G40 Halifax Rules

I’ve been setting up for two basic trials.  One with regular Canzac (Canada + Anzac) and one with South Africa included in the Commonwealth.

I find that when using the 1st ed Pac map combined for Global then I prefer the former (using the Butternut Canadians purely for aesthetic definition) because the Canadian roundels are already in place. Like Knp I dont like seperating them off, because I think global has too many factions already. When using the 2nd ed maps I am already chipping out all of Canada with Anzac roundels anyway, so 2 down in South Africa and S.W. Africa doesn’t seem too difficult.

I’ll admit to a preference for cleaner starting numbers. 35 seems cleaner than 38, and 20 seems cleaner than 17. Purely from the standpoint of starting cash hand! haha. But it’s harder to say which is best stragically for balance. Canzac SA seems better for spamming ground, but UK SA seems better from a naval and transport launch perspective.

My buddy and I are also quite fond of replacing all units to match the roundel (whatever the territory spread chosen), so we are definitely considering the possibilities of French units in England changing to Brit, and Anzac in Malaya and Egypt changing to Brit. We both find Co-Located starting units annoying as it is requires more space with multinationals co-locating at the outset. That’s an optional aside, but might be helpful for UK balance if needed.

Still under consideration for us is whether to replace ships in adjacent sea zones for Canzac, or to leave the ships UK.

My main interest in g40 is also to find a way to play Halifax without NOs, (or using only generic objectives), which may play a factor in whether we end up deciding to go Canzac or UK for South Africa.

Just at a glance spamming Canzac infantry in SA in the first round looks like it could be rather effective in locking down the continent in subsequent rounds. I do rather agree with Roc that when SA is an option then production in Canada itself becomes somewhat irrelevant. Not sure whether I like this or not though.  Sure it helps Allies control Africa, but it kind of makes commonwealth more of a one trick deal.

We are also considering other tweaks to the standard Halifax, such as retaining a Capital in Sydney to see if it can function as a bait for Japan, and incentive for US Pacific engagement.

In its most basic form we read the Halifax set up as a
Unified UK/UK pacific with 3 tiered Industrial Complexes (at the values outlined in this thread)… But with the final part of the set up, which specific territories to make Commonwealth,  we are leaving things open to interpretation.

Canzac or AfriCanzac?  :-D

Seems like an open question still.
I favor Canzac for Simplicity, but I’m intrigued by the potential of that 3rd front too. As of now I lean toward regular Canzac just for ease of set up and to see if they can work in the Atlantic (or if the money just always gets dumped in the Pac.) I suspect that UK in SA will be our first trials, but if we go AfriCanzac and it doesn’t bust the set up to hard, might check it out in our next game with battle bonus and VC bonus instead of NO to see how that effects things. Our general rule for VCs gives a +5 at collect income for control, which has the potential to make Canzac more effective Atlantic since they could get up to 10 extra instead of 5 for the standard NO. I’m hopefully we might strike a good balance with the VC bonus since I’ve long hoped for a game on this map without the need for National Objectives,  but that remains to be seen. Still whatever the spread ends up being I already know I prefer it to OOB,  just for the production and UK stuff!

Also another aside but Midway is playing on my TV right now, and CWO Marcs call on the war room was dead on (whichever thread he mentioned that in) makes me hungry for battle in the pacific. Canzac Pacific game with or without SA will surely be improved by these rules and that excites me as much as the Atlantic and African prospects.

Should be fun!

Fantastic video presentation YG!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Bp-VBlur8

That board set up us killer! I dig the table and the way you have it all boxed off and organized in such meticulous and visually appealing way. Especially appreciated the overview on production the explanation on downgrading/upgrading with clarifications on set up tweaks like the Ontario fighter.

One quick follow up on upgrading or “liberating” a factory. Example Germany takes France. Paris is captured and the Original 10 (IC) is downgraded to 3 (Minor). Cannot be upgraded by G beyond 3 Minor. UK or America liberates France. The 3 Minor is returned to French control, where it can then be upgraded (once France has the money to do so), back to 5 Major but not beyond. This is the only case where a 5 Major can be returned to play. The only production facility that can be purchased is the 3 Minor. The only factories that can be upgraded are those which start as 5 (or more), only to a value of 5 (no more) and only by the original owner. Seems fairly straight forward.

Great video! Thanks dude

Ps. I’m excited for how these rules can enhance the Pacific theater…!

