G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

In practical terms its not that difficult to alter the number of VCs, or to go with a Victory Territory scheme (or even change individual territory values via NOs), all that can be achieved with rules wording.

For me, with the VC issue, it’s more about finding a working alternative to sudden death. For those who like sudden death, the main goal is usually just a VC spread that allows for a win at some level without requiring Moscow/London or Berlin/Tokyo. Though that still strikes me as mainly a tournament thing, or a quick game thing. Any number of total VCs in sudden death, will still come down to a single VC do or die situation.

My thought would be a universal system that makes VC capture something on the order of a mini capital capture. Something that will really motivate a VC oriented play pattern throughout, rather than just as a feature of the endgame.

Even if 1942.2 is decidedly less popular than G40, something tells me it will be easier to go from the smaller board to the larger board, than the other way round. If only because the challenge on the smaller board is more pronounced. Probably why I keep drifting into that discussion, despite the title of the thread.
:-D

Barney has a pretty extensive doc going on units and some other features discussed in this thread for G40, but it’s not fully complete yet for some other HRs. We will definitely want a doc for those too.

Some things are easy to achieve in tripleA with a single add tech edit at the start of the match. Others might require more active editing while the game is ongoing, or certain things by player agreement/player enforced. I’m kind of holding off until the gamefiles are complete for G40 and 1942.2, to see which of these might be handled by a general wording for both boards, or which might need to be implemented slightly differently for each.

There are also some unit options in the gamefile which are more experimental than others, included more for flexible playtesting or proof of concept, but which don’t necessarily port easily onto the table top. It would be easier for example to add extra VCs with a marker or token FtF, than it would be to get new sculpts for each nation. So allowing for one, it would be hard to dismiss the other as impractical.

I tend to favor stuff right now that doesn’t alter the physical characteristics of the map, unless it is very simple to represent graphically (like with a marker.) People who want to design new maps, either printable or in tripleA, have several options for that. But I think many would like a way to use the official materials, that doesn’t require a trip to the printers or downloading new map files, or buying a bunch of new sculpts. So I’d still take the OOB map/roster as the basis for my recommended HR “settings,” even if many other options are available for those who want to pursue a more radical overhaul.
:-D

Also, not to throw a new can of worms onto the table mid conversation, but…

What do you guys think about using the Kamikazi graphics/tokens to represent something other than just Kamikazi attacks?

The island territories in Kamakazi zones, especially Marianas, Iwo, Okinawa, Formosa, are not particularly well served by having yet another reason for the Allies to avoid them. Seems to me that a better use for these materials (which are included in the box) would be to create some kind of Pacific campaign bonus around them. Not that one needs to remove the Kamikazi feature per se, just that it would kind of make sense if the Allies (and the US in particular) had a clear gameplay incentive to control these sea zones/associated islands.

They are already unattractive targets OOB, and the Kamakazi attacks just make them even more unattractive, with no real trade off for the Allies.

Any thoughts?

@SS Yeah, something along those lines is what I was thinking. Right now Kamakazi attacks aren’t a big feature of the gameplay, mainly because the US just avoids those zones whenever possible. I think the idea is novel, to acknowledge this aspect of the Japanese final defense, but just wasn’t implemented in a way that encourages the conditions necessary for the mechanic to be commonly used.

On the factories, I think any of those 3 solutions is workable. Another alternative to marking up a control roundel, is to simply place a die on the territory with its value facing up, since most will be under d6.

My preference for the +2 idea is that it activates more territories on the map, without requiring additional materials or special treatment, and leaves production expansion more at the players discretion. I think it comes down to whether you are more interested in introducing money or just production capacity. It also allows you to try other things, such as restricting the bonus only if the factory is under control of the territory’s original owner. Or you could cap the bonus in other ways, restricting it just to infantry etc. Some of the lower value territories such as Caucasus, Karelia, India, Italy etc might end up more balanced under such conditions, since taking pressure off still requires the investment of resources.

From an initial map design standpoint, I think direct adjustment to ipc values would have been simpler. But for a redesign of the existing map, I think this may be somewhat less appealing visually.

The inclusion of a minor factory or some other kind of army base that spawns infantry, certainly seems doable to me.

In general I think the game is more entertaining if you allow more entry points for new units, rather than fewer (which seems to be the trend on the recent boards.)

Ps. Also, just to clarify, the +2 idea was suggested as is, because that particular tech basically already exists in both games haha. So pretty simple to get it working. All you’d have to do in tripleA is remove the line that restricts these advanced factories to starting territories worth 3 ipcs or more, so they can be placed wherever. Then assign the tech to everyone via edit mode.

Yeah I think that would be pretty simple. Probably the easiest solution though, is just to create a new unit called army base, that does exactly this (produces infantry and nothing else).

