G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

Pretty clean. Shinny!!!
:-D

[Black_Elk]

It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.

Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.

Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.

[Argothair]

It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!

If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.

Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.

Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.

Iraq (Mosul)
At that time, Baghdad was pro-Axis, Mosul wasn’t the main city in Iraq.
You wrote: “Francsico”

[baron Münchhausen]

2. “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”                                 
                Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.

When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.

The Destroyer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.
   
Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”. 
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.

In addition to their normal unit stats, Tac Bombers now also have ASA1 ASD1.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Tacs, the sub will undergo multiple 1 ASA/D shot.

4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
             The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.

I was thinking about TP C8 and DD C5.
It is probably one of the best cost relative to each other.
You simplify a lot of TP interactions with all units, no more auto-kill, pick casualty as you see fit and there is no chance to be preferred as fodder compared to DD C5 with some AS A1D1. 3 IPCs is almost, 60%, another DD.
And you have offensive punch too.
With Subs A2 surprise strike on, it may be more challenging and even more balanced to give TP a combat value.

[Black_Elk]

@Argothair:

It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!

If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.

Well, since I’m playing aces high, I don’t really care about the numerology anyway :-D

A straight doubling of both boards for 26 and 38? Hey, at least its straight forward. Take the OOB total and double it for both games?
Still seems like a cool idea to me.

38 gets you two more VT in contention for G40. Could put one in Rio if we really want to activate South America. Seems like a long shot for Axis, but I guess you never know, if the naval game is truly improved it might come into play. Is Argentina optimal though? Seems Brazil might be enough to get something going in South America all by itself. Perhaps it should be reserved for something a little closer to the regular action?

I don’t know, I’m game. But I do still think Freetown has as much claim as anywhere, especially if we’re switching out a true neutral on the OOB board mainly for novely. Its supposed to be British after all, and it is at least as much in contention as anywhere in S. America. I think Sierra Leone should be added regardless, but with a VT, at least that makes up somewhat for the OOB error since it could contribute to the Warchest. Freetown would still add a VT in the Southern Hemisphere, halfway between Cape Town and Brazil, still in range of Europe and North Africa, and makes the south Atlantic a somewhat more interesting naval region. I mean If we’ve come this far. I don’t know, I’ll just be happy to find something that everyone can give a nod to, so Barney can build it up proper.
:evil:

26 Keeps something in the back pocket for 1942.2 too. Is the 26 VT split by theater better than 24? Not sure which two extra VT from the list I’d take on that map.

Also, just as a hook, “Twice as many VCs” has a certain charm to it. Easy to grasp. Immediately intriguing. Uses the same basic concept for either board. It’s the sort of big red button I would definitely push, if exploring the HR toggles. VCx2

[Argothair]

Ideal? No, Buenos Aires isn’t ideal, but I figure it was the most plausibly pro-Axis neutral city in Latin America. From a tactical viewpoint, Santiago, Chile would be ideal – that spreads the two South American VCs reasonably well across the continent, and it allows more pathways from Wellington. I suppose you could register both Chile and Argentina as pro-Axis neutrals without doing much violence to history. It would be awkward to convert Chile without also converting Argentina, though, since Argentina had stronger fascist leanings.

I have never heard of Freetown playing any role in World War II, either actual or theoretical. If you want to activate the South Atlantic Ocean, what about Dakar, where there was actually a battle of major diplomatic significance, and a strategically important port, and the gold reserves of the Bank of France and the Bank of Poland? You could shift the VC in Algeria (which is somewhat redundant thanks to the VC right next door in Libya) one territory over to French West Africa. That way the Japanese could theoretically hop from Capetown to Dakar to Rio, and the Italians could theoretically hop from their Moroccan national objective to Dakar to either Rio or Capetown.

