G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[baron Münchhausen]

Instead of Ukraine,  why not add Baku in Caucasus.
Both Rostov and Baku were quite prime target for oil.

Archangel instead of Finland seems good.
Damascus make for a solid target in Middle-East, instead of Bhagdad.
But Malta might be more interesting.

Instead of Athens, what about Malta?

Bakku, Archangel, Malta and Reykjavik.
In my mind:
Sub out Helsinki for Archangel?
Sub out Athens for Malta?
Sub out Baghdad for Baku?
Sub out Rio for Reykjavik?

[Black_Elk]

Ok I just set the map again. I think it looks pretty slick.

I have Kiev here, but could just as easily be Caucasus. (In 1942.2 Stalingrad is already in Caucasus, so that VT in 42.2 could do double duty if you want to go that route.)

What do you think of this spread?

Snap below…

[baron Münchhausen]

Axis against Russia, giving more VCs will help, and 2 in north way (Karelia & Archangel) and 2 south way (Stalingrad & Caucasus : Baku ) and 2 in the East (Vladivostok & Irkustk) for 7 VCs with Moscow. That will help motivate both ways into Moscow for Italy and Germany.

Malta seems a better prize TTy than Syria however.
Is it an issue being so near of another, Tripoli?

Ukraine VC (Sevastopol, Crimea?) is more easily within grasp of Axis power.
Maybe it is needed  more than Baku, Caucasus. IDK.

ETO, this makes Axis 7 VCs, Allies 15 VCs.
PTO Axis 4 VCs, Allies 14 VCs.

What would be the number for theater victory? 13 VCs? (24 VCs global win) ?
14 VCs (26 VCs global win)?

---

Reykjavik, Archangel, Baku and Malta better depict the struggle over resources or shipping resources.
IMO Reykjavik is North Atlantic Malta. If Axis would have captured it. Axis may had use bombers to sink Convoy passing by. The same for Axis Convoy from Italy being attacked by Malta Air force.
Archangel was one major northern port receiving allied furniture coming from both West and North East (Artic Road)
Baku and Rostov-on-Don were to major targets for Germany to get more fuel.

However Battle of Kiev was two major combats 1941 and 1943.

[Black_Elk]

I had the same thought about Malta, but when I put it in place the marker really crowded out the area. Then it occurred to me that Malta doesn’t exist in 42.2.

I figured Damascus could work in 42.2 however, since it’s part of the British Trans-Jordan territory.

The only reason I like Ukraine over Caucuses is that then, every territory on the master list should work for 1942.2 as well as G40, with an independent entry for each and no overlap.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

I had the same thought about Malta, but when I put it in place the marker really crowded out the area. Then it occurred to me that Malta doesn’t exist in 42.2.

I figured Damascus could work in 42.2 however, since it’s part of the British Trans-Jordan territory.

The only reason I like Ukraine over Caucuses is that then, every territory on the master list should work for 1942.2 as well as G40, with an independent entry for each and no overlap.

If all 30 VCs are on G40 list. It is the most important for me.
If all 40 VCs cannot be put in 1942.2 map, I don’t see the issue.

[Black_Elk]

Well again, I’m not sure anyone is chomping at the bit to try all 40 VCs in 1942.2, but if they did, it actually still works.

See the map snaps below…

The first shows G40
The second 1942.2

Both using the same total spread…

Ps. For Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, Cypress, I think we need an independent solution to make them more attractive. On the Pacific side same deal with Iwo, Okinawa, Formosa, Ceylon, Wake, Midway etc.

I think the G40 map below is pretty visually appealing at a glance. The 1942.2 one is of course a bit crowded, but also helpful to see which VCs might be removed going down from 40 to 30, or 20.

[LHoffman]

The Ukraine vs Caucasus discussion is a tough one. Really could be either one. I think Kiev fits the bill better as a ‘victory city’, but we also have more tactical objective areas included such as Ploesti and Rabaul. Baku was a critical German objective, but Kiev and Sevastopol were also. Geographically, I am not sure which is better for the game’s sake.

EDIT:  I vote Kiev and Damascus, fwiw.

