Black Elk's Halifax Modification (for G40 beginners)

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Option: Mongolia and the Soviet Japanese NAP.
The only rule I would suggest, if you want to give a nod to the Soviet Union Japan Non Aggression Pact, is an adaptation of YG’s simple Mongolia rule. In this case whichever Nation (Russia or Japan) attacks the other first, will activate Mongolia for the opposite side. So if Russia attack Japan first,  Mongolia becomes Japanese, if Japan attacks Russia first then Mongolia becomes Russian.  This rules would be strictly optional, at the GMs discretion or by player preference.

Personally I’d never exercise this option because it’s inconceivable that Mongolia would ever become Japanese.  The Mongolian People’s Republic, or whatever it was called, was basically a regional franchise of the Soviet Union.  I was very happy when I recently discovered that HBG, which already produces Pro-Alllied, Pro-Axis and Neutral territory markers, had added a new Pro-Soviet marker to its line-up because that’s a perfect description of what Mongolia’s status actually was.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Option: Simplified Convoy Raids

Convoy Raids are conducted by submarines only, on the attacking player’s turn. So for example, if Germany is running a convoy raid against a sea zone off the coast of Halifax, this raid occurs on Germany’s turn! Any submarines conducting a raid may not participate in normal combat, you must choose beforehand whether to send them into normal combat or to conduct a raid. These attacks are similar to a Strategic Bombing Run (SBR) or a rocket attack, they are conducted against the convoy space directly.

The defending Convoy zone may roll 1d6 for “convoy defense”, similar to an AA gun. The Convoy defendse hits at a 1, and may defend against a maximum of 3 submarines. So in this case, if Germany were to attack with 4 or more subs, then 3 of them would have to face the “convoy defense” while the rest get in clean. Any subs which survive get to roll 1d6 against the convoy space “A raid”. The amount rolled is removed directly from the enemies income. The total value of a convoy is capped at the value of the IPC value of all territories adjacent to it.

Reason: OOB convoy raids are pretty confusing, it is the only “attack” that is run during an opponents turn rather than your own, which breaks with A&A convention. This is just bizarre and difficult to explain. Rather than use an entirely new mechanic, we adopt a familiar one (Strategic Bombing) but put it to use in the water. Only subs are allowed to run Convoy Raids (not warships!). This is for several reasons. First because the submarine is under-powered relative to the destroyer in OOB g40 anyway and this role “the convoy raider” would provide a corrective and make the disparity less stark. Second because submarines have unique movement and diving abilities which make them particularly well suited to this role. Finally, because subs are relatively cheap, players are more likely to “risk them” on raids, in the same way that players are more willing to risk inexpensive bombers on strat bombing (relative to say, the old Classic bomber that cost 15.)

The Convoy defense Roll, by firing against a maximum of 3 subs (similar to aaaguns) encourages wolf packs. While also providing the Convoy defender with a much needed way to answer the “Raid” directly, outside of just destroying the subs in normal combat, since the economic impact is potentially significant. IPCs being removed directly demands a system like this, in order to prevent abuse. With this simple implementation of a new approach to sub raids, you can create a special strategic value for all these convoy zones. This would be the only way to directly effect an enemy’s cash reserves (all other mechanics have a purchase/repair system), whereas subs would behave like the old Bombers of Classic. They remove IPCs from the enemy’s pocketbook, forcing them to return that money to the bank. This convoy mechanic uniquely provides a way to effect what purchases could be made by certain powers in the first round, if for example, u-boats are used in raids rather than normal battles. The overall Cash is more abundant in this Halifax Modification, so there is plenty of flexibility to provide a mechanic of this sort (the old style direct removal of IPCs raid), to compliment the Strategic Bombing aspect of the normal G40 game. This rule works in a familiar way, but finally gets subs doing real economic damage in the deep water, briny blue!

Thanks for Der Kuenstler for reminding me about this important issue in his post from earlier today. :-D

I provided an answer to DK, I hope you will read.

I think you should use this mechanics instead:
Subs can either attack or Convoy Raid, but if there is no Destroyers in the SZ, there is no escort roll for Convoy.
When there is DDs, each DD get a one time shot @2 (because DD A2 D2 M2 C8).
Remove casualties (or let the Sub roll a defense @1 instead of an attack @2 before dying).
Proceed to damage, by rolling D6+2 for each surviving Subs.
More destruction because their is more risks against a DD.
Same damage rate than with SBR. (More streamlined.)

