I actually really like this idea. Anzac and India on their own aren’t much, but as one nation with a single economy they could pick a route and make an impact. Best of all, it’s not an idea so crazy that it makes the game unrecognizable.
Would India still have a major and would Sydney still have a minor?
@Young:
Here are some other house rules I’m working on to compliment those in post #1 of this thread.
6. The following new Japanese NO will replace “outer perimeter”
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls 2 of the following 3 territories, Guam, Midway, and/or Wake Island.
and in addition to all other Japanese NOs
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls all Chinese original territories.
7. Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase.
Did your group accept to play-test these NOs and HR?
If yes, why did you discard them?
I actually really like this idea. Anzac and India on their own aren’t much, but as one nation with a single economy they could pick a route and make an impact. Best of all, it’s not an idea so crazy that it makes the game unrecognizable.
Would India still have a major and would Sydney still have a minor?
Yes, we used the rule book production system.
@Baron:
@Young:
Here are some other house rules I’m working on to compliment those in post #1 of this thread.
6. The following new Japanese NO will replace “outer perimeter”
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls 2 of the following 3 territories, Guam, Midway, and/or Wake Island.
and in addition to all other Japanese NOs
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls all Chinese original territories.
7. Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase.
Did your group accept to play-test these NOs and HR?
If yes, why did you discard them?
Yes, we used all of those plus a few others… I played Japan and faired well throughout the day, but it was not easy. I attacked J2 as I had the opportunity to kill all UKP’s ships. I bombed and convoyed India all day, I took the money Islands, and almost got the new Island NO but the Americans were to close. Although I could have taken all the Chinese territories at the end of the night, I choose not to so I could keep my strategic positioning, If we had played longer… I would have gotten that one. The Americans focused on the Germans by landing in Normandy, and with UKE’s reinforcements it was over as Germany got diced on the Russian front and couldn’t claim Moscow. We adjusted the house rules as we played together and refined it to fit our group, but I can’t stress enough how fluid the over all game experience was.
All I want for X-mas is, something like this released as 3rd edition Global. :-D
Where everything comes in one box, with a big red bow.
And there are more Anzac=Variant UK/Commonwealth roundels
And a few more pages in the manual discussing “official” variants, set ups, and rules.
Presented not as “the combination of two games into one” but as a separate stand alone “starter set” or “ultimate package” that allows you to play different global scenarios. Approached less like a rulebook for a specific game, and more like a D&D dungeon master’s guide. You know, you get the starter set and build. Sure its possible to do something like this already with custom pieces and a lot of dedication, but I wish the core game had more of the concept built in, and could expand on it in a more directed way. Basically giving players more options to work with. Lets include in this wishlist some separate Chinese artillery and flying tigers (at least 2, one for backup, that look like the warhawks of 1941.) Some separate generic “neutral” sculpts in white infantry.Paper Money rather than a tracker. Man, that’d be killer under the tree wouldn’t it?
Lo Saturnalia!
Guess I’ll have to make this a 2016 wish, since you know it isn’t coming this year. Alas
I want to hear more about the War Room, but until then still G40.2 till something better comes along. And for G40.2 the most interesting ideas to me, are the ones that streamline the playtime and try to create the feel of a global gameboard, as opposed to narrowly by theater.
Quick question for clarification… did you end up restricting the movement of units by theater?
I think this would probably be unnecessary provided they are treated like separate nations, with a separate position in the turn order. Did you end up confronting that issue, and what did you do?
All I want for X-mas is, something like this released as 3rd edition Global. :-D
Where everything comes in one box, with a big red bow.
And there are more Anzac=Variant UK/Commonwealth roundels
And a few more pages in the manual discussing “official” variants, set ups, and rules.Presented not as “the combination of two games into one” but as a separate stand alone “starter set” or “ultimate package” that allows you to play different global scenarios. Approached less like a rulebook for a specific game, and more like a D&D dungeon master’s guide. You know, you get the starter set and build. Sure its possible to do something like this already with custom pieces and a lot of dedication, but I wish the core game had more of the concept built in, and could expand on it in a more directed way. Basically giving players more options to work with. Lets include in this wishlist some separate Chinese artillery and flying tigers (at least 2, one for backup, that look like the warhawks of 1941.) Some separate generic “neutral” sculpts in white infantry.Paper Money rather than a tracker. Man, that’d be killer under the tree wouldn’t it?
Lo Saturnalia!Guess I’ll have to make this a 2016 wish, since you know it isn’t coming this year. Alas
I want to hear more about the War Room, but until then still G40.2 till something better comes along. And for G40.2 the most interesting ideas to me, are the ones that streamline the playtime and try to create the feel of a global gameboard, as opposed to narrowly by theater.Quick question for clarification… did you end up restricting the movement of units by theater?
I think this would probably be unnecessary provided they are treated like separate nations, with a separate position in the turn order. Did you end up confronting that issue, and what did you do?
