Yeah, I think you could do this with a variety of IPC values! The dynamic could work with Tokyo at anywhere between 4 and 6 IPCs, and Manchuria with either 2 or 3 IPCs, depending on how much the new British factories are actually pressuring Japan. I like Baron’s point that a lower-valued Tokyo would also make it easier for the Allies to go in for the kill in a Kill Japan First opening.
Note that if you start Japan off with a factory in a 3-IPC Manchuria alongside a 5-IPC Tokyo, you are almost reproducing the OOB status quo; Japan still starts with 8 build slots at game start, and can immediately expand to 10 build slots by purchasing a factory in, e.g., Kwangtung. So I don’t think that particular setup would work well to create Russo-Japanese non-aggression.
Also, I would not give the entire Warchest (i.e., including enemy dollars) to the victim of whoever breaks the non-aggression pact. That is just a disguised way of taking cash from the aggressor and giving cash to the victim. I cannot even begin to imagine what historical force or scenario that rule could possibly be supposed to represent. I don’t know why this idea is so popular. I think maybe human beings are hard-wired by evolution to enjoy seeing “cheaters” and “sneaks” be fairly punished. That’s a healthy instinct; it’s helped us build a decent civilization, but in the particular case of Axis & Allies, I think it’s extremely counter-productive. If Russia and Japan are each other’s enemies, then the rules of the game should reward them for launching a surprise attack against each other, because surprise attacks are a useful and effective tactic.
Saying that Japan should get an in-game penalty for attacking Russia is just as silly as saying that Japan should get -1 dice in combat if it attacks Pearl Harbor on the first turn because the poor Americans weren’t expecting the attack, and the Japanese were too sneaky so they have to be punished. That’s just not how it works. If you sneak up on someone, then you get a bonus to your fighting ability, not a penalty.
Part of the reason why real governments don’t make sneak attacks on each other in the 21st century is that it ruins your reputation, and makes other countries less likely to trust you and trade with you and do you favors. But who, exactly, was Japan trading with in 1941? Nobody. They’d already been completely cut off from the international economy. That was the whole point; that was why the Pacific War started in the first place. Once the unrestricted submarine warfare got going in the Pacific, that made the mutual embargos that much tighter.
If you want to say that a Japanese attack on Russia motivates the US/UK to send Russia more direct aid, fine. But if you want to say that a Japanese attack on Russia motivates Japan itself to send Russia direct aid, or that a Japanese attack on Russia somehow magically makes more Russian troops appear from nowhere, then I just have no idea where you’re coming from.
Sorry if I’m getting emotional here, but I’m feel frustrated about not having been able to clearly communicate this thought to you all.
No worries, I understand clearly everything you are saying. Short answer is basically, ‘no the NAP is not workable in A&A.’
Basically no simple carrot or stick is large enough to do the trick, and even of it was, it would be too hard to justify the abstraction in a satisfying way.
If going for a dramatic redesign of the Japanese production spread on the game map as a way to achieve the desired aim, then in tripleA terms I’m not sure we could really still call it 1942.2 or Global etc. It would probably be more appropriate to use a different name to describe a map with adjusted base ipc values. Like “catchy name” v5. I’d say once we go that route, there is really no reason to restrict adjustments elsewhere. Anyone who wanted to use the physical gameboard would need a way to indicate the adjustment in a more permanent way, like with a number token. It’s a pretty significant break from the boxed game. But its not much different than adding VCs, except that visually it is more of an eyesore. But if doing this, what of the OOB game do you preserve? Unit set up charts and territory division remain the same, and only map values change?
Or do you mean a single change, just to the Japanese home island (Tokyo) and nothing else? If it was only one territory on the map (or say just a few associated Japanese territories) being adjusted this way, then perhaps we can get away with it, and don’t have to open the flood gates completely.
Let’s say for example that Japan is reduced to 6, and Okinawa and Carolines are raised to 1 as an offset. Maybe that is acceptable, since it only requires 3 marker changes. Not too crazy.
