Halifax). I will try to report when I get home Saturday night.
Cheers and thanks for your time.
Sounds encouraging. Somehow I suspect it’s going to take some definite changes in strategy, coupled with some changes in early game income collection, if you want to see a g40 game where Axis don’t crush. Your friends idea about oil is also interesting, I’ve heard concepts like this mentioned before and I would support it, though I suspect (like the city objective) you will also meet with resistence. It’s very difficult to please everyone. As a GM you might wish to go more benevolent dictatorship than democracy, and try to find the game that works best for the tastes of your playgroup rather than trying to find one ruleset to rule them all hehe.
I know in my own group we find USA and Russia chronically underfunded, while Axis just stomp, and run the board. This is why I think I am maybe a bit more open than others here to a somewhat more dramatic readjustment of the OOB situation.
Until someone comes out and starts showing Allied victories, I’d say we’ve still got work to do.
Again I would come down against unit adjustment (removing Japanese aircraft etc.), because I think that changing the starting unit distribution messes with the game more dramatically than any NO you might introduce or remove, or any HR to tweak income. Others don’t seem to care at all about this, as the popularity of preplacment bids proves, but for me it remains the least desirable option.
I don’t see a strong difference for example between removing 21 ipcs worth of aircraft units on the Axis side, and adding 21 ipcs worth of ground units somewhere for the Allies. I think if you proposed adding 7 infantry to Russia people would balk at the idea. But how is it really any different?
Income adjustment is for me the only way to alter the situation without breaking early round battles. But again, I may be in the minority here ;)
I’d say you’ve got a pretty strong template to build off of here. How exacting you need to make it in the finer details is a question to ruminate on. Suggested options might be helpful here. Option A, Option B etc, for balance depending on player preference. But so far I like what I’m hearing in terms of the overall effect of the production scheme and the Commonwealth/UK.
Thanks Black Elk… I totally get what you’re saying, I mean if we have to rely on striping away Japanese air units, and giving the US 2 dice worth of money… than why the single UK income and Commonwealth if it’s all just a wash.
I’ve been playing around in my head an idea about the Allies piggy backing production unit capabilities… it goes something like this:
Piggy Backing Commonwealth Factories:
The Commonwealth nation now goes first in the turn sequence. At the beginning of every game round, 5 black chips are placed under each original major factory the Commonwealth owns, a chip is removed from a factory if a Commonwealth unit is placed there. The United States first, then the United Kingdom second, may build units on Commonwealth factories removing black chips for each unit placed there, up to the amount of available black chips under each factory. However, America may only piggy back Ottawa and Sydney, and the UK may only piggy back Ottawa and South Africa. Once a game round has ended, all black chips are reset to 5.
What do you think?
It’s an interesting concept, and I am probably more willing than most to entertain things like adjustment in turn order as a balance corrective (as I saw this work very successful in AA50, nearly negating the need for an Allied bid, without changing the unit distribution, just the order in which China moved.) At the same time though, and despite all my ideas on how g40 might be improved, I sympathize with the point that Wild Bill made. Some players just want a game which is basically as close to regular G40 as its possible to be, while still including whatever new and novel element we are trying to introduce. So I would suggest the following…
Start with the basic Halifax ideas that have been broadly accepted so far, (e.g. the ideas in this thread that we haven’t changed position on) and set it there.
1. New Production model outlined above, in the 3 tiers suggested.
2. Unite UK and UK Pacific into a single faction
3. Incorporate Canada into the existing faction Anzac and rename it Commonwealth.
Point 3 probably needs resolution on the South Africa issue before going forward. Because W. Canada already needs to be chipped out for a Commonwealth Roundel in second edition anyway, and this to me would encourage a single faction for all the Dominions. This would include roundels on W. Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa and S.W. Africa (as this territory was controlled by the Dominion of S.A. at the time.) This is a very simple change only a few roundels, substitute any units.
Puts the Commonwealth at a solid 20 ipcs to start.
Ireland is a special case, because of the start date and history. Technically it is also a Dominion, but since it is neutral, Commonwealth could still occupy it. Or it could likewise be chipped with a Commonwealth roundel. Ireland could be left to player preference. Then again, why revisit things again at some future point, when Irish and South African fans of A&A also bemoan their own lack of inclusion in the Commonwealth. We could fix it all from the outset with this option. Or just allow the player to note the possession (zero ipc territories dont have to be chipped out with a roundel if desired, or if a roundel is needed for conquest you could take it off the zero ipc territories first.) Just depends how many commonwealth roundels you want to use.
20 Commonwealth, 35 UK
That right there is basically all you need at the core. Everything else beyond this is basically open, a question of NOs, or how to balance from that basic start up.
I like options at this point. If you wish to preserve all current NOs, and add in some new ones, might want to just focus on those first. If for example UK still can’t hold, at least at 50/50, then perhaps consider raising their objective from 5 to 10, or making it easier to achieve at the start. On balance, I think it’s easier to work within the new objectives you’re already adding, direct ipcs, rather than further unit addition/subtraction.
As long as it has a decent Allies vs Axis potential, say 1 game out of every 3, that would be a marked improvement.
Piggy backing sounds interesting, for those with black chips on hand, and a desire to try new options. But I would leave that stuff as suggested options.
Suggested options, framed as such, shouldnt have to be included for the variant to work, but might include things like additional income bonuses or advantages. VC rules. Oil/resource rules. Randomized Cards. Fortunes of War. Adjustment in turn order, Piggy Backing etc.
But leave the core stuff set, so you can then build it out from there in different directions, based on preference for game type. :-D