If I were going to add two more victory cities to the 1942.2 setup for a total of 26 VC, I would pick Rio and Algiers. Rio for some of the same reasons as above – it helps give extra depth to a Japanese drive on Wellington. Algiers because German North Africa is way too easy for the Axis to abandon if the Allies roll well in Egypt. The whole area is only worth 3 IPCs to the Germans, there are no Axis victory cities there OOB, there are no factories there, and none of the territories are really that strategic if you’re being pushed out of Africa anyway…something about the sea zones in 1942.2 makes North Africa very awkward as a base for staging an invasion of Italy. An Algerian VC would give the Axis at least some reason to put up a token defense of North Africa even in games when Egypt is a lost cause.

[Black_Elk]

Everyone has it out for Sierra Leone I guess
:-D

Seriously, no one wants to throw me a bone on that TT?

It did play a role. It wasn’t theoretical. Had skin in the game since 1939 (unlike the French possession next door which was not yet at War.) And it’s the one territory that is clearly represented in error on the OOB mapboard.

Sure Dakar might be just was well, but Freetown is close enough that a Sierra Leone VT could service both West african regions out of sz 87. It’s a little more challenging to reach overland. UK could try for a base there from turn 1. Or I suppose you could switch Algeria for something, though it seemed like this way both sides would have a lot of VT incentives to remain in North Africa and push back and forth. With Axis having a few more reasons to keep an eye on the West. Seemed like Sierra Leone might keep Cape Town and Rio company. Makes some for some nice pairs.Since you mentioned Dakar, its worth pointing out that Freetown was directly involved in that plan, and incidentally, also in the retreat, when it failed hehe.

Also, one reason to hesitate on converting S. American neutrals to pro Axis side, (even if that might be cool for Japan) is that it makes violating true neutrality elsewhere on the board less damaging to Axis. Part of what holds them in check right now vs Turkey and Sweden for example, is the added threat of an easy walk in by the US into those South American TTs.

Well in any case, its a pretty quick set up, whichever VTs you choose for the final 38.

I just set up the board with some generic markers to indicate the new VTs. Red for ETO, Gold for PTO
Took all of 3 minutes…
:-D

Snap below, showing the many little VC triangles of doom.

[Argothair]

Fun! It looks good. You can see at a glance that the VCs are very well distributed and not clogging the board anywhere. My brother worked in Sierra Leone for a couple of years – if honoring Sierra Leone is your fee for designing this wonderful little map, then so be it! :-)

I didn’t expect that the Chile suggestion would be very popular. Bla bla, intricately balanced clockwork tapestry, bla bla, disturbed by the slightest changes bla bla expanding exponentially outward sowing seeds of chaos and doom, bla bla, no one will ever play Axis and Allies again and the world will collapse in a pit of fiery darkness, bla bla bla. It’s always the same story. :-)

[Black_Elk]

Haha it’s always last on the list, but had to at least try for it.

I have no connection to the place. Just that it was botched with the OOB map design. It was significant to the war effort as the principle British port in West Africa, and also an air base for the broader war in Africa and the South Atlantic.

I tend to agree that South America would be interesting with a few more active territories, or one on the Pacific side at least. The Global handling of true neutrals is a bit of a straight jacket. It might have been cool if some other options were explored for how to deal with True Neutrals, but have to be careful, don’t want to open up a constant Spanish landing pad like we saw in Classic.

CWO has a big list of all territories on the map, describing various anomolies with respect to their status as true neutral or pro-side. There are some other territories that are a bit off in the way they are represented, Liberia, Persia, Mongolia etc. Territories in Central and South America as well.

There might be enough in there to justify some kind of toggle for a more accurate map.

If people like the snap below, for a VC distribution in G40, we could also do one showing how to adjust some of the neutrals with roundels. My approach for introducing pro-side neutrals is to use an upside down control marker. Something like that was suggested for treating Mongolia as pro-Soviet specifically.

When we get a 1942.2 VC spread settled I’ll take a snap there too. But yeah, it’s pretty quick to set up 38, just needs a VC token of some kind, or a sticker.

