True. Okay then, looks good. I also assume that the bombing would occur before combat.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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 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
-
@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.
-
@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
Thanks IL for your more in-depth commentary.
There is probably a few ones which can be changed with affecting what has been done to keep an equilibrium between Axis vs Allies VCs, ETO vs PTO VCs and the like.
I read both Argothair and Hoffman and I find both have sounds points.
I will make the simpler suggestion before going into more debatable points.
Maybe VCs should be for Victory Center or Core, instead?
Because, actually the list has a wider scope than only large agglomeration population center.
It actually include both important strategic target and military assets and center of resources for each Power.Reykjavik was better because it is within Germany’s reach and also, it can plays the same role as Azores for Allies.
Convoy going either UK or Russia were passing by or making as stop in some case. Hence, it qualifies for resources center.Ottawa is already on G40 map, and this is the Capital of one major ressource center for UK.
Like Wellington for New Zealand, these cities have a political importance. If Ottawa was made Capital of commonwealth and looting it was possible, noone would see an issue.
So, some VCs are purely political center as capital like Washington.
I think the reasoning is chop the head of the enemy, so you win.
Anchorage and Victoria are regional capital cities.
We saw these two as interesting incentive targets for Japan looking East instead of West toward Center Crush.
These two TTs cannot not have VC, but what about Vancouver for Victoria?
It is a major population center but still Victoria harboured the Canadian Pacific Naval Base.
So, it makes sense to keep Victoria as VC.About Anchorage, the Main Operation USAAF Center in Alaska is still there:
During World War II, Alaska was a major United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) location for personnel, aircraft, and airfields to support Lend-Lease aid for the Soviet Union. In addition, it was in Alaska that the Empire of Japan seized United States territory and as a result the USAAF was actively engaged in combat operations against them.
So, it is still a valid VC too.
Suggested changes:
1- You said IL that Algiers is not really important, then I suggest to replace it with Tunis (Tunis was the main supply point for Italian/German shipping to Africa), and since both is only in top 40 list for G40 and French TT, it doesn’t affect other balancing points to consider. Anyone view an issue here?
2- About Dakkar, which is a French TTy, adding a Naval Base there can it be enough, if Tunis is a french VC?
Maybe Freetown can still be considered in a different way too, making it UK (not neutral), and put an AB on set-up on Freetown.
While changing Freetown for Dakkar as VC?It G40, it means 1 IPC less for UK because France cannot collect (but maybe it should be look to work like China in some way.)
But, from this is changing an Allies VC for another Allies VC. And, on 1942.2, Dakkar is in same TT: French West Africa, no big issue.Panama canal, maybe it can be part of Japan Global NO (not just a Pacific NO)?
But, it would be easier as VC because this Canal is on ETO map.3- So, the main debatable point is about:
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.If, on initial set-up, Ukraine get an IC and have an AB for Kiev and NB for Sevastopol (in case Dardanelles opens).
The military significance of Ukraine would be increase.
We can then keep Rostov-on-Don (to symbolized Caucasian oil resource center).
Or Baku, if there is no NO for it.What do you think people?
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.
Sevastopol historical importance is another reason to add a NB there on Ukraine.
A Naval Base in Western Canada can also do for Puget Sound- where practically every US warship was repaired or built, which is in Washington state near Victoria’s Island.
P.S. Assuming Baku is an NO, it is possible to change Rostov-on Don (Rostov) for Kiev/Sevastopol (Ukraine SSR).
Do people prefer this? IDK clearly what was more important between these two. I know Rostov was meant to be an oil production center for Germany if Soviet had not sabotage this oil field. Also, as IL said, it has been conquered a lot in WWII.Both Kiev and Rostov are Allies Russian VCs, so it is no big change. And if it is only considered in top 40 for G40, there is no issue with 1942.2 30 VCs list.
-
1- You said IL that Algiers is not really important, then I suggest to replace it with Tunis (Tunis was the main supply point for Italian/German shipping to Africa), and since both is only in top 40 list for G40 and French TT, it doesn’t affect other balancing points to consider. Anyone view an issue here?
2- About Dakkar, which is a French TTy, adding a Naval Base there can it be enough, if Tunis is a french VC?
