@tincanofthesea thanks! I’m going test it next time I play. Whats your feedback? @GeneralHandGrenade
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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. -
I understand your reasoning Baron. I still respectfully disagree. Ultimately it isn’t a terrible thing if a NB goes in Western Canada, it may not even impact the game at all. I just question its real utility. Since there is no industrial complex in Western Canada, the only place ships will be entering play is Western US which already has a NB.
-
As a matter of strategy, is it totally out of the question for the UK to buy a minor factory for Western Canada in order to drop ships there? If so, does that much up with history? My understanding is that San Francisco and Oakland were industrialized in 1940 / 1941 specifically for the purpose of building more ships in the Pacific, and that before World War II, the San Francisco region was a cultural and banking center, but not really a center of industry. Is it so crazy to think that Canada might likewise have chosen to industrialize one of its Pacific port cities, if, e.g., London had been under somewhat less pressure from Germany and the Allies decided to go with a “Japan First” strategy?
-
Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.
-
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?)
|
-
-
As a matter of strategy, is it totally out of the question for the UK to buy a minor factory for Western Canada in order to drop ships there? If so, does that much up with history? My understanding is that San Francisco and Oakland were industrialized in 1940 / 1941 specifically for the purpose of building more ships in the Pacific, and that before World War II, the San Francisco region was a cultural and banking center, but not really a center of industry. Is it so crazy to think that Canada might likewise have chosen to industrialize one of its Pacific port cities, if, e.g., London had been under somewhat less pressure from Germany and the Allies decided to go with a “Japan First” strategy?
Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.
I have no problems with the ‘possibility’ of UK/Canada making a push into the Pacific via Western Canada if that’s what they want to do. Totally fine, but it is their choice. Giving them a starting NB is just a freebee without any historical basis. Again, it may not be significant enough to matter, so I am not going to fight decision if it is deemed a worthwhile addition. As Black_Elk pointed out, Western Canada is only worth 1 IPC, so they couldn’t capitalize on the NB by putting a factory there even if they wanted to.
-
Also consider French ports of Oran and Mers-el-Kébir Algeria which also harbored the French navy.
While on this topic here’s a Vichy French idea:
France, Vichy France and Free French:
When France falls (when Paris Falls), her remaining territories are divided into Vichy or Free French.Roll D6 for each French controlled area:
1= Free French ( controlled by England)
2= Vichy
3= Vichy
4= Vichy
5= Vichy
6= German controlled areaFrench Army disposition:
French forces in British areas at time of fall of Paris are converted to Free French
French land forces outside Paris become the disposition of whatever roll occurs in those areas ( either Vichy France or Free French)French Naval disposition:
Procedure: Roll one d6 for each French ship and plane:
1 = Convert to British unit and place in British controlled port/airbase
2= Scuttled/destroyed ( remove from play)
3= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
4= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
5= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
6= Convert to German unit and place in German controlled port/airfieldBritish Restrictions:
British controlled units may not enter any Vichy territories unless they intend on attacking them and activating them as German controlled allies.Germany can enter Vichy areas and move thru them but not stop or land in them unless they want to invade.
-
It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.
I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.
Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.
-
Good call Veers! I really like the idea of the West India NB. In the OOB game India tends to draw resources from UKEurope pretty much in one direction, for the defense against Japan. It might be nice if, under certain conditions, UKPac could play more of a role in the Mid-East/Africa/Med, to reflect India’s contribution to the war effort in Europe too.
I also really like the proposal of an NB for Algeria.
Right now we have a Vichy mechanic that was fairly well established in the BM mod, but the proposals IL just suggested also seems pretty interesting. I dig the idea of a roll for some variety. I think the best method there is to have a separate toggle for special political HRs. Vichy would fall under that umbrella, and perhaps we could try a few different options there. Under the current BM option (included already in tripleA), Vichy is treated as a pro-Axis neutral if certain conditions are met, which can then be activated by Axis (at least for the TTs.) Though some may also be interested in exploring the idea of Vichy as more of a player nation, or as suggested above with TT’s placed under direct control of G or UK, and perhaps a way for Axis to gain control of the fleet (currently it becomes neutral, and basically frozen in place.) I think there are several ideas there which could be explored. But the Oran NB, has applications even if one were playing with a more OOB treatment of French Territories.
I like this idea of pairing some of the adjacent territories, where maybe one gets the VC, and the other gets a base or a bonus, as a way to spread the love around.
Veers’ suggestion to make Panama the VC, and put the naval base in West Indies is also pretty cool. Not sure if anyone thinks the Fiji NB idea is worth pursuing, but those two would be 3 spaces from each other. This might still allow some flexibility for transitioning between theaters. An NB in West Indies would also connect to an Algeria NB (3 moves), so a fleet stationed there, might bounce either direction. Like a player in this position could potentially threaten Torch or a pacific play from the same location in sz 89. It’s not exactly as optimal as a more forward location in either theater, but gives players a way to keep their cards a bit closer to their chest if desired.
The main point is that none of those locations would ever see an NB purchased. There are relatively few locations on the map where NB purchases would be attractive, so its a bit easier to see them as inclusions in the starting set up.
AB’s are more popular generally, but there are a few locations where those could be fun as well, such as Sierra Leone or perhaps a few other island locations where they are unlikely to ever be built, but which might be cool if they were already in place.
-
About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do. -
Yea im just going by that list which includes Vichy.
-
@Baron:
About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.
But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?
-
@Baron:
About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.
But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?
IDK about modalities here.
I was just talking about goal to improve France action. Not an issue on Triple A because it is mostly, if not exclusively one vs one player.
What I’m talking about is something which either convert some France units into British (like Fg in UK) while France becomes an active Axis player under Vichy. Or, all France remains Allies but allows to collect and built at least Infantry and artillery in some part of the african colonies, and maybe Tank or planes in UK (but no Inf or Art)? So France can collect income and play as China works, at least. If Germany and Italy already get more money under VCs options, they probably can face a bitter France opposition than OOB. That way, France player may have a small role in Africa and Middle-East.
I must acknowledge I cannot sketches details on that one. It is just a general aim I’m suggesting.
At least, to look at it to see if there is a way to make France an active player somehow. -
It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.
Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842. Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.
But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII. The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards. The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.
-
It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.
I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.
Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.
I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan. -
@CWO:
It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.
Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842. Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.
But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII. The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards. The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.A NB without IC seems a way to convey the historical facility available there: repairing shipyards and refueling capacity: +1 bonus move.
UK player would never built a NB there, always bigger fish to fry for little use.
But NB gives two purposes: increasing the value of this TT for Japan and making it a one way trip 3 SZs from Japan SZ6 to be able to go west to east and east to west and to reach Midway or Hawaii. Tactically more functional for IJN mobility. On the other side, USA may stage an invasion force in Western Canada directly toward Japan. Not negligible assest. -
Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.
Thanks, Barney.
It is was instructive.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwiibayarea/ric.htm
Suggested Topics
