G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Black_Elk:

Ps. Gotta be honest guys, this looks pretty damn awesome! Check the snap below…
:-D

Love it!  8-)

Rabaul would be part of New Guinea in 1942.2, not Solomon, right?

However, from a military POV, Truk was considered as IJN Pearl Harbour.

To get an active war in Pacific, these two should be kept.
Anyway, Manchuria worth 3 IPCs and is usually an IC TTy to built in.

You can keep Ottawa and skip Yakut.
Russia having Archangel as VTs will give same bonus.

Also, JCC remains a good and viable strategy to help Berlin. No need to add VC in the east.
Also, if Western China is impassable, Siberian icy wastes will be a natural passage to Moscow.

For 1942.2 30 VCs list,
I would go with the change above.

This makes: Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCs

ETO VCs: 16
PTO VCs: 14

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis 6 European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
5-Oslo (Norway)
6-Kiev or Sevastopol? (Ukraine SSR)

Allies 10 ETO VCs:
7-Washington (EUSA),
8-London (UK),
9-Reykjavik (Island),
10-Cairo (Egypt),
11-Free Town (Sierra Leone, French West Africa)
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Caucasus)
16-Archangel (Archangelsk Oblast).

Axis 6 PTO VCs:
17-Tokyo (Japan),
18-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
19-Manila (Philippines),
20-Singapore (Malaya),
21-Truk (Carolines Island)
22-Rabaul (New Guinea),

Allies 8 PTO VCs:
23-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
24-Calcutta (India),
25-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
26-Wellington (New Zealand),
27-Honolulu (Hawaii),
28-Anchorage (Alaska),
29-Victoria (Western Canada),
30-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 12 VCs
Allies: 18 VCs

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 11+ VCs in either theater, or 20+ VCs globally.
Check for Axis victory at the end of the American turn, and check for Allied victory at the end of the Japanese turn.

@Argothair:

Well, if you add Rabaul and Harbin to the 26 VCs for 1942.2 from Black Elk’s latest photo, that gets you to 28 VCs. You could add Freetown (French West Africa) and Kiev to get up to 30 VCs. That leaves you with a slight asymmetry; there are 15 VCs in each theater, but in ETO they’re split 6/9, and in PTO they’re split 7/8.

To fix that asymmetry, which I think is a big deal for getting players to quickly and easily understand these rules well enough to want to use them, I’d say get rid Truk on the 30 VC version of 1942.2, and add in Yaktusk, so the Russian East is worth fighting for. The Caroline Islands aren’t quite as far away from the main action in 1942.2 as they are in G40, and with victory cities in Singapore, New Guinea, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, I’m pretty sure we’ll see a South Pacific campaign in most games. Similarly, with VCs in San Francisco, W. Canada, Alaska, and Yakutsk, you’re pretty likely to get a North Pacific campaign, too! You might not see a Central Pacific campaign without Truk as a victory city, but I’m OK with that – I respectfully disagree with Nimitz on the wisdom of going to the Central Pacific at all, anyway.

I also think Ottawa has to go from the Top 30 list, politics be damned – Ottawa just makes it too hard to come up with an interesting set of ETO Axis victory conditions. The Allies start off leading each theater 9 VCs to 6 VCs. If you set the theater victory goal at 10 VCs, then the Allies can take a cheap shot at Oslo or New Guinea and win on turn 1. If you set the theater victory goal at 11 VCs, then the Axis have to pick up 5 out of 9 Allied VCs…but of those 9 VCs, three of them are capitals, and one is perfectly safe in 99%+ of games (Ottawa), so there are only 5 VCs left. There’s no strategic choices left; the Germans have to hold every single one of their starting VCs and take all of Leningrad, Stalingrad, Cairo, Capetown, and Freetown to win in ETO without taking Moscow. That doesn’t seem fun and it doesn’t seem doable.
The problem is that there are not a lot of great options on the ETO side of 1942.2 for replacing Ottawa. Rio is just as far away as Ottawa; the sea zones are just weird on this map. A 3-move transport might help, or it might not. The best I can come up with is to swap out Ottawa for Archangel – it could be interesting to see the Russians fight to keep the Germans out of Archangel. The British can liberate Archangel with a fleet in the White Sea, but it’s not easy or convenient. And the Archangel-Astrakhan line was one of the Germans’ original war goals.

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 11+ VCs in either theater, or 20+ VCs globally. Check for Axis victory at the end of the American turn, and check for Allied victory at the end of the Japanese turn.

I borrowed a lot of your good ideas to write my previous post. Archangel is very interesting and with Leningrad, Stalingrad, Free Town, Cairo and Cape Town allows more flexibility to Germany wins outside Moscow or London conquest.