Maybe Freetown can still be considered in a different way too, making it UK (not neutral), and put an AB on set-up on Freetown.
While changing Freetown for Dakkar as VC?It G40, it means 1 IPC less for UK because France cannot collect (but maybe it should be look to work like China in some way.)
But, from this is changing an Allies VC for another Allies VC. And, on 1942.2, Dakkar is in same TT: French West Africa, no big issue.Panama canal, maybe it can be part of Japan Global NO (not just a Pacific NO)?
But, it would be easier as VC because this Canal is on ETO map.3- So, the main debatable point is about:
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.If, on initial set-up, Ukraine get an IC and have an AB for Kiev and NB for Sevastopol (if Dardanelles open).
The military significance of Ukraine would be increase.
We can then keep Rostov-on-Don (to symbolized Caucasian oil resource center).
Or Baku, if there is no NO for it.Remember i don’t really have a pony in this race, but im only pointing out that if you wanted the areas on the map where WW2 had any meaning to anybody and second your trying to identify where to choose, i tried to guide you to something that did have meaning. If the concern is NOTHING but gameplay balancing, there may be other choices and it wont reflect a Historical outcome. I appeal to larry’s broadstroke Historical philosophy.
Dakar is basically also French West Africa, so the location works much better than Freetown. At least it should be a French naval port.
Panama is on the ETO map but should be a Japanese concern.
My ranking of the three Russian cities debating in order of importance to Russia:
1. Sevastopol
2. Keiv
3. RostovMy ranking of the three Russian cities debating in order of importance to Germany:
1. Kiev
2. Sevastopol
3. Rostov -
@Imperious:
1- You said IL that Algiers is not really important, then I suggest to replace it with Tunis (Tunis was the main supply point for Italian/German shipping to Africa), and since both is only in top 40 list for G40 and French TT, it doesn’t affect other balancing points to consider. Anyone view an issue here?
2- About Dakkar, which is a French TTy, adding a Naval Base there can it be enough, if Tunis is a french VC?
Maybe Freetown can still be considered in a different way too, making it UK (not neutral), and put an AB on set-up on Freetown.
While changing Freetown for Dakkar as VC?It G40, it means 1 IPC less for UK because France cannot collect (but maybe it should be look to work like China in some way.)
But, from this is changing an Allies VC for another Allies VC. And, on 1942.2, Dakkar is in same TT: French West Africa, no big issue.Panama canal, maybe it can be part of Japan Global NO (not just a Pacific NO)?
But, it would be easier as VC because this Canal is on ETO map.3- So, the main debatable point is about:
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.If, on initial set-up, Ukraine get an IC and have an AB for Kiev and NB for Sevastopol (if Dardanelles open).
The military significance of Ukraine would be increase.
We can then keep Rostov-on-Don (to symbolized Caucasian oil resource center).
Or Baku, if there is no NO for it.Remember i don’t really have a pony in this race, but im only pointing out that if you wanted the areas on the map where WW2 had any meaning to anybody and second your trying to identify where to choose, i tried to guide you to something that did have meaning. If the concern is NOTHING but gameplay balancing, there may be other choices and it wont reflect a Historical outcome. I appeal to larry’s broadstroke Historical philosophy.
Dakar is basically also French West Africa, so the location works much better than Freetown. At least it should be a French naval port.
Panama is on the ETO map but should be a Japanese concern.
My ranking of the three Russian cities debating in order of importance to Russia:
1. Sevastopol
2. Keiv
3. RostovMy ranking of the three Russian cities debating in order of importance to Germany:
1. Kiev
2. Sevastopol
3. RostovThanks IL,
I would probably change Rostov for Kiev, which saw 2 major battles 1941 and 1943.
I’ll wait for other to chime in on that one.
I know that Black Elk once suggested Kiev as VC.I also like these changes Black Elk:
British could use an NB in Scotland (Scapa Flow)
French could get one in French West Africa (Dakar)
US in Central America (Panama)Along with an AB in Sierra Leone and making Dakar VC.