Thank you for the video. I too enjoyed it. Could not “like” it, as I am a thickomand could not join Google to do so. (Will ask the wife how.)

Just a quick question: where does your Canadian Ft go? (good idea, by the way).
Am I right in thinking it cannot fly across the Channel? Is it stuck?
I also wonder his much the loss of that second NZ Ft will hurt the defence of Oz. (scrambling wise).
Otherwise. I wish I could give it a go. I will try to put it on AAA, by using Edit Mode and play a friend on here. Will tell you if I get to implement that.
Enjoy your day guys.

Yeah we should get it up for testing. Solitaires, first rounds, and pick up games in TripleA can show us more about how the set up changes work. A first round start save could handle it with edit mode until a working mod is put together if desired. Curious to see how it plays.

Meantime going to try this face to face first, as with all new rules that really intrigue me :)

As for the Ontario fighter, it could be switched in, or also simply added (retaining the second at NZ) if the balance on Anzac feels too tight. But something tells me the canadian income benefit gets you more in the long run than the NZ fighter. Will have to see how it shakes down.

Right now I think the logic on Ontario is mainly historical, the fighter would be out of position in the first round (so it doesn’t really alter the Atlantic balance too substantially) but it could still transit out of Nova Scotia in the second round. Which is kind of cool,  since it’s basically doing a Halifax flyby in that case! haha! Likely to land on deck I guess. Or Canzac buys an airbase maybe? Trying to get it out into position would be something for the Commonwealth player to have in the back of their mind as a Tactical goal. I rather like it. I saw it as optional, but one that makes sense. I also think I favor the ship change UK to Commonwealth in case the transport gets into it. So far I like what I’m seeing.

Again, the bunker video explaining Halifax is pretty glorious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Bp-VBlur8

These rules are smoking!!!  :-D Just like an Akagi carrier deck…
Haha!

That video is awesome, explains the production centers very well, and hits home what you want out of Halifax (changes to how both powers work).

BTW, at first glance I was wondering why the ftr was placed in Ontario, and not in Quebec. I quickly realized that Quebec would cause some set-up issues because it could get to London on the second turn (via Iceland), or land directly on a newly built UK carrier in sz109 in the first round (can still do the later on round two). The CAnzac can still get it into action a bit faster (from Ontario), by flying it to Quebec and building an airbase there (as mentioned). They could also build there own carrier in sz106, and land it on it round one as well, but either way it would take a considerable investment.

I know you have house ruled a UK ftr on Ontario into the standard G40 game (in place of using a bid), and gotten great reviews (tested) so it is nice to see it carry over into Halifax (now swapping it over from New Zealand).

After a little research I also see the historical aspect of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP), or “The Plan” based in Ontario. It took some time to get that program off the ground (pun intended), and get those pilots into the fold. So again, nice job YG in regards to playability and following a historical path.

Don’t stress it dude,  you’re doing a great job stitching this all together. I can’t wait to see a real D-Day with the Dominions in on the action. Subtitles will be great for some our players for whom English is not their first language, but the visuals alone make it so much clearer. So much of the game is so much easier to pick up when someone is there showing you what’s what’s instead of reading it in a rulebook.  Video is very helpful! Thanks for all the hard work put in on this.

Just a quick side note about London falling with UK unified… I think my preference would be a game where London collapse isn’t built into the set up. Sea Lion breakers if they crop up could be handled with other tweaks if needed. But already, I am enjoying the set up a lot more under these rules than the OOB. I think they will be my standard

Yes they are working.  Excellent job YG!

Using Halifax in the next game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Bp-VBlur8

As an alternative to the National Objectives outlined in this helpful set up/explanation video, we are attempting to play with a generic Objective (control of VCs). Basically because Canzac is going to nix the OOB National Objectives for Anzac and UK no matter what, we thought this would be a good scenario to test a VC bonus, since it simplifies the objectives for all nations and reduces them to just one type: control of cities for +5 ipcs.

The VC bonus option shows Canzac making a pretty solid faction. Trying this out to test balance.

Basically its the OOB game, but without NOs. A VC bonus instead after the first round, +5 ipcs for control on collect income. Aiming to put things at roughly…
Germany 15
Russia 15
Japan 15/20
USA 15/20
UK 15
Italy 5
Anzac 10

This in addition to normal income, so all players are creeping upward at the start.

Seems to balance fairly well for us, with Canzac collecting closer to a full faction. Basically giving everyone a VC in contention. We are trying this first without the DoW, to see how it plays stripped down. The thing I’ve found is that, when they collect for the VCs, the Commonwealth Dominions have a much stronger naval potential.

