G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@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.

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

If the case, why not make a config in which Free France is considered UK, and some Vichy wholly Italian or Germany? It will allows to skip France turn and speed the pace somehow.

I liked the config CWO Marc suggested: letting 1 major power to 1 player, all axis to 1 player and China, France and Anzac to another, allowing a 7 players config, if UK is one player, with enough action for each (maybe less for Italy, but still it is an aggressive minor power.

I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

Rostov-on-Don oil field

You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

Only if the game starts at an earlier point. The setup makes a French collapse highly likely. If a dumb German player lets it be, its alot tougher on Germany to win.

@Argothair:

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.

This actually raises an interesting point about objectives in general (such as victory cities, national objectives, national advantages and so forth).  The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”, meaning an objective that benefits one specific side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by that side, but that doesn’t benefit the enemy side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by the enemy.  From the enemy’s point of view, therefore, taking control (or whatever) of that objective has what could be called the “single benefit” of depriving the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective.

By contrast, a “symmetrical-benefit objective” would be an objective that benefits whichever side controls (or whatever) the objective.  From the enemy’s point of view, taking control (or whatever) of such an objective has a “double benefit” effect: you not only deprive the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective, you also get to make use of those IPCs (or other desirable features) for your own purposes.

The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.

Thanks for this concept: symetrical/asymmetrical benefit objective.
Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

@Baron:

Thanks for this concept: symetrical/asymmetrical benefit objective.
Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

No, Suez was an asymmetrical (single-side benefit) canal.  It was valuable to the British because it offered them a shortcut sea route (both for trade and for military purposes) between Britain and the parts of the empire that were located in the Indian Ocean / Pacific / Asia areas.  It also offered a roundabout route (via the Cape of Good Hope) from Britain to the Middle East, if the partially-Axis-controlled Mediterranean was too hazardous for shipping (especially for troop ships, which were very valuable).

Suez was of no direct use to the Axis in WWII (in its historical form) because Germany/Italy in Europe and Japan on the other side of the world were essentially fighting separate wars and had little reason (and no significant means) to send stuff to each other.  Suez might have been marginally useful to the Axis if Germany and Italy had conquered the Middle East (for oil) and had teamed up with Japan to capture India…and even then, from Germany’s point of view, that would mainly have been a land campaign.

If the case, why not make a config in which Free France is considered UK, and some Vichy wholly Italian or Germany? It will allows to skip France turn and speed the pace somehow.

I strongly agree.

If we want to see a France that makes important decisions during the game, then we need to find a way to give France enough resources to be interesting. The most conservative way to do that is to let France keep its remaining territories after its capital is sacked. The Vichy French rules are a special exception to the ordinary rules that serve to further weaken the French nation, above and beyond the naturally weak position that France occupies because it’s right next door to an expanding Germany. That’s completely wrongheaded if the goal is to create a series of interesting decisions for a French player.

On the other hand, if we want to minimize French resources (whether because we think the Axis need those resources to ensure balance, or in the interest of historical accuracy, or for any other reason), then we need to find a way to avoid pretending that France is an independent nation in our game. If, in over 99% of your games, Paris is going to fall before the French player makes a single move, and as soon as Paris falls, you’re going to use dice, etc. to strip France of five-sixths of its remaining colonies, then there’s no need to go through the rigamarole of assigning someone to play France, calculating a French economy, and giving the tiny remnant of Free French forces their own separate spot in the turn order. All of that work is just a big waste of time relative to the fun that you’re getting out of it.

I do like the suggestion above to roll dice for the “French” territories and assign 1/6 of them to be Allied-aligned, 1/6 of them to be Axis, and 4/6 of them to be pro-Axis neutral. That seems like it would create some interesting variations and uncertainty without requiring too much in the way of rules or delay. But to get those variations, it’s not necessary to conjure up an imaginary “Free French” player. Just give the Allied pieces to the British, and give the Axis pieces to the Germans or Italians.

Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

In my opinion, yes, with two qualifiers. First, the Axis would have needed to neutralize British bases in Aden and Port Sudan. It’s not much use getting into the Red Sea if you can’t get out again on the other end. Second, the Axis would have needed somewhere to go. If the Germans penetrated the Caucasus as far as Basra, or if the Italians held onto any part of their colony in Ethiopia, or if the Japanese penetrated into India or Ceylon or Madagascar, then the Suez Canal would have been quite useful for the Axis. If the Axis lost all of those other campaigns, then I don’t see the Canal as being of much logistical/economic use, although it might still be tactically helpful if the Italians and Japanese wanted to coordinate a joint attack on the British Indian fleet.

@Argothair:

The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.

I still maintained that economical (Industrial in IPC) values and strategic (Progress in IPC) values (such as cutting enemy’s resources access ways) should be rewarded.

As far as I understand balancing working on BMode, NOs bonus play a major part in it.
At the actual development stage, I believe these numbers should not be totally determined and fixed in cold stone. However, I believe major NOs centered around resources and communication ways should be generally described as symetric or asymetric per side as more beneficial  to one or more powers.

That way, it may gives a general guideline to ascribe general values, such as Skageratt strait worth both sides but less to one, so can be +5 Germany vs +3 for Allies, or Normandy could worth a lot to Germany +10 but +5 to UK and US Allies, still making an even exchange. Just for the example.

However, giving a lot to one side and nothing in return, but in an impossible zone to fight for will be like giving a free +10 when at war.
I cannot not insist IPC should mean something like Industrial or Income and Progress Credits.

The real increase in production is on as most as possible peaceful home-land. Destroying assets is never a way to increase production capacity. Engineering can do a lot on productivity but with destroyed equipment it is hard to improve production.

@Imperious:

I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

Rostov-on-Don oil field

You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east

I’m not against this kind of random bonus/penalty but it introduce a bit more complexity.
Once created on Triple A, it is automatically generated but on tabletop, it is another issue along Convoy Disruption/Raiding rolls.

along Convoy Disruption/Raiding rolls.

That brings up another point. The map should have by those convoy boxes a value in total IPC that can be removed from the enemy, not unlike the HBG Global 1936 map

It would just make the “juicy” areas that can be raided more currency, because players under appreciate this strategy. Its simple to count the potential rewards, but it speeds up play to know instantly the info

@Black_Elk:

Yeahs its definite a downside that more information isn’t represented directly on the map. We tried to come up with some simplified convoy systems using roundels, or sz with a value marker. Right now in tripleA the convoy and blockade option does offer at least a sz control marker, which I think helps. But yeah this is an area where I think we could do some good.
On the asymmetry/symmetry thing, I think for VCs (and to a certain extent the printed ipc values on the OOB map) you have some suspension of disbelief going on in the OOB game already, where the values are universal for both sides. NO’s on the other hand seem to have been designed from the outset with the idea of trying to somehow get at the asymmetry in a way that feels more realistic. It’s just a little unfortunate that the associated goals don’t have any visual to accompany them on the game map. Not sure there’s a whole lot we can do about that, though I like the idea of keeping the total number of NO’s and number of associated TT’s or SZs a bit easier to memorize/manage.

I think its great when the game rewards players for knowing their history, and that’s where the NO’s really come into play. But the OOB game does require a fair amount of rote memorization or referencing (and has some oddities, even for people who are well studied) so I still see a lot of areas where we could streamline it.

I love the Income and Progress Credit idea that Marc offered up, as a way to make the money in this game more flexible. At least the “Progress” part gives us way to blur the lines a little, if we need to make an NO more symmetrical than it might have been in reality, just so the gameplay doesn’t  skew too hard in a game breaking direction, or as a corrective for those situations where the base economy of a specific nation can’t function without a certain amount of money coming in on the regular. I definitely prefer the idea of NO’s focused on TT’s in contention rather than at the core of a nations home territories, so it can be an incentive for the give and take.

One things which might be helpful, if enough Control Marker available could be, for tabletop, to write bonus number on white side, then let each player put its markers on specific NOs zone or TTy.
If Hawaii worth 10 IPCs for Japan, you place this 10 visible, when captured you flip this token to Japan flag symbol. That way, all players will see which TTs are in contention. And may look under token to see which power it benefits. For Gibraltar, 2 #5$ tokens one from UK and one from Italy can be left on Gibraltar. UK would be upside while Italy NCMarker would be upside down so 5$ would be visible…

But I also like the idea of simplified Free France player that works the way China does without a capital. I like the idea that France might behave in a somewhat similar way, once its capital is occupied. A long time back, I suggested the idea of giving China an occupied Capital at Nanking/Shanghai, with the idea that the reason their rules are so peculiar is because they begin play with an occupied capital.