But I think if we go too far in this direction, you will end up with a base map that starts looking pretty different, recommending unit set up changes too and starting cash adjustments to make it work, which basically means tossing out the set up cards. Not trying to go too slippery slope here, but if you have several changes to map values, and different set up cards, it’s basically a new game at that point. I’m not opposed to making a new game on a v5 scale, though at some point I’d say why use 1942.2 at all haha. I mean, of all the A&A maps, this one is probably my least favorite to begin with from a design standpoint.
For that kind of investment in time, I’d rather print out a new map FtF, or work with a tripleA map that actually looks clean. Instead of the old Revised baseline, with all its blobs.
:-D
Perhaps this is a better approach?
That seems to be what CWO suggested early on, that we just make something from scratch. And recent exchanges with other members here have me thinking that redesign efforts for the OOB global game aren’t much appreciated anyway.
If you really want to do this, I will draw you a baseline for use in tripleA on the scale of v5, but with the territory divisions you want to explore. So you can plug in the desired prosuction numbers.
It’s been a while, but I’ve done this many times before. Integrating the map file and drafting the basic connections in xml is what takes the longest.
If going through the trouble to create a new world projection at the scale of v5, it would probably be best to make a map which actually works for v5 too. It has always bugged me that 1942.2 uses the same baseline in tripleA as Revised and Spring 1942 v4, when the OOB map is clearly different. It’s not really a second edition in map terms, it’s a new edition. The only reason it doesn’t have a new default map in tripleA is because it was easier to hack v4 than create a new map, and because I was taking a break from tripleA when Veq threw it together, and so I wasn’t around to press for a new baseline.
ps. like if I was to try for it, I would probably use the AA50 baseline, but remove unnecessary tiles. Compress Spain and tweak Gibraltar so it aligns a bit better than the AA50 baseline. Here is a garish draft from a while back, with hard and fast paint fill, and some shoddy text thrown in. Its a bit jpeggy, but you get the general sense haha. I can’t remember what idea I was trying to explore at the time, probably something with starting factories or Russia (since it has way more TTs than necessary), or maybe the v5 sea zones since I see a bunch of tweaks over AA50 there? But anyway, I think if you created a new baseline for use with v5, then it would be a lot simpler to include an extra gamefile on the v5 scale, but which included things of interest like adjusted ipc values or more VCs or whatever. Is that more what you were thinking?
Are you ok with this sort of basic projection? Because I already have a few versions of that baseline at different sizes. Then it would just be a matter of compressing a couple areas, blowing out Europe for v5 scale, erasing borders until you have the basic v5 territory distribution and then adding sea zones.
If you want Europe larger the easiest way to do that is with a vertical stretch, but will quickly start to distort the med and mid east if you go too large. That’s why Africa/India always looks so weird in A&A maps. This projection was my best effort to address the compression we usually see in A&A while still trying to make a map that looks recognizable in places like China. Not sure if you’re into it.
Sorry if I’m getting emotional here, but I’m feel frustrated about not having been able to clearly communicate this thought to you all.
About NAP penalty, you can say that all Warchest is going to Russia, or Japan according to who break it.
Sorry Argothair, your thought was clearly understood first time. It is my intent which was not clear in my sentence. It was all Axis warchest which was going to Japan or all Allied Warchest to Russia, not both to the poor victim.
My sentence was confusing I see it clearly.
At least, it allows you to say more about your POV on NAP breaking.
:-)
do you mean a single change, just to the Japanese home island (Tokyo) and nothing else? If it was only one territory on the map (or say just a few associated Japanese territories) being adjusted this way, then perhaps we can get away with it, and don’t have to open the flood gates completely.
Let’s say for example that Japan is reduced to 6, and Okinawa and Carolines are raised to 1 as an offset. Maybe that is acceptable, since it only requires 3 marker changes. Not too crazy.
This change on Japan was exactly what was done by Phillip Swartzer in WW2 Pacific Expansion.
It reduced Japan by 3 or 4 pts to increase Japanese Island Values on good old Classic map. At that time, I did not realized it can make an easier Japan invasion.
It provides a few Japan Control Marker with different number (1,2 or 3) on it.
For table top, we can suggest this tweak for Japan only.
