I cannot say if it works or not but it seems an interesting detterent against Japan breaking NAP.
It would be some kind of hypothetical alternate war scenario in which Allies can enter Russia to bring help to fight a two fronts war.
In that specific scenario, Allies Sphere of influence would be out as soon as NAP is broken.
It would be up to Japan player decision.
Of course, if Russia break the NAP. The Sphere of Influence remains active.
A lot coming in at once there.
First for marines, the defining characteristic of this unit used to be only a bonus to amphibious assault. Otherwise it was the same as an infantry unit, just more expensive. In the older games it was useful (over a tank at the same cost) only because a single transport could deliver 4 or more total attack power with 2 marines or 1 marine 1 art (at a power of 5). Fairly huge, compared to only a single tank at a power of 3. I suppose if you wanted to imagine it’s application in games since Revised, it would be compared with an attack power at 4, (for 1 inf 1 art, or 1 inf 1 tank combo).
The useful comparison there is no longer Marine vs Tank, but Marine vs Artillery.
Lately (in the more recent mod) the defining characteristic seems to be its ability to be transported by a warship. Or to activate an independant bombardment.
I don’t have a whole lot of input to offer here. I anticipate that this will not be an HR I utilize on the regular. Though I would still argue for its inclusion, as it seems to be a popular concept, and worthy of further exploration.
I think the ideal would be a package that offers whatever concept is current in the balance mod, as well as any other viable alternatives that make sense for a standard roster that includes artillery and the modern transport capacity, perhaps one that doesn’t involve warships at all?
I would opt for as much flexibility as possible, perhaps with an “upGun” or “downGun” option, that can change the attack value or basic abilities on the fly, according to player preference.
*Edit
Perhaps just include the 2001 marine as another standard option?
You could just nix the line about it being USA only I suppose.
MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these
are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines nor-
mally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of
1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious
Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A
Marine unit that enters combat by moving
from one land territory to another land terri-
tory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as
long as at least one friendly unit attacks from
a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious
Assault.For each artillery unit attacking the same ter-
ritory one Marine unit may attack with a roll
of 2 or less.For each artillery unit attacking the same ter-
ritory in an Amphibious Assault that is not
paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit
may attack with a roll of 3 or less.
For Russian NOs/NAP enforcement on the Pacific side of the board, at one point back in 2014 I suggested that we not use the Pacific Route through Vladivostok by sea, but rather the Northern Trace ALSIB by Air. This was a more gameplay oriented solution, because it did not involve coastal TTs or Sea Zones.
Instead of Amur/sz5 which is the Pacific Route, the ALSIB is from Fairbanks in Alaska to Krasnoyarsk in Siberia.
Sure you lose some symmetry with the other two routes, by not having a sea zone involved, but I thought it seemed better for the NAP. Japan would not be able to immediately disrupt this route with a DoW, provided the Americans control Alaska and the Soviets control Siberia (further inland.)
For gameplay and test purpose you may want to reintroduce this Marines unit but,
a 4 IPCs unit able to get @3 when combining attack and amphibious landing is too much power. Seems from another era when TP can bring 1 single Tank and nothing else.
I don’t remember, was it possible to either give +1A combined with Art or the other +1A for amphibious landing so a Marines A1 cannot rise higher than A2?
For my part, if there is still room I suggest to add the same Marines unit A1-2 D1 C3 we have in the roster but at 4 IPCs.
That way, there will be a Redesign Marines at C3, another at C4 and finally BM Marines C5.
If not, or if Barney have no time for it, then I prefer we stay with 2 Marines type: A1-2 D1 C3 (1 on BB) and A1-2 D2 C5 (1 on CA or BB).
That way, it allows to play with 2 extremes and will be easier to compare.
About the Northern Trace ALSIB by Air which was more gameplay oriented solution, because it did not involve coastal TTs or Sea Zones, I find this an original way to solve the issue on NAP. Fine with it.
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.
Bucharest does not provide petrol for Panzers. Hitler could care less about the capital. If you want areas on the map where a HUGE deal was made then Polesti and not Bucharest.