Why is Freetown a VC again? Seems both out of the way and unimportant.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

The Ukraine vs Caucasus discussion is a tough one. Really could be either one. I think Kiev fits the bill better as a ‘victory city’, but we also have more tactical objective areas included such as Ploesti and Rabaul. Baku was a critical German objective, but Kiev and Sevastopol were also. Geographically, I am not sure which is better for the game’s sake.

EDIT:  I vote Kiev and Damascus, fwiw.

Why is Freetown a VC again? Seems both out of the way and unimportant.

Ok, Kiev and Damascus are good to me.
I see now why it is useful to go from 40 CVs to 30 CVs on both maps.

I wonder if Gibraltar would be more attractive if it is the UK VC instead of Sierra Leone?
It works both in 1942.2 and G40.

I know that Sierra Leone is important for Black_Elk.
I believe he has a few historical background for Sierra Leone.
But Hoffman you probably express the common reaction.

1942.2 30 VCs list modified for Ploiesti and Gibraltar VC

This makes: Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCs

ETO VCs: 16
PTO VCs: 14

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis 6 European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Bucharest/Ploiesti (Bulgaria Romania).

Allies 10 ETO VCs:
7-Washington (Eastern USA),
8-London (UK),
_9-Reykjavik (Island),
10-Cairo (Egypt),
11-Free Town (Sierra Leone, French West Africa), Edit:Gibraltar (Gibraltar)?
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Caucasus),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk Oblast).

Axis 6 PTO VCs:
17-Tokyo (Japan),
18-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
19-Manila (Philippines),
20-Singapore (Malaya),
21-Truk (Carolines Island),
22-Rabaul (New Guinea).

Allies 8 PTO VCs:
23-Chonqing (Szechwuan),
24-Calcutta (India),
25-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
26-Wellington (New Zealand),
27-Honolulu (Hawaii),
28-Anchorage (Alaska),
29-Victoria (Western Canada),
30-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 12 VCs
Allies: 18 VCs

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 11+ VCs in either theater, or 20+ VCs globally.
Check for Axis victory at the end of the American turn, and check for Allied victory at the end of the Japanese turn.

---

I believed this 30 VCs, 11 or 20 VCs conditions gives a lot of flexibility and is far better than 26 or 28 VCs.
Now, maybe it is possible to built a 20 VCs list for 1942.2 based on these 30 VCs._

[LHoffman]

Yeah, I agree Baron.

I am kinda surprised no one suggested Gibraltar as a VC. Seems better than Sierra Leone, IMO. I did go back and read Black_Elk’s reasons for it.

Gibraltar is already something of a focus for its straight aspect and Italian/UK NOs. But making it a VC would give it more emphasis and immediate importance to Italy, Germany and UK.

[Black_Elk]

Freetown is in there to make me happy I guess. Since I feel certain no one else will argue on its behalf.
:-D

It’s one move from E. US, England, Normandy, and Southern France, and gives a nod to West Africa’s contribution to the war effort.

The VC is primarily to make up for the fact that everyone has been happily treating it as a true neutral for years now, when in fact it is supposed to be British, and declared war on Germany in 1939!

For those who argued that changing its possession from true neutral to British is pointless, because the territory has no value, well, now it does.

Surely among the 21 VCs we are adding, there’s room for this one.

People seemed ready enough to make Dakar a VT next door. But Freetown was involved in the whole Dakar affair from start to finish (at least on the British end) and continued to be useful in the aftermath. Convoys travelling the South Atlantic were protected by aircraft and ships based out of Freetown. And British aircraft on the way to Cairo and the Middle East likewise used this location as a base. It was the first node in a network of naval/air transits linking West Africa and the Atlantic to the rest of the continent.

I think having a VT in Sierra Leone would activate French West Africa as a possible territory of interest. But I’m not sure that a VT in West Africa would do the same for Sierra Leone. So that’s why I’d give it to Freetown over Dakar.

Gibraltar is already significant to the gameplay. It has a starting naval base and an associated objective bonus OOB. To me part of the reason to include additional VCs is to encourage players to contest territories that would otherwise see no action.

