G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I am not interested in giving the USSR consistent free cash, but what do you think about giving Russia more money for the “no Western Allies in USSR territories” NO?

I think the incentive to keep the other Allies out needs to be significant. It may be possible to do this through means other than NOs, but there is one specifically geared for it.

Do you think 10 IPCs will be a sufficient incentive to not land Allies aircrafts in Russia?
It is enough to built 1 Fg per turn.

Yes. I would say we could subtract that extra 5 from elsewhere, but with USSR’s NOs, that is hard to do. It’s a delicate balance so as not to give them too much.

I don’t like the idea of completely legislating restrictions on Allied units in the USSR. Incentivizing is better, but it has its limits.

Solomon Islands must be Allied for ANZAC to get either of its two island objectives. So. . .

1. Solomon Islands, Gilbert, Samoa, Fiji = 3 PUS

2. Solomon Islands, New Britain, Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea = 3 PUS

Thus, Japan can negate both objectives by taking and holding Solomon

This is from Balanced Mode 3.0

Do you think we should put Dutch New Guinea into ANZAC NO?
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I am not interested in giving the USSR consistent free cash, but what do you think about giving Russia more money for the “no Western Allies in USSR territories” NO?

I think the incentive to keep the other Allies out needs to be significant. It may be possible to do this through means other than NOs, but there is one specifically geared for it.

Do you think 10 IPCs will be a sufficient incentive to not land Allies aircrafts in Russia?
It is enough to built 1 Fg per turn.

Yes. I would say we could subtract that extra 5 from elsewhere, but with USSR’s NOs, that is hard to do. It’s a delicate balance so as not to give them too much.

I don’t like the idea of completely legislating restrictions on Allied units in the USSR. Incentivizing is better, but it has its limits.

It is not that tragic because Germans C5 bombers will do a lot of damage on russian ICs.

IDK if Barney can easily introduce it into Triple A.
Also, -15 seems too harsh.
-10 is enough because it means a -15 TUV swing losing bonus too.

I say Germany NO is simpler without adding US at war.
In counterpart, giving +10 for Russia xenophobia can be a way to compensate both.

What do you think about adding my other suggestions (Gibraltar, etc.)?

I like these three:
ITALY
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the Med

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

ANZAC
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

On the last point, here an interesting post of Regular Kid:
@regularkid:

addressing the controversy broadly, making the Solomon Islands the lynch pin for ANZAC’s island NOs wasn’t even a close call; from both a gameplay perspective and (for me, equally important) a historic perspective, it was obviously the right thing to do.

If there is any doubt as to the huge strategic importance of the Solomon Islands, you have only to read the first couple paragraphs of this instructive article on the Solomon Islands Campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands_campaign, quoted below:

"_The Solomon Islands campaign was a major campaign of the Pacific War of World War II. The campaign began with Japanese landings and occupation of several areas in the British Solomon Islands and Bougainville, in the Territory of New Guinea, during the first six months of 1942. The Japanese occupied these locations and began the construction of several naval and air bases with the goals of protecting the flank of the Japanese offensive in New Guinea, establishing a security barrier for the major Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain, and providing bases for interdicting supply lines between the Allied powers of the United States and Australia and New Zealand.

"The Allies, to defend their communication and supply lines in the South Pacific, supported a counteroffensive in New Guinea, isolated the Japanese base at Rabaul, and counterattacked the Japanese in the Solomons with landings on Guadalcanal (see Guadalcanal Campaign) and small neighboring islands on 7 August 1942. These landings initiated a series of combined-arms battles between the two adversaries, beginning with the Guadalcanal landing and continuing with several battles in the central and northern Solomons, on and around New Georgia Island, and Bougainville Island.

“In a campaign of attrition fought on land, on sea, and in the air, the Allies wore the Japanese down, inflicting irreplaceable losses on Japanese military assets. The Allies retook some of the Solomon Islands (although resistance continued until the end of the war), and they also isolated and neutralized some Japanese positions, which were then bypassed. The Solomon Islands campaign then converged with the New Guinea campaign._”

Given the above, _not i_ncluding the Solomon Islands in an NO entitled “Supply Lines” (i.e., Fiji, Samoa, and Gilbert), would make little thematic sense. As others have noted, taking the island in BM 3.2 negates just 6 PUs of ANZAC’s income as opposed to 5 PUs in the OOB game. . . this is hardly a huge change. Really, the only thing that makes Solomon Islands  unique in BM 3.0 is that it is the only island that can negate all 6 PUs at once. And that seems appropriate.

Finally, I don’t think it is accurate to say that Solomon Islands was “routinely” taken by Japan in OOB games. That certainly hasn’t been my experience.

Baron Munchenson, in response to your proposal, thats not really the direction we are going with the NOs.

Pretty clean and simple.

Probably easier to add into Triple A.
Much simpler to remember too.

Russia will like to stay in peace with Japan because 5 NAP + 5 Northern Trace depends on it.
And a -10 IPCs penalty will happen to.