Baku oil center was a HUGE focus for German efforts in 1942. Yes it is in Caucasus.
Archangel is the part where 25% of lend lease came its relatively ice free compared to other areas in Russia and was the closest thing to warm water port in the White Sea.
You need to consider realistic areas as candidates rather than equidistant or whatever consideration. Give the project Historical flavor. Some places will be low laying fruit, others not so much.
Gibraltar needs to be considered of course. Azores is just a nice place to park long rang axis bombers late war. Mosul was probably their most important city for oil in 1940’s
@Imperious:
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.Bucharest does not provide petrol for Panzers. Hitler could care less about the capital. If you want areas on the map where a HUGE deal was made then Polesti and not Bucharest.
**Baku oil center was a HUGE focus for German efforts in 1942. Yes it is in Caucasus.
Archangel is the part where 25% of lend lease came its relatively ice free compared to other areas in Russia and was the closest thing to warm water port in the White Sea.**
You need to consider realistic areas as candidates rather than equidistant or whatever consideration. Give the project Historical flavor. Some places will be low laying fruit, others not so much.
Gibraltar needs to be considered of course. Azores is just a nice place to park long rang axis bombers late war. Mosul was probably their most important city for oil in 1940’s
Are you arguing for Archangel as a VC or as NOs for Germany?
Actually, it can be all the three! VC+ NO for Russia and NO for Germany
It becomes a pretty big IPCs swing, don’t you think?
TT: 1, VC: 1+1, No: +5 = +8 * 2 = this TTy provides 16 IPCs swing!
Caucasus, without VC is probably 7*2 = 14 IPCs swing
TT: 2, No: +5 = 7 or at least 2 for Russia to 7 for Germany = 9 IPCs swing.
For Ploiesti instead of Bucharest, is it more for a pedagogical purpose that you prefer this name? Teaching more about history of WWII?
Because winning over the TT, you get all of it anyway.
For Azores, if we use OOB map, we cannot do much.
And what would you do about Stalingrad?
There was nothing but the name to capture.
Astrakhan, Baku and Rostov-on-Don were much of use for Germany.
Would you replace Stalingrad by Astrakhan which would have been a better place to cut the oil entry?
To chose a given VC or NO TT, do you agree that some play pattern may be of an important matter to recreate WWII dynamics?
I am in a compromising mood. If we could just get the dozen people in here to agree on a single list for G40, then I think it would be possible to move the ball forward a bit with VTs.
Forget all the existing NO’s for the time being. Assume that the listed Territories will display whatever City/Region is most appropriate for historical significance to the war. Set aside for the time being exactly how these territory tiles are meant to relate to the gameplay/victory beyond offering a simple +1 ipc.
There are other follow up options at our disposal beyond a VT marker, just as starting bases or NOs.
Let’s say for now that the OOB national Capitals (listed below) have a special status. There are 9 in the game currently.
UK
France
Russia
East US
India
New South Wales
East Germany
Southern Italy
Japan
There are 10 more territory tiles in the game that have also been singled out for special significance in the OOB game.
Poland
Egypt
Novgorod
Volgograd
Eastern Canada
Kwangtung
Kiangsu
Philippines
Hawaii
West US
Now in addition to these there are several more possible territory tiles (out of the hundreds of playable tiles on the map) that could be also singled out for particular historical/educational significance and highlighted by the VT marker and the +1 bonus. I’d say roughly 1 in 4 tiles on the game board might be serviceable for this purpose.
Here is a big list (in no particular order) of some not currently included that might be interesting,…
Caucasus
Gibraltar
Archangel
Scotland
Algeria
Union of South Africa
Iceland
French West Africa
Syria
Ukraine
Sicily
Szech
Alaska
Malaya
Amur
New Zealand
Western Canada
New Britain
Yakut
Midway
Norway
Holland
Romania
Libya
Carolines
Manchuria
Iwo Jima
Iraq
Finland
Greece
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Brazil
Borneo
Sumatra
Java
New Guinea
Southern France
Okinawa
Morocco
Normandy
Together with the 9 capitals, and 10 VCs of the OOB game, any of these could receive a Star/Red Dot/VC token (with a special associated name in mind). .
