@SeaYa quick point of reference. I play test games. So no version, certainly not out of box, is completely baked. And this is proven by 2nd editions and tournament rules. That is why I have been advocating for a governing body for years. Gotta go.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
@CWO:
Least that way you avoid any potential confusion regarding the scramble, or amphibious assaults, both of which seem unlikely anyway, but you know just in case the Germans ever got any crazy ideas.
Unless, of course, the existing map error is left as it is, so that it can be used to set a clever trap for the Germans. In real life, German soldiers allegedly carried Michelin guides during the invasion of the Low Countries and France. In the game, if the Germans attempted to invade Newfoundland to take over its proposed airbase, they’d end up in Labrador, where they would stand around looking confused, never suspecting that the real Newfoundland airbase is secretly hidden on an island that’s deceptively code-named “New Brunswick / Nova Scotia.” And yes, I’m kidding.
LOL !!! CWO ! I don’t remember the exact name but a book titled “Military Blunders” or something similar, had a European General, French or Prussian I think, ask for a map from a local store of some sort. Can’t remember the time period either. Might’ve been 1870 or WWI.
Anyway the clerk asked the General “Would you like a General map or a specific one ?” or something to that effect. The General replied “Why I better have a general map because I’m a General” Ha Ha.
Wish I still had that book. Gave it to my bro to read and he gave it to someone else and …
-
I don’t remember the exact name but a book titled “Military Blunders” or something similar, had a European General, French or Prussian I think, ask for a map from a local store of some sort. Can’t remember the time period either. Might’ve been 1870 or WWI.
Anyway the clerk asked the General “Would you like a General map or a specific one ?” or something to that effect. The General replied “Why I better have a general map because I’m a General” Ha Ha.
This almost sounds like something out of Monty Python. On the other hand, the General in question may have been perfectly serious, especially if he was an officer along the lines of Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, who was known for: a) being totally focussed on military affairs and b) apparently having no sense of humour. One day, while he was travelling with his staff, an aide called his attention to a beautiful river in the distance; Schlieffen glanced at it and dismissed the river as “an insignificant obstacle.”
-
Canada loses its only TT in SZ106 G1 so buys another Ca1. Brings across 1inf 1arm Ca2.
2/1/6 bombers would be used as naval fodder, certainly. Isn’t that an improvement on the status quo where they are a major force to sink navies? They’re still expensive fodder compared to subs. I don’t know why they are overpowered with 1d6+2 damage in SBR.
Re: increasing the max damage, the second raid on a facility still has a high chance of maxing out the damage, with some lost damage.
Do you think such StBs A2 D1 M6-7 C10 D6+2 damage would fit in BMode?
Since, we will include BMode amongst all other features, if it allows people which like to play on BMode to try this variant of StB unit, why not add this little toggle, not very different from TcB C10?
It is one way to rebalance somehow StBs without depriving its regular combat capacity.
At least A2 is more reasonable compared to StBs real tactical combat capacity (Midway and Tirpiz). -
@Baron:
I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.
Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.
I would say that giving around 10 IPCs to create a minor country is about making this power something interesting to purchase and make something to do, based on ANZAC and Italy.
Maybe on mid-end game it can better coordinate with UK and US, but probably UK will miss these 7 IPCs in Egypt. I can not say.However, for me it remains very theoretical. I still believe Canada needs at least 10 IPCs to be fun to play.
I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40.
For me it comes largely from the illogic of a sea lion also taking Canada as an active allied power.
British Columbia should have 2IPC income so you could put an IC on the Pacific coast BTW.
I can’t speak to historical accuracy but adding two Canadian infantry to London would mitigate at least a little the UK’s diminished first turn purchasing power for a Sea Lion defense. Unlike France, Canada could put those infantry to use later on with no need for an Allied transport piggyback.
Adding a Canadian fighter in the proposed Newfoundland air base would help mop up German subs (if the destroyer survived) and make it’s way to London.
It might be more interesting to increase action for Canada in PTO, if both Yukon and Western Canada rise to 2 IPCs.
That will make for more interesting target for Japan. And it instantly rise Canada from 7 IPCs to 10 IPCs with no additional bonus from NOs.
Having 6 IPCs on right corner of PTO map, 2 VCs, and a few US NO to cut down and maybe Canada too, might increase action radically there.And, as CWO Marc suggested, it may be easier to make Canada and ANZAC together as a proof of concept.
No need to create a new power, but only a few change on allegiance.
Even South Africa can be added as part of this commonwealth dominions.
They will all use the ANZAC units, so it can be a start to see how it impact every thing.Another reason is about playing time, the more powers with all different phases, it takes longer to decide and move.