More, you can use original one side white cardboard leftover from OOB to draw number on it.
What can be Japan critical initial production number to make a viable NAP?
I rather keep OOB Manchuria, there is not that much high value TTy in Asia.
Going as low as 4 Japan and 1 for Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Carolines to keep same initial income?
About 1942.2 Map, if you have a better drawn map for Triple A, why don’t try it instead of v4 revamped?
I was not into redrawing map, but a background change may help see visually that Redesign is a new mint.
It was all Axis warchest which was going to Japan or all Allied Warchest to Russia, not both to the poor victim.
Ah, OK. That makes plenty of sense.
At least, it allows you to say more about your POV on NAP breaking.
Zounds! You’ve discovered my true motives! :)
And recent exchanges with other members here have me thinking that redesign efforts for the OOB global game aren’t much appreciated anyway.
Well, there are always critics. My experience is that for everyone who bothers to tell you your idea is insane, there are a dozen who think it’s pretty neat but who just don’t bother to post most of the time. Otherwise why would our posts get up to thousands of views? Are there hundreds of people who all want to silently laugh at our dumb ideas? Or maybe there’s some weirdo out there who keeps refreshing all my posts like a maniac just to drive up my “views” count and trick me into thinking I know something…that would explain a lot, actually.
More seriously, if we want to shift gears to a brand new map on roughly the 1942.2 or AA50 scale, that’s fine, and I’m happy to help with that, including the .xml file, but I don’t think we should be pressured into doing that based on public opinion. I think the Russia vs. Japan issue can be adequately addressed without major territory value changes; putting VCs and military bases in the ANZAC region will help give Japan a reason to go south, and the combat-impassible Western China will seriously nerf the Japanese Death March to Moscow ™, and the Lend-Lease effect of the Warchest will allow Russia to resist Axis aggression much more effectively.
Your probably right, we added already enough incentive VCs and Warchest (and detterent as impassable Western China) to do something else interesting than a JTDTM for Japan.
NAP and all NOs should be kept for G40.
1942.2 need to be more streamlined, less rule to remember, no DOW, just purchase, strategy, move and combat.
And there is no hurry for map changing. The actual allows already a lot of playtests.
A more accurate and useful map can be done in later stages.
For whatever it’s worth, and for those who haven’t seen, Siredblood is re-rendering the G40 map in Customizations. Obviously, this would be more for physical gameplay than TripleA, so it may not matter to you.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39013.0
I believe his goal is to leave territories and sea zones unchanged from normal, but to reshape them for larger size in well used areas. Ex… make Europe larger and Africa smaller. So far as I know, he isn’t adding any IPC values, though he may be able to make those kind of small changes to a copied version if we asked him.
Siredbloods map looks really promising. It also shows how you can take a lot of different approaches to compression and expansion.
One thing I found when messing around with world to get it to fit the requirements of A&A, is that the two most problematic areas to scale are the Med/Africa and Central/South Asia. Depending on how extreme you go with it, basically you have to give up on having them shaped very much like the actual landmasses. This is because A&A requires more space for units in Europe and in the East Asia region.
North America and Australia and the islands are easier, because they don’t directly connect to anything, you can basically shrink or expand them to scale at whatever size is needed. But you have to do some pretty crazy stuff to get Europe and the East Asia/Pacific to be roughly 3 or 4 times the size in some places, while having Africa and Central Asia at roughly 1/2 the size
The Global Map is pretty clean in A&A terms compared to previous A&A maps, but you see it there too. Also in HBGs Global War 1936 map. Basically they give you a wild stretch at the middle. The 1942.2 map is especially rough though. All the recent maps show Africa with a warp, like you are seeing it on curved plane or globe, bending out of view at the bottom. Not a bad solution really.
My goal for the map above, was to get something close enough to reality, that it might trick someone into thinking that there is almost no distortion going on. When in fact it is heavily distorted in virtually every region. There’s basically not a spot on there that isn’t bent and twisted and pulled. But part of what helps to give you a sense of accuracy is territory divisions, because they suggest relative scale. That’s why I have so many regions in there (even if almost all of them get erased), so you can still see where say croatia might end, so that a larger Yugoslavia territory looks right, or so that an even larger Southern Europe territory might look correct, or whatever haha. It’s still not perfect though. Africa remains rather too large for A&A. You really have to bend sub saharan Africa out of shape to get the Med and Europe to align with it.