We don’t really have make a decisive choice for what that name is right now. If you want Romania to say Polesti, or Caucasus to say Baku, or Borneo to say Tarakan, that’s all doable. But in TripleA terms, it is just a gold Star with big V in the middle. Any that don’t get the VT status with the star, can still get an NO. Some VTs can have their significance further reinforced with the NO on top.
I also still think that the Kamakazi islands should have a generic bonus of some kind (because that information is presented pretty clearly with a visual on the boxed map.)
And finally, I think it is still worth exploring starting bases (particularly naval bases, which are a much less popular purchase than air bases) as yet another way to highlight a territories that otherwise receive less action or prominence to the game. For example, I think I’d have a hard time signing off on an HR package that didn’t provide an option to just give Scotland a Naval base outright.
On that last point about naval bases…
Has anyone considered the idea of including a unit called Harbor, which can then be upgraded to a Naval base? My thought there would be that the Harbor is not a purchasable unit, but in place from the outset, in territories which make sense for this purpose.
Or I don’t know, maybe just making the NB unit a feature of the gamemap, rather than a purchase option in the unit roster?
Or maybe it’s unecessary to remove them from the roster, since they are so infrequently purchased by anyone other than Japan, maybe its easier to just add a few more? But it’s kind of silly how they can just go anywhere, and yet there are some pretty important historical NBs not included in the set up.
It still drives me half crazy that Scapa Flow was not included in the second edition of this game haha.
Are there a few more NB candidates we could suggest in some sort of “Naval Base Expansion” toggle?
FWIW… I do like maxing out the VC/VT number at about 40 for G40. As you said B_E, you could make up a reason to have one every other territory if you wanted to. However, if you do that, they won’t mean anything. I think the list we had earlier was quite good. Arguments could be made to switch a couple around based on overall importance or incentivizing play as it relates to the geography.
Are you arguing for Archangel as a VC or as NOs for Germany?
Considering it can be either, whatever fits your system but it is a important spot
Actually, it can be all the three! VC+ NO for Russia and NO for Germany
It becomes a pretty big IPCs swing, don’t you think?
TT: 1, VC: 1+1, No: +5 = +8 * 2 = this TTy provides 16 IPCs swing!
Caucasus, without VC is probably 7*2 = 14 IPCs swing
TT: 2, No: +5 = 7 or at least 2 for Russia to 7 for Germany = 9 IPCs swing.
For Ploiesti instead of Bucharest, is it more for a pedagogical purpose that you prefer this name? Teaching more about history of WWII?
Because winning over the TT, you get all of it anyway.
I think this should be a NO, oil income directly listed on the document as a German NO but of course we are referring to territory of Caucasus.
For Azores, if we use OOB map, we cannot do much.
I figured this was redesign, not OOB
And what would you do about Stalingrad?
There was nothing but the name to capture.
Stalingrad remains as VC, Baku, Caucasus is a NO
Astrakhan, Baku and Rostov-on-Don were much of use for Germany.
Would you replace Stalingrad by Astrakhan which would have been a better place to cut the oil entry?
Rostov could be a VC candidate. It was important to be captured/recaptured like 5 times. I would never replace Stalingrad for Astrakhan. Astrakhan was the operational designation point for the final German 1942 eastern advance, but its not noteworthy for anything. Its mostly marshland in that area.
To chose a given VC or NO TT, do you agree that some play pattern may be of an important matter to recreate WWII dynamics?
