G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

2. “SubsUnBlocked_ChangerMustActivate”                                 
                Destroyers no longer block Subs or the Sub’s “First Strike” capability. They are now a A1 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C5 unit. They also have 1 preemptive “ASA” (Anti-Sub Attack) shot.

When attacking a Sub, the Destroyer will fire a one time “ASA1” (hits at 1) shot. If successful the Sub is immediately destroyed and may not return fire. If the Sub survives, it may then submerge or take it’s normal “First Strike” shot.

The Destroyer also has 1 preemptive “ASD” (Anti-Sub Defense) shot. Works the same as “ASA” only on defense. So when a sub attacks a Destoyer or any other unit that has “ASD” capability, it must first survive the “ASD” attack before conducting it’s “First Strike” attack.
Destroyer ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Destroyers, the sub will only undergo as many ASA/D shots as there are Destroyers.
   
Subs remain A2 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C6. Subs cannot be blocked by any Naval Vessel. Subs are now susceptible to attack from Fighters and Tac Bombers. When attacking naval units who have air units present (no Bombers), Subs will undergo counterfire from the air units regardless of the outcome of their “First Strike”. 
All other rules regarding Subs are unchanged.

In addition to their normal unit stats, Tac Bombers now also have ASA1 ASD1.
As mentioned above, they now fire normally at subs without a Destroyer present. Their ASA/D shots will stack. Meaning if their is only 1 sub and multiple Tacs, the sub will undergo multiple 1 ASA/D shot.

4) “TransportC8_ChangerMustActivate”
             The Transport is now A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB C8. May participate in combat and be taken as casualty.

I was thinking about TP C8 and DD C5.
It is probably one of the best cost relative to each other.
You simplify a lot of TP interactions with all units, no more auto-kill, pick casualty as you see fit and there is no chance to be preferred as fodder compared to DD C5 with some AS A1D1. 3 IPCs is almost, 60%, another DD.
And you have offensive punch too.
With Subs A2 surprise strike on, it may be more challenging and even more balanced to give TP a combat value.

Ideal? No, Buenos Aires isn’t ideal, but I figure it was the most plausibly pro-Axis neutral city in Latin America. From a tactical viewpoint, Santiago, Chile would be ideal – that spreads the two South American VCs reasonably well across the continent, and it allows more pathways from Wellington. I suppose you could register both Chile and Argentina as pro-Axis neutrals without doing much violence to history. It would be awkward to convert Chile without also converting Argentina, though, since Argentina had stronger fascist leanings.

I have never heard of Freetown playing any role in World War II, either actual or theoretical. If you want to activate the South Atlantic Ocean, what about Dakar, where there was actually a battle of major diplomatic significance, and a strategically important port, and the gold reserves of the Bank of France and the Bank of Poland? You could shift the VC in Algeria (which is somewhat redundant thanks to the VC right next door in Libya) one territory over to French West Africa. That way the Japanese could theoretically hop from Capetown to Dakar to Rio, and the Italians could theoretically hop from their Moroccan national objective to Dakar to either Rio or Capetown.

If I were going to add two more victory cities to the 1942.2 setup for a total of 26 VC, I would pick Rio and Algiers. Rio for some of the same reasons as above – it helps give extra depth to a Japanese drive on Wellington. Algiers because German North Africa is way too easy for the Axis to abandon if the Allies roll well in Egypt. The whole area is only worth 3 IPCs to the Germans, there are no Axis victory cities there OOB, there are no factories there, and none of the territories are really that strategic if you’re being pushed out of Africa anyway…something about the sea zones in 1942.2 makes North Africa very awkward as a base for staging an invasion of Italy. An Algerian VC would give the Axis at least some reason to put up a token defense of North Africa even in games when Egypt is a lost cause.

Fun! It looks good. You can see at a glance that the VCs are very well distributed and not clogging the board anywhere. My brother worked in Sierra Leone for a couple of years – if honoring Sierra Leone is your fee for designing this wonderful little map, then so be it! :-)

I didn’t expect that the Chile suggestion would be very popular. Bla bla, intricately balanced clockwork tapestry, bla bla, disturbed by the slightest changes bla bla expanding exponentially outward sowing seeds of chaos and doom, bla bla, no one will ever play Axis and Allies again and the world will collapse in a pit of fiery darkness, bla bla bla. It’s always the same story. :-)

yea addressing neutrals is something I’d like to do. Won’t be this go around. de Galle has some good ideas here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38615.0

I think making their forces (navy included) stronger would be a good way to go. piscolar seemed as if they had a pretty good system as well. I know Gamerman1 has a neutral blocks setup too. Can make the navy not appear unless attacked in congested SZs for triplea.

Also want to add BM’s Vichy Rules.

Anyway, that will be in the future.

If two more VCs need to be added for 1942.2,
I would go with
Allies PTO VC:  Szechuan (Chonqing)
Axis ETO VC : Norway (Oslo)

This makes: Germany 5 VCs and Japan 5 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 3 VCs
UK: 8 VCs

1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies

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

Allies ETO VCs:
6-Washington (EUSA),
7-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
8-London (UK),
9-Cairo (Egypt),
10-Cape Town (South Africa),
11-Moscow (Russia),
12-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
13- Stalingrad (Caucasus).