No restriction to movement, we all fleshed it out together before we played, and even changed a few things in game. Basically we played 2 separate nations who are Allies of course, this way there was zero confusion as to what UK nation could do what and where. Our house rule doesn’t really help the game feel more Global, but we are happy to all be around the same table, playing the same game, and knowing that the rounds should fly by faster.
@Young:
@Baron:
@Young:
Here are some other house rules I’m working on to compliment those in post #1 of this thread.
6. The following new Japanese NO will replace “outer perimeter”
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls 2 of the following 3 territories, Guam, Midway, and/or Wake Island.
and in addition to all other Japanese NOs
- 5 IPCs if Japan controls all Chinese original territories.
7. Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase.
Did your group accept to play-test these NOs and HR?
If yes, why did you discard them?Yes, we used all of those plus a few others… I played Japan and faired well throughout the day, but it was not easy. I attacked J2 as I had the opportunity to kill all UKP’s ships. I bombed and convoyed India all day, I took the money Islands, and almost got the new Island NO but the Americans were to close. Although I could have taken all the Chinese territories at the end of the night, I choose not to so I could keep my strategic positioning, If we had played longer… I would have gotten that one. The Americans focused on the Germans by landing in Normandy, and with UKE’s reinforcements it was over as Germany got diced on the Russian front and couldn’t claim Moscow. We adjusted the house rules as we played together and refined it to fit our group, but I can’t stress enough how fluid the over all game experience was.
Is it because both were still too difficult to get, that you throw them out, ultimately from the opening post?
So, the real game changer is the game pace. I’m glad to ear.
With UK PAC HR, would you be eventually tempted by this kind of NO to improve PTO island hopping actions?
@Baron:
But I honestly would support any NO that pushes the islands into play. What you want to see is a strong incentive for Japan to take zero ipc islands. If they can gain IPCs and more importantly, deny them to the enemy there’s a better chance they might pursue the option. I’m fine with the wording that has each zero ipc “Pacific Ocean territory”, to include New Guinea. Or the idea of each zero ipc “Enemy Pacific territory”, if you want to limit the economic impact.
Either way, I think it could be a fun change of pace, and who know, maybe in such a game the Marianas might actually get some action.
My grandfather fought there. Always seems a shame it never comes into play in this game. I just want to see some island hopping action for one! However we get there, I’m ready to support it.
;)
Can anyone think of a good name for such an Objective? A universal pacific board objective to get the islands into the fight.I want a more historically accurate Japanese strategy with island hopping action and such requires a strong incentive for Japan to take zero ipc islands.
Your first idea is better from this POV.
To provide some legitimate reason to not already put (1) IPC on each valueless territory of the board, it should be as you said, not be part of a starting bonus but clearly linked to a DoW.
Only when at war with Japan that a Power can start to collect income from valueless territory and Japan must DoW with at least one Power to get this bonus.Here is my idea for the name:
When any Naval Power is at war with another in PTO,
Universal National Objective: +1 IPC for each Oceanic Valueless Island territory you controlled.
Theme: Wartime extensive lines of supply and communicationsJapan 5 valueless oceanic territories: Hainan, Palau, Mariana, Caroline, Marshall.
USA 6 valueless oceanic territories: Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Line, Aleutian.
Anzac 3 valueless oceanic territories: New Britain, Solomon and New Guinea.
UK Pacific 4 valueless oceanic territories: Ceylon, Gilbert, Fiji, Samoa.
French 1 valueless oceanic territory: New Hebrides. (Can be activated by a friendly Allied Power unit.)
Dutch 1 valueless oceanic territory: Dutch New Guinea. (Must be activated by a Pacific Allied Power.)
Sum: 20 IPCsFrench islands bonus can go to another power upon activation, same as Dutch.
Basically our group has 3 major house rule sets that we have play tested, and are ready to bring together into each of our games.
1. Separating the United Kingdom into 2 separate nations (UK Europe, and UK Pacific).
2. modifying old National Objectives, and creating new National Objectives
3. A production system that allows minor factories on Hawaii, and the Philippines.
Out of all the house rules that we have tested and discussed, the above house rules are the ones that we collectively like the most. I didn’t include topics 2 and 3 in this thread because I wanted to share with others the effects topic 1 had on our game. However, we like many of the NOs that were discussed in the house rule forum and look forward to refining them. the Japan NO for 2 of the following Islands was well received, but we trimmed the UKP NOs down to just 1. We are currently thinking about a 3 IPC NO for both Germany, and Italy if there are no American capital ships on the Europe side of the map. As for the production rules, I think we are headed toward the rule book system for all, and just adding Islands with victory cities as eligible territories to build minor ICs. Also, we want minor ICs to only build units that cost 8 IPCs or less.
@Young:
Basically our group has 3 major house rule sets that we have play tested, and are ready to bring together into each of our games.
