@SeaYa quick point of reference. I play test games. So no version, certainly not out of box, is completely baked. And this is proven by 2nd editions and tournament rules. That is why I have been advocating for a governing body for years. Gotta go.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Sounds pretty cool. I guess in 1942.2 I’m fine with 22 (though I still think 24 might be cool.)
But just to push the crazy idea a little further… Keeping with Global (since that’s the file we got going at the moment) I’ve heard the following suggested at various points for additional VCs over the standard 19…
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Oslo (Norway)
Kiev (Ukraine)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Bucharest (Romania)
Amsterdam (Northwest Europe)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Tripoli (Libya)Algiers (Algeria)
Athens (Greece)
Victoria (W. Canada)
Rio (Brazil)Is it possible to give a High VC count game option that just does like all of them?
Probably more have been mentioned in the past, and maybe there are better cities than those listed, but they seem fairly well distributed across the board, such that everyone gets a couple.If you went with all of those you’d have 36 total. Which might allow for an even split somewhere in the midgame, like 18/18.
At +1 ipc per VC, that’s still only 18 a round in extra warchest cash to either side, if they manage to develop an even split. Doesn’t seem too terribly crazy to me.
It basically almost doubles the total number of VCs in contention. Sure it means every third or fourth territory is likely a VC contender, but would that really be so bad?
For the bean counting, it doesn’t seem too intense. 36 territory tiles, out of a couple hundred total territories and sea zones on the map, still seems pretty manageable in G40. -
To keep things in perspective, 24 IPCs is 1942.2 Russia income.
If Allies give all to Russia, it is around +16 IPCs to help. Making 40 IPCs.
Which, BTW, is a pretty interesting depiction of Lend-lease help.
Germany might be around 46+ 10 giving 56 IPCs.
Or 58 IPCs if Cairo and Leningrad worth double upon conquest.I hope Triple A might allows a double count for conquered VCs, simply because I believe the TUV swing is a simple mechanics which helps those which are moving toward victory and the more you get the more it will appear in hard money.
G40 maybe another beast with all NOs, Convoy disruption, and VCs may count 1 IPCs but get a lot.
Nonetheless, Italy may get a major boost from warchest if given 18 IPCs.If worth double, 18-18 becomes 9-36 if a side captured 8 VCs.
36 IPCs is almost double money than minor Power economy.In both games, it is still possible to make it on agreement and edit mode after a complete round.
Counting all VCs per side and rise total money in hand for a given power via edit mode. -
Something about 24 VCs for 1942.2 and 36 VCs for G40 just has a nice feel to me.
Revised had exactly 12 VCs when the Victory City concept was first introduced. So it kind of makes a little pattern here, scaling up by a dozen hehe.
:-DJust going with the crazier number first. In G40 that would give you…
Axis starting:
Berlin (Germany)
Warsaw (Poland)
Rome (Italy)
Tokyo (Japan)
Oslo (Norway)
Amsterdam (Holland)
Bucharest (Romania)
Tripoli (Libya)
Shanghai (Kwang)+9 to start
Allies OOB starting Cities 14 plus… :
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Algiers (Algeria)
Victoria (W. Canada)That gives +24 to the Allies to start, but many of these will fall in the first round.
So as long as you said that Victory can’t be declared in the first game round, or until US/Japan are at war, it will likely even out to be a lot more manageable once the Axis open. In G40 at least, the Warchest shouldn’t be collected until the nation is at war, so likewise the Allies/Axis team really should not be able to claim a Victory until they are at war. Basically their VC control doesn’t count until they are a belligerent.
Then you’d also have more than a single neutral VC, so it wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb.
Athens (Greece)
Rio (Brazil)+2 in the neutral pot haha.
Guess you could switch out some of the Allied VCs listed above for Sofia or Helsinki, Baghdad or Tehran, or similar, if you wanted fewer Allied VCs to start, and more of the VCs in the spread allotted to neutrals.