Still I’d say it’s definitely simpler to make a couple minor tweaks to Japan’s production (and use a marker or whatever) and use the existing board, if that’s all we need. Creating a whole new map projection instead of using v4 is certainly doable. Though that can go on as we work through stuff using the current tripleA or boxed maps I suppose.
Ps. I wonder if a more general production cap for Axis capitals might work on the Europe side of 1942.2 as well.
Say something like starting factories at Axis capitals are restricted to 1/2 the printed production value? This would almost grantee that Axis have a harder time turtling. Would seem to require a production purchase too. Low production combined with the same level of income encourages the purchase of heavy equipment, as we all know. So Germany would be buying a lot more tanks and fighters I would think. Japan the same, or more warships. Maybe trying to do it with G is too complicated. Japan makes sense though, and seems easier to pull off there.
Tokyo at 1/2 the printed production value?
Say something like starting factories at Axis capitals are restricted to 1/2 the printed production value? This would almost grantee that Axis have a harder time turtling. Would seem to require a production purchase too. Low production combined with the same level of income encourages the purchase of heavy equipment, as we all know. So Germany would be buying a lot more tanks and fighters I would think. Japan the same, or more warships. Maybe trying to do it with G is too complicated. Japan makes sense though, and seems easier to pull off there.
Germany have to split in many directions anyway to repel Allies.
Japan may be turtling up for a while. In the few end KJF games, I saw it was nearly only delaying fatality until people called it. Per se, Japan was not conquered. The only time Japan was conquered net and clean by US, it was because my opponent was taking a risk and split IJN early while I give him a one-two punch and invade Japanese homeland around US4 or 5 at most. He took a risk and loose, but I was also lucky in my first round attacks.
A much lower Capital production combined with more money spread amongst islands will clearly put Japan on its guard: willing to protect its basic incomes, increasing the pressure to built Infantry to split and recapturing islands lost while unabling to turtle up beyond hope of an Allies conquest.
That seems to be what CWO suggested early on, that we just make something from scratch.
Just to expand on that a bit: one of the points I was trying to make is that there are potentially many different methods for revising a game like A&A. And by “different methods,” I’m not referring to specific changes to specific rules or to specific map features; I’m referring to the concept of working methodologies. Different people have different styles and priorities, so there no automatically-right or automatically-wrong ways of tackling such a project. Black Elk, for instance, mentioned that he likes the technique of tossing ideas into the discussion (a.k.a. brainstorming), and my general impression is that many of his suggestions have used a specific existing OOB rule as a starting point from which he proposes an alternative. Which is a perfectly valid way of working, though there are equally valid alternatives. In my own case, for example, my general approach to problem-solving of any sort (including A&A redesign problems), is to work in the opposite direction: starting with broad concepts first, then working my way down to the specifics.
So from that perspective, when I was talking about designing the rules from scratch, I should perhaps have phrased it in less radical terms because I didn’t literally mean starting with a blank sheet of paper. What I meant was starting with the broadest “big picture” concepts of the game first, determining if they’re satisfactory or nor (and, if not, deciding how they could be adjusted), then using that foundation as the starting point to examine the next level of detail in the game, then validating (and if necessary adjusting) that level, and so on and so forth.
And I just want to clarify what I mean by “big picture” concepts. I mean very basic things like: how many game powers are there? how many types of game units are there? in what year of WWII does the game begin? what are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level? should the game offer an even chance of victory to both sides or should it favour a victory by the Axis or the Allies? And then there’s what I think is the biggest-level concept of all: the issue of exactly which game is being redesigned.
One thing I’ve found a bit confusing about this discussion thread is that (unless I’m mistaken) it covers the simultaneous revision of four separate games: 1940 as a board game, 1940 in Triple A, 1942 as a board game, and 1942 in Triple A. My own preference when I’m solving a problem – any kind of problem – is to focus on just one problem at a time, so that I don’t feel that I’m chasing after multiple geese.