Axis PTO VCs:
14-Tokyo (Japan),
15-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
16-Manila (Philippines),
17-Singapore (Malaya),
18-Truk (Carolines Island),

Allies PTO VCs:
19-Chonqing (Szechwuan)
20-Calcutta (India),
21-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
22-Wellington (New Zealand),
23-Honolulu (Hawaii),
24-Anchorage (Alaska),
25-Victoria (Western Canada),
26-San Francisco (Western USA).

Axis: 10 VCs
Allies: 16 VCs

Looks good to me. I might swap out Warsaw for Algiers – Warsaw is not an OOB VC for 1942.2, and I don’t think it adds much tactical interest. You can see why you’d want Warsaw on the list for thematic reasons – invasion of Poland was what finally got Britain and France into the war, etc. – but I don’t think Algiers i much less thematic; it has to do with whether the Axis are able to maintain a presence in the Med, or whether they’ve been humiliatingly wiped off the African continent.

My issue with Germany’s VCs is placing them on peripheral TTy make virtually impossible for Germany to win  by VCs numbers. Only crushing Moscow would mean something.
Just imagine that Germany needs 9 VCs, only 4 more.
But it cannot loose any initial VCs, a very difficult challenge IMO.

Eh, you’re not wrong. But for what it’s worth, 1942.2 typically doesn’t have a Europe vs. Pacific VC distinction…if your entire team has a certain number of VCs, you win, and otherwise you don’t.

So if the Germans are up 4 VCs and down 1 VC, and the Japanese are up 2 VCs  (Chongqing and Sydney?), then that puts the Axis at 15 VCs, and maybe that’s enough for an Axis Victory.

@Black_Elk:

For G40 I also rather like the idea of single team number for either side, instead of breaking it apart by theater/sides. Or if possible, to at least check it out as an alternative to the win by theater of OOB, and see if the higher number of total VCs maybe yields better results for a global win? If not, we can always provide for different win condition in each theater. Or just have suggestions for both.

For 1942.2 it would be nice if we could do the same. See what the higher number of total VCs recommends globally. Though I can see some novelty to a victory by theater on the smaller board.

I still think in the end many people may ignore the VC win numbers, whatever they are, so I think its definitely important to give them an economic connection to the game. Since that way they are still relevant, even if players don’t care about anything other than capitals or unconditional surrender.

I’d try a universal objective bonus of +1 ipc per VC at collect income as the simplest. I think that should a standard option tech add for all the default games.

Warchest concept would be slightly more advanced, though not too crazy. Basically places all that VC objective cash into a single team pot, and then divided up during a specialized phase at the end of each game round. This could be easily edited/player enforced for the time being.

The simplest to get both victory conditions is 9 VCs on one Theater of Operation for an Axis win. Or 8+8= 16 VCs for an Axis Alliance  win.

At 24, Germany had 4 VCs and need 4 more in ETO while Japan had 5 VCs and need 4 more in PTO.
At 26, Germany and Japan have 5 VCs and need 4 more.

ETO, this means Germany needs to keep Oslo and conquers Cairo, Stalingrad and Leningrad to reach 8 VCs, the last one would be either Moscow, UK or Cape Town.
Is it realistic?
PTO, Japan can probably get Szechwuan VC, Hawaii, Sydney and NZ (Wellington). This let aside Alaska, West Canada, San Francisco and India.
I feel that it is easier than under 24 VCs.

So, if Germany get Cairo, Leningrad and Stalingrad while Japan conquers Hawaii, Alaska and Wellington, it would be an Axis Victory.

At 26 VCs, the global Victory is easier as Japan too but Germany Victory is too hard.
At 24 VCs, both Japan and Germany need to work hard, and global win is a bit harder than at 26 VCs.

Japan have to get to Hawaii, Wellington, Sydney and either Alaska, India, Victoria or San Francisco.
Germany have to grab Cairo, Leningrad and Stalingrad and either UK, Russia or South Africa.
The main difference with 26 VCs Germany is that if Allies captured Oslo, Germany is not able to retake it (no more Baltic Navy).

So, maybe if instead we chose Ukraine (Kiev) over Oslo and require 5 VCs in PTO it might work.

I still think that 24 VCs Victory conditions was easier to explain (4 VCs captured in ETO or PTO) and give much challenge for Japan to help reaching global win for Germany.

Now, I think about it, whether 24 or 26 VCs, it is difficult not to cross a Theater win (9 or 10) before reaching a global win (16). For example, Germany gets 5+1, for Japan to achieve an alliance win, it needs 10 VCs (which is also PTO win).

Now, IDK if a double winning conditions work.

Sorry I am coming late to this party. Been busy.

Not to throw a wrench into what already looks like a good spread, but……

I submit two other possible VCs for the Pacific:

Rabaul (New Guinea) technically New Britain- Allied at start of G40, Axis at start of 42.2

Harbin (Manchuria) - Axis at start of G40 and 42.2

Both became important centers for the Japanese military. Rabaul could further incentivize the island hopping you’d like to see and Harbin dangles another in front of the Russians and Chinese.

I have quickly read over the last 3 pages here, so I am not sure how both those would impact your current scheme.

I’ll just add that Manchuria (Manchukuo) was the first official Japanese puppet state during their war and was a significant motivation for their war effort and a strategic necessity. Historically speaking, it would be improper not to have a VC for Manchuria, Harbin being the obvious choice.

That sounds good to me. Just wanted to present a couple important and useful VCs. For example, I think Victoria is highly appropriate, but Rabaul was of far greater strategic importance and activity during the war… and I think more likely to be fought over in the game. Doesn’t mean we can’t keep Victoria also in a 40 scheme.