@Black_Elk:

I honestly think the Violation penalties are the key to fixing this whole game. They should produce a much more realistic play-pattern.

For sphere of influence violations, I would frame this thematically, as the amount of political or propaganda capital expended to prevent an all out war with your teammate. To calm the various domestic factions, or keep the generals and broader population in line, what have you. It still allows for desperation rescues, or brief coordinations, but here each nation with a sphere of influence has an incentive to preserve it. Its in their interest to get the other guy out of their backyard, in all but the most urgent situations.

For the NAP violations you could again see it as political/propaganda/material capital expended to start an all out war with a nation that you formerly had a non agression relationship with. Trade backlash. The demands of rapid mobilization. All the things.

The individual penalties aren’t so outsized, or the conditions so restrictive, that they eliminate these gameplay options entirely, just creates a set of economic incentives that encourage a somewhat more historical style of play.

The bonuses get players jumping around to the islands where we want to see more action, and doing the sorts of things generally that make sense for the start date, and the historical war.
But in gameplay terms it should work rather well, with some of the other ideas we’re floating. The NAP relates to certain ongoing objectives, so its weight is more than just the one time penalty. I removed Mongolia from the whole equation, because I think it should just be Pro-Soviet neutral anyways.

I think the island objectives will play well with the new military base concept.
Which can build +3 infantry, but can only be constructed in territories at 1 ipc or less in value. This prevents conflicts with Minor Factory candidate territories being too overpowered, but still allows for a whole host of build options all across the gameboard. The unit is relatively limited in scope, only creates infantry, and still expensive at 12 ipcs cost. It’s like a minor factory light, can’t build heavy equipment, but instead conceived as a more generic entry point for the infantry unit. Carries the danger of creating new bombing targets, or territories that can be captured and used against you. But it opens up so many areas of the map. I think it will be my favorite unit after the C5 bomber.
:-D

I think Russia and Germany will balance off each other to make the conflict on the eastern front more epic is scale. The same with Japan vs the West. Should be fun!

And you forget to talk about VCs bonus which can make additionnal TUV swing and incente toward more realistic strategic pattern. Some will add to NOs but other will compensate for some TTy which are not in NOs.
Like Alaska and Western Canada.

Wake and Aleutian Island now worth 1 IPC for Japan and may provide a staging ground for Infantry base + AB to boost C5 bombers to attack Hawaii IC bases or West Coast IC + bases.

This will open more viable strategy in PTO for sure.
Winning VCs, cutting Allies NOs boost, taking a few Islands on the way.
Even Subs (historically one favored weapon of Japan and US) can be part of Convoy Raid with their capacity to survive a first round attack to submerge after.

Looks good to me!

Maybe we can make some good comparison analysis to improve Redesign NOs.

@regularkid:

Hey all. Proud to announce the release of G40 Balanced (Balance Mod v3.0). Below is the official ruleset (with changes from the original Mod in blue.  3.0 changes are in red). Attached is a playable saved-game file of the Mod. As before, the national objectives and rule changes are coded for easy playability. Simply load the file as you would any other saved game, and you’re good to go. Also, the new Rules are stated in the “Game Notes” panel.

Please note that the NOs will not be listed in your “Objectives Panel,” but they are working and the game will automatically keep track of them. If you would like to see the objectives in your “Objectives Panel,” there is an optional download, which will provided in the next post. Hope ya’ll enjoy!

G40 Balanced - Balance Mod 3.0

Original Game Credits: Bung, Veqryn

Mod Squad: Adam514 (co-originator and oracle), Deathbringer1974 (chief executive troll), dust (good at math), dss85 (playtester and game breaker), Gencre (general haha), redrum (XML high priest), Regularkid (co-originator and king of noobs), Young Grasshopper (topper goodwill ambassador)

---

REVISIONS

---

Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

Revised Capital Capture Rules: The capture of a player’s capital results in the plunder of that player’s PUs only the first time the capital is taken. Subsequent recapture of the same capital results in the player’s PUs being destroyed.

Revised Victory Conditions: If Germany is Allied control, an Axis victory in the Pacific requires 7 (rather than 6) Pacific VCs. If Japan is Allied control, an Axis victory in Europe requires 9 (rather than 8 ) Europe VCs.

New Unit - Marines: Cost 5; Attack at 1; Attack at 2 when involved with an amphibious assault; Defend at 2; No bonus from artillery; Can be loaded onto cruisers and battleships (1 to a ship).

Note: During amphibious assaults, Battleships and Cruisers may bombard territories other than the one they unload their marines into.  Also during amphibious assaults, Marines attack at 2 even if they arrived over land (to join an amphibious assault by other ground units).  Kamikazes (by themselves) do not prevent and cannot be used against a marine amphibious assault that is from a different power’s cruiser/battleship.  Marines loaded in the combat movement phase must conduct amphibious assault in that same phase.
Additional National Objectives

Germany

• 2 PUs if Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Crete are Axis or Pro-Axis controlled.
• 5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in either London (the United Kingdom) or Egypt. (This modifies Germany’s “Presence in Egypt” objective).