Likewise, Baron! You were the one who pointed out that Germany would have a hard time getting up to its ETO VC target; I just followed your logic and tried to find a solution. :-)

I am happy to swap Harbin for Truk. As you say, Manchuria is the only 3 IPC territory for miles around, so people will target it even if it is not a VC, and the Shanghai VC is right next door. No need for 3 Chinese VCs out of only 7 Chinese territories.

I am less happy to swap Yakutsk for Ottawa. Using anything like OOB setup, Ottawa is a dead VC – nobody will ever threaten it, and nobody will ever conquer it. Yes, Archangel VC will provide some incentive for the Japanese to march north through Siberia, but it provides almost zero incentive for Americans to land troops in Buryatia / Soviet Far East. By the time the Japanese are threatening Archangel, it is too late for American landings in the North Pacific to have any effect. Not so if the VCIS in Yakutsk, only one space away from the coast.

Note that America actually did land troops in Vladivostok in 1920, during Russian Revolution. It would be fun to make it possible for that to happen again!

@Argothair:

Likewise, Baron! You were the one who pointed out that Germany would have a hard time getting up to its ETO VC target; I just followed your logic and tried to find a solution. :-)

I am happy to swap Harbin for Truk. As you say, Manchuria is the only 3 IPC territory for miles around, so people will target it even if it is not a VC, and the Shanghai VC is right next door. No need for 3 Chinese VCs out of only 7 Chinese territories.

I am less happy to swap Yakutsk for Ottawa. Using anything like OOB setup, Ottawa is a dead VC – nobody will ever threaten it, and nobody will ever conquer it. Yes, Archangel VC will provide some incentive for the Japanese to march north through Siberia, but it provides almost zero incentive for Americans to land troops in Buryatia / Soviet Far East. By the time the Japanese are threatening Archangel, it is too late for American landings in the North Pacific to have any effect. Not so if the VCIS in Yakutsk, only one space away from the coast.

Note that America actually did land troops in Vladivostok in 1920, during Russian Revolution. It would be fun to make it possible for that to happen again!

To keep a continuity between G40 and 1942.2 VCs, should Bulgaria Romania be VCs (Ploestie Oil Field) instead of Kiev in Ukraine?
It also gives a fall back  TTy between Caucasus and Bulgaria Roumania.
What do you think?

About Ottawa, I see it as a way to increase UK money because it has to fight everywhere.
India, South Pacific, Africa and Europe.

On Yakut SSR, USA can see it coming from many rounds before Archangel conquest by Japan.
No need to put a VCs. From Alaska to Soviet Far East USA can transfer many ground units.
Also, no VCs in Soviet Far East or Amur or Yakut, gives another incentive for Japan to respect any NAP going on with Russia (whatever it can be).

Adding more VCs in South Pac also explains why it was the main battle zone of PTO for US and Japan.

I agree; swap Kiev for Ploesti for sake of consistency. Ploesti also helps with a “Balkan” campaign if British build a factory in Cairo and invade Europe from the south. Rare, but fun when you get the chance!

Well, I think UK not having enough cash to protect all of its assets is part of the fun of the setup – they must decide which theaters to fight in and how many theaters to fight in. Using the war chest ideas, the Allies can assign more cash to the UK if they wish no matter who owns the territory with the VC in it.

We are getting very close to a consensus, though! I am pleased and proud of us.

1942.2 30 VCs list modified for Ploesti VC

This makes: Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCs

ETO VCs: 16
PTO VCs: 14

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis 6 European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
5-Oslo (Norway)
6-Bucharest/Ploiesti (Bulgaria Romania)

Allies 10 ETO VCs:
7-Washington (EUSA),
8-London (UK),
_9-Reykjavik (Island),
10-Cairo (Egypt),
11-Free Town (Sierra Leone, French West Africa)
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Caucasus)
16-Archangel (Archangelsk Oblast).

Axis 6 PTO VCs:
17-Tokyo (Japan),
18-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
19-Manila (Philippines),
20-Singapore (Malaya),
21-Truk (Carolines Island)
22-Rabaul (New Guinea),

Allies 8 PTO VCs:
23-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
24-Calcutta (India),
25-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
26-Wellington (New Zealand),
27-Honolulu (Hawaii),
28-Anchorage (Alaska),
29-Victoria (Western Canada),
30-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 12 VCs
Allies: 18 VCs

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 11+ VCs in either theater, or 20+ VCs globally.
Check for Axis victory at the end of the American turn, and check for Allied victory at the end of the Japanese turn.

I believed this 30 VCs, 11 or 20 VCs conditions gives a lot of flexibility and is far better than 26 or 28 VCs.
Now, maybe it is possible to built a 20 VCs list for 1942.2 based on these 30 VCs._

@Argothair:

I agree; swap Kiev for Ploesti for sake of consistency. Ploesti also helps with a “Balkan” campaign if British build a factory in Cairo and invade Europe from the south. Rare, but fun when you get the chance!