This. All of the this! So much this. +1. Like. Upvote.

The exact same rules should apply from nation to nation, and those rules should include two ways of producing units: one if you have your capital, and one if you don’t have your capital.

If you do control your capital, you collect cash from your territories, and then you spend your cash at a factory or at an appropriate base to build whatever kinds of units you want. You’re vulnerable to strategic bombing, and if you lose your capital, you get looted.

If you don’t control your capital, you don’t collect any cash, but for every 2 territories you control, you can place one infantry in any territory you control, and if you control at least 6 territories, then you can also place one artillery in a territory you control, or one transport in a sea zone adjacent to a territory you control. There’s nothing to bomb, and nothing to loot.

It’s simple! It accounts for France, it accounts for China, it accounts for Russia if Moscow falls, it accounts for New Zealand if Sydney falls, it accounts for Canada if London falls – it covers all your bases. It’s good. :-)

Except China had a second capital which operated out of Chung King after they lost Nanking.

@Der:

Except China had a second capital which operated out of Chung King after they lost Nanking.

Yes, but Chunking isn’t shown on the A&A OOB map.  The closest it come to being shown on the OOB Global map is the little dot at the northern end of the Burma Road.

But anyway, I quite agree with Argothair’s point that the loss of a capital shouldn’t prohibit a player from buying infantry; at the most, it should simply modify the conditions under which troops can be purchased.  In real-world terms, it’s hard to rationalize in a believable way the concept that the loss of a capital prevents a nation at war from enlisting troops, especially if the “nation” in question is a global empire like Britain.  To go back to China’s case as an illustration of this point: Mao’s Communists were able to raise troops during the Japanese occupation, even though Mao not only didn’t have a real “capital” but also wasn’t even China’s official government.  Similarly, Charles de Gaulle was able to raise the Free French Forces while based in London (where he ran what was from his perspective a government in exile and what was from the Vichy perspective a pack of expatriate traitors).

It could even be argued that, propaganda-wise, the loss of a nation’s capital is potentially a powerful recruiting tool for new infantry recruits – something along the lines of, “Join the army and help free our capital from the [fill in the blank] barbarians!”  The Soviets did pretty much the same thing during the battle of Stalingrad (“Its very stones are sacred”), and Stalingrad wasn’t even the USSR’s capital (though it did have the highly symbolic value of bearing Stalin’s name).  The “join the army and free our capital!” recruitment pitch is a lot more plausible than a scenario in which (for example) Washington D.C. is invaded and occupied by (let’s say) hostile Martians, and US Army recruiters all over the rest of the country are told by potential recruits, “Sorry, I can’t join the Army unless we control our own capital.  It says so right here in the rulebook.”

Have you come up with a victory condition for the G40 game yet ?

Nope, still on table to discuss options and details. Only general guidelines were given by Black Elk.
When talking on what kind of conditions we are looking for.

@Black_Elk:

I would not be sure of the best way to word a universal rule. I like Arg’s formation which reads a bit more like the AA50 China rules (with some tweaks.) I’m not sure how much of the OOB China rules  we need to change, they could still have the limited roster and Burma etc, for their Pre industrial status, but just giving a nation with no capital the option to spawn infantry in territories they control would be pretty cool.

If it turns out that Argo’s proposed mechanism needs to be adjusted in some way (for instance if, hypothetically, the proposal works well for some countries but not for others), an extra variable that could be factored in would be population.  The USSR and China both had very large populations at the time of WWII, so turning a certain percentage of that population into infantry obviously produces greater numbers than turning the same percentage of a less-populated country’s population into infantry.  (Or, to look at it another way: to produce 10,000 infantrymen, the USSR and China need to draw upon a smaller percentage of their population than a less-populated country would have to do).  A related point is that producing infantrymen is less capital-intensive (i.e. is cheaper) and requires less of an industrial base than producing tanks or airplanes.  This is why the production of infantrymen is particularly suited to the USSR and China, because both had large populations in WWII and both were less industrialized (and in China’s case a LOT less industralized) than the US and the UK.