Here’s that pair of bulleted lists we discussed from a couple of pages ago! Let me know if you have anything to add to either list, or if you see any goals that have no methods that would help achieve the goals, or if you see any methods that don’t help achieve any goals.
| GOALS
Balance Allies vs. Axis
Offer alternatives to a joint Axis attack on Moscow
Offer alternatives to having all players focus on the center
Encourage Japan & USA to fight in the Pacific theater
Allow the USA to get into the game more quickly
Give China a chance to resist the initial Japanese attacks
Offer more opportunities for players to build navies
Reduce time needed to get troops across an ocean
Encourage Germany to defend the Atlantic Wall in Western Europe
Reduce power of strategic bombers when used against warships
Encourage interceptions and dogfights vs. strategic bombers
Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death
Increase the focus on the Battle of the Atlantic / submarine raids
Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships
Reduce ‘gamey’ incentives when liberating a dead ally’s territory
Help ensure an interesting role for France, Italy, Canada, and/or ANZAC
Simplify purchasing decisions
Give players something to buy for 5 IPCs
Increase ‘thematic’ feel of submarines
| METHODS
Standard bid of extra units
Bid of extra cash income each turn
Alter the turn order (America first, China first)
Increase territory values in Pacific
Increase national objectives in the periphery
Increased number of victory cities
Victory cities provide lend-lease ‘warchest’
Limited movement b/w Russia & Western China
Discounted ships / redesigned naval cost structure
C5 defenseless bombers
Additional airplane types
Defender gets to soak free hits vs. purely amphibious attacks
‘Fortress Europe’ national objective for unbroken control of Western Europe
M3 transports / cruisers / all boats
Enhanced naval bases, air bases, infantry bases
Double warchest bonus after reaching threshold # of victory cities
Convoy zones for submarine raids
Alter special abilities of destroyers vs. subs vs. planes
Cruisers / BBs can fire anti-aircraft shots
Cruisers / BBs can carry marines
All ships are cheaper
Standardize ship prices at $6 - $9 - $12 - $15
Territories become pro-neutral after capital falls
Liberation / return of territory to original owner is optional
Vichy France / France joins Nazis
French partisans placed w/o capital
French capital in London or Africa
Redistributions of British economy / turn among Canada, ANZAC, UK Pacific
Revamped factory system (more tiers? Higher unit caps for all factories? X units + 2 infantry?)
|
Edited per Baron Munchhausen’s additions
Wow.
More details for a few and one or two not directly covered above:
Simplifying purchase decision: 6-9-12-15 cost structure suggested for warships / 5-10-10 for planes, filling the 5 IPCs spot but keeping known warships cost
Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships: adding AAA capacity (up to two @1) to both
More historical depiction of planes vs Subs: Fg and TcB need no more DDs presence, Anti-Sub Air Patrol for TcB, Subs no more Naval fodder because DDs better as such
Increase the feel of Battle of Atlantic: (allowing Subs to be more ellusive, not blocked by DD.)
EDIT #1:
On filling C5 spot and completing M2 roster MI and Tank: introducing Mechanized Artillery A2 D2-3 M2 C5
Optimizing less interesting unit and KISS: streamlining AAA awkward NCM, change to A0 D1 M1 C4 but @1 vs up to 2 planes.
EDIT #2:
Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death: giving +1 IPC per VC but an additionnal +1 IPC in Warchest end of each complete round.
Thanks Argothair
These bullets are extremely helpful!
Helps to track what we’ve covered already so anyone who comes along after can trace the thoughts. Also shows how in many cases some related strategies can be pursued to improvd both 1942.2 and Global. Really appreciate the summary, great work man!
@IL, what do you think about this 40 VCs for G40, now?
Here is a revised list based on IL request for keeping Archangel, Baku, Rostov-on-Don, Ploiesti and Mosul as VCs.
Rostov is no more VC meaning Baku needs to be NOs.
Kiev (Ukraine SSR) is in G40 40 list instead of Rostov-on-Don
Amsterdam (Holland) is out.
Helsinki (Finland) Pro-Axis Neutral is out.
Gibraltar will be considered with NOs.
Azores might be considered if we ever do map changes.
G40 40 VCs list, 1942.2 30 VCs & 20 VCs list
G40 only 10 VCs are bolded.
1942.2 20 VCs list is italicized.
