G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@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.

@Black_Elk:

I like that solution actually!

Java is already a high priority target for both sides, and with the new Rabaul, Truk and Singapore VTs all nearby, it seems less necessary. The region is pretty well activated already.

If with sub’d out Java (Jakarta) for Yakutsk (Irkutsk) then Russia would have 2 VCs in the Pacific, and a much stronger incentive to fight rather than withdraw, in the case of DoW.

Sorry for Rabaul, I mistook NorthWestern Island group in Solomons SZ for New Britain.
So it is correctly put into New Guinea SZ.

Irkutsk is a better VC than Jakarta.
So we can keep Vladivostok too.

On keeping similar VC in both G40 and 1942.2 as much as possible, you can add Reykjavik in place of Brazil?
What about Archangel for G40, is there any way to add it into the mix?
Or this one will be only in 1942.2?

Instead of Ukraine,  why not add Baku in Caucasus.
Both Rostov and Baku were quite prime target for oil.

Archangel instead of Finland seems good.
Damascus make for a solid target in Middle-East, instead of Bhagdad.
But Malta might be more interesting.

Instead of Athens, what about Malta?

Bakku, Archangel, Malta and Reykjavik.
In my mind:
Sub out Helsinki for Archangel?
Sub out Athens for Malta?
Sub out Baghdad for Baku?
Sub out Rio for Reykjavik?

Axis against Russia, giving more VCs will help, and 2 in north way (Karelia & Archangel) and 2 south way (Stalingrad & Caucasus : Baku ) and 2 in the East (Vladivostok & Irkustk) for 7 VCs with Moscow. That will help motivate both ways into Moscow for Italy and Germany.

Malta seems a better prize TTy than Syria however.
Is it an issue being so near of another, Tripoli?

Ukraine VC (Sevastopol, Crimea?) is more easily within grasp of Axis power.
Maybe it is needed  more than Baku, Caucasus. IDK.

ETO, this makes Axis 7 VCs, Allies 15 VCs.
PTO Axis 4 VCs, Allies 14 VCs.

What would be the number for theater victory? 13 VCs? (24 VCs global win) ?
14 VCs (26 VCs global win)?

Reykjavik, Archangel, Baku and Malta better depict the struggle over resources or shipping resources.
IMO Reykjavik is North Atlantic Malta. If Axis would have captured it. Axis may had use bombers to sink Convoy passing by. The same for Axis Convoy from Italy being attacked by Malta Air force.
Archangel was one major northern port receiving allied furniture coming from both West and North East (Artic Road)
Baku and Rostov-on-Don were to major targets for Germany to get more fuel.

However Battle of Kiev was two major combats 1941 and 1943.

@Black_Elk:

I had the same thought about Malta, but when I put it in place the marker really crowded out the area. Then it occurred to me that Malta doesn’t exist in 42.2.

I figured Damascus could work in 42.2 however, since it’s part of the British Trans-Jordan territory.

The only reason I like Ukraine over Caucuses is that then, every territory on the master list should work for 1942.2 as well as G40, with an independent entry for each and no overlap.

If all 30 VCs are on G40 list. It is the most important for me.
If all 40 VCs cannot be put in 1942.2 map, I don’t see the issue.

The Ukraine vs Caucasus discussion is a tough one. Really could be either one. I think Kiev fits the bill better as a ‘victory city’, but we also have more tactical objective areas included such as Ploesti and Rabaul. Baku was a critical German objective, but Kiev and Sevastopol were also. Geographically, I am not sure which is better for the game’s sake.

EDIT:  I vote Kiev and Damascus, fwiw.

Why is Freetown a VC again? Seems both out of the way and unimportant.