Russia

• 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
• 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).
• 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
• An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

Japan

• 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).
• 5 PUs if Axis controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
  *      3 PUs if Japan controls Iwo Jima and Okinawa and is at war with the USA

USA

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
• 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.
• 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.
• 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

China

• 3 PUs if Allies control Yunnan, Szechwan, Burma, and India. (This modifies China’s “Burma Road” objective).
• At the start of China’s turn, a Chinese infantry is spawned in each non-coastal Chinese territory under Axis control that is not garrisoned by at least one Axis land unit (i.e., infantry, marine, mech infantry, artillery, or armor). These “guerrillas” engage in combat wherever they are spawned and may not be moved until China’s next turn.

UK

• 3 PUs if UK Europe controls all its original territories. (This modifies UK’s “Original Territories” objective).
• 3 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece, Southern Italy, and Allies have at least one land unit in any of these territories.
• 3 PUs if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127.
• 3 PUs if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or Pro-Allied controlled.
• 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and either Egypt or South Africa; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81).
• 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if Malaya and Kwantung are Allied controlled. (This modifies UK Pacific’s “Malaya and Kwantung” objective.

Italy

• 3 PUs if Malta, Cyprus, and Crete are Axis controlled.

ANZAC

• 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands are controlled by the Allies (other than the Dutch). (This modifies ANZAC’s “Strategic Islands” objective).
• 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and the Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands, Fiji, and Samoa are Allied controlled.
• 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese, controls all of its original territories, and Malaya is Allied controlled. (This modifies ANZAC’s “Control Original And Malaya” objective).

VICHY FRANCE RULE SET

The following rule-set simulates the circumstances and strategic consequences of the Franco-German Armistice, and is intended for play with the G40 Balance Mod.

Game Conditions for Franco-German Armistice

At the beginning of France’s turn, if the following conditions are met, the Franco-German Armistice will occur:

1. Axis has control of both France and Normandy Bordeaux;
2. Axis has never controlled Southern France; and
3. There are no non-French, Allied land units in Southern France.

Game Consequences of Franco-German Armistice

French Territorial Control: At the beginning of France’s first turn in which Armistice conditions are met, all originally French territories not already under Axis control immediately change ownership to Pro-Axis Neutrals, except: (1) French Equatorial Africa; (2) New Hebrides; (2) any French territories containing non-French allied land units.

Any non-French allied air units in Vichy-controlled territory are destroyed upon conversion of the territory to Vichy control.

With the exception of Southern France (see discussion of “Zone Libere” below), Vichy French territory operates the same way as other Pro-Axis Neutral territory. An Axis player may capture Vichy French territory and commandeer its forces by moving a land unit into the territory during the non-combat phase of his turn.

Fly-over restrictions applicable to other Neutral territories do not apply to Vichy French territory.

Fleet at Toulon: In addition to the change in French territorial control, the Armistice changes control of the the French fleet in sz 93, from French to Pro-Axis neutral. The Vichy French fleet maintains a strictly defensive posture. It may not be moved. It may not be captured by the Axis. The fleet is immediately destroyed if any power, other than the Free French, occupies Southern France

“Zone Libre”: Any Axis occupation of Southern France following the Armistice results in the scuttling of the Vichy French Fleet at Toulon and the disbandment of all remaining Vichy French forces. These forces are removed at the end of the Axis player’s turn in which the occupation of Southern France takes place. Any formerly Vichy French forces that were previously commandeered by the Axis are unaffected by this change.

Armistice’s Effect on National Objectives: Following the armistice, Southern France is considered Axis-controlled for purposes of Italy’s “Roman Empire” objective. Otherwise, the Vichy France arrangement has no impact on National Objectives. Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco must still be directly occupied by Germany or Italy to achieve Italy’s “North Africa” objective. Japanese occupation of French Indo China still negates Japan’s “Trade With America” objective.

Liberation of France: The Allied liberation of France effectively terminates the Armistice. Any territory and forces still under Vichy French control (including any surviving fleet in sz 93) revert back to Free French control. The Vichy French forces in the Southern France and sz 93 will also revert back if Southern France is liberated by the Free French.

Black_Elk, I wonder if this NO can be modified to better incente battle for Islands in PTO:
JAPAN NO:
+10 if Japan controls any of Hawaii or New South Wales.

Do you see a way to justify only these two and not San Francisco or India?

These two NOs are for Fortress Europa, right?
+5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.

The Norway/Sweden NO is traditionally understood as representing the iron and nickel mines of Petsamo and Kirkennis, which Germany badly needed for its war economy. During winter, the ore had to be shipped north out of Sweden and counterclockwise around the coast of Norway, so losing control of Norway (or the goodwill of Sweden) would mean an end to ore shipments.

I like the way it is shaping up.

I was a little hesitant at the Violation penalties initially, because to my recollection A&A has never had a negative economic penalty. However, I think that a penalty is a better solution than a bonus with the opposite intent.