[barney]

yea addressing neutrals is something I’d like to do. Won’t be this go around. de Galle has some good ideas here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.0

I think making their forces (navy included) stronger would be a good way to go. piscolar seemed as if they had a pretty good system as well. I know Gamerman1 has a neutral blocks setup too. Can make the navy not appear unless attacked in congested SZs for triplea.

Also want to add BM’s Vichy Rules.

Anyway, that will be in the future.

[baron Münchhausen]

If two more VCs need to be added for 1942.2,
I would go with
Allies PTO VC:  Szechuan (Chonqing)
Axis ETO VC : Norway (Oslo)

This makes: Germany 5 VCs and Japan 5 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 3 VCs
UK: 8 VCs

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
5-Oslo (Norway)

Allies ETO VCs:
6-Washington (EUSA),
7-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
8-London (UK),
9-Cairo (Egypt),
10-Cape Town (South Africa),
11-Moscow (Russia),
12-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
13- Stalingrad (Caucasus).

Axis PTO VCs:
14-Tokyo (Japan),
15-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
16-Manila (Philippines),
17-Singapore (Malaya),
18-Truk (Carolines Island),

Allies PTO VCs:
19-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
20-Calcutta (India),
21-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
22-Wellington (New Zealand),
23-Honolulu (Hawaii),
24-Anchorage (Alaska),
25-Victoria (Western Canada),
26-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 10 VCs
Allies: 16 VCs

[Argothair]

Looks good to me. I might swap out Warsaw for Algiers – Warsaw is not an OOB VC for 1942.2, and I don’t think it adds much tactical interest. You can see why you’d want Warsaw on the list for thematic reasons – invasion of Poland was what finally got Britain and France into the war, etc. – but I don’t think Algiers i much less thematic; it has to do with whether the Axis are able to maintain a presence in the Med, or whether they’ve been humiliatingly wiped off the African continent.

[baron Münchhausen]

My issue with Germany’s VCs is placing them on peripheral TTy make virtually impossible for Germany to win  by VCs numbers. Only crushing Moscow would mean something.
Just imagine that Germany needs 9 VCs, only 4 more.
But it cannot loose any initial VCs, a very difficult challenge IMO.

[Argothair]

Eh, you’re not wrong. But for what it’s worth, 1942.2 typically doesn’t have a Europe vs. Pacific VC distinction…if your entire team has a certain number of VCs, you win, and otherwise you don’t.

So if the Germans are up 4 VCs and down 1 VC, and the Japanese are up 2 VCs  (Chongqing and Sydney?), then that puts the Axis at 15 VCs, and maybe that’s enough for an Axis Victory.

[Black_Elk]

For G40 I also rather like the idea of single team number for either side, instead of breaking it apart by theater/sides. Or if possible, to at least check it out as an alternative to the win by theater of OOB, and see if the higher number of total VCs maybe yields better results for a global win? If not, we can always provide for different win condition in each theater. Or just have suggestions for both.

For 1942.2 it would be nice if we could do the same. See what the higher number of total VCs recommends globally. Though I can see some novelty to a victory by theater on the smaller board.

I still think in the end many people may ignore the VC win numbers, whatever they are, so I think its definitely important to give them an economic connection to the game. Since that way they are still relevant, even if players don’t care about anything other than capitals or unconditional surrender.

I’d try a universal objective bonus of +1 ipc per VC at collect income as the simplest. I think that should a standard option tech add for all the default games.

Warchest concept would be slightly more advanced, though not too crazy. Basically places all that VC objective cash into a single team pot, and then divided up during a specialized phase at the end of each game round. This could be easily edited/player enforced for the time being.

[Black_Elk]

When I set 42.2 with the list above, it looked like so…

Seems pretty solid.

Its hard for me to say about Algeria or Poland, which would be more fun. It is kind of nice for the Soviets to have at least one target VC in Eastern Europe, that isn’t just Berlin. And Africa already jumps from zero to 2 VCs, so it’s sure to be at least more significant than OOB.
Ottawa is probably pretty safe for the Allies. Something tells me it won’t come into contention much, though I suppose you kind of have to have it, with Victoria, Wellington, Sydney, Singapore and Cairo. Pretty much a package deal on the British Empire there.