Then if you wanted to assign a starting army base to all territories with an existing Industrial Complex you could, or you could only give it to certain select territories with starting ICs as part of a set up mod, or just leave it as a purchase option. And if someone wants to build one in India or Caucasus or wherever they could do so, but you don’t necessarily need to mod the set up, just the purchase roster.

Yeah I used many different riffs on that rule in AA50.

I think attaching some moderate amount money, or some kind of basic infantry production capacity to VCs is a pretty simple way to make those territories more significant to the gameplay. But it still doesn’t really create the kind of conditions that would allow them to surpass Capital Capture as the main driver in a game played to concession. To get closer to that I think you need some kind of looting based on VCs, or an economic bonus/penalty that scales based on the total number gained/lost.

For a sudden death game they work reasonably well OOB, but the problem is that sudden death just isn’t a very popular way to play. Often times, it pulls the rug out from under the game, at precisely the point when things are starting to get interesting. Also ceates situations with the turn order, where it’s often too late (by the time one side realizes that the game is about to end), to do anything about it. I think the main reason that happens OOB, is because VCs don’t do anything to the gameplay (other than just ending the game) so people aren’t really encouraged to pay close enough attention to what’s happening with them on a turn by turn basis. They only come into play once one side realizes they’re behind the 8 ball, or within striking distance of a win. Often this happens mid-round, but, the game being what it is, it usually takes longer than a single round to set anything up in response. It’s a bit like chess, if you skipped over check straight to checkmate. No red flags in the OOB gameplay mechanics, to indicate that one side is about to take the game, until it’s already past the point of no return.

In that respect, pretty much anything would better than nothing, even if it was just a single infantry unit or even a single ipc Though I like the idea that the closer you get to the “win” the more influential indivudal VCs become to the overall economy.

Yeah it should be included. Baring some kind of crazy hang up, it will likely make the grade.

I like the idea since it can be used in G40, 1942.2, and even 1941

Military Base:
+3 purchased infantry
can be placed anywhere
can be bombed
Cost 15

Basically just like the other bases.

I’d probably go with Military Base over Army Base for a name, if only for the simple abbreviation.

MB

So if people like the abilities for the Military Base, and only the relative cost is in question that seems an easy fix to me. Maybe just drop it to 12 ipcs?

I do worry that anything too low might be overpowered. The whole game comes down to pushing hitpoints. So allowing players to introduce 3 more hitpoints anywhere on the map is pretty significant. It’s 3 per turn once purchased, so that can add up pretty quickly, in some regions. Especially if, as with all the other bases, they can be stacked onto a territory with a Minor IC. We also don’t want it to totally undercut the transport in value/significance.

My suggestion of 15 ipcs was just for parity with the other OOB bases. And to prevent an all out spam (esp. by Japan/Germany). Though I admit 15 seems high for all bases, I would have preferred 12 as the baseline cost.
:-D

But if you want you could have an add tech option “cheap bases” that reduces the cost of all bases by some set amount, like 3 ipcs cheaper to build. (This would drop the cost of the AB/NB from 15 to 12, and drop the MB from 12 to 9.)

Or an add tech option “auto-destroy bases” that removes them on conquest. To help prevent a spam.

Or maybe come up with a secondary ability that somehow makes the 15 ipc price tag for the Military Base easier to swallow? The other two base types each have 2 abilities. Though I’m struggling right now to think of what else a Military Base might do. We’d need an ability that basically already exists, since new abilities are pretty hard to introduce into tripleA. Though honestly 3 hitpoints is pretty powerful all by itself, I don’t know that it really needs a second ability to be compelling.

I’m not hardline though. I suppose I’d rather have it too cheap, than too expensive, since I’m interested in how it might be used to rebalance certain regions of the map for staging.

Just imagining how the Med and North Africa might look, or the Mid East, or the PTO islands, or the Soviet Far East etc.  Even the theaters that are currently the most active, might become more interesting. There are a lot more TTs on the Eastern Front at a value of 0/1 than 2. A territory like Normandy or Southern France might be more interesting as Allies if you had the option to add 3 more hitpoints (each turn) beyond what the Minor can produce, with an MB purchase to support it.

Clearly Japan would be dangerous on the mainland, but the Allies would have alternative ways to support the India IC with hitpoints, since there are more viable territories for MBs in the area than there are for Minor Factories (and the MB buy could reinforce a Minor Factory purchase too, bringing a territory like Persia up from 3 to 6 hitpoints per turn.) I see a lot of options there. I think the US has the most to gain from this idea though, since they have the longest distances to cross, the fewest number of viable locations for Minor factories, and the greatest logisitcal challenge in drawing up reinforcements. So I think they would be able to really utilize an MB, which also seems somehow fitting.