In terms of the physical board game versions of A&A (I’m leaving aside the subject of Triple A, which I’ve never used), the top-down redesign option would be to focus on 1940 first, complete its redesign, then scale down the completed redesign to adapt it to 1942, while the bottom-up redesign option would be to redesign 1942 first, then scale up the completed redesign to adapt it to 1940. Both would be valid approaches. But regarding the bottom-up approach, one thought to consider might be the following one. There was a comment earlier in this thread about the fact that A&A games – especially A&A Global 1940, for obvious reasons – take hours to playtest, which is quite true. Assuming, however…
1) that the redesign process was being done in a bottom-up way (scaling up towards 1940 rather than scaling down from it); and
that the redesign process starts with the validation of the game’s big-picture concepts before moving to the nitty-gritty details; and,
that each stage of the redesign process requires playtesting, ideally without a huge investment of time
…then would it perhaps be a good idea for some of the broad-level concepts be tried and validated using the small and simple 1941 game as a test platform (possibly with the selective importation of components – like sculpts – from the 1940 game)? The point of this wouldn’t be to redesign 1941; the point would be to use the 1941 board as a laboratory to explore the game’s most fundamental elements without having to invest hours and hours per game in playtesting. Once those fundamentals had been nailed down, they could be scaled up to the 1942 game; this would have the twin purposes of redesigning 1942 in its own right, and later of using the redesigned 1942 game as a testbed for the ultimate purpose of redesigning Global 1940.
As I said, we all have our own ways of working, so the ideas I mentioned above may not have any practical value for people who have different working methods. I’m just adding them to the present discussion for whatever they might be worth, even if only to offer a different perspective on the subject.
Your approach will probably be needed for the next stages of Redesign.
Basically, Barney make it way beyond mere chats and brainstorms. He created a way to make a lot of playtests possible on Triple A platform.
It may remains as such for a while, it all depends on how many people will try and enjoyed it.
It depends on which direction Black Elk may aimed at.
Because, sooner or later, if a more unified Redesign is the objective, this question and your general directions will be helpful for selecting one thing over an other (and accept some more difficult choice) and deciding which step is next.
We are probably in the easier steps of all, except for Barney, who is working much harder.
A lot of all this is very circumstantial, who knows what other will be willing to do next month and who will be part of it.
Actually, I believe 1942.2 is better than 1941 to make proof of concept. 1941 is so scaled down and have so less rules which even actually can change the overall balance a lot. Here I’m thinking about SBR.
I played a few game of 1941 with all my main roster and lower cost structure to help buying things.
And one time or another, IC and SBR were missing. But, you are right for one point, I tried a few new interactions which was easier to observe in isolation and get a better HR when I played on 1942.2 board.
Here, time to play was my main restraint, however.
Having a whole day to play, I would went straight to 1942.2
In my own case, for example, my general approach to problem-solving of any sort (including A&A redesign problems), is to work in the opposite direction: starting with broad concepts first, then working my way down to the specifics. …
And I just want to clarify what I mean by “big picture” concepts. I mean very basic things like: how many game powers are there? how many types of game units are there? in what year of WWII does the game begin? what are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level? should the game offer an even chance of victory to both sides or should it favour a victory by the Axis or the Allies?
This is my overall philosophy of game design as well – I like to figure out what problems I’m trying to solve, and then try to drill down into the specifics. However, as CWO_Marc says, there are many valid approaches here.
If we are going to make a new map, I favor using as much compression and creative redrawing of borders as necessary to wind up with comfortably spaced, adequately sized territories. When tripleA infantry are packed so closely together that you can’t see their national flag emblems and you have to click on the “territory” panel just to see who owns a stack, or when face-to-face infantry are packed so closely together that they’re always falling off their chips and you can’t tell which territory they’re supposed to be in, that really sucks the fun out of a game for me. I guess we all have our “line in the sand” when it comes to accuracy; I don’t want to play on a map of Europe that visually represents, e.g., Rome and Moscow as being closer together than Warsaw and Moscow. But if the borders between two territories look a bit different than they would have in real life, that’s fine with me, even if that means they become a bit blob-shaped. A batallion here or there that held its ground for an extra week or panicked and ran a week earlier could have reshaped the borders pretty easily. In peacetime, the border between “Karelia” and “West Russia” is marked out by which postmen deliver your mail and which taxmen collect your local sales tax. In wartime, who’s to say exactly where the border lies?