Total VCs: 40/30/20
ETO VCs: 22/16/10
PTO VCs: 18/14/10
Axis ETO: 8/6/4
Allies ETO: 14/10/6
Axis PTO: 6/6/4
Allies PTO: 12/8/6
30 VCs / 20 VCs list on 1942.2 makes for :
Germany: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
Japan: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
China (US): 1 VC / 0 VC
USA: 4 VCs / 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs / 3 VCs
UK: 9 VCs / 5 VCs
G40 and 1942.2 40/30/20 Victory Cities list:
Axis 7+1 European VCs (5+1 VCs 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Ploiesti/Bucharest (Bulgaria Romania),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
7-Tripoli (Libya).
8-Mosul/Baghdad (Iraq) Pro-Axis Neutral,
9-Athens (Greece) (Pro-Allies Neutral / 1942.2: Axis),
Allies 13+1 ETO VCs (10 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
10-Washington (Eastern USA),
11-London (UK),
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Volgograd) (Caucasus 1942.2),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk),
17-Reykjavik (Island),
18-Cairo (Egypt),
19-Dakar (French West Africa),
20-Kiev (Ukraine SSR),
21-Ottawa (Ontario),
22-Tunis (Tunisia).
Axis 6 PTO VCs (G40 & 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Tokyo (Japan),
2-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
3-Manila (Philippines),
4-Truk (Caroline Islands),
5-Singapore (Malaya),
6-Manchuria (Harbin),
7-Rabaul (New Guinea) (G40: Allies / 1942.2: Axis).
Allies 11+1 PTO VCs (8 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
8-Calcutta (India),
9-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
10-Wellington (New Zealand),
11-Anchorage (Alaska),
12-Honolulu (Hawaii),
13-San Francisco (Western USA),
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan),
16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR),
17-Hong Kong (Kwangtung),
18-Vladivostok (Amur).
Victory Conditions to be determined…
You win if your team has at least x+ VCs in either theater, or at least y+ VCs globally for two consecutive round.
Check VCs number on Warchest phase at the end of a game round if VCs condition is obtained.
Just looking at the top of the list on Methods, has me thinking of set up change options again. Mainly concerning naval bases, and ways to accelerate the play pace when it comes to the ocean crossings (mainly for the Americans.)
Similar to the way we’ve just talked about adding more Victory Territories, I think an expansion to the number of starting naval bases would be a good option for G40. The unit is not a hot ticket purchase item (Japan I suppose) but otherwise just not a great buy relative to the Airbase.
We’ve discussed ways before how to make NBs an attractive buy, but another idea (keeping with the OOB values) might just be to add a few in some of the more static areas of the map. Was thinking maybe 4, selected primarily for the connecting movements they would produce across the map, but also with some historical novelty.
British could use an NB in Scotland (Scapa Flow)
French could get one in French West Africa (Dakar)
US in Central America (Panama)
Basically the first two give the US another pair of bounce route for their Atlantic shucks (north and south) that are safer than a b line to Gibraltar or England. The third helps the US transition from Atlantic to Pacific with greater ease, and connects them to New Zealand and Hawaii in a more direct way along this path.
These would benefit the Allies primarily, so there is a bit of a balancing mechanism in there, but one that doesn’t require the introduction of more combat units onto the board. Something like that is fairly simple, and more interesting I think than a typical bid for combat units. The TUV is greater at 45 than most bids, but it’s rather less distorting to the opener than more combat units would be.
Just a thought. Any other spots that might be fun?
Western Canada could perhaps work in a similar way, more for gameplay dynamism than anything else, (just to activate the top of the board in the Pacific.) Could be cool for a Pacific endgame scenario, allowing another alleyway across which the IJN and USN can stare each other down. Even if the Canadian navy was dedicated Atlantic and the harbour itself could probably be justified.
Perhaps anothers that might be cool, Crimea? Would basically be an Axis offsets. A black Sea harbor would probably only be relevant if Turkey was brought into the war, but could be fun for G under those conditions.
Vladivostok could also be cool. It doesn’t give Japan a whole lot that they don’t already have out of sz6, but it makes an Allied play into sz5 more compelling.