[Black_Elk]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

Option: Mongolia and the Soviet Japanese NAP.
The only rule I would suggest, if you want to give a nod to the Soviet Union Japan Non Aggression Pact, is an adaptation of YG’s simple Mongolia rule. In this case whichever Nation (Russia or Japan) attacks the other first, will activate Mongolia for the opposite side. So if Russia attack Japan first, � Mongolia becomes Japanese, if Japan attacks Russia first then Mongolia becomes Russian. � This rules would be strictly optional, at the GMs discretion or by player preference.

Personally I’d never exercise this option because it’s inconceivable that Mongolia would ever become Japanese.  The Mongolian People’s Republic, or whatever it was called, was basically a regional franchise of the Soviet Union.  I was very happy when I recently discovered that HBG, which already produces Pro-Alllied, Pro-Axis and Neutral territory markers, had added a new Pro-Soviet marker to its line-up because that’s a perfect description of what Mongolia’s status actually was.

Interesting point. Well how about this for another approach, still relatively easy but closer to the historical/political situation? If Russia attacks first then Japan gets 18 ipcs, or 6 infantry to Mobilize in Manchuria (or whichever mainland territory is closest to the front.) This would at least be a roughly equivalent to value of the Mongolian troops, while still preserving the pro Soviet aspect of Mongolia.

Or perhaps even more simplistic, just remove Mongolia from the equation entirely. If Russia attacks first then Japan gets 20 ipcs. If Japan attacks first then Russia gets 20 ipcs. This way the consequences are exactly the same for both players, and rather than forcing players to use Mongolia,  they could just mobilize at their normal facilities. This prevents a clean sweep attack, where one side just crushes Mongolia in a coordinated strike. Its easy to read, and from a gameplay standpoint makes the NAP mechanic a bit more significant. In fact, I think I prefer this approach, I will edit the post above to accommodate more flexibility with the NAP. Thanks CWO Marc for pointing this out.

Its important to keep in mind that if you want the NAP to work (outside of a hard rules restriction) then you need to give it a reward/penalty aspect. Whatever the real logic in warfare regarding “surprise attacks” or “breaking alliances” I think it makes sense to penalize the attacker, and reward their opponent, as the only way to really encourage the maintenance of the pact. In this instance the penalty to the attacker is the reward to the defender. So we keep it nice and tidy.

You could conceivably design things the other way around, a direct cost in IPCs to the aggressor for example, but somehow that feels a bit less gameful. By rewarding the defender, as a way to penalize the attacker, you create a kind of “casus belli” situation, where players could imagine the money is coming from war bonds or increased military spending following the surprise attack. I’m anticipating the response “but isn’t this like creating money out of thin air,” well yes it is, but we have been doing that all over the place in A&A for years. So this doesn’t strike me as all that different ;)

I think the geography and strategic position of troops between Russia and Japan already does a lot to discourage immediate fighting in the north, but with a Moscow endgame, a broken NAP is basically unavoidable. Russia doesn’t have a whole lot of incentive to attack Japan, but Japan has a fairly substantial incentive to attack Russia. That’s why I suggest a NAP at 20 ipcs awarded to the defender, so if you attack, in practical game terms, it’s like buying a battleship or pair of fighters for the enemy. In other words, “it better be worth it” and part of the plan, not just some casual decision on the part of Japan, made even more obvious by the need to crush Moscow to have any hope of winning. I mean as far as I’m concerned, the whole reason the DoW was introduced in the first place was just to get a kind of “neutrality pact” going on, specifically for Russia, but also for the United states delayed entry. A simpler system like the one above, would provide the same essential flavor, but without requiring any hard rules restrictions about movement or combat the way the DoW does, its basically just a giant carrot that gets used as a stick hehe.

