G40 Halifax Rules

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good to me! I think I will definitely give this one a go.

it seems consistent and well thought out, and also fairly simple to implement. The complexity it adds in one dimension, it more than makes up for by increasing simplicity and gameplay in many other dimensions. I favor the production rules and income/possession adjustments suggested above.

I’d hold out hope for South Africa and the 3 theater effect, but I suppose the 17/17 split is pretty convenient and fits rather well with the visual spread. And the point about the tracker and printed roundels does make sense. I will suggest this set up, and hope to play it with others willing to try something new on the G40 board.

Well done dude.

ps. Just as an aside with Delta, the Commonwealth aid bonus card is sufficiently well worded, that the advantage outlined therein could still count for the Commonwealth player/nation (even though it is UK drawing the card.) I kind of dig that, since it gets the dominions a pretty nice north american strategic advantage. Like a Canadian power up!  :-D

Leaves you south Africa under effective UK control in the case of the card mentioned, so UK still gets a bump from it, but it’d definitely be fun for the Commonwealth player to have that North American punch.

I think I still favor referring to the new joint Anzac+Canada player/nation as the Commonwealth Dominions, since Dominions sounds pretty cool as an alternative shorthand for the faction, and could work for the dominions of Canada and Australia at the time (minus south Africa, Eire etc. just for simplicity sake to keep the 17/17 split)

From the perspective of a potential stand alone Dominions player, it might be fun to have south Africa under their own control, but from an overall game balance and simplicity of implementation standpoint it is likely much better for this territory to be under direct British control. UK needs the anchor factory in the center south, to maintain naval control along the bottom of the board, more than Anzac+Canada would. So I think on balance, the 17/17 thing comes out on top for me. Its just cleaner, even if it doesn’t really encompass the entirety of the commonwealth.

Acronym suggestions for shorthand:
CW Commonwealth
CAnzac Canada and Australia New Zealand (Army Core)
CWD Commonwealth Dominions
Do-CAnzac: Dominions of Canada and Australia New Zealand

Do CAnzac! heheh

Come on you know this 2nd ed board was meant for this to happen! ;)

[WILD BILL]

This is a nice addition to the G40 game for those of us that want a bit more out of it. It looks like this will allow for both powers to support each other much better, w/o allowing for a mega power to toss all income into one facility. This will give the UK Empire more freedom w/o over powering it. Really looking forward to testing it out.

I like the thought of the New Commonwealth (CAnzac) being able to combine income to be more relevant as they see fit. I also like how the UK keeps Africa, and can directly support India (w/limited production). The new mid level production center (India) is something that I thought the game lacked from the get-go, and probably should have been looked at better through the Alpha process.

***One additional thought to consider is that capital ships can’t be built at a minor IC. Not sure if it came up when you were developing this proposal. It would help self limit area’s where the big boats can be dropped (must be a home territory). The minor ICs would still be able to build support ships (cruisers, destroyers, subs, and transports). Lets face it we have all exploited minor facilities to build carriers at one time or another.

If you want to build carriers or battleships in Canada, Sidney, S Africa etc……you still can, but you must upgrade to a major IC (for 10 IPCs). UK would still be able to build capital ships in India, but probably not if London is threatened, or Japan is pressing hard on Calcutta (I can live with that). Would also stop Germany or Japan from ever dropping capital ships in conquered territories (like French ICs or Chinese coasts). This would also stop powers like US from taking over say Norway or the French coastal IC’s and dropping capital ships. Speaking of the US, I’m assuming the US probably starts the game with the mid level major IC’s that will auto upgrade when at war (5 production will help some in the Pac). If you go with no capital ships built at minor IC, the US won’t be effected then.

Anyway YG, thanks for this is an overdue addition, please comment

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

This is a nice addition to the G40 game for those of us that want a bit more out of it. It looks like this will allow for both powers to support each other much better, w/o allowing for a mega power to toss all income into one facility. This will give the UK Empire more freedom w/o over powering it. Really looking forward to testing it out.

I like the thought of the New Commonwealth (CAnzac) being able to combine income to be more relevant as they see fit. I also like how the UK keeps Africa, and can directly support India (w/limited production). The new mid level production center (India) is something that I thought the game lacked from the get-go, and probably should have been looked at better through the Alpha process.

***One additional thought to consider is that capital ships can’t be built at a minor IC. Not sure if it came up when you were developing this proposal. It would help self limit area’s where the big boats can be dropped (must be a home territory). The minor ICs would still be able to build support ships (cruisers, destroyers, subs, and transports). Lets face it we have all exploited minor facilities to build carriers at one time or another.

