G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

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.

@barney:

@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.

Exactly! I think something to that effect was talked about here a while back. It is a one-time event, so I am not surprised that it didn’t receive much attention.

Instituting such a rule now can only benefit the Germans and introduces a chance issue that the more scientific players may not like. OOB Germany will always have to fight French ships no matter what. In this case, Germany has a 2/3 chance that they now don’t have to risk air and naval resources to fight them.

Changing it to 1-3 = Free French or British control and 4-5 = scuttle, 6 = convert to German would alter the chance to favor OOB configuration… but honestly I like your initial proposal better Barney. Historically, virtually none of the French ships actually fought. They were either forcibly scuttled by the British, sunk in port or kept in British ports for the war.

Either way, I think it would be interesting to have.

@Black_Elk:

OOB Objectives:

National Objectives Germany
5 PUs if not yet at war with Russia.
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
5 PUs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway and Sweden is not allied-controlled or pro-allied.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.

Germany possible Total OOB:   27

Russia
5 PUs if Russia is at war, sz125 has no Axis warships (all sea units except transports), Archangel is Russia-controlled, and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.
3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls.
10 PUs one time only, the first time Russia conquers Germany (Berlin).

USSR possible Total OOB:   5+3x? (about 17 avg?)

Japan
10 PUs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
5 PUs for each Axis controlled territory: Hawaii, India, New South Wales, and Western United States.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.

Japan possible Total OOB:   30

UK
5 PUs for UK Europe if UK Europe controls of its original territories.
5 PUs for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.

I think both of these could be reworked, to be more interesting. Perhaps with D-Day theme for Europe. Burma theme for UK Pacific.

UK possible Total OOB:   5

India possible Total OOB:   5

ANZAC
5 PUs if the Allies control Malaya, and ANZAC controls all of their original territories, and is at war with Japan.
5 PUs if the Allies (not including Dutch) control all of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, and is at war with Japan.

[This one and the UK Pac objective above, put’s huge emphasis on Malaya, at the expense of other possibilities]

ANZAC possible Total OOB:   10

Italy
5 PUs if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz92,…,sz99.
5 PUs if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France and Greece.
5 PUs if Axis controll all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
2 PUs for each Italian controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.

[having a VC for Persia/Iraq seems less interesting to me than one that was more sand and sea Med oriented]

Italy possible Total OOB:   21

USA
10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.

[Having an objective bonus for control of the continental US and West Indies seems kind of redundant. Would be better to have another Pacific or Europe themed objective.

[color=green]USA possible Total OOB:   30

China
6 PUs and may build artillery if the Allies control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan.

China Possible Total OOB:   6

French
12 PUs worth of free units in France the first time France is Liberated (The engine will give you 4 infantry automatically. Use edit mode if you want something other than 4 infantry by deleting the infantry and replacing them with what you really want).

[Needs more to be compelling, I like a flat +10 for Paris, recurring instead of a one time bonus]

France Possible Total OOB:   12

I went back and just totaled up possible bonus amounts for each. It seems like the usual max bonus amounts hover at 30 IPCs. Most People aren’t going to get that per turn, but it may serve as a good cap for us to consider. Especially if even more cash is going to be floating around with VCs.

Looking at these again, some of them are laughably weak. Particularly the UK. It’s like they didn’t even care to get creative with it.

@Black_Elk:

Here’s another example of redunancy

National Objectives Germany

5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.

These four entries could easily be reduced to a single general objective if wanted to.

+5 for each Axis controlled Territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia or Caucasus or Egypt or Iraq or Persia.

Do we really need a separate objective for Caucasus? Do we really need the infantry requirement to make the wording of Egypt different? If we want Mid East objectives can’t they just be worth 5, so it can all be made into a single list objective? Call it German Domination or whatever, but put all these +5s into one space.

That’s three total objectives eliminated right there. Down from 28 total to 25.

Very true. I think the only reason they separated them was to highlight the historical strategic reason (rule book calls it “theme”) for having each. Ex: Volgograd and Novgorod for propaganda value, Caucasus for oil, Egypt for propaganda, Persia etc, for oil.

Yes. It was too much and pretty little distinctions: axis here, German there, an infantry over there.
+5 is simpler.
And if seems a lot, then gives Allies, especially UK more IPCs bonus.

You are probably right Hoffman, oil resources access and propaganda can still be combined in the explanation  NOs text.
No need to be that far in subtilities.
Anyone which want to know which is what can easily learned it.

I was thinking about Germany and one NO can be more defensive in nature.
Something about Atlantic Wall, a big +12 IPCs if such and such TTs are in Axis hands, this will include Normandy-Bordeaux. But only if it is unbreached.

Once Allies get a foot hold for first time, then Atlantic Wall is broken till the end of game.

So, at least, Germany will not retreat inland when things getting hot in ATO.