The whole incentive/disincentive to attack in these instances should be economic, handled with IPCs, not categorically determined or denied, and not built out as whole separate game phase, but just something made “more or less” likely by the fact that there is this reward/penalty aspect going on. Does that make sense to you guys? Because it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me, at least in a game. But again, I prefer this as an option, something you could choose to explore or ignore at the players preference, or at the GMs suggestion. I keep coming back to that simple phrase for a reason  :-D

@Baron:

I think you should use this mechanics instead:
Subs can either attack or Convoy Raid, but if there is no Destroyers in the SZ, there is no escort roll for Convoy.
When there is DDs, each DD get a one time shot @2 (because DD A2 D2 M2 C8).
Remove casualties (or let the Sub roll a defense @1 instead of an attack @2 before dying).
Proceed to damage, by rolling D6+2 for each surviving Subs.
More destruction because their is more risks against a DD.
Same damage rate than with SBR. (More streamlined.)

Oh cool Baron,  I’ll have a look. That is an interesting approach there with the 1 time shot of the DD :-)
Thanks for the heads up.

Basically as long as it’s simple, and doesn’t break the convention of “attacks occur on the attackers turn” I’m fairly open to different ideas. Just wanted to provide a simple suggestion like the one I ended up using with my friends. One thing I would prefer to avoid however, is any major substantive changes to the units in the unit roster (things like cost or unit pairing in combat etc). Part of the idea behind simplifying other aspects of the game, is to allow sufficient room for players to grasp the unit roster that is already in place. There is nothing to prevent you from introducing other HRs on top of this game set up as desired, but ideally I would like to build around the OOB unit abilities when possible, so that it can be as accessible as possible.

In this Modification I have tried to keep the visual information on the map essentially in tact, using only the Control Marker Roundels and VC bonuses to make what I regard as the necessary adjustments. If something is drawn on the map already, then of course I would prefer to find a way to use it, so that when players ask “What’s that red line?” or “what’s that red dot” you are prepared with an answer and a gameplay aspect to explore. When it comes to Convoys, I like to have a system in place. I just think that the current way convoys are handled is very confusing. It doesn’t match up very well with the expectations coming from the rest of the game (or from previous A&A games.) Even convoys in the older Pacific game from the previous decade. I’d like to get them working, and I’d like to supe up the subs a bit by using the Convoy zone, but I’m trying to steer clear of direct modifications to the Unit Roster or Unit rules. At least for now.

[CWO Marc]

I’ll leave aside for the moment (and return later to) the question of how all this all this could be depicted in an A&A house rule, and concentrate for now on the actual historical situation.  I commented in my earlier post the Mongolia would never have “gone Japanese”.  I should also have said that the USSR would never have attacked Mongolia.  It had no reasons to do so, and good reasons not to do so.  The USSR had installed Mongolia’s Communist regime in the late 1920s or early 1930s, so ideologically the two states were very cozy.  One might even go so far as to call Mongolia a Soviet puppet state, although that’s perhaps overstating it.  The USSR fought alongside Mongolia against Japan in the border wars of 1938 or 1939, and Mongolia returned the favour by helping the USSR invade Japan in August 1945.

Mongolia did nominally remain neutral for most of WWII, but my argument would be that simply by doing so it was helping the USSR because it acted as a buffer state between a large part of the USSR and Japan’s conquered territories in Northern China (such as Manchuria).  This benefited the USSR because it didn’t have to keep as many troops in the east as would otherwise have been the case.  A Soviet invasion of Mongolia, by contrast, would have brought a big part of the Russian border right up against the border of Japanese-occupied China, thus requiring Russia to commit troops to border defense in the east who would have been far better used fighting the Germans on the western side of the Soviet Union – so it would have been very counterproductive for the USSR to seize Mongolia.

How should this be represented in A&A?  I can’t think of a definitive answer, and frankly it depends on what the goals of the rules (official or house) are.  Based on the precedent of the official rules that govern pro-Axis and pro-Allied nations in Global, one could argue that Mongolia should have a pro-Soviet status that works similarly: the USSR can basically take control of Mongolia and take command of its standing armies, without suffering any negative consequences; Japan, on the other hand, activates Mongolia as an enemy if it invades it.  Mongolia being pro-Soviet rather than pro-Allied, no Allied country other than the USSR could take control of Mongolia peacefully.  And realistically (as, in my opinion, would be realistic in all multi-territory pro-Allied countries), invading one part of the country should turn the whole country against the invader, not just the invaded part.