If the cash is too high with this many VCs, you could go from 1:1, to 1:2.
Like +1 ipc to the warchest for every 2 VCs controlled by the team (round down.)
And still have a doubling mechanism for that for the endgame if desired.
*edit. Think I got the above numbers correct now. Forgot Shanghai there for a minute on the Axis side.
:-D -
Can you explain again why the Warchest is collective for both the Axis and the Allies, and why they get to distribute as they want? As opposed to each country getting the bonus $ for the VCs it controls by itself?
I like more VCs and more money in circulation because of them, means we get to buy more stuff. :evil:
However, if both sides can choose to dump all their bonus VC cash into one power, I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that it will just heighten the Germany-USSR clash. Germany is easily the most vulnerable and important of the Axis and can always use more cash. Pretty much the same can be said of the USSR. And if one side chooses to dump in either of those areas, the other side is almost certainly going to have to follow suit, or otherwise risk being outbuilt and overmatched.
I think ^ situation is only exacerbated if VCs are worth more than $1 each. Not saying that more than $1 per is bad itself, the distribution of the total is the problem.
-
Well just seemed like it would provide some degree of strategic flexibility, where you could pool resources to stretch the value of the ipcs.
If it’s overpowered, you could put a ceiling on the total amount that any one nation could receive from the warchest.
I liked the idea, because it made coordination between teammates more of a once a round type decision, instead of an every turn type decision. (Avoiding somewhat the more extreme versions of the latter, where one teammate is pleading with his teammates to send fighters or hitpoints etc, because they’re getting beat up on, and the game starts dragging into team arguments.) Here you’d have a way to give that guy some direct economic aid, and then let them decide how to use it for their needs.
I think the concern that it all just gets dumped into the same place every game (German/Soviet front) is legitimate. But if you capped the total aid that could be recived, maybe you could get around that problem, while still providing the same essential economic coordination flavor to the gameplay?
-
Well just seemed like it would provide some degree of strategic flexibility, where you could pool resources to stretch the value of the ipcs.
If it’s overpowered, you could put a ceiling on the total amount that any one nation could receive from the warchest.
I liked the idea, because it made coordination between teammates more of a once a round type decision, instead of an every turn type decision. (Avoiding somewhat of the more extreme versions of the latter, where one teammate is pleading with his teammates to send fighters or hitpoints etc, because they’re getting beat up on, and the game starts dragging into team arguments. Here you’d have a way to give that guy some direct economic aid, and then let them decide how to use it for their needs.
I think the concern that it all just gets dumped into the same place every game (German/Soviet front) is legitimate. But if you capped the total aid that could be recived, maybe you could get around that problem, while still providing the same essential economic coordination flavor to the gameplay?
I think a cap of some sort would be beneficial to prevent the overpower aspect. The question is what kind of cap; percentage, set dollar amount (would be hard to do), even split not counting remainders, minimums that need to be given to certain countries… In any event it is a little more complicated that simply you get what you own, because calculations will need to be made or ratios remembered.
I personally have never seen an issue with cooperation among sides during gameplay. It would be nice to limit that strategic conferencing to once a round rather than letting the deliberation occur on every person’s turn. Warchest may actually just end up adding an economic round of strategizing as opposed to removing some of the tactical nature (sending fighters here or ships there). The way the game is set up now, if the USSR is in danger and I can send my UK fighters over to help, I am definitely going to do so whether USSR asks for it or not. So for me, it wouldn’t eliminate that aspect of the game. After all, it is group survival… It’s bad for the UK if the USSR is struggling, or vice versa. Means Germany is winning.
-
If going that route, probably a flat rate would be easiest. I don’t know, say no more than 10 ipcs to a single nation on a given turn?
It depends on how much total cash we’re looking at on average per team. But 10 doesn’t seem too insane.
