G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Quick answer is that bids seem to keep going up with bids over 20 now common.

yes

just the dollar amount.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [Global 1940] Balance idea for the Allies:

Give all the technologies of one row (the Allied player(s) chooses) to one Allied power (Allied player(s) choose), free of charge. These technologies apply at the beginning of the game on Germany’s very first turn for those powers. These powers cannot research further. Other powers research normally.

Do this twice with two different Allied powers.

If the Allied player(s) cannot make a decision the Axis player(s) choose (s).

For example, the Soviet Union chooses the first row and therefore has the technologies Rockets, War Bonds, Improved Mechanized Infantry, Advanced Artillery, Paratroopers, and Increased Factory Production, at the start of the game, and the US chooses the second row and gets the technologies Improved Shipyards, Super Submarines, Radar, Jet Fighters, Long Range Aircraft, and Heavy Bombers.

I think this can balance the game significantly for the Allies instead of a bid. If the game still isn’t balanced enough, do this with more Allied powers.

My contention is that Global 1940 is NOT a World War 2 game without technology. It is stuck in 1940l

@nolimit

As you’ll see, when the complete rulebook with set up charts is released, the outcome of the War is not settled yet.

1943 was the year, when Germany finally implemented the Total War concept. The Axis Powers still had options to alter the outcome of the War - not by outproducing the Allies - but by taking advantage of every single advantageous opportunity. And by planning a decisive and superior strategy - without any flaws. And carry it out with determination.

In the game there is no bureaucracy - no internal conflicts in any Nation, that could weaken the War effort. Every single decision is made with one goal only - to win the War.

The game depends solely on what strategy players might choose - and how these strategies are carried out.

It is truly a big challenge for the Axis to win the War. And there is no room for errors… or else, Germany & Japan will have to fight for their lives.

You’ll experience massive Panzer Armies and Army Groups from the very beginning of the game. Within a few rounds, some of the most famous combat units of World War II are available to the players. This will bring even more options to get your Nation closer to Final Victory.

The Axis & Allies Global 1943 House Rules Expansion will definitely bring tons of fun and challenge - even though the game is playable in a few hours.

G40 France Strikes Back

This is a rule for our G40 mode that we are testing, in order to make France a little more relevant in the game, but we think any one can use it .

The Rule:

1- Once Paris is taken by the axis, the treasure of France passes to the enemy, as in OOB rules.
2- Automatically, the de facto capital of France is London, France will be able to add new IPC at the end of its turn, as any nation does.
Note: There is no Vichy vs Free France dynamic. France is a single entity, and it maintains the mechanics of the game simple, and without requiring the purchase or painting of new pieces.
3- France can buy and place infantry in any original territory on the map.
4- France can buy equipment in London, and place it right there, land, sea, air; but, cannot place new infantry in London. France can buy technology dice, ports and airports, for its original territories
5-France cannot produce units in industrial complexes that captures from the enemy, in this case the complexes will take full damage. France cannot buy industrial complexes.
Note: in the territory of France, the same applies, unless France or the allies take parís.
6- If parís is free, it merges into the capital of France again, France will return to the rules of OOB.
7- If Paris is retaken, a second time, the money passes to the conqueror (subsequent reconquests will have the same dynamics). And the capital of France will pass London again, unless it is taken by the enemy.
8-If London is taken by the enemy, and is the de facto capital of France, the IPCs of the two are delivered to the conqueror.

Balance: we have found that in some occasions Italy will have more pressure in North Africa. To counter this, we believe that this rule for Italy should be used to.

Italy Lean-lease: During WW2, Germany sold or licensed equipment to its allies, especially Italy.
1- During its non-combat face, Germany can send to the north of Italy any air unit or ground machines (except infantry) for sale. A maximum of 2 per round.
2- Italy in its face of purchases can buy at half price, the German units on loan. The money is delivered to Germany.
Units are immediately replaced by Italian equivalents for immediate use.

Restrictions: Infantry and ships cannot be sold. Berlin must be in the hands of the axis, northern Italy must be in control of Italy.
Note: If Rome falls, this rule still works, if italy had warbonus tec. In this case, dice need to by the number to pay.

=================================================
See the current tested rules of our mod, here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33074/g40-historial-v1-1?lang=es&page=1

Our videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRZntU00ooZQX6KTb3gbKgg

@oztea I feel like there should be more dutch units.

@baron-Münchhausen

Sweet ! haven’t read it yet but i will. Just wanted to say you and @Black_Elk online at same time lol Awesome !

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  :-D

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  :wink:

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

@Black_Elk:

For what it’s worth I still think this HR mod is entertaining.

Which options did you play test YG?

Given all the input and ideas in this thread, I think its still worth kicking around.

I would submit than any balance issues could surely be corrected through National Objectives. Perhaps your suggested NOs for UK, did not provide enough to compensate for the inclusion of the Commonwealth?

Did you play option 2 (with South Africa)? Or just option 1?

I also like the limited cash haul concept

I have played both options and I have found that much of the Allied income is pushed to the outside on spawning locations far from the fighting. I now perfer a system where the UK Europe economy is it’s own nation separate from the UK Pacific economy… I also like combining ANZAC income and territories with UK Pacific (with Calcutta as it’s capital) in the same way Canadian income and territories are combined with UK Europe.