-
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?)
|
Just in reference to Arg’s bullet list again, one major goal for me that perhaps I haven’t stressed enough, is a general desire to make the early gameplay aims in G40 somewhat more immediate and intuitively recognizable (mainly for the Allies, since the situation for Axis is more straightforward). I don’t claim to be any great expert at G40, I’m probably a fairly middling player, despite having a good grasp of A&A basics and some familiarity with all the various A&A games. But I think one of the things that makes the board more intimidating and less accessible is not so much the extensive rules overhead or the number of TTs and units involved, but the fact that all the action (at least for one side) requires this multi-round set up where you have to predict how the board might look so far in advance. That’s always been a feature of A&A, but in global the crystal ball is just a lot cloudier, and you have to look a lot deeper into the future than you did with previous boards that had a total war start. Also because the decisions made in the opener have such a huge cascading effect on what can happening like 5 rounds down the road. So that’s why I think it would be helpful if there were just more visual cues (stuff displayed on the map) that give a better sense of what players should be doing during all that initial build-up down time. That’s one of the main advantages I see of including more VCs, because it shines a big bright light on certain territories that are in contention (closer/faster to reach), and encourages the player to position themselves in such a way that they can start activating those TTs ASAP. I think anything that would help to clarify what a player’s initial goals should be, and provide some sense of accomplishment early on, would ease the feeling of having your back against the wall, or just being overwhelmed by the sheer scale of it all. Not sure if that makes a whole lot of sense, it’s not just about the ultimate balance per se, but also this psychological aspect… Like where both teams can feel as if they’re in the driver’s or at least riding shotgot and navigating.
Right now OOB, it’s a bit like one side is perpetually strapped in a 5 point carseat, with a constant refrain “are we there yet?” coming from the back. I understand that for a 1940 start date, it makes sense for Axis to have all the initiative and for Allies to be clinging on by their fingernails, but for a more satisfying game I think it would help if we at least had some more roadside attractions, or pitstops along way, or just more stuff to look out the window at to keep the imagination going.
:-DGreat points coming in on those last few postings regarding VCs. The dilemma as I see it is probably the result of deciding to make each nation’s political capital a VC when the concept was first introduced. This suggests to me that they are really meant to be more population/politically oriented. At the same time though, from a gameplay standpoint, I think Victory Territories are more interesting, since they allow for more possible candidate TTs that would enhance the gameplay. But given that 19 are already on the board the challenge is how to accommodate those so that any new list still remains consistent. I think that’s why we’re looking at a hybrid here, with examples of both in the expanded list, just so there isn’t a major disconnect between what already exists and what’s being added.
I like all the suggestions just offered by IL.
I don’t care so much about Freetown, I just want it to be British so we don’t have to perpetuate the OOB error in designating it true neutral. If Dakar makes more sense for a VC that seems cool.
I do like the idea of a base expansion to compliment these other ideas. Along with the others mentioned above, I like that proposal to give Dakar the starting NB, and Freetown the starting AB, because then you’d service the history and the gameplay pretty well for both. The West African Reinforcement Route for the British was primarily about Aircraft anyway, so it that would certainly make sense for Sierra Leon (giving that tile a reason to exist again haha). French West Africa with a starting NB, would cinch up the South Atlantic pretty nicely, as it would activate 3 adjacent sea zones, and could make a Torch push into North Africa somewhat more attractive, or at least less of a death trap. If we still want VT in this area of the map FWA (Dakar) works for me.
-
-
So, I will change Freetown for Dakkar then.
I do like the idea of a base expansion to compliment these other ideas. Along with the others mentioned above, I like that proposal to give Dakar the starting NB, and Freetown the starting AB, because then you’d service the history and the gameplay pretty well for both.
What about Kiev instead of Rostov? It pushes a big green light on Ukraine that way.
It is also interesting to add a NB there, so TcB would also be part of SBR if Russia or Germany bomb it.
Germany may even built a few DDs and 1 TP in Black Sea to directly attack Caucasus… -
Yeah sounds good.
When I mentioned Crimea on the previous page I was thinking of a starting NB in the Ukraine TT. I can’t seeing it enter play much on the water unless Turkey was activated in a neutral crush, but if it was, having a black Sea port in place would could be pretty fun for Axis. And any new bases placed in an expansion might present new targets for SBR under certain conditions.
A Naval Base the Black Sea, might also help to deter the Allies from creating a Spanish landing pad, since it makes control of the Bosporus a bit more potent with that extra naval reach to back it up.