It’s not terribly surprising to me that West Africa would get short shrift in the history, what else is new hehe. The Eurocentric view predominates, as always. There are no awesome movies I can point to or anything. But the West African Reinforcement Route did exist, and played a role in the wider conflict. Sierra Leone should get the nod, just like Gold Coast/Nigeria (both British on the map at 1 ipc), as basically the first leg along that route.

Somehow I’m sure I’ll get voted down on this, but I’d feel remiss if I didn’t make the case one last time.
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

1942.2 20 VCs list based on previous 30 VCs list, first suggestion

This makes: Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs/ now 3 VCs each
China (US): 1 VC now 0
USA: 4 VCs still 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs still 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCs now 6 VCs

ETO VCs: 16 now 11
PTO VCs: 14 now 9

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis 6 European VCs: now 3 ETO VCs
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France), 4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Bucharest/Ploiesti (Bulgaria Romania).

Allies 10 ETO VCs: Now 8 ETO VCs
7-Washington (Eastern USA),
8-London (UK),
_9-Reykjavik (Island),
10-Cairo (Egypt),
11-Free Town (Sierra Leone, French West Africa),
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Caucasus),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk Oblast).

Axis 6 PTO VCs: now 3 PTO VCs
17-Tokyo (Japan),
18-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
19-Manila (Philippines),
20-Singapore (Malaya),
21-Truk (Carolines Island),
22-Rabaul (New Guinea),

Allies 8 PTO VCs: now 6 PTO VCs
23-Chonqing (Szechwuan),
24-Calcutta (India),
25-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
26-Wellington (New Zealand),
27-Honolulu (Hawaii),
28-Anchorage (Alaska),
29-Victoria (Western Canada),
30-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 6 VCs
Allies: 14 VCs

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 8+ VCs in either theater, or 14+ VCs globally.
Check for Axis victory at the end of the American turn, and check for Allied victory at the end of the Japanese turn._

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

Freetown is in there to make me happy I guess. Since I feel certain no one else will argue on its behalf.
:-D

It’s one move from E. US, England, Normandy, and Southern France, and gives a nod to West Africa’s contribution to the war effort.

The VC is primarily to make up for the fact that everyone has been happily treating it as a true neutral for years now, when in fact it is supposed to be British, and declared war on Germany in 1939!

For those who argued that changing its possession from true neutral to British is pointless, because the territory has no value, well, now it does.

Surely among the 21 VCs we are adding, there’s room for this one.

People seemed ready enough to make Dakar a VT next door. But Freetown was involved in the whole Dakar affair from start to finish (at least on the British end) and continued to be useful in the aftermath. Convoys travelling the South Atlantic were protected by aircraft and ships based out of Freetown. And British aircraft on the way to Cairo and the Middle East likewise used this location as a base. It was the first node in a network of naval/air transits linking West Africa and the Atlantic to the rest of the continent.

I think having a VT in Sierra Leone would activate French West Africa as a possible territory of interest. But I’m not sure that a VT in West Africa would do the same for Sierra Leone. So that’s why I’d give it to Freetown over Dakar.

Gibraltar is already significant to the gameplay. It has a starting naval base and an associated objective bonus OOB. To me part of the reason to include additional VCs is to encourage players to contest territories that would otherwise see no action.

It’s not terribly surprising to me that West Africa would get short shrift in the history, what else is new hehe. The Eurocentric view predominates, as always. There are no awesome movies I can point to or anything. But the West African Reinforcement Route did exist, and played a role in the wider conflict. Sierra Leone should get the nod, just like Gold Coast/Nigeria (both British on the map at 1 ipc), as basically the first leg along that route.

Somehow I’m sure I’ll get voted down on this, but I’d feel remiss if I didn’t make the case one last time.
:-D

Thanks for the explanation B_E. Ultimately I see it as still your call. I am not going to complain about something this minor when so many other good things have been added to this project.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Freetown is in there to make me happy I guess. Since I feel certain no one else will argue on its behalf.
:-D

It’s one move from E. US, England, Normandy, and Southern France, and gives a nod to West Africa’s contribution to the war effort.

The VC is primarily to make up for the fact that everyone has been happily treating it as a true neutral for years now, when in fact it is supposed to be British, and declared war on Germany in 1939!
For those who argued that changing its possession from true neutral to British is pointless, because the territory has no value, well, now it does.