Sure, chances are the team will frequently try to max out Russia/Germany, but there might also come rounds where UK needs the cash more. Or maybe Italy has a chance at a breakout, if they just had enough for a carrier or extra fighter. Or maybe the game starts flipping Pacific and suddenly it’s Japan or US/Anzac that could really use the money. Here you have an option to take it one round at a time.
But all the decision making occurs during the end of the round, when the team has their powwow, to figure where the money goes for the following round.
The more I look at it the more I think 36 total VCs in G40 could really work.
You get a cap in there, or perhaps a 2 to 1 type scheme to limit the overall warchest impact, but have a lot of interesting target territories and team decisions suddenly enter the equation.
Just to spit ball, if you had to pick 36 for G40, and top 24 for 1942.2 what would they be?
-
All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.
Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.
-
All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.
Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.
Here is general guidelines I tried to answer or aim at with 1942.2
It needs to put Victory conditions by theatre in perspective too. How many is needed to win?Is it possible both theaters have same or similar number of Axis owned VCs while Allies can have way more.
Assuming Axis will capture some fast.Is it possible there an all Axis collective number of ICs from both theaters which can be provide Victory condition?
-
I’ll go by Territory since its probably easier. Just kicking it off with Axis G40 what about something a bit like this?
Germans:
Eastern Germany (Berlin)
Poland (Warsaw)
Holland (Antwerp/Amsterdam)
Norway (Oslo)
Romania (Bucharest)Italians:
Southern Italy (Rome)
Libya (Tripoli)Japanese:
Japan (Tokyo)
Kwangtung (Shanghai)
Siam (Bangkok)Pro-Axis:
Bulgaria (Sofia)
Finland (Helsinki)
Iraq (Baghdad)That would give the Axis 10 VCs to start and another 3 in their sphere of influence (nods to the pro-side).
For the Allies or Pro-Allied side that would give you 9 more cities to play around with, on top of the 14 they have OOB. Say you assigned 3 Allied Pro-Side VCs, to match the Pro-Side Axis.
Greece (Athens)
Yugoslavia (Belgrade)
Brazil (Rio)Then pick the top 6 spots for extra Allied VCs.
This would give you…
AXIS 10 VC vs ALLIES 20 VC
With 6 Pro-Side Neutral VCs up for grabs (3 for each side.)
Which 6 Cities would you add to the Allies?
The Axis and Pro-side VCs should activate most major theaters already, since they’d each have a couple VCs in striking distance. North Africa, Mid-East, Balkans, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South East Asia.
So maybe focus the extra Allied VCs on Sub-Saharan Africa, South Pacific, North Pacific, Central China?
South Africa (Cape Town)
New Zealand (Wellington)
Amur (Vladivostok)
Western Canada (Victoria)
Szech (Chonqing)Still leaves one spot left. I like Algeria (Algiers) so basically every nation gets an extra VC.
Or maybe Scotland (Edinburgh) instead of Victoria for the second British VC? Not sure which I like better.
Under this scheme, when you go down to 1942.2 you axe all the Pro-Side neutral VCs, and then remove another 6 (ditching whichever ones make sense, for the gameplay needs of 1942.2, to have as many theaters active and contested as possible on the smaller board.)
-
Something like this maybe?
Quick draft below…
I blew out the locations with neon green, so it would show the spread. Just slapped some dots down in paint over a screen cap with tripleA zoomed way out hehe.
But gives the gist.I suppose the argument for G40 goes, if you’re willing to add some VCs anyway, might as well just go all the way, so that each region of the globe can be contested. Gives a nod to the neutral-pro side, and allow every player nation to have some more skin in the game. Makes for more interesting connection between the warchest and the entire gamemap.
:-Dps. Or guess if you don’t like Victoria or Edinburgh, there’s always Sierra Leone (Freetown) heheh
-
Based on what I try with 1942.2, you have to find the number of VCs required in PTO for Japan to win.
This number will determine what kind of expansion/growth Japan need to get.