Under this set up we are looking at UK control of SA. Since we suspect the bonus for Canzac if it included S. Africa might be too overpowered on the ground. On the other hand, the bonus allows for more air bases or naval builds out of Canada or Australia when the bonus is concentrated with production restricted to Canada/Australia.

I’m excited to play! :-D

The coolest aspects to me remain the production possibilities, and the new simplified factions. I think its fun to see how this will play with just the basic Halifax set up adjustment, and then using the VC bonus as a draw. So essentially simplifying all NOs into the same type of objective for everyone. Call it the VC objective for simplicity. The Commonwealth here has a stronger potential defense on Syndey, or to provide a legit counter against the full press by Japan to punish India. Or, on the other side of the world, the option to build an Atlantic fleet, or an Airbase and Aircraft to launch on Europe or Africa. The cash bonus here is somewhat easier for players to retain, and much easier to memorize. The NOs are harder to disrupt here, a simple outlying island or minor territory is not enough to deny your enemy their bonus. To disrupt it you have to take a city. This would put Canzac into the 20s without requiring SA and sets up a solid Pacific square with 4 corners Japan, India, Australia and W. USA, with 4 contested VC territories between them (Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines and Hawaii). A broad Pacific front with battle lines drawn down the middle.

Halifax with the Red 5 factories to start and the new Commonwealth faction has the most promise for a set up revision I’ve seen yet. On balance I think it will make the Axis game more challenging but that is ideal, given the OOB situation. Commonwealth can help tie down some of that ridiculously huge Japanese airforce now, and more effectively than Anzac could alone. The European theater feels more intriguing as well, since there is a new Canadian option to bolster the UK in the battle of the Atlantic and against fortress Europe. I like using this foundation as the basis for the other G40 adaptations I like. Things will work better now with the basic Halifax Rules layed out. I can start building off of it to do other things I like with minor HR tweaks, knowing that the core concept is well worked out. Thanks for bringing it all together here guys.  :-D

Thank you for the report. Sorry it did not go as planned.

I think the problem is Russia’s weakness. (Sorry to bring up a different problem/issue.)
Russia making 20, when Germany makes 60 T5-7 is the problem .
Why should it be a German NO to hold Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Caucasus, but not a Russian one? Surely it is as much a Russian political victory to hold them? Playing more and more against good Axis players (here on the forum )who storm Russia, has
made me see the futility of the Allied game.
If is wrong that the UK should rescue Russia and have yo come up through the Middle East. Russia held in real life and always had tonnes of Inf.

Don’t mean to be a pain. Always good to hear what you are thinking and planning YG.

Yeah I suspected that UK might not be strong enough to defend London, Africa and India at the same time with OOB NOs. However under the set up I was planning UK receives substantially more IPCs per round on the VC bonus.

I would not object to the commonwealth including south Africa.

For consistency all Dominions should probably get chipped to Commonwealth.  So Newfoundland, S.A, S.W. Africa.

I tend to agree with Wittman. I don’t see why all nations couldn’t get a bonus for VC control. 15 ipcs to Russia would be very helpful. Likewise a VC bonus to UK, America, or AfriCanzac could be helpful on balance. I’m basically opposed to NOs in general, but I understand that these are views which others might not share. Still, if new NOs are introduced on balance I would definitely suggest keeping them as simple and straightforward as possible.

Ps. Along those lines, I think an NO that references the “Atlantic” could be confusing for some. For example how exactly is the Atlantic defined spatially? Does it stop at the north sea? The English channel? etc. To me attaching NOs or geneic bonuses to VCs just seems simpler overall, so that’s my plan for it. But I can definitely see the argument for giving more income to UK.

You could strip all this down pretty easily into just a single universal NO:

+5 ipcs for control of a victory city.

That is the most basic way I can think of to put it.  :-D

To see why we might do this, first look at the complex way OOB handles things regarding NOs…

Consider this, in OOB there are nearly 30 achievable objectives! Each one has its own complicated wording, and paragraphs of associated text in the rulebook. Most of these are weighted towards the Axis. Lets just look at Germany alone: Germany has five distinct OOB National Objectives, which taken together can produce up to 41 ipcs of additional NO money for Germany!!! This is because of how the first and last german NO read, (allowing +5 or +2 for multiple territories.) Is it really necessary for us to have such a complex NO system in Halifax?