Not sure which if any of those might seem workable to others, but seemed like a quick way to open up the map a bit for the naval game. We’ve discussed before the option of NBs on the Pacific islands. CWO had a good list there of possible contenders. Think something like that is worth an HR toggle?
Absolutely. The more the merrier I say :)
The 40/30/20 list has been edit and suggest a few different VCs than these which are actually in Redesign xml files.
It needs to be discussed.
I conveniently put each VCs in order of presence per theater per side, 20 VCs list are firsts, 30 next, 40 lasts.
Italicized, normal, bolded.
I would like this VCs thing be settled before general release of files.
Thanks.
P.S. In 1942.2 top 30 VCs, I traded Warsaw for Athens, so Argothair’s Southern Europe campaign can be possible.
@Imperious:
Are you arguing for Archangel as a VC or as NOs for Germany?
Considering it can be either, whatever fits your system but it is a important spot
For Ploiesti instead of Bucharest, is it more for a pedagogical purpose that you prefer this name? Teaching more about history of WWII?
Because winning over the TT, you get all of it anyway.I think this should be a NO, oil income directly listed on the document as a German NO but of course we are referring to territory of Caucasus.
And what would you do about Stalingrad?
There was nothing but the name to capture.Stalingrad remains as VC, Baku, Caucasus is a NO
Astrakhan, Baku and Rostov-on-Don were much of use for Germany.
Would you replace Stalingrad by Astrakhan which would have been a better place to cut the oil entry?Rostov could be a VC candidate. It was important to be captured/recaptured like 5 times. I would never replace Stalingrad for Astrakhan. Astrakhan was the operational designation point for the final German 1942 eastern advance, but its not noteworthy for anything. Its mostly marshland in that area.
I see an interesting point to make a distinction between oil production center (as NOs) and other military objective as VCs.
However, since we try to make 1942.2 without NOs, I tried as much as possible to put all type of war goals within 30 VCs list.
Even more, the 20 VCs list keep Ploiesti as the fourth VC in ETO.
But cannot do much for Archangel: Russia, Leningrad and Stalingrad/Caucasus already taking many of potential targets in ETO.
To keep a few ones in Africa.
Vladivostok could also be cool. It doesn’t give Japan a whole lot that they don’t already have out of sz6, but it makes an Allied play into sz5 more compelling.
Not sure which if any of those might seem workable to others, but seemed like a quick way to open up the map a bit for the naval game. We’ve discussed before the option of NBs on the Pacific islands. CWO had a good list there of possible contenders. Think something like that is worth an HR toggle?
Aside from Vladivostok, I can’t think of another territory on the Pacific board that could realistically receive starting NB in 1940. I researched Formosa but couldn’t determine if the Japanese had a significant naval base there. But that becomes redundant if Japan has Hong Kong. Rabaul would have a NB if the game were starting in 42 or 43, but it isn’t. Victoria/Vancouver might, but that would be somewhat of a stretch since Canada had a very small naval presence.
@IL, what do you think about this 40 VCs for G40, now?
Here is a revised list based on IL request for keeping Archangel, Baku, Rostov-on-Don, Ploiesti and Mosul as VCs.
Rostov is a VC but can be replaced by Baku, if Baku not NOs.
Kiev (Ukraine SSR) is out for Rostov-on-Don (G40) or Athens (1942.2)
Amsterdam (Holland) is out.
Helsinki (Finland) Pro-Axis Neutral is out.
Gibraltar will be considered with NOs.
Azores might be considered if we ever do map changes.G40 40 VCs list, 1942.2 30 VCs & 20 VCs list
G40 only 10 VCs are bolded.
1942.2 20 VCs list is italicized.Total VCs: 40/30/20
ETO VCs: 22/16/10
PTO VCs: 18/14/10Axis ETO: 8/6/4
Allies ETO: 14/10/6Axis PTO: 6/6/4
Allies PTO: 12/8/630 VCs / 20 VCs list on 1942.2 makes for :
Germany: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
Japan: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
China (US): 1 VC / 0 VC
USA: 4 VCs / 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs / 3 VCs
UK: 9 VCs / 5 VCsG40 and 1942.2 40/30/20 Victory Cities list:
Axis 7+1 European VCs (5+1 VCs 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Ploiesti/Bucharest (Bulgaria Romania),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
7-Tripoli (Libya).