If you want to build carriers or battleships in Canada, Sidney, S Africa etc……you still can, but you must upgrade to a major IC (for 10 IPCs). UK would still be able to build capital ships in India, but probably not if London is threatened, or Japan is pressing hard on Calcutta (I can live with that). Would also stop Germany or Japan from ever dropping capital ships in conquered territories (like French ICs or Chinese coasts). This would also stop powers like US from taking over say Norway or the French coastal IC’s and dropping capital ships. Speaking of the US, I’m assuming the US probably starts the game with the mid level major IC’s that will auto upgrade when at war (5 production will help some in the Pac). If you go with no capital ships built at minor IC, the US won’t be effected then.

Anyway YG, thanks for this is an overdue addition, please comment

Great idea Wild Bill, here are the revisions I made (I’ve added strategic bombers)…

Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Replaces all Major ICs in the initial setup
Capable of building all units
May not be purchased

Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
New unit which replaces all Minor ICs in the initial setup
Capable of building all units
May not be purchased, or upgraded

Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
Incapable of building capital ships and/or strategic bombers
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs (must be the original owner of the territory)

[WILD BILL]

Nice, I like strats added as well

[Young Grasshopper]

Hey Black Elk, thanks for the support, I to am excited to play with these house rules… your opinions and comments are always needed. Seeing as these are collaborative ideas, I would hate for this to be called “Grasshopper’s ___________”, any ideas to help me avoid this?

[Black_Elk]

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

[Krieghund]

This is going in an interesting direction.  The idea of limiting the units that a minor IC can produce was actually brought up during playtesting, but it was obviously not introduced into the game.  I believe at the time it was suggested that minor ICs could only build units costing 10 IPCs or less, which is pretty much what WILD BILL suggested here, with the exception of cruisers.  (Interestingly, getting Improved Shipyards would allow you to build cruisers at a minor IC under those conditions.)

I have a question.  Your rules say that a Major Factory can never be upgraded to an Industrial Complex, but they also say that a captured Industrial Complex is downgraded to a Minor Factory.  Does that mean that if a power loses an Industrial Complex and recaptures it that it can never again be anything more than a Major Factory from then on, regardless of who controls it?  If so, this is an interesting rule, and it certainly gives you even more incentive to keep from losing your capital.

[Young Grasshopper]

Correct, a territory which had an Industrial Complex downgraded due to capture, may never contain anything greater than a major factory for the rest of the game.

I believe the idea you mentioned above in contrast to Wild Bill’s would also exclude tactical bombers.

Any additions or subtractions you may have to improve these ideas Krieghund would be greatly appreciated.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

[knp7765]

@Young:

Correct, a territory which had an Industrial Complex downgraded due to capture, may never contain anything greater than a major factory for the rest of the game.

This really makes sense to me from a realistic point of view. Say you have a territory with a big Industrial Complex on it. An enemy force attacks and conquers the territory. Then you send in a force to take it back.
With two large battles, that territory is now devastated. Being one of your original territories, you would have the proper resources to restore the minor factory back up to a major factory. After all, you would be more familiar with the area and where the proper materials would be and the local populace would speak your language.
However, the war is still ongoing and as stated, the area is in worse shape than it was during peacetime so you can’t really reinstate a large industrial complex there. Let’s face it, during war some things and abilities will simply be lost and not recoverable.
As for a conquering power, this territory is foreign to you and you would be lucky to be able to reinstate even a Minor factory there. The people here don’t speak your language and they are probably hostile toward you, thus not so willing to help you find the materials needed to construct a major factory. Possible sabotage would be a concern as well.
Also, while we use “factory” pieces for convenience of the game, a Minor Factory wouldn’t necessarily mean an actual production facility but perhaps more of a shipping port or strong beach head where you could be receiving supplies, weapons and new troops to send to the front. For example, when the Allies occupied France and much of Western Europe, they had a lot of Sherman tanks flowing into the theater, but they didn’t actually make those Sherman tanks at a factory located there in Western Europe. They were made back in the States and shipped to Western Europe.
Could you imagine trying to play this game without using the factories? The Allies would never be able to establish a beach head in Europe. Unless you could say that the beach head or ports were available to use upon capture and able to “produce” next turn.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

@Black_Elk:

I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

Not sure, maybe Black_Elk who suggested the name is from there, I myself like it because it sounds like a code name… like “operation Halifax”

[Black_Elk]

Haha I’m actually from San Francisco, (I was thinking about it last night and there was a big 6.1 earthquake!). For some reason the name jumped out at me, since I kind of view this series of rules as a way to sneak Canada into the mix (with a simple and elegant mechanism, by joining them up with the Anzac faction). Here, this charming old timey film clip from the era might do a better job of explaining than I can…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkbaKvRQ4K4#t=134

Basically its a major Atlantic port city that served as a hub for North American war material shipped over for the defense of Britain during the conflicts of the early 20th century.