Also, from a tabletop play, you have ANZAC sculpts to play with.This minor power would get a more significant income.
I read once that YG said South Africa not being UK is an issue against Italy in Egypt.
Maybe, just start with ANZAC and Canada.
Building a minor IC on set-up in Western Canada make it workable in PTO from two points of the map.@CWO:
Separate economy would be more convenient FtF, since it doesn’t require new pieces, just roundels for income tracking. But the whole ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something I’ve never much liked OOB. It strikes me as a holdover from the 2 separate games = 1 bigger game design approach. I think it would also make ANZAC feel even more out of place, as the only Commonwealth territories to get a full representation.
For a similar turn order you could put Canada with Anzac to close out the round, so that slot is more meaningful. But I actually really dislike the OOB turn order. I think it is highly awkward given the way A&A is usually played, and is unnecessarily drawn out. So I see no reason to we can’t try something new here.
If fully redesigning the sequence, I’d try to block the turns so it’s more entertaining live, or more streamlined in the pbem exchange. I believe a new turn order requires a full xml mod with separate file (not something you can just toggle with a tech add right now). But I still like the idea of Canadian materials in the standard package, to make that a little easier. I’d consider breaking up the Anglo-American turn, which is currently the most involved. I think a sequence with the following blocks would be ideal…
GER
RUS, FRA, USA, CHN
JPN
UKE, CAN, UKP, ANZ
ITAHere’s a thought. If the ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something you dislike about the OOB rules, and if you’re thinking about detaching Canada from the UK player-wise and putting it close to ANZAC in the play order, have you considered the alternate possibility of bundling Canada, ANZAC (which itself represents a combination of two different countries, Australia and New Zealand) and possibly South Africa into a single player power, the Commonwealth Dominions? Newfoundland could even be added to this composite power, and a further extension of the idea might be to include Eire if this pro-Allies country gets pulled into the war. All six of these entities had Dominion status within the British Commonwealth (though technically Newfoundland wasn’t self-governing, since it had given up that status at its own request during the Depression).
Even NFL and Labrador might receive 1 IPC to increase Commonwealth Dominions (Canada-ANZAC) income.
Someone named it CANZAC.
I believe it is achievable in less time and gives a start to see if Canada has something interesting to do before cutting it loose all by itself.And also, in PTO, it would be easier to coordinate Canada’s fleet with ANZAC’s fleet if needed.
Edit: actual Triple A G40 map is not similar to tabletop.
Western Canada includes Yukon, from first edition.
So, should it be similar to boardgame map or not?Here is NOs for CANZAC, from YG Halifax rules
Commonwealth:
5 IPCs if the Commonwealth controls all their original territories
5 IPCs if the Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
5 IPCs if the Commonwealth has at least 1 land unit on an original German territory -
@Baron:
Do you think such StBs A2 D1 M6-7 C10 D6+2 damage would fit in BMode?
Since, we will include BMode amongst all other features, if it allows people which like to play on BMode to try this variant of StB unit, why not add this little toggle, not very different from TcB C10?
It it one way to rebalance somehow StBs without depriving its regular combat capacity.
At least A2 is more reasonable compared to StBs real tactical combat capacity (Midway and Tirpiz).Can’t see why not. Yeah, the link seems more historically accurate and more fair.
Regarding Newfoundland, a starting fighter, airfield and a connection to SZ106 would have a pretty big effect on the G1 opening. Could be hit anyway and the gamble taken. Either way, unless the TT is sunk would help massively with defense against sea lion and even if it is sunk would still provide help via the fighter.
-
Even better - move the DD to be off Newfoundland. There is way too much swing in a 2sub vs DD+TT+ftr attack. http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=2&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=1&dBom=&dTra=1&dSub=&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
That more or less dictates that the the tt will be sunk but the sub will also be sunk.
-
@CWO:
Yeah if a map redraft was on the table, I’d try for something like that in 103 because it makes for the whole Sub refueling thing haha, since the German’s had agreements in place.
Actually, it would have been unhealthy for a U-boat to try refueling in the Azores. To quote my G40 map analysis:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.30
Portugal was under the authoritarian rule of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar at the time of WWII, but it traditionally had close ties to Great Britain. Although nominally neutral, it allowed the Allies to lease air bases in the Azores from 1943 onward and thus technically became a co-belligerent against the Axis.
Haha I was just going off what I saw in the North Atlantic Ferry Route wiki, where it said the prior to basing agreement in 43, Azores was like the only Portuguese territory where German ships were allowed to refuel. And then you got that lone sub there in the starting set up, all alone, just sweating. Just a silly aside.
:-DAs for CANZAC/Commonwealth, there is already a wealth of ideas for that in the Halifax thread. It would be easy enough to implement.
