Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?

@Cmdr:

I would be concerned in allowing the UK to can open like that for the Americans.

What if the turn order ended:  USA >> Italy >> Germany (Germany being first in the turn order)?

That at least permits Italy to blitz some tanks from N. Italy into Denmark to save Germany’s arse at the last minute.

London is at risk, Calcutta is at risk, Moscow is at risk… Why shouldn’t Berlin and Rome be at risk?

How many players do you have? 3,4,5,6?

-Each player chooses a color and takes those units, roundels and tray.

-Everyone then rolls a die to determine order of play with highest going first etc…

-The first player to act will place a roundel on any territory or sea zone knowing that the G40 starting units for that space will belong to his faction.

-A player may choose any territory or sea zone in their turn during this process, and this will continue until all territories and sea zones with a G40 starting unit are claimed.

-Once all are claimed, each player will setup the board according to the G40 starting setup for the territories and sea zones they control.

-During their collect income phase including starting income, players will receive 5 IPCs per territory they control, and 2 IPCs per sea zone in which they have at least 1 sea unit.

-During the place new units phase, every controlled territory will be considered as having 1 minor IC on it.

-Once all players have placed all their units on the board according to the G40 starting setup and the territories and sea zones each player controls, they must place 4 factories each on 4 different territories they control.

-These factories must be spaced 1 per map board, meaning 1 on any territory you control on each of the four boards dividing the map. If you have no territory on the last Pacific board for example, you may place your factory on any territory you control regardless of location.

-These factories act as flags, if you capture 1 flag from each of your opponents… you have won the game.

-All other aspects of A&A G40 combat and turn sequence still apply.

Looking to try something different at the FMGCON this year, any thoughts on this idea?

Thanks �
�

Hi Tolstoj,

I’ve never played 1st Ed., so I have no insight upon the differences between the two editions. But in one of our games ‘Seelöwe’ was successful on G2 due to the errors of the British player in UK1.

There are several players who opt for a attack by Japan on J1. The sinking of the British BB is one argument. Personally I like to attack on J2 or J3 after my invasion forces are in position, so I’m able to capture the ‘treasure islands’ and Malaya in one single turn. (And in most cases one or two British and/or ANZAC transports can be sunk in addition.)

As Germany I prefer to launch ‘Barbarossa’ on my second turn. On G1 capture France, sink as many British ships as possible and weaken Yugoslavia by attacking it for one round of combat and then retreat to Romania (so Italy can finish her off).

@Baron:

Hope UK Pacific new turn order will help smooth the game flow.
Do you intend to merge it with ANZAC when you have less players around the table?

I don’t think so, the group loves the speed of the game with the separate UK nations… but they want something a little closer to oob rules. Also, it’s believed that the new victory objectives help balance the game the way a combined UK Pacific and ANZAC combo once did. It still needs a few tweeks to the NOs.

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.

Sorry everyone, I will need to push my deadline to another week, there is a lot involved in preparing the illustrator file to work in artscow. I will do everything I can to make these cards available to everyone here as soon as possible.

Yea, but its a capital full of civilians hostile to them.

Well, we finished Round 7 last night and here is the situation:
England is pretty much stuck on their island, although the Canadian factory is helping put destroyers in the water. UK’s factory and both bases are maxed out in damage.  Germany has surrounded Moscow and Stalingrad, both of which factories are also maxed out on damage.  Gotta love those SBRs.  Japan has taken all of China, Mongolia and eastern Russia.  Still no action in the Pacific or SE Asia as the Axis have been very careful not to provoke America, which is still neutral until next round.  America has built up a monsterous fleet, most of which is by the Philippines.  With that and the few ships out by Hawaii, I think they out number the Japanese fleet.  The Japs have gotten a few more warships, but had to mix that with land units to hit China, Russia and get ready to go after Allied positions.

America also has a modest fleet in the Atlantic but is stuck on the East Coast since London hasn’t fallen and nobody has attacked them.  Italy has swarmed all over Africa and the Middle East and is currently on Calcutta’s doorstep in West India.  Only British assets left are on the UK itself, Canada and SE Asia.  I’m afraid that by the time the USA can do anything, the Axis will have all the Victory Cities in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Unfortunately, my weekend is wrapping up.  Got to go back to work tonight.  We might squeeze in a round or two before going to work sometime this week, but more than likely this game will have to wait until next weekend, which for me is Mon/Tue nights.  I will post how it ends, but at this point I’m almost sure it will be an Axis victory, unless USA is able to pull a pretty big rabbit out of their hat.  I’m pretty sure Moscow will fall next round and after that will come Sealion.  Don’t think that UK will be able to do much to stop it either.