G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

1942.2 20 VCs list based on previous 30 VCs list, first suggestion

This makes: Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs/ now 3 VCs each
China (US): 1 VC now 0
USA: 4 VCs still 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs still 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCs now 6 VCs

ETO VCs: 16 now 11
PTO VCs: 14 now 9

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

Axis 6 European VCs: now 3 ETO 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: Now 8 ETO VCs
7-Washington (Eastern USA),
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: now 3 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: now 6 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: 6 VCs
Allies: 14 VCs

Victory Conditions

You win if your team has 8+ VCs in either theater, or 14+ 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._

@Black_Elk:

Freetown is in there to make me happy I guess. Since I feel certain no one else will argue on its behalf.
:-D

It’s one move from E. US, England, Normandy, and Southern France, and gives a nod to West Africa’s contribution to the war effort.

The VC is primarily to make up for the fact that everyone has been happily treating it as a true neutral for years now, when in fact it is supposed to be British, and declared war on Germany in 1939!

For those who argued that changing its possession from true neutral to British is pointless, because the territory has no value, well, now it does.

Surely among the 21 VCs we are adding, there’s room for this one.

People seemed ready enough to make Dakar a VT next door. But Freetown was involved in the whole Dakar affair from start to finish (at least on the British end) and continued to be useful in the aftermath. Convoys travelling the South Atlantic were protected by aircraft and ships based out of Freetown. And British aircraft on the way to Cairo and the Middle East likewise used this location as a base. It was the first node in a network of naval/air transits linking West Africa and the Atlantic to the rest of the continent.

I think having a VT in Sierra Leone would activate French West Africa as a possible territory of interest. But I’m not sure that a VT in West Africa would do the same for Sierra Leone. So that’s why I’d give it to Freetown over Dakar.

Gibraltar is already significant to the gameplay. It has a starting naval base and an associated objective bonus OOB. To me part of the reason to include additional VCs is to encourage players to contest territories that would otherwise see no action.

It’s not terribly surprising to me that West Africa would get short shrift in the history, what else is new hehe. The Eurocentric view predominates, as always. There are no awesome movies I can point to or anything. But the West African Reinforcement Route did exist, and played a role in the wider conflict. Sierra Leone should get the nod, just like Gold Coast/Nigeria (both British on the map at 1 ipc), as basically the first leg along that route.

Somehow I’m sure I’ll get voted down on this, but I’d feel remiss if I didn’t make the case one last time.
:-D

Thanks for the explanation B_E. Ultimately I see it as still your call. I am not going to complain about something this minor when so many other good things have been added to this project.

@Black_Elk:

Freetown is in there to make me happy I guess. Since I feel certain no one else will argue on its behalf.
:-D

It’s one move from E. US, England, Normandy, and Southern France, and gives a nod to West Africa’s contribution to the war effort.

The VC is primarily to make up for the fact that everyone has been happily treating it as a true neutral for years now, when in fact it is supposed to be British, and declared war on Germany in 1939!
For those who argued that changing its possession from true neutral to British is pointless, because the territory has no value, well, now it does.

Surely among the 21 VCs we are adding, there’s room for this one.

People seemed ready enough to make Dakar a VT next door. But Freetown was involved in the whole Dakar affair from start to finish (at least on the British end) and continued to be useful in the aftermath. Convoys travelling the South Atlantic were protected by aircraft and ships based out of Freetown. And British aircraft on the way to Cairo and the Middle East likewise used this location as a base. It was the first node in a network of naval/air transits linking West Africa and the Atlantic to the rest of the continent.

I think having a VT in Sierra Leone would activate French West Africa as a possible territory of interest. But I’m not sure that a VT in West Africa would do the same for Sierra Leone. So that’s why I’d give it to Freetown over Dakar.

Gibraltar is already significant to the gameplay. It has a starting naval base and an associated objective bonus OOB. To me part of the reason to include additional VCs is to encourage players to contest territories that would otherwise see no action.