8-Mosul/Baghdad (Iraq) Pro-Axis Neutral,9-Athens (Greece) (Pro-Allies Neutral / 1942.2: Axis),
Allies 13+1 ETO VCs (10 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
10-Washington (Eastern USA),
11-London (UK),
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Volgograd) (Caucasus 1942.2),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk),
17-Reykjavik (Island),
18-Cairo (Egypt),
19-Free Town (Sierra Leone, French West Africa),
20-Rostov-on-Don (Rostov) or Baku (Caucasus) if not NO,
21-Ottawa (Ontario),
22-Algiers (Algeria).Axis 6 PTO VCs (G40 & 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Tokyo (Japan),
2-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
3-Manila (Philippines),
4-Truk (Caroline Islands),
5-Singapore (Malaya),
6-Manchuria (Harbin),7-Rabaul (New Guinea) (G40: Allies / 1942.2: Axis).
Allies 11+1 PTO VCs (8 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
8-Calcutta (India),
9-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
10-Wellington (New Zealand),
11-Anchorage (Alaska),
12-Honolulu (Hawaii),
13-San Francisco (Western USA),
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan),
16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR),
17-Hong Kong (Kwangtung),
18-Vladivostok (Amur).Victory Conditions to be determined…
You win if your team has at least x+ VCs in either theater, or at least y+ VCs globally for two consecutive round.
Check VCs number on Warchest phase at the end of a game round if VCs condition is obtained.
I can only offer you where on the map that were of great strategic import to either side.
I have no idea why the following are even on the list, except if the consideration was to provided VC outside the normal “reach” of the axis for balancing purposes…
Reykjavik- has little value to Germany, on Greenland Germany did install a weather station to monitor the North Atlantic weather systems
Free Town was of no value
Ottawa has no value to Germany, i doubt Hitler even thought about it during the war
Algiers is not really important
Wellington has no value ( unless you live there)
Anchorage was close to where Japan executed a feint as a prelude to her attack on Midway
Victoria has no value for Japan or Germany
Here are localities that were very important and why:
Panama canal ( it takes alot longer to go around South America to bring supplies to the war effort)
Midway- obvious
Puget Sound- where practically every US warship was repaired or built
Dakar - is in west Africa and is a huge naval base for France, her entire navy parked there after she surrendered
Sevastopol- was the focus of a huge German effort to capture, not unlike Tobruk
Kiev - is very important… capital of Ukraine… more value than even Rostov
Tunis was the main supply point for Italian/German shipping to Africa
Gibraltar- Well pretty obvious, even the game rules regarding movement bore this out.
Dardanelles- mostly of value to anyone who wants to cross into Turkey, or control access the Black Sea for Russia it means a warm water port.
the bottom line is #17,19,21,22 for allies on ETO are suspect
ON PTO #10, 11, 14 for allies are suspect
For axis Oslo Norway is important ( well Norway in general is as it represents naval bases for Germany and insulation for Sweden and protection of Iron Ore shipments to Germany in Baltic
@Imperious:
I can only offer you where on the map that were of great strategic import to either side.
I have no idea why the following are even on the list, except if the consideration was to provided VC outside the normal “reach” of the axis for balancing purposes…
Reykjavik- has little value to Germany, on Greenland Germany did install a weather station to monitor the North Atlantic weather systems
Free Town was of no value
Ottawa has no value to Germany, i doubt Hitler even thought about it during the war
Algiers is not really important
Wellington has no value ( unless you live there)
Anchorage was close to where Japan executed a feint as a prelude to her attack on Midway
Victoria has no value for Japan or GermanyHere are localities that were very important and why:
Panama canal ( it takes alot longer to go around South America to bring supplies to the war effort)
Midway- obvious
Puget Sound- where practically every US warship was repaired or built
Dakar - is in west Africa and is a huge naval base for France, her entire navy parked there after she surrendered
Sevastopol- was the focus of a huge German effort to capture, not unlike Tobruk
Kiev - is very important… capital of Ukraine… more value than even Rostov
Tunis was the main supply point for Italian/German shipping to Africa
Gibraltar- Well pretty obvious, even the game rules regarding movement bore this out.