This projection was my best effort to address the compression we usually see in A&A while still trying to make a map that looks recognizable in places like China. Not sure if you’re into it.
It’s a very good start, Black Elk. My preference would be to vertically compress Africa more sharply and to expand the northern edge of the map a bit more, either by re-sizing it, or just by adding more pixels to the image and extending the sea zones northward, to provide a bit of psychic “white space” that can help compensate for any crowding in the vicinity of Leningrad. I think Leningrad, West Ukraine, Baltic States, Tunis, and Peking on your map are a bit too cramped for practical use, but I very much enjoy the overall “graph theory” of your map, and I think the projection is about right.
Why are places like Polesti considered less valuable than Bucharest for a VC?
Or that the Azores are not being considered, or that you don’t have Dakar as a VC?
Mosul?
Baku, which was the whole intention of Hitlers 1942 campaign?
Somebody who knows or reads about the actual war should be influencing this process, or the end result will not look well.
CWO_Mark should be commenting on this.
At least you guys made Truk a VC ( very important to japan btw)
@Imperious:
Why are places like Polesti considered less valuable than Bucharest for a VC?
[…]
Somebody who knows or reads about the actual war should be influencing this process, or the end result will not look well.CWO_Mark should be commenting on this.
I haven’t commented on the VC discussion of the last few days because – in line with what I mentioned earlier today in my post about game redesign methodologies – I’m not comfortable with getting into the intricate details of a greatly expanded list of VCs without feeling that some much more fundamental “broad picture” questions has been tackled first: Which game (1942? 1940?) is being revised? What are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level? Should the game offer an even chance of victory to both sides or should it favour a victory by the Axis or the Allies?
You’ll notice that my list of “first-tier” questions above (and the one from my earlier post today) doesn’t include VCs at all. In my opinion, the list of which cities should be VCs is actually a third-tier question, positioned as follows:
Tier 1: What are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level?
Tier 2: What role do VCs play within the general system of victory conditions?
Tier 3: What should the actual list of VCs be?
The reason I’d be inclined to work downward from Tier 1 to Tier 3, rather than diving straight into Tier 3, is that, in my opinion, it seems like a (potential) waste of time to debate if City X should be a VC without really having a clear idea of what a VC is supposed to do in a redesigned A&A game. Or more precisely, in a redesigned Global 1940 or in a redesigned A&A 1942, since the list of cities would probably be different for both games. In my opinion, that is.
@Imperious:
Why are places like Polesti considered less valuable than Bucharest for a VC?
Bucharest is 50 KM south from Ploiesti and in Romania, you really want this specific name?
Baku is in Caucasus, right?
If an NO gives 5 IPCs to Germany, if Axis get there, it is not enough?
(Actually VCs only give +1 or +2 IPCs)
It was the same for Gibraltar (it must covered for Azores), NOs but no VC.
UK EUROPE NO:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.
Also, about covering Atlantic Gap, now Redesign make it possible to have air gap of some SZs.
OOB, for StBs vs Subs, this was only possible if no DD were around a given Sub infested SZ.
About Mosul, Baghdad can do it or not?
To simplify things, we try to get a G40 40 VCs list which encompasses all 1942.2 30 VCs.
Trying as much as possible to some significant points either for game play strategic pattern or historical reason.
What occurs to me is that VCs can be an intented goal but never see a gunfight at all (Baku) while other were hardly fought over. And other were never an intended goal at all (Washington D.C., seriously?).
Tier 1: What are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level?
That point is not clear for G40.
We set some numbers of VCs for 1942.2, but 20 VCs seems more difficult to set than 30 VCs.
Strangely, there is some kind of inductive thinking which can give some answers to this question (tentatively at least) after a few play tests if Triple A have them on, but it would be more difficult if we don’t have them on map.
