This is what we do in game. Each neutral has a territory value and some kind of army and a few ships. You can attack them if you want. But u need to capture each neutral territory to get icp income.
If you lose battle then just that lone neutral joins other side.
But we also have a cost to try and influence a strict neutral to your side and you receive the territory value towards income and what is there for the ground troops and a possible ship. Nothing stronger than a Destroyer.
Not all countries can influence the same neutrals. We roll a d20 and a 4 or less u get neutral.
This is just an idea u may look at.
Spain and Turkey have the biggest Amy but cost more for those 2 to try and get.
New Custom Map Project
-
I changed my mind about the blowup boxes. You can always use task force cards or anything really to set your units down on and then you don’t have to permanently mark up your map with the blowup boxes. In the game I’m playing now I’m using a set of coasters from HGB that has each nation’s symbols on them. They’re very cheap and the perfect size to use for a blowup box. It also looks kind of cool too.
-
YG,
I voted for IPC changes on the map. My particular interest is Russia.
My opinion may not sway anyone, but as a US Army Logistics officer, I never liked how Japan can march all the way across Pacific board Russia to help Germany get Moscow (by lowering their IPCs for unit purchases). I don’t believe this feat possible in real life. I understand this is a game. But please consider how territories end up being too much like the board game Risk, where every territory is the same, no terrain features, and infrastructure development is taken into consideration…ect.
One person, I think Black_ Elk said for you to start with all territories having a value of 1. I’m of the opposite opinion. I think only coastal Russian territories on the Pacific board should have a 1 IPC value. Eastern Russia is mostly just wilderness. How many resources were really extracted back then in the middle of that tundra? Probably not a whole lot. The eastern Russian territories other than the coastal ones should all be 0 in my humble opinion in order to lower the incentive for Japan to march across northern Russia.
The 6 IPC values taken from the Pacific board would then be added to European Russian Territories. My opinion for the distribution would be 1 extra to Leningrad, 1 to Stalingrad, 1 to the Urals, 1 to Bryansk, and 2 to Russia.
Germany may gain a few extra IPCs while marching towards Moscow, but now Russia may only face losing their pacific board 3 IPCs (coastal territories) as a Japanese player may not go further.
-
You could also go the other way with the income as well. Move the 6 infantry from Buryatia to Siberia or disperse them to the west and make Buryatia an impassable zone. Take the IPC’s from Buryatia, Yakut, Yenisey, and Evenkiyskiy. With that you could double each of the territories value to the east of the impassable zone. With the 18 infantry and 2 AAA the Russians could hold off the Japanese for a few turns anyway. In a bizarre game where Germany sucks the big one Russia could build a minor factory over there because the IPC value would allow it. I don’t see that happening against good competition though.
There has to be a great deal of natural resources in that area that Japan could utilize in their war effort since their island nation has limited resources. The reason they went to war with America was because of the embargo that kept them from getting fuel for their war machine against China and Southeast Asia. Doing that would turn the Mongolians against them but that wouldn’t be the end of the world, so it would still be unlikely that they would attack Eastern Russia but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do it to secure resources (IPC’s). The only impossible thing they couldn’t have done was skate an army all the way to Moscow from the Pacific Coast. If they are still hell bent on getting to Moscow they could go through China or violate the strict neutrality of Mongolia with the consequences that go along with doing so.
If you take everything away from Siberia you would be rendering a large part of the map as useless as South America is in G40. I think we could find a way of making it somewhat relevant without completely suspending our belief in reality.
-
Well to be clear, my long standing position is that Industrial Production Capacity is just a poor way to characterize the basic game points in use.
:-DI understand that Larry wanted to connect his game points to the real world in some sort of meaningful way, but it just isn’t executed very well in many instances. The discrepancies with relative value are all over the place.
As long as we hold to the idea that the game points must reflect real world industry in a 1:1 way, we’re going to keep coming up against this issue. The issue where the game’s internal economy doesn’t align with the needs of the gameplay, but can’t be changed because that would break with the supposed historical reality. A reality which isn’t accurate anyway, but which is made entirely inflexible by the proposed definition of the game points as IPCs in the first place. I just don’t see a good way to resolve the issue in a consistant or satisfactory way, until you ditch the problematic definition, because the rigid definition is what’s hamstringing us.