Surely among the 21 VCs we are adding, there’s room for this one.

People seemed ready enough to make Dakar a VT next door. But Freetown was involved in the whole Dakar affair from start to finish (at least on the British end) and continued to be useful in the aftermath. Convoys travelling the South Atlantic were protected by aircraft and ships based out of Freetown. And British aircraft on the way to Cairo and the Middle East likewise used this location as a base. It was the first node in a network of naval/air transits linking West Africa and the Atlantic to the rest of the continent.

I think having a VT in Sierra Leone would activate French West Africa as a possible territory of interest. But I’m not sure that a VT in West Africa would do the same for Sierra Leone. So that’s why I’d give it to Freetown over Dakar.

Gibraltar is already significant to the gameplay. It has a starting naval base and an associated objective bonus OOB. To me part of the reason to include additional VCs is to encourage players to contest territories that would otherwise see no action.

It’s not terribly surprising to me that West Africa would get short shrift in the history, what else is new hehe. The Eurocentric view predominates, as always. There are no awesome movies I can point to or anything. But the West African Reinforcement Route did exist, and played a role in the wider conflict. Sierra Leone should get the nod, just like Gold Coast/Nigeria (both British on the map at 1 ipc), as basically the first leg along that route.

Somehow I’m sure I’ll get voted down on this, but I’d feel remiss if I didn’t make the case one last time.
:-D

It is probably a real nod to correct an historical omission. Also, from ETO Axis, Gibraltar can be a way point toward capturing Free Town in French West Africa and it becomes a proof that Germany expansion is well established in Africa.
I can see that Gibraltar can be more easily sway along with Cairo, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Archangel than Free Town.
So, from winning conditions fix, I rather prefer Free Town because it is harder to capture.

Also Hoffman you give another reason not to add Gibraltar, because unnecessary:
@LHoffman:

Yeah, I agree Baron.

I am kinda surprised no one suggested Gibraltar as a VC. Seems better than Sierra Leone, IMO. I did go back and read Black_Elk’s reasons for it.

Gibraltar is already something of a focus for its straight aspect and Italian/UK NOs. But making it a VC would give it more emphasis and immediate importance to Italy, Germany and UK.

[Black_Elk]

Just to expand on the thought.

Part of it has to do with the ability (or rather the inability) of the Allies to build bases that might connect sz 87 to the rest of the Atlantic/Africa in a meaningful way. Going by OOB rules, Sierra Leone would be the only viable candidate there, since Allies can’t build anything in FWA unless it is first occupied by Axis (which is extremely unlikely OOB since they’d have no incentive and limited capability to reach the TT).

If on the other hand new liberation rules are adopted (allowing Allies to take over French TTs directly), then clearly French West Africa would be more ideal for bases, since you could build a naval base or air base that connects to sz 87, sz 83, and sz 82! And of course the territory is closer overland to both Cairo and Cape Town.

Under those conditions, Sierra Leone, even if it was made British, wouldn’t be very interesting at no value, and with much more limited base potential.

For the WARR, Gold Coast would be an even stronger candidate than Sierra Leone, since that’s where the aircraft were actually assembled. But Gold Coast already has a value at 1 ipc, is still separated overland by French West Africa, and is less useful for a NB under otherwise OOB conditions (since it can’t reach anywhere of interest in Europe/Med/North America.)

I guess if people really find the Freetown VC idea objectionable, then I would suggest that we revisit this territory later with a possible objective bonus. Like “West African Reinforcement Route (WARR)” + X
If Allies control Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria.

Of course my preference would still be for a Freetown VC, but’s in not like a line in the sand for me or anything. Just want some way to bring this territory into play, even if only in a minor way.

[baron Münchhausen]

For all playtests which would be possible, I say try it on for Free Town.
If players complaint about it and prefer Gibraltar, then at least it would be after testing it.

There is so many things about Redesign and it is one aim to improve historical accuracy.
Also, I like that 3 VCs are on 1942.2 Africa map. There is already a lot of VCs in Europe.
A few less there and one more in Africa, with a good reason to place it in Sierra Leone.
I’m fine with it.

