Also, about the names…
I like the name “British” for the British Empire which would encompass UK, India etc. for the joined UK/UK Pacific faction. And the other name being something like “Commonwealth Dominions” rather than British Commonwealth, so it could still have the word ‘Dominions’ in it, which is a badass sounding word after all!)
I noticed this question posted by Black Elk in a couple of threads, so I sketched out the following answer which I’ll post in both threads.
I’d be in favour of using the term “Commonwealth” (“the Commonwealth”, “the Commonwealth nations”, etc.). For the period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII (thus in a time frame which works for A&A 1940), the term “Commonwealth” can be interpreted as referring more or less just to the six self-governing Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire (originally the Irish Free State) and Newfoundland (which, it should be noted, voluntarily agreed to go back to being ruled from London during the Great Depression).
The phrase “(British) Commonwealth of Nations” originated – at first with unofficial status – in the late 19th century, resurfaced (still unofficially) in 1917, and finally received official recognition in 1921. It was intended to be used in parallel with (or in some cases as an alternative to) the phrase “British Empire”, an example being Churchill’s famous statement that “if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour.” The “Commonwealth” usage arose in recognition of the fact that a number of British territories had become self-governing – the first such case being Canada, the original “Dominion” – and that therefore they had a greater degree of sovereignty than the Britain’s colonies, protectorates and mandates.
Dominion status was granted to Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907, South Africa in 1910 and the Irish Free State in 1922 (it became Eire in 1937). Via the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, it was recognized that these six Dominions were equal in status with the UK and that they were “freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” Strictly speaking, it could be argued that the UK was also an equal-status “member” of the Commonwealth rather than its head, but this would be a bit like arguing that the Augustus was basically an ordinary Roman Senator who simply happened to be “first among equals” in the Senate rather than the Emperor (an argument which Augustus himself liked to make). A similar dynamic existed within the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact that the UK’s (resident) Sovereign was recognized by the Dominions as their (absentee) Head of Statec – so Churchill’s phrase “the British Empire and its Commonwealth” is actually a good description of the asymmetrical relationship that existed at the time.
The phrase “Commonwealth” as it is used today has important differences with what it meant in 1940, since it now covers more than 50 entities. Back in the 1930s, it essentially referred just to Britain and its self-governing Dominions, of which there were six. The list started growing after WWII, when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were granted Dominion status, but the only British territories to achieve Dominion status prior to WWII were the six so-called “white colonies” whose population was preponderantly of European ancestry. So all in all, I think it’s historically justifiable to refer to the A&A 1940 “grey sculpt” block as simply “the Commonwealth,” which is certainly more convenient than the convoluted phrase “the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” “The Commonwealth Dominions” (perhaps “the CDs” in shorthand?) would be my second choice: it’s longer than just “the Commonwealth” but it’s a trifle more accurate since it excludes the UK and thus refers only to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland.
So you’re saying that we should use…
The British Empire, and the Commonwealth
Instead of…
The United Kingdom, and the British Commonwealth?
Halifax with the most straightforward implementation, regular CAnzac.
I’ve never been very fond of the term “CAnzac” – so just for fun, I played around with the names of the six Commonwealth Dominions to see if I could find an alternative acronym for the whole group. There are several possible combinations, and strangely enough most of them sound (to me at least) like they should be patented names for drugs. The one I like best (or hate the least) is what you get when you combine the capital letters for South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, Eire and Canada: SANZANEC. Frankly, I think we should stick with “the Commonwealth”. :-)
@Young:
So you’re saying that we should use…
The British Empire, and the Commonwealth
Instead of…
The United Kingdom, and the British Commonwealth?
No, I was just providing some historical context when I quoted Churcghll… The UK should be called the UK. The group consisting of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, Eire and Canada should be called either “the Commonwealth Dominions” or “the Commonwealth” depending on whether one prefers accuracy or brevity.