It’s not terribly surprising to me that West Africa would get short shrift in the history, what else is new hehe. The Eurocentric view predominates, as always. There are no awesome movies I can point to or anything. But the West African Reinforcement Route did exist, and played a role in the wider conflict. Sierra Leone should get the nod, just like Gold Coast/Nigeria (both British on the map at 1 ipc), as basically the first leg along that route.

Somehow I’m sure I’ll get voted down on this, but I’d feel remiss if I didn’t make the case one last time.
:-D

It is probably a real nod to correct an historical omission. Also, from ETO Axis, Gibraltar can be a way point toward capturing Free Town in French West Africa and it becomes a proof that Germany expansion is well established in Africa.
I can see that Gibraltar can be more easily sway along with Cairo, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Archangel than Free Town.
So, from winning conditions fix, I rather prefer Free Town because it is harder to capture.

Also Hoffman you give another reason not to add Gibraltar, because unnecessary:
@LHoffman:

Yeah, I agree Baron.

I am kinda surprised no one suggested Gibraltar as a VC. Seems better than Sierra Leone, IMO. I did go back and read Black_Elk’s reasons for it.

Gibraltar is already something of a focus for its straight aspect and Italian/UK NOs. But making it a VC would give it more emphasis and immediate importance to Italy, Germany and UK.

For all playtests which would be possible, I say try it on for Free Town.
If players complaint about it and prefer Gibraltar, then at least it would be after testing it.

There is so many things about Redesign and it is one aim to improve historical accuracy.
Also, I like that 3 VCs are on 1942.2 Africa map. There is already a lot of VCs in Europe.
A few less there and one more in Africa, with a good reason to place it in Sierra Leone.
I’m fine with it.

Here ya go Elk  :-)

The 20 VC and 30 VC lists for 1942.2 look good to me! My only concern is that on the 20 VC list, either side wins at 14 VCs, but the Allies start with 14 VCs. Can the Axis reliably go up by 1 net VC by the end of J1? Seems too hard; if the Germans miss in Cairo, then where else can the Axis get a turn 1 VC? Especially with Oslo in the mix; British could get lucky taking Oslo from Canada on B1. Easiest solution might be to bump global victory requirement to 15 VCs.

For G40, I was disappointed to see both Athens and Belgrade come off the list. I think we need at least one of those to enable an Allied Balkans campaign, per Churchill’s fantasy. I didn’t follow the logic about eliminating neutral VCs…it’s true that the 1942.2 map has no invadable neutrals, but it’s also true that Greece and Yugoslavia don’t exist at all on the 1942.2 map,and their closest equivalent (Southern Europe) isn’t neutral; it’s German.

I don’t think Malta makes a good VC – yes, it was incredibly strategic, but that was because it could be used to interdict shipping to Algiers, Rome, Tripoli, Cairo, and Damascus, i.e., to the other Mediterranean victory cities. If Malta is insufficiently useful, give it a starting air base and naval base and infantry base, plus a fighter and a destroyer to help exploit all those bases, but don’t make it a Victory city.

@Argothair:

The 20 VC and 30 VC lists for 1942.2 look good to me! My only concern is that on the 20 VC list, either side wins at 14 VCs, but the Allies start with 14 VCs. Can the Axis reliably go up by 1 net VC by the end of J1? Seems too hard; if the Germans miss in Cairo, then where else can the Axis get a turn 1 VC? Especially with Oslo in the mix; British could get lucky taking Oslo from Canada on B1. Easiest solution might be to bump global victory requirement to 15 VCs.

For G40, I was disappointed to see both Athens and Belgrade come off the list. I think we need at least one of those to enable an Allied Balkans campaign, per Churchill’s fantasy. I didn’t follow the logic about eliminating neutral VCs…it’s true that the 1942.2 map has no invadable neutrals, but it’s also true that Greece and Yugoslavia don’t exist at all on the 1942.2 map,and their closest equivalent (Southern Europe) isn’t neutral; it’s German.

