G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.

@Argothair:

As a matter of strategy, is it totally out of the question for the UK to buy a minor factory for Western Canada in order to drop ships there? If so, does that much up with history? My understanding is that San Francisco and Oakland were industrialized in 1940 / 1941 specifically for the purpose of building more ships in the Pacific, and that before World War II, the San Francisco region was a cultural and banking center, but not really a center of industry. Is it so crazy to think that Canada might likewise have chosen to industrialize one of its Pacific port cities, if, e.g., London had been under somewhat less pressure from Germany and the Allies decided to go with a “Japan First” strategy?

@barney:

Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.

I have no problems with the ‘possibility’ of UK/Canada making a push into the Pacific via Western Canada if that’s what they want to do. Totally fine, but it is their choice. Giving them a starting NB is just a freebee without any historical basis. Again, it may not be significant enough to matter, so I am not going to fight decision if it is deemed a worthwhile addition. As Black_Elk pointed out, Western Canada is only worth 1 IPC, so they couldn’t capitalize on the NB by putting a factory there even if they wanted to.

Also consider French ports of Oran and Mers-el-Kébir Algeria which also harbored the French navy.

While on this topic here’s a Vichy French idea:
France, Vichy France and Free French:
When France falls (when Paris Falls), her remaining territories are divided into Vichy or Free French.

Roll D6 for each French controlled area:
1= Free French ( controlled by England)
2= Vichy
3= Vichy
4= Vichy
5= Vichy
6= German controlled area

French Army disposition:
French forces in British areas at time of fall of Paris are converted to Free French
French land forces outside Paris become the disposition of whatever roll occurs in those areas ( either Vichy France or Free French)

French Naval disposition:

Procedure: Roll one d6 for each French ship and plane:
1 = Convert to British unit and place in British controlled port/airbase
2= Scuttled/destroyed ( remove from play)
3= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
4= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
5= Vichy Control- Immediately move to any Vichy port/airfield and is activated when anybody who attacks Vichy territories
6= Convert to German unit and place in German controlled port/airfield

British Restrictions:
British controlled units may not enter any Vichy territories unless they intend on attacking them and activating them as German controlled allies.

Germany can enter Vichy areas and move thru them but not stop or land in them unless they want to invade.

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Yea im just going by that list which includes Vichy.

@Baron:

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.

But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.

But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?

IDK about modalities here.
I was just talking about goal to improve France action. Not an issue on Triple A because it is mostly, if not exclusively one vs one player.
What I’m talking about is something which either convert some France units into British (like Fg in UK) while France becomes an active Axis player under Vichy. Or, all France remains Allies but allows to collect and built at least Infantry and artillery in some part of the african colonies, and maybe Tank or planes in UK (but no Inf or Art)? So France can collect income and play as China works, at least. If Germany and Italy already get more money under VCs options, they probably can face a bitter France opposition than OOB. That way, France player may have a small role in Africa and Middle-East.
I must acknowledge I cannot sketches details on that one. It is just a general aim I’m suggesting.
At least, to look at it to see if there is a way to make France an active player somehow.

@Black_Elk:

It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.

Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842.  Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.

But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII.  The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards.  The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.

Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842.  Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.
But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII.  The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards.  The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.

A NB without IC seems a way to convey the historical facility available there: repairing shipyards and refueling capacity: +1 bonus move.
UK player would never built a NB there, always bigger fish to fry for little use.
But NB gives two purposes: increasing the value of this TT for Japan and making it a one way trip 3 SZs from Japan SZ6 to be able to go west to east and east to west and to reach Midway or Hawaii. Tactically more functional for IJN mobility. On the other side, USA may stage an invasion force in Western Canada directly toward Japan. Not negligible assest.

@barney:

Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.

Thanks, Barney.
It is was instructive.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwiibayarea/ric.htm

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

@General:

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

ITALY NOs:
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.

+5 for each, if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar & Morocco are Axis captured, Axis conquest of Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan), Axis conquest of Panama’s Canal.
Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

JAPAN NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Hawaii AND either Wake or Midway

+5 for each, Japan controls Panama or Aleutian AND Alaska
Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication centers.

Does something like this can still suit you?
So both Japan and Italy would benefit from Panama’s canal.

UK EUROPE:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Panama, Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

+5 if Allied controlled: Skagerrak-Kategatt strait (Norway and Denmark),
Theme: Capture of vital Axis iron ore trading and communication waterways.

What about this one?
Enough NOs for Canal control?

I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

Here are a few thoughts about the France / Vichy / Free French subject which has been discussed.

A basic question that would be useful to answer is: should France be made “interesting enough” (for want of a better phrase) to be playable by a single player who isn’t also controlling another power?  Currently, under all the OOB “Number of Players” rules, France is always tacked on to the responsibilities of a player who’s controlling something else: the USSR, or the USSR + US + China, or all of the Allied powers.  This is presumably because OOB France operates under severe restrictions which relegate it to a peripheral status.

If France, in an improved version of A&A, keeps its “not interesting enough for a single player” status, then one possibility after France falls would be for its territories and playing piece assets to be divided into a Free French portion (which would continue to be played by whoever is playing the power or powers that pre-fall France was paired with) and a Vichy portion (which would be played by whoever is playing Germany).  This would be a variation of the idea mentioned earlier by LHoffman: “Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.”

On the other hand, if France, in an improved version of A&A, gets upgraded to a power that’s “interesting enough for a single player,” then the situation becomes more complicated.  If this “interesting enough for a single player” version of France gets fractured into a Vichy part and a Free French part, would these diminished separate parts continue to be “interesting enough for a single player”?  If the answer turns out to be no, then France, in order to remain “interesting enough for a single player,” might need to be kept as a unified power, which in turn raises the question: does it remain a unified Allied-affiliated power or does it become a unified Axis-affiliated power?  (I don’t know the answer; I’m just wondering about the possible implementation scenarios.)

On a related point, one possible way of making France “interesting enough for a single player”, but without changing the way France operates, might be to pair it with Global 1940’s other oddball Allied power, China (which operates under some weird restrictions of its own), and assign both powers to a single player who’d play just them.  Depending on how many players are at the table, a variation of this idea might even be to bundle France, China and ANZAC together and assign them to a dedicated player.

Under the OOB rules, in a six-player game, France is paired with the USSR, China is paired with the US and ANZAC is paired with the UK.  Detaching these three junior partners from the three senior partners and bundling them together, but without changing the way France and China and ANZAC operate, might create an “interesting enough for a single player” three-power block, while allowing the USSR, US and UK players (assuming there are three of them) to concentrate exclusively on their own workload.  This would require four players in the Allied side, in other words.  In principle this would imply a seven-person game, with one player each for Germany, Italy and Japan, but a six-person version could be contrived by applying the Axis configuration that’s used in the OOB rules for five players: one player controlling Germany and Italy, and one player controlling Japan.

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

@Imperious:

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

^ What he said.

Whether in person or otherwise, France is a total drag to play solo. Also slows the game. In practice, UK/US takes control of remaining French units. Vichy rules should exist only to determine what is handed over to the German player and what isn’t.