Dardanelles- mostly of value to anyone who wants to cross into Turkey, or control access the Black Sea for Russia it means a warm water port.the bottom line is #17,19,21,22 for allies on ETO are suspect
ON PTO #10, 11, 14 for allies are suspectFor axis Oslo Norway is important ( well Norway in general is as it represents naval bases for Germany and insulation for Sweden and protection of Iron Ore shipments to Germany in Baltic
We may need to define a bit better what Victory Cities are supposed to represent and whether or not “Victory Territories” are the same thing.
My impression of Victory Cities as they exist OOB are major population centers with significant geopolitical importance. Securing enough of these important cities would theoretically exert enough popular and political sentiment to cause the other side to sue for peace.
The term Victory Territory implies a more broad focus as it relates to strategic value. That could be military value or industrial/resource value.
Unfortunately the issue is that physically VCs are part of a territory, so there is some bleed through about what the distinction is. The other problem being that often you could have 2 or more worthy candidates for a VC in a single territory. (Ukraine: Kiev or Sevastopol; Western US: San Francisco or San Diego; Eastern US: Washington, New York, Boston) This situation means you have to decide on one to represent all possible options.
If my definition of Victory Cities is accurate, then places like Ottawa and Wellington have merit. I disagree that because they were not historically an Axis objective, or are ‘too far afield’, that they aren’t worthy of being a VC. You could use that argument to exempt Washington DC from being one. There is a problem in giving too many VCs to the Allies which are mostly inaccessible to the Axis, like those in North and South America; so I do think those should be limited. Even though Mexico City or Victoria or Toronto are definitely important population centers, they do not act as realistic incentives for the Axis because of their location. Reykjavik is however pretty easily within Germany’s sphere if they have a navy. If a case can be made for Reykjavik as either an important population center or as a strategically important territory, then I don’t see a reason not to include it.
I disagree that Midway should be either a VC or a VT. The purpose for the Japanese taking Midway was only to serve as a frontline airbase against US advances and a place from which to plan attacks on the Hawaiian Islands. Had Japan taken Midway in 1942, it would have been deeply concerning to the United States, but in no way a back breaker politically. Neither would it have impacted resource gathering for either side.
Neither Rabaul or Truk could really be considered a Victory City, since Truk was purely a naval base and Rabaul’s small town was almost completely destroyed by a volcano before the war. Both were (or became) very important military centers for Japan, but were not politically significant.
The Dardanelles are important, but I don’t see how you can realistically incorporate them into G40, given that Turkey is a neutral. Similarly with other canals and straits, their presence and control is already valuable in a strategic sense for ship movement. I suppose an economic bonus given for controlling them wouldn’t be a bad idea, but that would have to be factored into other bonuses and income expected for each Power. Unless the intent is for them to be only opposite objectives… such that the Axis get economic bonuses for controlling original Allied straits/canals and Allies get bonuses only for controlling originally Axis straights/canals. That sounds kinds cool actually.
I think the list of VCs is probably fine the way it is. We must strike a balance between recognizing historically important cities and giving players incentives that will make for a strategically interesting game. In my opinion, this list strikes that balance. There are other lists that would also strike that balance, but just flagging every VC that was not a major city is not going to I prove the list.
If people really want to continue to improve this list, rather than moving on to the next task, I’d recommend that we try to separate out the major cities from the strategic bases, e.g. Kiev on one side, Rabaul on the other. Both kinds of locations should offer an in-game benefit, but it doesn’t have to be the same kind of benefit. Maybe major cities can be VCs and strategic bases can trigger National Objectives. That would require a total rewrite of both the VC list and the NO list, so I don’t think it’s worthwhile, but if people insist, then I think that’s the direction we should go in.