I still think a separate Canada might be worth pursuing though. It makes for a nice split on Allied powers with 8 total instead of 7. I think what likely happens with CANZAC is that rather than a dual theater approach, all the money will just go one direction. (Similar to what happens with the US, or what presumably would have happened with British global economy if it wasn’t broken up to begin with.) That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I just thought it might be cool to see Canada in the mix as it’s own thing, since we’ve never had it before, even though people have been asking since Classic haha. Seems like a pretty easy sell, and a pretty quick turn.
-
I see.
It is possible to create CANZAC via edit mod.
But not Canada as a minor power.
So, it seems better to prioritize Canada first.NOs are not ready either.
Is it necessary to have the lowest number of NOs?
Sometimes it seems easier to have more like 3 or 4 or even 5 for major like US.USA original TT NO is hard to not split into regional TTs.
Otherwise, it becomes all or nothing NO bonus. -
@Baron:
I see.
It is possible to create CANZAC via edit mod.
But not Canada as a minor power.
So, it seems better to prioritize Canada first.NOs are not ready either.
Is it necessary to have the lowest number of NOs?
Sometimes it seems easier to have more like 3 or 4 or even 5 for major like US.USA original TT NO is hard to not split into regional TT.
Otherwise, it becomes all or nothing NO bonus.You did get the zip I linked to above which already has Canada as a power?
-
It is for Barney to incorporate your codes from your file to the on going and growing Redesign Triple A xml doc.
I hope he will chime in.Perhaps 8 for minor ICs and 10 for bases? The point would be that damage from a strategic bomber won’t normally be lost.
Anyway, I’ve updated the maps to add another power. Canada has decidedly ugly units (I inverted ANZAC’s colours) but it works. Most of the things I outlined above are included in this zip. I kept the US objective for Western Europe and went back to 5IPCs for UK Original Territories.
I also made Kamikazes purchasable for 4IPCs for Japan.
Had to include a link - the 25MB or so is too big to attach.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0
Just include this zip in your downloadedMaps directory for 1.9 of Triple-A.
-
@Baron:
It is for Barney to incorporate your codes from your file to the on going and growing Redesign Triple A xml doc.
I hope he will chime in.Don’t have time for that Baron. simon knows what’s up way more than I do on the whole triplea code thing. :) It’ll be on github soon for anybody to work with.
-
@Baron:
It is for Barney to incorporate your codes from your file to the on going and growing Redesign Triple A xml doc.
I hope he will chime in.Don’t have time for that Baron. simon knows what’s up way more than I do on the whole triplea code thing. :) It’ll be on github soon for anybody to work with.
BTW, I wasn’t planning on putting Canada up on github unless a consensus developed on a map that people wanted to play.
-
@Baron:
It is for Barney to incorporate your codes from your file to the on going and growing Redesign Triple A xml doc.
I hope he will chime in.Don’t have time for that Baron. simon knows what’s up way more than I do on the whole triplea code thing. :) It’ll be on github soon for anybody to work with.
BTW, I wasn’t planning on putting Canada up on github unless a consensus developed on a map that people wanted to play.
Didn’t mean to imply that you were simon, just that the xml with all the house rules will be available to those that can navigate the Git world :)
-
Yeah I mean, if all the modular HR materials are pretty much in place. The next logical step is to start using them to make an actual mod, or mods as the case may be, which would be the fun part.
:-DI don’t know, but it seems to me that Canada might be a cool jumping off point.
How many hands do we need for a consensus? I got mine up hehe
https://www.dropbox.com/s/08g4rwkul6kq3ow/canadianmod-master.zip?dl=0
The above just feels right to me, with the red territories up north like that. It’s got the look
hey Simon did you like the red Canadian units I threw together? I just pushed the hue on all the British stuff I could find, including all the HR units, to make them red.
https://www.sendspace.com/file/ohrjdxps. I say we give Yukon to the Canadians with no connections (the way Barney made it Brit in the HR file). Having it blanked out gray just feels like a weird relic from first edition to me.
-
Just too a quick screen cap of simon’s file with the recolored units added in. Looks pretty slick to me…
:-D
-
Nice.