And just to clarify something about my previous post: perhaps what I should have said was that I’m not bothered by the fact that most A&A games use the term “United Kingdom” (which very conveniently abbreviates as UK, which is 50% shorter than that USSR and 33% shorter than USA), even though, strictly speaking, the territories depicted with UK roundels on the official map could more accurately be described as “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, its colonies, protectorates, mandates, territories and imperial holdings, and some of its self-governing Dominions.” That’s a trifle unwieldy. Basically these spaces amount to “the UK and its territories”, so “UK” is a convenient and acceptable shorthand for this concept and I’m fine with retaining it.
So that the boxed game sequence can be described as follows:
G-R-J-A-C-B-I-D-F
Germany, Russia, Japan, America, China, Britain, Italy, Dominions, France
Germans, Russians, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, British, Italians, Dominions, French (if you prefer)
or in the case of adjectives/adverbs…
German, Russian, Japanese, American, Chinese, British, Italian, Dominion, French
G
R
J
A
C
B
I
D
Fwith the cleanest possible abbreviation lines for stats columns.
I find two-letter abbreviations potentially less ambiguous than single-letter ones. The two-letter ones make it pretty clear what they represent: for example, “AM” and “AN” couldn’t stand for anything other than American and ANZAC, whereas “A” is ambiguous on its own (unless one remembers that in these house rules ANZAC has been replaced by a new power). Furthermore, the bases of all the OOB infantry sculpts (except for ANZAC) are stamped with two-letter codes (representing adjectival nationality), so that’s a familiar reference point. My preference would be for:
AM
BR
RU
GE
JA
IT
CH
FR
CD (Commonwealth Dominions)
@CWO:
Frankly, I think we should stick with “the Commonwealth”. Â :-)
100%
My preference would be (in order of play)
GR
RS
JP
US
CH
UK
IT
CD
FR
Yeah that’s great for me. On the physical board, sitting around tables in our living room, we can call them whatever we want. CAnzac is for sure ridiculous haha, that should be nowhere in the official rules, it was a joke for kicks! Though potentially useful shorthand for discussing the simple Canada+Anzac amongst ourselves.
As for the abbreviation scheme I mentioned, I was referencing TripleA, which uses B for British = UK already, so I was just clarifying what it’s going to look like if we make a Halifax mod there. In the stats column British Commonwealth would look confusing, which is why I like Commonwealth Dominion so we could use Dominion for short. CW and CD work equally well for me, but CD gives you the D if you need it.
But otherwise yeah, a two letter is fine :-D
It doesn’t matter as much for Face to Face play. But the computer game has conventions in place, so I just wanted to make the notes clear.
Sounds great!
Yeah that’s great for me. On the physical board, sitting around tables in our living room, we can call them whatever we want. CAnzac is for sure ridiculous haha, that should be nowhere in the official rules, it was a joke for kicks! Though potentially useful shorthand for discussing the simple Canada+Anzac amongst ourselves.
As for the abbreviation scheme I mentioned, I was referencing TripleA, which uses B for British = UK already, so I was just clarifying what it’s going to look like if we make a Halifax mod there. In the stats column British Commonwealth would look confusing, which is why I like Commonwealth Dominion so we could use Dominion for short. CW and CD work equally well for me, but CD gives you the D if you need it.
But otherwise yeah, a two letter is fine :-D
It doesn’t matter as much for Face to Face play. But the computer game has conventions in place, Â so I just wanted to make the notes clear.
Sounds great!
In the case of modifications to suit trippleA, I have no constructive input as I only play table top.
I enjoy table top too, and vastly prefer the hands on experience, but if we don’t have a test mod in TripleA there is little chance we’ll get any serious beta testing done. I have tried for years to convince Larry and others to start using a digital platform like ours for testing. In tripleA it is possible to isolate game breakers much faster and to see where the problem areas are. Many of the top players in the world tease out their strategies on digital platforms. These are the same people who discover the unstoppable strategies that push some to despair on game balance.
TripleA is very important for our community, whether dedicated table top gamers use it to improve their game or not is up to them. But its key, because it is the only convenient way outside of tournaments to find opponents at equal skill levels.
Since the Hasbro CD went defunct, and Revised was introduced, we’ve had a game out for each new board released by Christmas the following year at the latest.