Feels pretty clean at 26. Certainly not overwhelming in my view.
When I took the extra 13 away again, the board looked pretty naked.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

For G40 I also rather like the idea of single team number for either side, instead of breaking it apart by theater/sides. Or if possible, to at least check it out as an alternative to the win by theater of OOB, and see if the higher number of total VCs maybe yields better results for a global win? If not, we can always provide for different win condition in each theater. Or just have suggestions for both.

For 1942.2 it would be nice if we could do the same. See what the higher number of total VCs recommends globally. Though I can see some novelty to a victory by theater on the smaller board.

I still think in the end many people may ignore the VC win numbers, whatever they are, so I think its definitely important to give them an economic connection to the game. Since that way they are still relevant, even if players don’t care about anything other than capitals or unconditional surrender.

I’d try a universal objective bonus of +1 ipc per VC at collect income as the simplest. I think that should a standard option tech add for all the default games.

Warchest concept would be slightly more advanced, though not too crazy. Basically places all that VC objective cash into a single team pot, and then divided up during a specialized phase at the end of each game round. This could be easily edited/player enforced for the time being.

The simplest to get both victory conditions is 9 VCs on one Theater of Operation for an Axis win. Or 8+8= 16 VCs for an Axis Alliance  win.

At 24, Germany had 4 VCs and need 4 more in ETO while Japan had 5 VCs and need 4 more in PTO.
At 26, Germany and Japan have 5 VCs and need 4 more.

ETO, this means Germany needs to keep Oslo and conquers Cairo, Stalingrad and Leningrad to reach 8 VCs, the last one would be either Moscow, UK or Cape Town.
Is it realistic?
PTO, Japan can probably get Szechwuan VC, Hawaii, Sydney and NZ (Wellington). This let aside Alaska, West Canada, San Francisco and India.
I feel that it is easier than under 24 VCs.

So, if Germany get Cairo, Leningrad and Stalingrad while Japan conquers Hawaii, Alaska and Wellington, it would be an Axis Victory.

At 26 VCs, the global Victory is easier as Japan too but Germany Victory is too hard.
At 24 VCs, both Japan and Germany need to work hard, and global win is a bit harder than at 26 VCs.

Japan have to get to Hawaii, Wellington, Sydney and either Alaska, India, Victoria or San Francisco.
Germany have to grab Cairo, Leningrad and Stalingrad and either UK, Russia or South Africa.
The main difference with 26 VCs Germany is that if Allies captured Oslo, Germany is not able to retake it (no more Baltic Navy).

So, maybe if instead we chose Ukraine (Kiev) over Oslo and require 5 VCs in PTO it might work.

I still think that 24 VCs Victory conditions was easier to explain (4 VCs captured in ETO or PTO) and give much challenge for Japan to help reaching global win for Germany.

Now, I think about it, whether 24 or 26 VCs, it is difficult not to cross a Theater win (9 or 10) before reaching a global win (16). For example, Germany gets 5+1, for Japan to achieve an alliance win, it needs 10 VCs (which is also PTO win).

Now, IDK if a double winning conditions work.

[LHoffman]

Sorry I am coming late to this party. Been busy.

Not to throw a wrench into what already looks like a good spread, but……

I submit two other possible VCs for the Pacific:

Rabaul (New Guinea) technically New Britain- Allied at start of G40, Axis at start of 42.2

Harbin (Manchuria) - Axis at start of G40 and 42.2

Both became important centers for the Japanese military. Rabaul could further incentivize the island hopping you’d like to see and Harbin dangles another in front of the Russians and Chinese.

I have quickly read over the last 3 pages here, so I am not sure how both those would impact your current scheme.

[LHoffman]

I’ll just add that Manchuria (Manchukuo) was the first official Japanese puppet state during their war and was a significant motivation for their war effort and a strategic necessity. Historically speaking, it would be improper not to have a VC for Manchuria, Harbin being the obvious choice.