Note also, that unlike AA50 where NOs were written down on the unit box set up card, in g40 these things have to be referenced out of a rule book. A VC bonus by contrast is simple, as all VCs are written directly on the map (thus everyone can see what’s what, and know who stands to gain which amount of objective cash.)

Then if more money is needed on top of this, you could add in distinct NOs one at a time. Start perhaps with just 6, one for each nation (plus the VC thing.)

Honestly, just compare the OOB NOs for Germany with Russia. The former is collecting a huge pot each round from the very begining, the latter collects practically nothing, as most of their objectives are not achievable! Or at best they’re not achievable until the game is pretty much decided anyway. Not only are the OOB NOs not evenly distributed, their values are inconsistent, and many are just downright confusing. Read the first Russian NO for example. Could it be any more wordy? hehe

So anyway, that’s my take on it. I think you could get a lot accomplished with the VC objective made generic, and then just add whatever else is needed on top. We already have to get rid of NOs for UK/Anzac regardless, I say we just go the full distance and simplify things for all nations like that.

How about this…
Generic Objective +5 for control of a VC
National Objective +10 for (something specific)

At least then you could make it a +10 spot that was easy to remember. And if it was necessary to give one nation an easy +10, while making another’s +10 very hard to acquire, then you can. Its easy. Essentially I’m saying, before we add just a bunch of NO stuff, lets cut out the fluff first.

Ps. Also, think about the potential advantage here of creating a board set up that leaves “National” Objectives optional. THAT would be HUGE!

Instead of all the OOB national objectives, step one is “scrap all OOB National Objectives.” Since any new objectives have to be written down regardless, isn’t it better to start with a fresh clean page? Or a brand new Objective card for each Nation?

This would allow us a convenient way to take the OOB 30 NOs down to just 6 really well balanced NOs, of the necessary type/value to achieve rough balance by sides under this set up. If we want to make it more expansive after that point, then you could give each nation a second optional set for a total of a dozen NOs (only if you wanted to though, something that could be left at the player’s discretion.)

With the Generic Objective +5 for VCs, you could still add in a cool “gameplay affecting” optional NO for each nation.

So say you want Japan or USA to have an NO that deals with zero ipc islands in the Pacific, and makes them contested. You could give Japan a single National Objective +10 that involves those territories specifically. Likewise you could have one for America that does the same.  Or for a Nation like Russia, say you wanted to give them a bonus that makes sense you could add a single NO +10 for that. If an OOB NO seems particularly awesome and apt, then adapt it to the new National Ojective card, if not ditch it for an new NO that works better.

The overriding idea though, is keep it simple.
1 NO for each or
2 NOS (at most) for each Nation

On top of the basic VC thing

or how about this… say you wanted to create a rough parity between the new production rules/values and the new Objective rules/values.
maybe…

National Objective +10
Major Objective +5 for control of a VC
Minor Objective +3 (for some minor but novel accomplishment)

Then you have them at basically the same values as the 3 tiered factory. Green, Red, and Blue objectives. And the VCs are already printed on the gamemap with a red dot anyway, so it all fits visually.

This would give you a way to basically balance the sides along a couple different dimensions. The VC objective would be the same for everyone and allow a much needed way to get some basic extra money into the game.

Each Nation gets a single Minor NO, and a single Major NO.
How easy they are to achieve can be determined by the gameplay or balance requirements. So for example, one nation might have a fairly easy Major NO, another might have one that’s very challenging. The same thing could be done with Minor NOs.

Because the VC thing is universal, its easy to remember.
All the rest you have reduced to a simple Dozen. One Major and one Minor Objective for each nation.

Then we could print a slick new card for each Nation that has them written down for easy reference. :-D
On each card the Major Objective written in blue (since its worth 10) and the Minor Objective written in green (since its worth 3), the Generic universal Objective “control of VC” could be written in Red (since its worth 5.)
Any takers?

Sounds cool to me. Do you dig this color consistency?

National Objective = +10 ipcs (one specific goal for each player nation)
Major Objective = +5 ipcs for control of each Victory City (generic goal for all player nations)
Minor Objective = +3 ipcs (one specific minor goal for each player nation)

The wording of the +5 VC Major objective could be whatever is needed, so if at war is best, then I’m down. I just think it has a nice simplicity to it, and could match the sort of visual representation we’ve been using all along here at 10, 5, 3.

On the cards the colors for objectives could also match up.  :-D