I’m not sure if people here even realize what a pain in the ass it was for Sean and Nekro to get Revised up. :-D
Or how long it took me and CommradeKev to make AA50. I spent thousands of hours drawing those damn maps (with their silly 1 pixel boarder line gifs so the engine could read them) and creating graphics hehe. Or all the engine work done behind the scenes on the Pact of Steel and Great Wars games, to push the engine to a place where it could handle things like convoys or new unit types or additional factions, or basically everything now required to play the latest A&A boards with their complex rules.
Or seriously, the insane workload Veq and Bung had to put in so everyone could play G40. And G40 is insane by the way, I took one look at the rulebook and knew I didn’t have the juice for that. The rules in 1914 make me want to cry too, they’re so impossible. But anyway, we’re talking thousands upon thousands of man hours put in by fans of Axis and Allies for free, just because we love this game, and want people to learn how to play it.
I am a definite partisan for digital, we’re on the front lines over here.
But that in no way diminishes my love of Face to Face or the physical boards. I still buy every box that comes out and today I will be rolling the real dice! Joy!
But, YG, you should give us a shot some time. You might like it. Long as you play with chill people, some of the funniest and most intelligent players I’ve met have been on tripleA (some of the biggest jerks too, but even they can sometimes be brilliant strategists.) It’s just like anything. Some people have poor form face to face, throwing crap across the room, flipping boards, getting all agitated about dice instead of having fun. The same thing occurs in the digital envirnment. But if you find a fun playgroup it’s awesome. And you can save the game at any point, to placate the wife or the girlfriend, or walk the dogs, or feed the kids. :-D
If you’re ever around my handle in the TripleA lobby is “triplelk” or Black Elk on the boards, same as here.
Ps. Just wanted to say thanks CWO Marc for the awesome breakdown on the previous page! I knew you’d come correct with a killer breakdown as always.
I respect the online trippleA community greatly, but with my 3 group games per month, all the customizing I do, and then the time spent in forums talking about A&A… I have zero time to play in front of a screen. You do great work, and I encourage you to carry on that torch… I don’t have an interest to play online myself.
Well I’ll still hold out hope. Maybe one day I’ll head up north to the Cliffside Bunker, with copious snacks and the soundtrack to every classic Arnold flick blasting on the stereo… Predator, T2, Conan, etc. to roll the dice with maximum chi force physicality on that glorious table of yours!
And maybe someday you’ll come check out our digital dungeon, and I’ll show you how out here in the Matrix, “it’s all in your head” :-D
At the FMGC this weekend, there was great support for Halifax rules. However, the most widly accepted, and celebrated aspect of Halifax was the new production unit profiles, so I just wanted to repost the following quote from KNP, which gave me the inspiration to structure his mid level factory idea into Halifax.
Quote from knp7765:
_You could use my Mid-Level IC rule to keep UK from being able to drop 10 units at a time in Calcutta.
A Mid-Level IC costs 20 IPCs and can produce 5 units per turn. Mid-Level ICs can only be placed in a territory worth 3 IPCs or more.
A Minor IC can be upgraded to a Mid-Level IC for 10 IPCs. The Minor IC must be in a territory worth 3 IPCs or more before it can be converted to a Mid-Level.
If a Mid-Level IC is captured by an enemy power, it is downgraded to a Minor IC. The capturing power may upgrade the Minor IC back to a Mid-Level if they still hold it next round but they can only produce 3 units at that IC for that turn.
If the original owner or an ally liberates that territory, the Mid-Level will downgrade back to a Minor and the owner may upgrade back to a Mid-Level on their next turn if they still hold it.
CAPTURE EXAMPLE: UK builds a Mid-Level IC on Kwangtung. Japan captures Kwangtung so the IC downgrades to a Minor. Next round Japan still holds Kwangtung so they can produce 3 units there and pay to upgrade the IC to a Mid-Level. If Japan still holds Kwangtung next round, they can produce 5 units there.
LIBERATE EXAMPLE: Now the US makes a landing on Kwangtung and defeat the Japanese there, thus liberating Kwangtung for UK India. The IC will downgrade back to a Minor. On UK’s turn, they may produce 3 units there and can upgrade the IC back to a Mid-Level if they wish. Next turn, if Kwangtung is still Allied controlled, UK may produce 5 units there.