1. Separating the United Kingdom into 2 separate nations (UK Europe, and UK Pacific).
2. modifying old National Objectives, and creating new National Objectives
3. A production system that allows minor factories on Hawaii, and the Philippines.Out of all the house rules that we have tested and discussed, the above house rules are the ones that we collectively like the most. I didn’t include topics 2 and 3 in this thread because I wanted to share with others the effects topic 1 had on our game. However, we like many of the NOs that were discussed in the house rule forum and look forward to refining them. the Japan NO for 2 of the following Islands was well received, but we trimmed the UKP NOs down to just 1. We are currently thinking about a 3 IPC NO for both Germany, and Italy if there are no American capital ships on the Europe side of the map. As for the production rules, I think we are headed toward the rule book system for all, and just adding Islands with victory cities as eligible territories to build minor ICs. Also, we want minor ICs to only build units that cost 8 IPCs or less.
Just to see in a blink of an eye what is really new and how it can be a factor on the speed of play:
Order of play Power Income
1- Germany 30
2- Soviet Union 37
3- Japan 26
4- United States 52
5- China 12
6- United Kingdom - Europe 28
7- Italy 10
8- ANZAC 10 + United Kingdom - Pacific 17 = 27
9- France 19
Is it the right order?
Last Saturday our group gathered and played a 5 player Global game like we do at least twice every month. We were trying out a new house rule that we thought would balance the Pacific, but we were pleasantly surprised at how it made our game fly through the rounds. We have always tried to have two nations (who don’t effect each other) play at the same time, but when we hit the UK, everything screaches to a halt due to the UK’s influence on both sides of the map. The UK can’t go until Japan and the US are finished, and Italy can’t go until the UK is done. Here is where our house rule changed all that, as Japan and America could take time for their turns while UK Europe did their turn, and Italy was up sooner now that the UK was only 1/3 the work it usually is. Also, after Italy… Germany could go right into their turn while the UK player was busy with UKP, and it was a nice change to only have one pile of purchases for all nations, as small of a detail as that is. Again we were surprised with how fast the game rounds went, as it was not the effect we were looking for with this house rule, but we all felt the game was going a whole lot smoother, and for a moment it was like discovering penicillin. :-D
Was it necessary that the same player get UK-E and ANZAC & UK-PAC?
How were distributed the Powers amongst the 5 players?
Or did you follow this official set-up?:
Five players
Player 1: Germany and Italy
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Soviet Union and France
Player 4: United States and China
Player 5: United Kingdom and ANZAC
@Young:
New UK National Objectives
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom Pacific
When at war with Japan…
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control India, Malaya, and New South Wales.
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom Europe
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt
By just adding these 2 territories to the others, I think it will make for better historical objective.
I really like the Malta NO adding.
It was very important against Axis shipping in North Africa.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32851.msg1241577#msg1241577
@Der:
Malta suffers the same problem as some of the Pacific Islands - there needs to be an IPC value put on it to make it worth fighting for. Malta was historically used to hinder Axis supply to Africa. Since supply is not modeled in this game, Malta is kind of irrelevant.
Do you think that Malta should also be part of this Italian’s NO as a fifth possible territory amongst the three territories to control?
- 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least 3 of the following territories: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece, and Egypt.
Theme: Stated national objectives - Greater Roman Empire.
This is correct…
1- Germany 30
2- Soviet Union 37
3- Japan 26
4- United States 52
5- China 12
6- United Kingdom - Europe 28
7- Italy 10
8- ANZAC 10 + United Kingdom - Pacific 17 = 27
9- France 19
Before we start a game we do something called “roll call” where each player has a pile of different roundels, they then place in their closed hand the roundel of the nation they want to play. After everyone reveals their chosen nation at once, if no one has the same nation as you, you automatically play that nation, and ties are resolved by dice rolls. My point is, players were not picking the UK often, so we went with the following lineup which should spark lots of intreast in playing the UK.
I like your idea of reducing the UK NOs to just Malta for UKE, and just Malaya for UKP, however… just like Japan needs to side step their own NOs to take away UKP’s NO (Malaya), Italy should do the same around Malta, or get help from Germany.
Ran some ideas by the group and they like the UK NOs the way they were… here is a link to a complete list of our house rules updated with the new UK pacific nation.
@Young:
I like your idea of reducing the UK NOs to just Malta for UKE, and just Malaya for UKP, however… just like Japan needs to side step their own NOs to take away UKP’s NO (Malaya), Italy should do the same around Malta, or get help from Germany.
Sorry, I miswrote my intent. I really like your two NOs as they were.
I was just emphasized the main interesting target from historical POV.
@Baron:
@Young:
I like your idea of reducing the UK NOs to just Malta for UKE, and just Malaya for UKP, however… just like Japan needs to side step their own NOs to take away UKP’s NO (Malaya), Italy should do the same around Malta, or get help from Germany.
Sorry, I miswrote my intent. I really like your two NOs as they were.
I was just emphasized the main interesting target from historical POV.
Cheers.