Good question CWO Marc:
Should the game offer an even chance of victory to both sides or should it favour a victory by the Axis or the Allies?
I believe we aimed at make it even as possible but I’m pretty sure that if a side is slightly favored in fact it will be already incredible.
I really believe we need to have a clear list of questions like you’ve done went comes the time to make some report and analysis of first draft playtest games.
@Imperious:
Why are places like Polesti considered less valuable than Bucharest for a VC?
Or that the Azores are not being considered, or that you don’t have Dakar as a VC?
Mosul?
Baku, which was the whole intention of Hitlers 1942 campaign?
Somebody who knows or reads about the actual war should be influencing this process, or the end result will not look well.
CWO_Mark should be commenting on this.
At least you guys made Truk a VC ( very important to japan btw)
My thought there was that by focusing on the territory rather than the city, it would be easier to allow for both in the imagination. So that’s why I made all the cities parenthetical and listed TTs first. Mainly because so many people refer to TTs based on cities sometimes, I wanted to list the OOB. So just made sense for consistency. Sadly in tripleA the cities aren’t listed by default, so you need a map skin. But I agree in some cases it makes sense to go for things other than cities.
I take all CWO’s comments on the previous page to heart. Sometimes I wheel back around quite a bit. And am perhaps trying too hard to tease out possible points of overlap between 1942.2 and 1940. The tripleA versions of either map enter into it for me mainly from a practical standpoint, since I’m a big proponent of digital play and also using it for playtesting. So that was the motivation behind including tripleA in the discussion, so that hopefully it works in both.
That’s one point where I am in considerable agreement with the people pursuing the Balance Mod idea. It was kind of painfully ironic to have my constant argument about the importance and efficacy of digital testing, which I’ve tried to advance many times over the years, thrown back on me recently by the people heading up that effort. But I definitely still believe that the easiest way to test these ideas is with the machine.
:-D
I think one big picture goal that I keep returning too, which may help to explain the sorts of brain storms I keep revisiting is the idea that the game needs to be sufficiently similar to OOB to be broadly recognizable at the end of the day. So I do kind of latch on to the familiar there, even if I go off on tangents about possible alternatives.
Alas I’m on a mad dash to work. But I will return later with more thoughts on Victory conditions/cities. I agree those should be fundamental. I did try to outline an idea there for tier 1 and 2, which may explain somewhat the desire to include more in tier 3. But perhaps didn’t make it clear enough. Functionally they are intended as both an economic gameplay driver, and as a way to determine victory by sides, with the former being somewhat more important than the later in my view.
Ps. Right now, what you get when you add a VC to the digital map, is just the generic star marker untitled. So in practical terms the more important thing to know is just which territories are involved. Barney suggested we try to avoid putting them in Pro-side territories, which is why Mosul was given the hefty objective bonus rather than the VT status. Similar with Caucasus. I thought I explained the rationale with Dakar, but maybe not clearly enough. Also some consideration was given to 1942.2 applications, to avoid reduplication. So in that game for example, Volgograd and Caucasus are the within the same tile, and one VT can service both the Stalingrad and Baku concept.
In general terms, I suppose you could say that I am still thinking about overall victory in terms of concession and economic advantage, more so than sudden death based on VT control. If only because I think that is the way many players haved played the game traditionally. So if these features of the map exist, I wanted them to work in service of the economic gameplay drivers. Not just to reinforce the objectives already in place, but to cover areas of the map not currently covered by specific objective bonuses. I think the logic there is pretty straight forward. The more VTs your team controls, the greater purchasing power you develop, based on Income and Progress Credits. And if you want sudden death then you can suggest a number by sides, but it’s not strictly necessary for this feature of the map to still have a major impact on the play pattern. And if you want to keep it more concession oriented instead of sudden death, you can still have a progressive bonus that kicks in once a particular number VTs is reached. That was the idea anyway
To keep it short and sweet, these are the basic answers I would give…
Which game (1942? 1940?) is being revised?