I think there are a number of ways we could approach the Russian backdoor problem, but my gripe with the IPC system at large, is more foundational. I would like to see a situation where we can use them as generic “carrots” to encourage historical play patterns, without having to worry about how that connects (or fails to connect) to things like natural resources or population or whatever.
In fairness, the logistical challenge of the Japanese getting to Moscow via the China route would have been equally improbable. All those Chinese spaces are currently worth 1 ipc, regardless of whether it’s a larger population center along a river or some backwater desert province in the far west. Taken all together, unoccupied China is worth more than the United Kingdom. It’s just kind of hard for me to take it all that seriously, which is why I prefer a system that gets away from the strict definition of IPCs in favor of something more abstract and easy to adjust on the fly, according to the specific needs of the board in various places.
-
I think there are a number of ways we could approach the Russian backdoor problem, but my gripe with the IPC system at large, is more foundational. I would like to see a situation where we can use them as generic “carrots” to encourage historical play patterns, without having to worry about how that connects (or fails to connect) to things like natural resources or population or whatever.
Regardless of what the IPCs stand for – whether they’re just regarded as abstract game points or whether they reflect real-world economics – their current structure discourages historical play patterns when it comes to Japan. The non-coastal Russian territories on the Pacific side of the map have IPC values of 1, and the central Pacific islands have IPC values of 0. This (combined with Moscow’s reachability by Japan as a high-value joint Axis target) encourages Japan to direct its war effort westward by land towards Moscow (the direction in which Japan did not go historically) rather than eastward by sea towards Hawaii (the direction in which Japan did go historically). It would make more sense if the IPCs were reversed, with most of the Russian territories being dropped to zero and the central Pacific islands being raised to 1. The Chinese provinces of the deep interior could likewise be dropped to 0, as a further disincentive for Japan to head westward. Japan never got more that about one-quarter or one-third of the way into China in WWII, and likewise did not view China as being an alternate route for reaching Moscow.
-
So you don’t think that would hurt Japan in the long run. ? That would be something worth seeing where some islands are worth 2 icps.
-
Of course it could hurt Japan. But on the flip side if Japan snags more islands real quick and has the position to hold onto them for awhile it could help them gain the upper hand whichever direction they’re going. In reverse of course, if the US and ANZAC get the islands then it will naturally help them beat back Japan.
-
I do agree now that I am thinking about it more. Seems like more pressure on India.
-
@SS:
That would be something worth seeing where some islands are worth 2 icps.
This concept for a 2-IPC island value would actually fit nicely with the idea of stripping the interior Chinese provinces of their 1-IPC value, in the same way that the Russian non-coastal eastern territories would be stripped of their 1-IPC value.
-
I’m playing a new G40 game and I think I will put this idea in game and try it. But still put in any planes that want to land on islands must have at least an airstrip on it.
But game starts with some airbases and naval bases but you can’t buy any during game.
Can buy airstrips only. Cost is 5 icp’s. -
Ichabod, I will take your ideas to my game. As far as China I will have an answer soon. From now on I will be discussing my game and changes in a new thread.
-
Just as a quick back-of-the-envelope kind of thing, I’ve had a look at the current IPC values of the Russian and Chinese territories that seem (at first glance) to be the most likely candidates for a 1-IPC drop, and at the Japanese and American islands that seem (at first glance) to be the most likely candidates for a 2-IPC boost, just to see whether the swapped IPCs add up properly.