Then, you have to look at how many inland Asia and ETO are within Japan grasp and make sure it is not enough in itself to gain Victory. That way, Japan would have to conquer some other VCs in Pacific (like Honolulu, Wellington, Victoria, Sydney, Singapore, Manila, Shanghai, Vladivostok, etc.) to reach a winning turning point somehow.
Not always, San Francisco or Calcutta have to be the missing VCs to win war. -
With other possible HRs in effect, wouldn’t it be easier to just pick the VCs and then design the Japanese economy (via NAP etc) to figure out how Japan can expand best for those VCs in the PTO?
If the VCs will determine victory mechanics, then they’re really the most important single element being introduced.
In the draft above there are 14 total VCs, on the Pacific side of the map.
Africa/Mid East/Southern Russia/S. America have 7 more somewhat nearby on the Europe side (excluding the Russian capital), that could conceivably be contested by Japan, in a game where are they are pushing hard.
Europe still has the majority of VCs at 22, but these are basically distributed in a way that they could change hands more often. With the main hotspots in North Africa, Med/Mid East, and Europe proper. In this last, West Europe, Balkans and Scandinavia also make for a somewhat more alluring prize in opening a second front.
I don’t know, feels pretty clean to me at a glance. Not too overwhelming, but still stitches the map together in an interesting way for the Warchest.
It at least holds out the vague promise of some kind of number magic, where the Pacific side might go 7/7 split and Europe side might go 11/11 split. Like just praying to the slot machine or dice gods to give me what I need hehehe
:-D -
With other possible HRs in effect, wouldn’t it be easier to just pick the VCs and then design the Japanese economy (via NAP etc) to figure out how Japan can expand best for those VCs in the PTO?
If the VCs will determine victory mechanics, then they’re really the most important single element being introduced.
In the draft above there are 14 total VCs, on the Pacific side of the map.
Africa/Mid East/Southern Russia/S. America have 7 more somewhat nearby on the Europe side (excluding the Russian capital), that could conceivably be contested by Japan, in a game where are they pushing hard.
Europe still has the majority of VCs at 22, but these are basically distributed in a way that they could change hands more often. With the main hotspots in North Africa, Med/Mid East, and Europe proper. In this last, West Europe, Balkans and Scandinavia also make for a somewhat more alluring prize in opening a second front.
I don’t know, feels pretty clean to me at a glance. Not too overwhelming, but still stitches the map together in an interesting way for the Warchest.
so, if there is 14 VCs in PTOs, if Japan can get hands on 11 VCs (So you don’t need to capture India, San Francisco and Victoria, or India, Sydney and Wellington or San Francisco, Honolulu and Victoria, etc.), it will be a win.
Do you think 11 VCs can be the new Victory conditions in PTO? Or 10 VCs is more reasonable?
P.S. I rather prefer Victoria because it provides another target in PTO than FreeTown or Edimburg.
-
Not sure, the 36 VC crystal ball is still glowing too brightly for me to see it all play out.
:-DBut it would certainly be cool, if split victory conditions by map side (in a one sided game where Allies go mainly Europe) then Japan takes 10/11 for the win, or right in that range on the Pac side. It would be fun because they could basically choose from a few different attack patterns to get at what they need.
Overall the promise of a possible 18/18 split globally seems like it would be cool, offers some interesting purchase potential, if the two teams ever managed to fight each other into an even standing, just splitting the 36 right down the middle at some point in the Mid-Game haha. Seems not entirely unlikely, given that we introduce 17 more VCs on the map altogether this way. For our purposes you can basically say that we’re doubling the total number of VC in play.
Same deal if you go from 13 to 24 VCs in 1942.2. It’d be a pretty robust expansion of the VC spread, nearly doubling the number in play. I think it would look cool in tripleA to hit the toggle switch, and see a bunch of new VCs suddenly appear on the familiar board.
24 and 36 have a more numerologically appealing look to the them, just on a superficial level at a glance. It’s the kind of thing that maybe Sargon’s scribes would have approved of hehe. Better than a straight doubling of the OOB numbers to 26, or 38 anyway. And I like that 24 and 36 play off of that original Dozen VCs introduced in Revised.