That would be the most historically accurate option, in my opinion.  Is is the most desirable option in terms of game balance?  Maybe, maybe not.  Mongolia has no IPC value, so controlling it has no benefits or drawbacks in that respect, but it does have a total of 6 standing army units, so that’s a useful addition for the USSR if Russia takes over the country.

[Black_Elk]

This is an excellent overview! I actually think this treatment of Mongolia would be preferable. It was clearly designed as a special case, since OOB it is the only True neutral type territory on the board that is divided up so heavily. I would suggest then that players could use a Pro-Soviet idea for Mongolia like the one CWO Marc just outlined above. The set up change is fairly simple. Just like everything else in the Halifax rules above, we will use roundel replacement to accomplish our goals.

Russian roundels will be placed “upside down”, in each Mongolian territory.

Mongolian territories are considered “Pro-Soviet” neutrals (as compared to pro-allied neutrals) meaning that in this case the United states could not activate them. If Russia enters a Mongolian space, the Russian roundel is returned to its upright position.

If Russia is attacked by Japan, then all Mongolian roundels flip upright. This could all operate independently of the basic rules for the Non Agression Pact. In other words, I would suggest that you still provide a simple economic reward/penalty system for the NAP. If Japan attacks Russia first, then Russia gets X ipcs and if Russia attack Japan first then Japan gets X ipcs. This would still be necessary, because in the situation outlined above, Mongolia essentially serves as a benefit to Russia and does very little to benefit Japan. Basically its like a dueling puppet show :-D Japan has their own forces firmly grounded in Manchuria/Manchukuo, while the Russians have their Pro-Soviet buddies in Mongolia. Here everything works out reasonably well for game balance, and isn’t too terribly complicated. It provides a compromise over the OOB situation that is fairly simple to grasp.

What do you think? I think the upside down Soviet Roundel is pretty easy to implement, of course if you had a special marker for Mongolia you could use that, but this gives a simple way to handle it all just with roundel replacement.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Russian roundels will be placed “upside down”, in each Mongolian territory.

Alternately, HBG’s Pro-Soviet markers would work nicely too:

http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Territory-Marker-Acrylic_p_1116.html

[General Veers]

I’ve always wanted Mongolia to be pro-Soviet, on the condition Soviet activation of any Mongolian TT is seen as an act of war by Japan.

[CWO Marc]

@General:

on the condition Soviet activation of any Mongolian TT is seen as an act of war by Japan.

Good idea.  I imagine that in real life Tokyo would have considered such a move as highly provocative, so that fits nicely.

[Black_Elk]

Makes a lot of sense to me, so under the situation outlined above direct Soviet occupation of Mongolia would be considered a violation of the NAP by Russia. At which point the GM would award Japan with whatever bonus conditions were determined before the game began. I like it

[Black_Elk]

Here is a saved game “rough draft” edit of the China set up above, for use with TripleA. Right now it uses the standard turn order, but that can altered if desired. All edits to achieve the set up are logged in the game history.

Note how China is no longer a separate nation but instead placed under direct USA control.
Check the stats column for the total Money, Production, and TUV for the United States.

Burma units may be edited into the appropriate territories per the rules above.

There are no co-located units here, all roundel substitutions in play according to the rules above, including for the Commonwealth (represented here in the save edit by ANZAC at 20, Eire south Africa etc.

It is up to the player to enforce the production rules via the edit mode, or to adjust territory possession as necessary (in the case of liberated territories). Example if Japan takes Hunan, and the Americans then liberate it, the game will show Hunan as Chinese, edit possession back to United states. The same thing for the Commonwealth, or if UK pacific territories reappear after conquest/liberation, edit them back to the appropriate power. Otherwise it works as normal, just remember to enforce the factories at 10, 5, 3.

Edit any Soviet Japan Nap conditions you wish.

If no DoW is desired, then you can have all Axis declare in the first round.

VC or Combat bonuses may be edited into the IPC totals at the end of the turn to augment or replace NOs if desired.

Savegame attached below… the next step would be to create an xml gamefile reflecting the new production units, and the Commonwealth faction (while removing UK pacific and China). Eliminate the politics phase, and create a simple NO option on the VCs. Adjust the turn order to the one outlined above.

G40 Halifax 2 China to USA.tsvg