I don’t think Malta makes a good VC – yes, it was incredibly strategic, but that was because it could be used to interdict shipping to Algiers, Rome, Tripoli, Cairo, and Damascus, i.e., to the other Mediterranean victory cities. If Malta is insufficiently useful, give it a starting air base and naval base and infantry base, plus a fighter and a destroyer to help exploit all those bases, but don’t make it a Victory city.

Good catch Argo. There is an issue  on Victory conditions for Allies at 20 VCs.

I wonder if a VC in Balkans is necessary to launch a campaign in Southern Europe.
You rather prefer a VC there instead of Ukraine?

While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.

I can easily agree with Balkans / Greece in both G40 and 1942.2.

But, about Archangel or Helsinki, it can break the simmetrical between Japan and Germany in 1942.2.
With Archangel, it 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�
With Helsinki VC, it is 7 for Germany (still needing 11 VCs).
And Russia only 3 VCs.
Is it better? IDK.
Clearly, Germany will have to fight with TP in Baltic to reach both Oslo and Helsinki.
But Russia have 1 less point.
Probably easier for Germany to fight over these 3 contiguous TTs Norway, Finland and Karelia.
Than reaching Archangel which is a stretch and only 1 TT away from Moscow.

For 2 Neutral VCs simmetrical is in G40, one pro-axis, the other pro-Allies.
You don’t get it with Archangel vs Athens.

@barney:

While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.

I suppose Caen (Normandy) is possible, but I personally don’t see the need for it. The city itself was not as important as others on our list and only became tactically important because of where the Allies chose to land. Overall, I don’t think the territory merits a VC, despite its historic significance.

@LHoffman:

@barney:

While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.

I suppose Caen (Normandy) is possible, but I personally don’t see the need for it. The city itself was not as important as others on our list and only became tactically important because of where the Allies chose to land. Overall, I don’t think the territory merits a VC, despite its historic significance.

In addition, 1942.2 only have North Western Europe TTy.
So, I’m OK with Amsterdam/Antwerpen

I just always wanted to see Germans take over French ships at the beginning of the game. Or more accurately have the chance to.

@Black_Elk:

I still think the best approach for Normandy (and every other similar situation) is a liberation rule that basically turns all a nation’s territories into pro-side neutrals when their capital falls.

Such a rule will clean up the game quite a bit, and address all the weirdness around leftover territories after a capital is captured (like Paris). It has the benefit of being pretty simple to understand, and near universal (at least for all regular player nations, though the Dutch and Chinese still have their own weird ‘no capital’ thing going on.)

I think that change to pro-side neutral solution is probably the easiest to manage.

Alternative propositions, like giving each player nation a secondary capital, strike me as more involved and potentially still problematic for a nation like France, that has no factory outside Europe, no real income to speak of, and no purchasing location for a new one even if they did. I suppose the inclusion of a Military Base would make secondary capitals more viable (and certainly there are enough VCs now to support the idea.) But any secondary capital system is bound to be more rigid and more complicatet, than the changing to pro-neutral idea.

I think the idea would also work well in 42.2, when a capital falls that nations territories may be claimed by a teammate.

Do you imply that all Russian units (Moscow captured, 1942.2) or french units (Paris captured G40) become immediately pro-side neutral?

@LHoffman:

I just always wanted to see Germans take over French ships at the beginning of the game. Or more accurately have the chance to.

Yea that’s something I’d like to see too. The old Xeno games mod gave ya a chance. I think after France fell you rolled one die. If 1-2 they turned British, 3-5 scuttled and 6 turned German. I was thinking using BMs vich rules, you could have 1 = Free French, 2-5 scuttle and 6 = German. That way they have the chance of going German. Also if they stay Free French they won’t OP the way they would going British.