Especially if all this was all supported by a warchest mechanic that relates the VC’s to the purchasing gameplay, in a fun way at the end of each game round.
-
Not sure, the 36 VC crystal ball is still glowing too brightly for me to see it all play out.
:-DBut it would certainly be cool, if split victory conditions by map side (in a one sided game where Allies go mainly Europe) then Japan takes 10/11 for the win, or right in that range on the Pac side. It would be fun because they could basically choose from a few different attack patterns to get at what they need.
Overall the promise of a possible 18/18 split globally seems like it would be cool, offers some interesting purchase potential, if the two teams ever managed to fight each other into an even standing, just splitting the 36 right down the middle at some point in the Mid-Game haha. Seems not entirely unlikely, given that we introduce 17 more VCs on the map altogether this way.
Why so many?
Too much reduces there individual worth.
14 PTO vs 16 ETO, for example is also a way to make both Theaters VCs balanced and worthy by side.
I’m not trying to dictate specific numbers but assuming a given number of VCs give more money and eventually victory to Axis, it seems that Japan gains (which are more difficult due to a lot of amphibious landing ops) might convey at least the same importance.If it is about a high warchest, it can still be 24 VCs with 2 IPCs per VCs, for a 4 IPCs swing each time.
So 48 IPCs would be total IPCs to split. Or 30 VCs for 60 IPCs to split.Also, I rather prefer to give more VCs to Allies at the beginning. Let Axis fight for them.
On that point, I always see it as each VCs IPCs belongs to owner but he can share it according to his will. So, there will be no confusion about who get what. You give your own Warchest to other powers, only if you want.
12 IPCs CAP might be better (4 Infs or 3 Arts or 2 Tanks, etc.) to rethink purchase faster.
-
24 and 36 have a more numerologically appealing look to the them, just on a superficial level at a glance. It’s the kind of thing that maybe Sargon’s scribes would have approved of hehe. Better than a straight doubling of the OOB numbers to 26, or 38 anyway. And I like that 24 and 36 play off of that original Dozen VCs introduced in Revised.
Especially if all this was all supported by a warchest mechanic that relates the VC’s to the purchasing gameplay, in a fun way at the end of each game round.
On numbers, I can say that 18, 24, 30, 36 are more interesting because they are even numbers which can be divided by 3.
Since, it is harder to find important targets in PTO, I believe 12 or 14 VCs, are about the maximum numbers you can get.
So, is it possible to downsize ETO, still focusing on what kind of strategic pattern make for interesting play for both Italy and Germany.
Africa needs a few VCs, Europe still but Moscow is a great magnet anyway. You don’t need that much milestones along the Eastern front.
Does Germany have to fight to keep Scandinavian assets?
And Middle East should be a bit more interesting (Irak?) for trying to figure Oil Fields resources.Also, there is NOs which can adds a lot of IPCs too.
This may be a few ideas to downsize ETO VCs candidates. -
I think the added VCs would end up reinforcing each other. And create victory pockets in every region of interest.
With 36 you can basically give each player nation an extra VC.
It’s not so much about the warchest bonus, as it is in creating a more layered representation around the globe. I think the warchest could be adapted to fit the number of VCs.
To me it just seems easier to accept a VC like Wellington or Cape Town, if you already have more of the actual battleground cities represented. Instead of just picking somewhat arbitrarily (or with less regard to the historical battlegrounds) for the purposes of trying to give the Pacific side equal weight, at 36 I was thinking that you basically have all the major cities one could ask for.
Seemed to me that the OOB games were always erring on the side of fewer VCs rather than more, and it always felt nerfed. Why not just tip it in the other direction, and put these VCs in all the active theaters.