The current values are:
-
Buryatia (1 IPC)
-
Evenkiyskiy (1 IPC)
-
Kazakhstan (1 IPC)
-
Novosibirsk (1 IPC)
-
Sakha (1 IPC)
-
Timguska (1 IPC)
-
Urals (1 IPC)
-
Yakut S.S.R. (1 IPC)
-
Yenisey (1 IPC)
Total: 9 IPCs -
Anhwe (1 IPC)
-
Chahar (1 IPC)
-
Hunan (1 IPC)
-
Hopei (1 IPC)
-
Kansu (1 IPC)
-
Kweichow (1 IPC)
-
Shensi (1 IPC)
-
Sikang (1 IPC)
-
Suiyuyan (1 IPC)
-
Tsinghai (1 IPC)
Total: 10 IPCs
(Note that I didn’t downgrade Yunnan or Szechwan because their connection to the Burma Road gives them special importance) -
Caroline Islands (0 IPC)
-
Iwo Jima (1 IPC)
-
Formosa (1 IPC)
-
Marianas (0 IPC)
-
Marshall Islands (0 IPC)
-
Okinawa (1 IPC)
-
Paulau Island (0 IPC)
Total: 3 IPCs -
Guam (0 IPC)
-
Hawaiian Islands (1 IPC)
-
Johnston Island (0 IPC)
-
Line Islands (0 IPC)
-
Midway (0 IPC)
-
Philippines (2 IPC)
-
Wake Island (0 IPC)
Total: 3 IPCs
If we drop all the Russian and Chinese territories I’ve listed to 0 IPCs, this liberates 19 IPCs for distribution to the Japanese and American islands I’ve listed, of which there are 14. This would translate into a boost of 1 IPC for 9 of the 14 islands, and a boost of 2 IPCs for 5 out of the 14 islands.
In fairness, Formosa and the Line Islands could probably be tossed from the list, since they saw little action in WWII. On the other hand, the Gilbert Islands, New Britain and the Solomon Islands should probably be added to the list, since they were the scene of either heavy direct fighting or (in the case of New Britain) a large-scale, long-duration blockade.
-
-
Nice work CWO Marc… this will be helpful for sure.
-
Yes Thank You
-
@Young:
Nice work CWO Marc… this will be helpful for sure.
Thanks. It’s just a starting point for discussion, of course, with severeal rough edges; for example, the list of Chinese provinces to be downgraded may be too large, and there’s also the unaddressed question of which islands would get a 2-IPC boost as opposed to just a 1-IPC boost.
-
Now, China would be losing 3 IPCs worth of money = 1 less infantry purchase. So what about a special peasant ability?
Perhaps the closest historical parallel would be to give China a single special extra unit (based in Shensi) representing Mao’s Communists, who historically – when they weren’t making plans to resume their civil war with Chiang once WWII was over – gave the Japanese an appreciable amount of trouble as a guerilla force, notably during their Hundred Regiments Offensive. This special extra A&A unit could be sort of a ChiCom equivalent to the single American Flying Tiger unit that the rules allocate to China.
-
That idea has a lot to recommend it. The worthless islands are the areas most people want to see activated with a value anyway.
Of course stripping those interior Asian territories will nerf Russia on income, which might still prove problematic for the Allies during the opening rounds. I would offset it with a simple objective bonus attached to Soviet territories, where fighting actually occurred, along the front with Germany.
For China you could revert to an AA50 style unit spawn, or do a ChiCom thing, or both.
If increasing the pacific islands beyond a 1 ipc doesn’t grab you, then an alternative to 2 ipcs islands, would be to give some of the med tiles a value, for more sand and sea action.
-
Good points, Black Elk, and a good solution might be as follows. The table that I posted earlier today was meant to see what kind of numbers we’d be playing with if we opted for an “IPC neutral” redistribution, in which the total number of IPCs on the board remained unchanged. One point that I noticed at the time, and commented on, was that there wouldn’t be enough IPCs to boost all the islands to the same degree (though that might not be a bad thing, since not all islands were equally valuable to the war effort of the nations involved). However, one point that I failed to consider (even though in retrospect it looks glaringly obvious) was that stripping the USSR and China of IPCs in certain territories (as a disincentive to Japan) would lower the Russian and Chinese incomes to such a degree that compensation might be required to keep things balanced. The solution might therefore be to move away from an “IPC neutral” redistribution model. The mainly-wilderness interior parts of Russia and China would still be stripped of their IPCs, and those IPCs would still be reallocated to various Pacific islands, but a few entirely new IPCs would also be created. Some of these new IPCs would be allocated to certain Pacific islands that didn’t get enough of a boost from the redistribution, and some would go to a few key Russian and Chinese territories. In Russia’s case, these would be somewhere on the Europe side of the map (where, as Ichabod has noted, major components of the Soviet economy were located). In China’s case, two good candidates (and there may be others) for boosting would be the two territories I’ve mentioned already in connection with the Burma Road: Yunnan and Szechwan. Both could get a boost, and Szechwan in particular could get a larger boost than Yunnan because that’s (on the A&A map) roughly the location of China’s wartime capital, Chunking, which Japan was sufficiently obsessed about that it became one of the most-bombed places on Earth. Another notable (and thus boostable) Chinese territory that I’ve mentioned would be Shensi, which is roughly where Mao’s forces ended up after the Long March.