IL seemed to think that one was worth pursuing. So I think it would be pretty cool. I think it could support a VC.
Tunis works for me, instead of Algiers. It’s a not as far west, which might make it more interesting as a target TT.
I’m also not opposed to Gibraltar, even if it is already such a critical tile. The only thing that gave me pause there initially is how it might influence the Spain situation. Just trying not to make a Neutral crush too attractive or open up a Classic dynamic where Spain is constantly on the table.
@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 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 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.
-
Here is a revised list based on IL advice on last page.
It is still 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
Tunis (Tunisia) and Dakar are now VCs instead of Algiers and Free Town.
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 30 VCs list is normal font.
1942.2 20 VCs list is italicized.Total VCs: 40/30/20
ETO VCs: 22/16/10
PTO VCs: 18/14/10Axis ETO: 7/6/4
Allies ETO: 15/10/6Axis PTO: 4/6/4
Allies PTO: 14/8/630 VCs / 20 VCs list on 1942.2 make 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 VCs40 VCs list makes for:
ETO: 22 VCs
Germany: 4 VCs
Italy: 2 VCs
Pro-Axis Neutral: 1 VCPro-Allies Neutral: 1 VC
France: 3 VCs
Russia: 5 VCs
UK: 5 VCs
USA: 1 VCsPTO: 18 VCs
Japan: 4 VCs
UK: 4 VCs
ANZAC: 3 VCs
China: 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 2 VCsG40 and 1942.2 40/30/20 Victory Cities list:
Axis 8 European VCs (5+1 VCs 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France), (G40 France: Allies)
4-Ploiesti/Bucharest (Romania / Bulgaria Romania 1942.2),
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-Tunis (Tunisia),
21-Kiev (Ukraine SSR),
22-Ottawa (Ontario).Axis 6 PTO VCs (G40 & 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Tokyo (Japan),
2-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
3-Manila (Philippines), (G40 USA: Allies)
4-Truk (Caroline Islands),
5-Singapore (Malaya), (G40 UK: Allies)
6-Manchuria (Harbin),7-Rabaul (New Britain) (G40 New Britain ANZAC: Allies / 1942.2 New Guinea: Axis).
Allies 11+1 PTO VCs (8 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
8-Calcutta (India),
9-Sydney (Eastern Australia), (G40 ANZAC)
10-Wellington (New Zealand), (G40 ANZAC)
11-Anchorage (Alaska),
12-Honolulu (Hawaii),
13-San Francisco (Western USA),
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan), (G40: China)
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. (Making R1 win impossible.)
Check VCs number on Warchest phase at the end of a game round if VCs condition is obtained.
-
OK full list
Sphere of Influence Violations:
-10 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
-10 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
-10 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
-10 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.NAP Violations:
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Russia is first to break the non aggression treaty.Objective Bonuses
GERMANY:
+5 if not at War with Russia
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
+5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.RUSSIA:
+5 if not at war with Japan.
+2 for Axis territories under Soviet control.
+5 if at War, for each open supply route: Persian Corridor, Pacific Route ALSIB Northern Trace, Arctic Route.UK EUROPE:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.UK PACIFIC:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.JAPAN:
+5 if not at War with West.
+5 if not at War with Russia.
+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.
+10 if Japan controls Hawaii.USA:
+10 at War
+1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
+5 one time bonus for each Kamakazi island captured by Allies.CHINA:
+6 Burma Road.ITALY:
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean.ANZAC:
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.FRANCE:
+10 if Allies control Paris.Total Axis Objectives: 10
Total Allied Objectives: 12
Total Sphere of Influcen/NAP penalties: 6Exactly 28 entries, same as OOB. But covering way more ground.
I bumped Redesign NOs.
Gibraltar already worth something in them.
5 for UKE and 1 for Italy.
You may add
ITALY:
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean or Gibraltar owned.That way, it may represent how it allows to watch Med shipping
But, it provides a way to Italy to get 6$ from Gibraltar (1 Med TT +5 Gib owned).
Without cumulative effect of Gibraltar + no allied ships which would give 10 IPC otherwise.For Japan, do you think it is too difficult:
+10 if Japan controls Hawaii and Midway.