Both. This may seem like trying to do a lot at once, but if both games use related basic mechanics/features, it just makes sense to me to use similar approaches here for each. Just as an example, If the 1940 game is meant to include a timeline that reaches 1942 and beyond, then the 1940 game should have many of the same principle VCs that are used for a game set to open 1942. Even though the scale of the two boards is different, it is helpful to consider them both, so that you don’t end up with a lot of divergence or curious omissions when going from one to the other.
Tier 1: What are the victory conditions at their most fundamental level?
Concession or Sudden Death. While I think that there are definitely other options than these two, such as victory charts with specific goals by nation or hard limits by game round, if going on traditional A&A, those are the two we have seen. Concession or sudden death (whether based on VCs or total IPCs) is basically what we were given with Axis and Allies. Anything substantially different, and I’m not sure the gameplay would really be recognizeable.
Tier 2: What role do VCs play within the general system of victory conditions?
Providing an in-game economic advantage to the side which controls them. And to activate the sudden death condition if desired.
Tier 3: What should the actual list of VCs be?
Enough so that each area of the map (where the historical conflict occurred, or might sensibly have occured under alternate history imaginings) actually comes into play.
I know the answer to the Tier 1 Q, is probably not the most exciting from a major redesign standpoint. It is basically the same as OOB. But I am just trying to be somewhat realistic here, in terms of what would be broadly acceptable for a simplified war game like A&A. The goal here is rather modest, just finding a way to connect these features of the map to the rest of the game in a more meaningful way, so that they can shape the play pattern on an ongoing round-by-round basis, instead of only at the end and purely as an outside game resolution mechanism.
…Barney suggested we try to avoid putting them in Pro-side territories, which is why Mosul was given the hefty objective bonus rather than the VT status.
Hmm…don’t recall making that suggestion :). I do remember Baron saying the list changed and the 3 neutral ones were replaced with 3 others. But yea, no reason you can’t have a neutral as a VC, at least from a triplea pov.
Then again I may have. If so I don’t remember why :)
…Barney suggested we try to avoid putting them in Pro-side territories, which is why Mosul was given the hefty objective bonus rather than the VT status.
Hmm…don’t recall making that suggestion :). I do remember Baron saying the list changed and the 3 neutral ones were replaced with 3 others. But yea, no reason you can’t have a neutral as a VC, at least from a triplea pov.
Then again I may have. If so I don’t remember why :)
Yes, Mosul/Baghdad was put in a more important place as Germany’s NO:
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
So, Baku and Mosul are more subtle than a VC, but it worth a lot more to Axis.
As far as I remember, it was because 3 pro-side Neutral were only remaining and seems not very symetrical.
The last time, it was between
1- Archangel (Russian) or Helsinki (Pro-Axis Neutral),
2- Kiev (Russian/ German’s on 1942.2 or Athens (Pro-Allies Neutral/ German’s on 1942.2)
Ah perhaps I got confused there then. I thought maybe there was an issue with tripleA, as well as the symmetry thing.
In that case, we could still conceivably do one for Mosul I suppose or Athens or wherever (with any other such pro side tile in G40).
I was rather hoping to catch some more feedback on which TTs would be the most desireable for G40 Top 40. IL offered suggestions. I’m certainly fine if we want to include more of them. But I was also trying to be somewhat equitable in trying to include areas of the map which see less action OOB.
I tried to set a number that was well at the high end, so that we could be accommodating.
For the territory list, which substitutions would you prefer, to feel as if history is not being ignored? Focusing on TTs rather than cities.
IL had these a few pages back…
Astrakhan
Truk
Polesti
Baku
Oslo
Mosul
Dutch oil centers
Norway, Romania, Carolines are already here.
The discussion about Caucasus, Iraq and the Dutch East Indies islands was whether these TTs needed a further incentive, beyond the high base economic value or bonuses already in the game?
Astrakhan on the Caspian is a situation much like Volgograd/Caucasus. It’s a VT that would only be relevant to Global. But I would not be hard line. If it makes sense to use these. But it is a high concentration of VTs in an area of the map that is already coveted by both sides and fully in play.
Ps. Yes perhaps drop Ukraine. I think that territory is undeniably already in play on both boards.