But yeah, I just thought it had a cool sounding ring to it  :-D

For whatever reason it always seems like the secret code name type titles always want to stick. It’s the enigmatic nature the thing I guess. Just a shorthand for a series of minor tweaks taken together that players like.  Comes out of the old classic type names I guess, that never really explained what they did but instead used normandy invasion code words hehe

These rules are clearly destined to Rock!
Poseidon “the earthshaker” approves! ;)

Nice work

[Young Grasshopper]

Great story about the earthquake, let’s hope these rules send shock waves. I also like the name because I’m Canadian and have been to Halifax… Awesome city.

[Slovenehero]

Excellent work. Have tested this with proficient G40 2nd ed. players and works a treat !

We decided to include cruisers as capital ships as far as minor IC production is concerned. Also USA is allowed to build on Philippines - was this intended ? Great job nonetheless.

[WILD BILL]

Nice to see players using “Halifax”.

I think cruisers could go either way for production at minor IC’s. The navies that are represented by the new CAnzac power did have a handful of cruisers, and set-up gives them a cruiser (sz63). I know these ships were built at UK shipyards. Some were ordered and paid for by the Commonwealth Navies, others re-commissioned to them. The cruiser in this game isn’t purchased to often (whole debate about cruisers vs destroyers), so I don’t see much of a problem allowing this newly merged power to build them to give them a little bite.

With that said I could also see also players house ruling the production abilities of all three ICs. If this was the case though some of the starting minors would probably need to be upgraded at set-up.

Maybe this, or some variation:

Minor builds units up to 8 IPCs: Inf, art, mech, tank, AA, destroyer, transport.

Major builds units up to 12 IPC: adding cruisers, ftr, tac, bombers

IC builds all units

BTW the Phil doesn’t start with production ability, and as an island can’t be added either.

Here is a site that list the individual allied navies

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/

[Young Grasshopper]

Wild Bill,

Players will always house rule house rules, but if someone like Krieghund were to officially support or endorse this, then I would lock this thread as to not change what has been approved and call it Alpha+4  :-D. With that said and after much thought, the only change I’m making today is to explain production from a minor factory being any units that cost 10 IPCs or less. I like it because it’s easier and cleaner to explain without listing all units that can’t be built by a minor, and I also like the idea of listing Krieghund as a contributor to the development of Halifax rules. You are still credited as a developer of this game mechanic because if not for you sharing your idea, Krieghund would maybe never have come here to share his own (which was pretty much the same idea as yours with a small twist).

[General Veers]

I love the additional historical flavor this adds, and gives ANZAC some punch in the Pacific. I do wish Western Canada were 2 IPC so it could have a minor factory. Could launch ships and air from there to help out the US in the North Pacific.

[WILD BILL]

Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

Like I said the cruiser in my mind could have gone either way. The Commonwealth didn’t have the shipyards to produce the larger ships, but acquired a few from other means (mostly from UK).

I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units. This is somewhat of a testament of what they had at the start of the war, how their own production abilities grew as the war progressed, and what the UK commissioned to them along the way (or could have). Yeah, they may not have been able to build a heavy cruiser or even an escort carrier, but many of the battle groups were formed by multiple nations. The game doesn’t allow for multiple nations to attack together, so allowing the CAnzac power to have them if they invest is a good compromise.

Canada built a lot of aircraft (including bmrs), and ended up with the 4th largest navy in the world at wars end although it was comprised of mostly of smaller vessels, and escort ships. This mechanism allows for this.

PS YG just a clarification.

When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

“May not be purchased, or upgraded”

I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

Is the intent of  “May not be purchased” under major to force a 2 stage build-up, or was it simply an oversight? Maybe you don’t want a power to drop 22 IPCs in one turn to build a major (which would be pretty cool BTW if they couldn’t)

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

No problem… and I may agree with you about the Alpha+4 bit, I may even be treading in copyright waters.

I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units.

Not sure, but you may have misread the intended rules which say that all original minor industrial complexes in the initial setup become major factories. Therefore Canada and ANZAC both have major factories that can produce up to 5 units of any type to begin the game.

PS YG just a clarification.

When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

“May not be purchased, or upgraded”

I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

Yes, in order to have a major factory on a territory like Egypt, the UK must first build a minor factory, and then upgrade it to a major during their next turn. I will edit the rules to better clarify this.