(If Calcutta was captured by Japan before the US landing in Kwangtung, then the US would control that IC and they could upgrade it to a Mid-Level and use it until Calcutta is liberated)
With this rule, there are NO new Major ICs allowed. So the only Major ICs will be the original 7 starting Major ICs (Great Britain, Germany, Western Germany, France, Northern Italy, Russia and Japan (Remember, Calcutta is no longer a Major, but a Mid-Level)) plus the 3 in the United States that get converted upon the US entry into the war. So, there should never be more than 10 Major ICs on the board at any time.
When a Major IC is captured by an enemy, it is downgraded to a Minor just like normal in the game now. However, the capturing power may upgrade the Minor IC to a Mid-Level, but never a Major. However, if that territory is liberated by the original owner or Allies, the Mid-Level will downgrade to a Minor and the ORIGINAL owner may upgrade that Minor to a Mid-Level or to a Major if they wish. If the original owner upgrades from a Minor to a Mid-Level for 10 IPCs, they can later upgrade the Mid-Level to a Major for an additional 10 IPCs. This is the ONLY instance where a Major IC will be placed on the board after the starting setup and US entry into the war.
I hope this might help you with your India problem. I myself really like it. We have made this a permanent house rule in our Global games and India always gets a Mid-Level. I kind of miss the opportunity for Japan placing a Major on Korea or Germany placing a Major on Romania, but overall I still think it is a much more balanced and realistic way to play. If I were to play Pacific 1940 alone, then I would give Calcutta a Major, but in Global it’s just a Mid-Level.
I think I explained everything but if I missed something feel free to ask._
Ps. Just wanted to say thanks CWO Marc for the awesome breakdown on the previous page! I knew you’d come correct with a killer breakdown as always.
My pleasure. Glad you liked it.
Thanks. I always hated that Germany could build a Major in Romania or Norway. My reasoning was there was no IC to start with, how could a Major spring up in a turn and churn out as much as the US or the UK or the industrial West of Germany. Regions tht had been industrialised for centuries.
Thank you for the credit you give Knp. He is a hard working and generous thinking member of this community.
It’s a bind, on the one hand it’s nice for archival purposes to have things sectioned off, but you also don’t want to stifle discussions. I’ve participated in many forums for many games over the years and this always happens. If you over moderate you end up with nice and clean but empty forums where no one wants to make new topics for fear of having their topics axed or swept away to the nether regions where no sees them. If you don’t moderate at all you end up with chaos and crowding.
This forum has been more active lately than its been in months. So if people here have an interest I’m content to let it ride here in this thread =)
A question: Do original thread creators have the ability to modify the title of their thread, without the need for moderator intervention? If so, I’d propose that currently active house rule threads which (for whatever reason) didn’t get created in the House Rules section could have their titles edited to be given a prefix like " *HR: " to identify them more easily. So for example, the present thread would become:
*HR: G40 Halifax Rules
The asterix serves as an eye-catcher, the HR stands for house rules, and the colon indicates that what follows next is the title of the thread.
This might be a good compromise, since on the one hand it would allow a certain amount of flexibility (which was Black Elk’s point about not wanting things over-moderated) while at the same time addressing the legitimate concern that it confuses matters when house rules are posted in places other than the House Rules section.
@CWO:
A question: Do original thread creators have the ability to modify the title of their thread, without the need for moderator intervention? If so, I’d propose that currently active house rule threads which (for whatever reason) didn’t get created in the House Rules section could have their titles edited to be given a prefix like " *HR: " to identify them more easily. So for example, the present thread would become:
*HR: G40 Halifax Rules
The asterix serves as an eye-catcher, the HR stands for house rules, and the colon indicates that what follows next is the title of the thread.
This might be a good compromise, since on the one hand it would allow a certain amount of flexibility (which was Black Elk’s point about not wanting things over-moderated) while at the same time addressing the legitimate concern that it confuses matters when house rules are posted in places other than the House Rules section.
Done!
@Young:
Done!
Wow, that was fast. :-)