+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.That way Hawaii worth 1 for TT + 1 for being an Allies island TT, + 1 as VC and +10 bonus.
Midway is now part of the deal +1 for being an Allies island TT.
It now gives an incentive to fight over Midway first, then Hawaii.Compared to OOB USA NOs, this seems nerfed a lot:
USA:
+10 at War
+1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
+5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.OOB:
If all basic TTs are US, it is +10 (EUSA, CUSA,WUSA)
+5 (Alaska, Aleutian, Hawaii, Johnston and Line)
+5 (Mexico, SEMexico, Central America and West Indies)Why do you change France for Normandy?
+5 if at War and Allies control France
South Pacific Island National Sovereignty issues theme could be:
+5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)American Continental National Sovereignty issues theme could be:
+5 (Aleutian, Alaska, Mexico, SEMexico, Central America and West Indies)That way USA income stay as normal.
It provides a incentive to defend them and for Japan to invade at least 1 of each group.
Aleutian stay interesting target for Japan: +1 IPC -5 for USA.
However, Panama is not a big NO in this.
The issue with a basic National Sovereignty like:
+1 for each US Territory under US control (Pacific and European theaters) if at war.
Is that it gives not much motive to invade one or another TT, always same little IPCs swing.
This could at least provide for the other part of +10 for being at war.(Increasing US cash on hand)USA has already 4 NOs but as we just discussed how encourage historical play pattern toward Midway, Wake and Aleutian?
How Panama canal can be depicted as a vital node in Allies/US strategy making it a huge success if captured by Axis?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+10 if Japan controls Hawaii and Wake or Midway?
+10 if Japan controls Panama, Aleutian and Alaska?
(Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication center.)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.
-
About Bases.
Do you think Greenland should get Air Base.
Because it allows to fly from there to UK.
Which was not possible otherwise. -
I think it should have to be built. 1940 and all :)
-
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.
This is where IL’s suggestion about “Puget Sound- where practically every US warship was repaired or built”, might come in handy.
You can take a look, it is near Seattle, very north-west of US West Coast.
About 100 miles from Victoria’s Esquimalt Naval Base, Canada.
I see no issue to add a NB to Western Canadian Coast.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_Naval_Shipyard_and_Intermediate_Maintenance_Facility
I agree to this one too:
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.
-
@Baron:
About Bases.
Do you think Greenland should get Air Base.
Because it allows to fly from there to UK.
Which was not possible otherwise.I think it should have to be built. 1940 and all :)
It is precisely because it will not be purchase at all, that I suggested that one.
More geographical accuracy, it seems a bit strange that you can travel in one direction but not the other.However, I believe the airfield was not enough to be qualified as Air Base.
-
@Baron:
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.
This is where IL’s suggestion about “Puget Sound- where practically every US warship was repaired or built”, might come in handy.
You can take a look, it is near Seattle, very north-west of US West Coast.
About 100 miles from Victoria’s Esquimalt Naval Base, Canada.
I see no issue to add a NB to Western Canadian Coast.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_Naval_Shipyard_and_Intermediate_Maintenance_Facility
Yes, that is accurate. However, Bremerton still isn’t actually in Canada but would be part of the Western US territory which already has a NB. I do not see much reason to add a NB to Western Canada, partially because I doubt that it would be used all that much. In order to not cheapen the base concept we should probably only have them starting in places with a significant known presence or use… which would eliminate places like Victoria and Greenland.
-
But US West Coast have more major Naval bases in South.
If WUS TT was split in two, of course both north and south would receive a NB.But it is not the case.
WCanada NB is a political stretch not a geographical one.
100 miles is not that far on Global Level. Even more, Victoria’s canadian Navy Base is on the way toward this Shipyard. It use the same waterways between coastal North-West America and Vancouver island.The idea is that except for Japan, NB not worth purchasing.
Black Elk suggested to add more NBs to increase the naval movement patterns.
The point is no one except maybe Japan would have had to purchase NB when toggling that option. It emphasized the importance of NB for Naval movement but ackowledge it is mostly unoptimized from a purchasing factor compared to any other unit. Hence, adding a few on set-up.Air Base are much more valuable and are usually purchased.
I don’t disagree for Greenland. Let it be barren.
Suggested Topics