-
I really wonder how much YG is going to pay attention to our comments here…also, apologies if I comment too much. But even if any of my “ideas” (which have been borrowed from others too) are not included, I will buy his new G40 board if its constructed and reasonably priced. I’m not rich, LOL!
I like CWO Marc’s idea just posted for the Chinese territories of relocating additional IPC values to other Chinese territories if zeroing out the regions bordering Russia…good idea.
I’m still advocating stripping Russian Pac side non-coastal territories to zero, and putting those 6 IPCs redistributed as such:
1-Leningrad
1-Urals
1-Bryansk
1-Stalingrad
1-Russia
Doing this I think takes away from having to discuss fixing an IPC imbalance. Russia gets the same and still gets to collect those additional IPCs for about the same amount of turns as if they were being gobbled up by Japan. Instead, they could get gobbled up by Germany, but the Axis still collectively only can gain the same amount of IPCs. In this case, less to Japan, but more to Germany.In regards to the island IPC changes; several different ways someone could go about this. In particular I’m an advocate of adding 2 IPCs each to the Guineas. Those 4 IPCs also would coincide with ANZAC’s +5 NO bonus. So now we’re talking about a larger IPC swing. It might be worth it for Japan and US/ANZAC players to really fight over them. Japan occupied/attacked them during WWII. And then the Allies liberated them in the course of the actual war. But how often does a Japanese player really go for the Guineas as an objective during a table top game? I’m really curious what you guys think about this those islands in particular?
https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2013/09/09/remembering-war-new-guinea/
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-coral-sea
Also, I think almost all islands on the board need a higher value; especially if a battle was fought there (like Crete). Even Sicily and Sardinia on the European board should be worth 1 IPC I think. The Allies almost invaded Sardinia, Sicily was. Crete had a huge battle in the early war. ANZAC forces came close to beating the Germany parachute troopers. ANZAC forces on Crete fought very well…if they knew the overall situation (that us armchair generals know), then it would have been the first German defeat in the war against western forces.
Other islands I think need a higher value. Iwo Jima due to it’s strategic location for bombing raids on Japan. Obviously that rock isn’t worth resources…so maybe I’m wrong here…just thought that it would be better if Japan had to defend an island like that or Okinawa. Again, for whatever island is increased for Japan, do the same for the allies side.
Also, if some islands scattered throughout the Pacific add too many IPC extras for one side or another, perhaps there could be a rule where the allies or Japanese forces would have to literally land a ground unit to in order to “activate” that IPC. Any thoughts on this idea?
-
On the subject of Russia’s stripped eastern IPCs going to western Russia rather than to the Pacific islands: in a sense it’s meaningless to say that the specific IPCs from specific territory X should be ressigned to territory Y as opposed to territory Z because all IPCs are the same. Nor does it really matter whether IPCs are reassigned in an IPC-neutral way overall, or whether new IPCs need to be created and added to the game map overall, except to the extent that the second method would allow for greater map modifications than the first method. In practical terms, all that really matters are three things: which territories have their IPC value go down (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); which territories have their IPC value go up (and by how many IPCs, if applicable); and whether these modifications raise or lower and have no effect on the number of IPCs that each power starts out with.
On the subject of all islands everywhere being boosted: the Russia/China/Pacific IPC modifications mentioned above were intended to solve a specific problem: discouraging Japan from carrying out a historically inaccurate (and physically improbable) offensive drive against Moscow via eastern Russia or China, and encouraging Japan to focus its attention instead on the Asia/Pacific theatre (which is where its attention was in WWII and should be in the game). The same technique could in principle be used to boost (or lower) the values of other territories that have nothing to do with the Russia/China/Pacific problem, if those other territories were considered to be sufficiently problematic, but I don’t know if the islands on the Europe side of the map are problematic to the same extent as the Russia/China/Pacific situation.
Suggested Topics