If you think of a region like South East Asia, or the Balkans, North Africa or Scandinavia, South Pacific etc, they each have a nice little VC pocket of connected territories. So it’s not like you have to fight across half a continent to get to the next VC. Instead they are traded more regularly. Around various choke points. To me it doesn’t seem like any single VC loses out on significance, just that they become more part of a regional picture rather than towering solo territories that are too few and far between. Which is how they’ve felt to me in most games.
I guess 30 would be better than 24 would be better than 18. I’ll push high.
:-DYou can reign me in, but I just went with the number that seemed to pop out at me for the visual appeal. Some areas in Europe might seem more crowded with VCs, but those are also regions where the Allies can fight along the coast, and trade VCs with Axis, without always having to do massive D Day style landings to stay competitive, since there are just more targets on offer in a given round.
What is you top choice for G40?
-
I think the added VCs would end up reinforcing each other. And create victory pockets in every region of interest.
**With 36 you can basically give each player nation an extra VC.
It’s not so much about the warchest bonus, as it is in creating a more layered representation around the globe. I think the warchest could be adapted to fit the number of VCs.
To me it just seems easier to accept a VC like Wellington or Cape Town, if you already have more of the actual battleground cities represented.** Instead of just picking somewhat arbitrarily (or with less regard to the historical battlegrounds) for the purposes of trying to give the Pacific side equal weight, at 36 I was thinking that you basically have all the major cities one could ask for.
Seemed to me that the OOB games were always erring on the side of fewer VCs rather than more, and it always felt nerfed. Why not just tip it in the other direction, and put these VCs in all the active theaters.
If you think of a region like South East Asia, or the Balkans, North Africa or Scandinavia, South Pacific etc, they each have a nice little VC pocket of connected territories. So it’s not like you have to fight across half a continent to get to the next VC. Instead they are traded more regularly. Around various choke points. To me it doesn’t seem like any single VC loses out on significance, just that they become more part of a regional picture rather than towering solo territories that are too few and far between. Which is how they’ve felt to me in most games.
I guess 30 would be better than 24 would be better than 18. I’ll push high.
:-DYou can reign me in, but I just went with the number that seemed to pop out at me for the visual appeal. Some areas in Europe might seem more crowded with VCs, but those are also regions where the Allies can fight along the coast, and trade VCs with Axis, without always having to do massive D Day style landings to stay competitive, since there are just more targets on offer in a given round.
What is you top choice for G40?
Ok, if it is not about warchest.
I’m not against 36 VCs 14 PTO and 22 ATO.
I just feel it was a lot to manage and keep focused on.Probably have to watch what impact have the Allies end of round over collecting IPCs for VCs.
This will first benefit them, as most heavier Axis are first in round order.
Allies would have room to react to such capture. -
What I was thinking here is that anywhere you might go to contest a VC, there would be one or two more VCs right nearby, to create more of a back and forth incentive. Each new VCs kind of balances off an existing one, or pulls another VC into its gravity to support it. These pairings just kind of show how a VC might connect to one nearby on a given round.
1 Berlin/Oslo
2 London/Antwerp
3 Stalingrad/Bucharest
4 Rome/Tripoli
5 Paris/Algeria
6 Cairo/Cape Town
7 Shanghai/Chonqing
8 Calcutta/Bangkok
9 Sydney/Singapore
10 San Francisco/Victoria
11 Tokyo/Vladivostok
12 Honolulu/Wellington
13 Washington/Rio
14 Hong Kong/Manila
15 Warsaw/Helsinki
16 Moscow/Ottawa
17 Belgrade/Sofia
18 Athens/BaghdadSo you’d have some way to trade, or strike back, or counter balance within the VC spread on a round by round basis. Instead of just climactic build ups to stack slayings on the VC territory, trading could be more regular within a given region.
Or instead of pairs, you can think of them as forming little triangles of VC doom hehe.
I don’t know, maybe its overkill. But usually on the OOB maps, people gripe about there being “two few VCs” for such and such a map. At least here you could totally duck that potential complaint. It’s got pretty much every VC one could wish for, unless I left out something glaring.
:-D
Suggested Topics