[Black_Elk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5gSlraEGSo

Kind of gets at the heart of it.
:-D

When I watch stuff like that, it makes me feel like West Africa’s contribution to the wider war deserves more of a nod.

[barney]

Here ya go Elk  :-)

[Argothair]

The 20 VC and 30 VC lists for 1942.2 look good to me! My only concern is that on the 20 VC list, either side wins at 14 VCs, but the Allies start with 14 VCs. Can the Axis reliably go up by 1 net VC by the end of J1? Seems too hard; if the Germans miss in Cairo, then where else can the Axis get a turn 1 VC? Especially with Oslo in the mix; British could get lucky taking Oslo from Canada on B1. Easiest solution might be to bump global victory requirement to 15 VCs.

For G40, I was disappointed to see both Athens and Belgrade come off the list. I think we need at least one of those to enable an Allied Balkans campaign, per Churchill’s fantasy. I didn’t follow the logic about eliminating neutral VCs…it’s true that the 1942.2 map has no invadable neutrals, but it’s also true that Greece and Yugoslavia don’t exist at all on the 1942.2 map,and their closest equivalent (Southern Europe) isn’t neutral; it’s German.

I don’t think Malta makes a good VC – yes, it was incredibly strategic, but that was because it could be used to interdict shipping to Algiers, Rome, Tripoli, Cairo, and Damascus, i.e., to the other Mediterranean victory cities. If Malta is insufficiently useful, give it a starting air base and naval base and infantry base, plus a fighter and a destroyer to help exploit all those bases, but don’t make it a Victory city.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

The 20 VC and 30 VC lists for 1942.2 look good to me! My only concern is that on the 20 VC list, either side wins at 14 VCs, but the Allies start with 14 VCs. Can the Axis reliably go up by 1 net VC by the end of J1? Seems too hard; if the Germans miss in Cairo, then where else can the Axis get a turn 1 VC? Especially with Oslo in the mix; British could get lucky taking Oslo from Canada on B1. Easiest solution might be to bump global victory requirement to 15 VCs.

For G40, I was disappointed to see both Athens and Belgrade come off the list. I think we need at least one of those to enable an Allied Balkans campaign, per Churchill’s fantasy. I didn’t follow the logic about eliminating neutral VCs…it’s true that the 1942.2 map has no invadable neutrals, but it’s also true that Greece and Yugoslavia don’t exist at all on the 1942.2 map,and their closest equivalent (Southern Europe) isn’t neutral; it’s German.

I don’t think Malta makes a good VC – yes, it was incredibly strategic, but that was because it could be used to interdict shipping to Algiers, Rome, Tripoli, Cairo, and Damascus, i.e., to the other Mediterranean victory cities. If Malta is insufficiently useful, give it a starting air base and naval base and infantry base, plus a fighter and a destroyer to help exploit all those bases, but don’t make it a Victory city.

Good catch Argo. There is an issue  on Victory conditions for Allies at 20 VCs.

I wonder if a VC in Balkans is necessary to launch a campaign in Southern Europe.
You rather prefer a VC there instead of Ukraine?

[Black_Elk]

Well Athens and Helsinki both have the advantage of being starting German territories in 1942.2 that wouldn’t overlap, with other territories already covered.

I dig Yakut, it looks somehow good to me to have 1 VC up there for the Russians to really care about haha. Keep grounded if at war with Japan.

Still think it’s between Helsinki or Arch, and Athens or Kiev.
Each is a coastal TT, but Arch and Kiev are slightly further afield.
With the bosphorus closed, Kiev is less of an option for the West than Athens would be.
Finland vs Arch is more of a toss up. It’s easier for Germany to reach, but also the West. Either one can be reached by the Allies by sea, though Arch stretches further north.

They seem equally interesting to me, so hard to say which is best.
1 pro side neutral for each, Axis Finland and Allies Greece in G40, and 2 for Germany in 1942.2.

Or 2 to Russia in G40, and 1 to Russia 1 to Germany in 1942.2?

Giving a nod to the Finnish and Greeks (which suggests also Yugoslavia/Croatia etc in 42), as more independent belligerents, might recommend them over 2 more VTs in areas clearly in Soviet sphere of influence. Not sure which is best. But on the whole feels pretty nice to me. This is excitingSC