It fits the bill for me.To reach a 12 IPCs minor Power and increase action in PTO:
Yukon: 2 IPCs
North Western Canada: 2 IPCs
Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba (AlSaMa): 2 IPCs
Ontario: 3 IPCs
Quebec: 2 IPCs
The Maritimes: 1 IPCIf wanting to give Labrador NFL 1 IPC,
then I would reduce AlSaMa to 1 IPC.Just a 10 IPCs would be:
Yukon: 2 IPCs
North Western Canada: 2 IPCs
Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba (AlSaMa): 1 IPC
Ontario: 2 IPCs
Quebec: 2 IPCs
The Maritimes: 1 IPCAnd if wanting to give Labrador NFL 1 IPC,
then I would reduce Yukon to 1 IPC.Canadian NO
+5 PUs for each of these three: if controls all original Canadian TTs, if no Axis warship in Atlantic SZs (except SZs 113, 114, 115) OR if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or in Italy or is in Normandy.@Baron:
It would need a territorial NOs such as +3 PUs for all Canada TTy,
and another for +5 if no Axis warship in ATO to be somewhat viable.
And +5 if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or Italy or +5 if a Canadian unit is in Normandy.This might be a workable minor Power.
UKE NOs however needs an increase compared to OOB for the 7 less IPCs income each round.
-
Alright, I’ve pushed that up.
If you remove and download your global map set, you’ll be able to see the two new maps although I haven’t incorporated the above suggestions.
-
I put together most of NOs related posts.
G40 Redesign NOs specific thread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39627.msg1646514#msg1646514 -
Alright, I’ve pushed that up.
If you remove and download your global map set, you’ll be able to see the two new maps although I haven’t incorporated the above suggestions.
Sounds good, I’ll swoop it when I get off work to check it out.
:-DI’ll admit, my primary interest in Canada would be to serve as a lab rat for more radical HR changes haha, so using it as basically a template on which to graft other materials.
I think there are easy ways to adjust income/production for Canada. For example a simple HR that reads something like “All Canadian territories receive +1 production over the printed OOB values.” That one is fairly easy FtF.
I suppose also from an FtF perspective (using the boxed materials) if one wanted to preserve the dual economy but same units for the British and UKP, you could perhaps try the same for Canada using Anzac sculpts. Where the same sculpts are used for both nations during combat/non com whatever, and only income/placement is different based on the side of the map. (In that case you just treat W. Canada would be treated kind of like W. India in reverse, on the other side of the map but counting ETO.) But my favorite for FtF would be the straight up Commonwealth (all dominions), and just eliminating UKP weirdness as discussed in Halifax, but I think that requires some British tweaks. Separate Canada seems more like a tripleA thing, or for the dedicated customizer willing to purchase materials from HBG or paint sculpts.
Hey Simon, how do you feel about changing the HEX color for Pro Allies Neutrals, so it isn’t exactly the same as the HEX color for True Neutrals?
If adding a new color value for Canada anyway, I think it makes sense to have a color for Pro-Allies Neutral that can be distinguished from True Neutral even without the diagonal relief lines. That should have been a feature of the original 1940 game file. Almost any similar shade of tan or beige would work, as long as it isn’t the exact same HEX number that True Neutral uses. That way if someone wants to HR a True Neutral into a Pro Allies Neutral via edit mode, they will have a visual indication of the change.
FtF I use an upside down roundel for this, but in tripleA it’s all color.
-
Just deleted and re-downloaded the G40 files. I get a mapmissing prompt when trying to open the Canada one.
Is the actual mapfile listed in the experimental section or somewhere else? I can get it to work with the outside link from earlier.
I noticed it’s cloned from the BM3 mod, rather than OOB, is the idea there just for a Balanced Mod variant? Or do you want to try this Canada thing with Barney’s xml that has all the other optional HR materials?
My thought there would be to have a standard G40 house rules download (perhaps in the experimental downloads section), and then one that includes an HR Canada mod as an add on. That way we can tweak it on the fly using edit mode with some pick and choose and options on the expanded roster. That way you could try Canada without Marines or Vichy if desired, or using the expanded VC idea or whatever, and have it be modular with customizable game saves rather than as just a single set mod with all options pre-selected.
Just as an aside, I know having Global 1942, Ozteas 41, and Balanced Mod etc, all bundled together with the World War II Global package seems convenient for popularizing them, but shouldn’t all these really be in a separate bundle called Global Variants/Variations the way it was done for other standard maps in the past?
Might not be a popular view anymore, but I’m not sure I dig having any custom Mods tacked onto stuff that has “World War II” in the name. They should really be a separate entry.
Its certainly nice to have a combat before purchase option available by default, which would be cool to have for every standard game really, but having so many entries for the default World War II Global package seems kind of cluttered to me. I guess that ship has already sailed, and I wouldn’t rock the boat and suggest we start yanking things that might break current savegames or whatever (not before the next stable anyway). But having “World War II” in the name was supposed to be a clear signal to the casual tripleA player about what kind of materials were included under that heading.
Not sure how much this was discussed before allowing an exception for the BM mod and Oztea’s 1941 or any other new stuff that might come along, but it kind of breaks with the established tripleA naming conventions.
Suggested Topics