Well, I think UK not having enough cash to protect all of its assets is part of the fun of the setup – they must decide which theaters to fight in and how many theaters to fight in. Using the war chest ideas, the Allies can assign more cash to the UK if they wish no matter who owns the territory with the VC in it.

We are getting very close to a consensus, though! I am pleased and proud of us.

Ok, what about making Reykjavik  (Island) instead of Ottawa as a UK VC because it was an essential way point to bring Lend-lease convoy toward UK and USSR?

@Black_Elk:

I’d shoot for continuity.

Basically I’d avoid adding new VCs to 1942.2 (at 30) that don’t already exist in the G40 list (at 40) if that makes sense.

In other words, if we’re really trying to add Arch or Kiev or whatever, can’t we just sub out something in the Top 40, include those and call it a day?

I think we’d have a fair number at the center if introducing Stalingrad and Poland and Romania. Putting too many right on the center might just exacerbate the center crush dilemma that we were trying address in the first place. I think the incentive to hold Ukraine and Arch is already pretty strong for either side, just because they block paths to VCs that would already be in place. I don’t know that they really need to be VTs for players to vigorously contest them on a regular basis.

Just visually, Yakut might be interesting as a way to put a VC in the big empty swath in north asia. I’m not sure what I’d want to get rid of in the G40 list, to include it though. I suppose Amur?
I kind of liked the idea of Vladivostok and Harbin holding each other in check (with the NAP). But Yakut could serve a similar function, and has the advantage of encouraging Russia to stay and fight if those two nations going to war. It’s certainly a bit safer than Bury in 1942.2

IDK what kind of Center Crush you are thinking, because it is essential that Germany have enough Allies VCs within is arms length because it will be Moscow crush or nothing else for Germany.
So, even if Archangel is on the way toward Moscow, it doesn’t imply to capture Moscow at all cost.

G40 list have not been look upon this Victory conditions paradigm.
1942.2 30 VCs list now seems to work.

@Black_Elk:

Again if adding a place like Iceland for 1942.2, it should be part of the top 40 shouldn’t it?

Substitute something else out in the top 40 list?
I just don’t see the need to put stuff in 42.2 that isn’t part of the already extensive list for G40.

Put one big list together. Then you can just flag/highlight the ones that go in 1942.2 (or each game at whatever level). That we don’t need multiple documents. Juse one master reference list.

IDK maybe it’s not a big deal. Either way this will still requires separate gamefiles in tripleA for 42.2 and G40, so maybe having separate lists is fine.

Do you guys like the G40 one I posted earlier? Or does it need further revision?

I agree that Ottawa is already on Map. Difficult to change for something else.

@Baron:

Rabaul would be part of New Guinea in 1942.2, not Solomon, right?

However, from a military POV, Truk was considered as IJN Pearl Harbour.

To get an active war in Pacific, these two should be kept.
Anyway, Manchuria worth 3 IPCs and is usually an IC TTy to built in.

You can keep Ottawa and skip Yakut.
Russia having Archangel as VTs will give same bonus.

Also, JCC remains a good and viable strategy to help Berlin. No need to add VC in the east.
Also, if Western China is impassable, Siberian icy wastes will be a natural passage to Moscow.

I just take a look on 1942.2 map and New Britain Islands (Rabaul) is in Solomons Island SZ.
So, IMO, Rabaul VC should not be put in New Guinea.

@Black_Elk:

Ok cool. I think I can see what you mean now. Not having Ottawa by default like OOB G40 does open up some flexibility.

But since Barney is nearly ready to rock on G40, I just want to make sure everyone is still cool with the proposed list there.

Would it be better to have Yakut than Amur in G40?

I kind of liked Amur (Vladivostok), but Yakut (Irkutsk) would work just as well for me.
And it might look nicer to have at least one VC in North Asia, so the middle of the map doesn’t look to empty at the top.

As much as possible G40 40 list should provides 1942.2 30 list.
But, if Ottawa is not on 1942.2 then Reykjavik seems more interesting and more accessible to Germany.
And it is still thematically linked to Ottawa’s military help on Convoy.

I have no objection to moving Ottawa to Reykjavik.

Yeah, man, the Top 40 for G40 looks good! With Rabaul and Truk both on the board, I am less excited about a VC in Jakarta. Jakarta is worth plenty of cash and on a natural route for both sides. It is also in a category all by itself (pro-Allied neutral PTO). Maybe swap out Jakarta for Yakut ski? That way both Yakutsk and Vladivostok can be victory cities. There’s a lot of space up in North Asia on this map.

As a matter of geography, Rabaul is more closely associated with New Guinea than with the Solomons. It is something of a semantic question, anyway. Like, is Philadelphia part of New York or New Jersey? Neither; it’s part of Pennsylvania, and it’s near both of the other two states and it’s hard to tell any of that if you squint at a low-quality map. As far as what the OOB map shows forRabaul, I have no idea. I like it in New Guinea for gameplay purposes.