Thank you for taking the time to explain.
G40 Halifax Rules
-
@CWO:
@Young:
Of course Larry Harris and his team have declared G40 2nd Edition as is the last, and I don’t blame them.
Just to add a slight nuance here: Unless Larry issued a follow-up statement of which I’m not aware (which is quite possible), what he actually said was that there were no plans at this time to create a 3rd edition of G40. No quite the same as saying that the 2nd edition will be the last one.
Thanks CWO Marc, I hope a 3rd edition comes out… any reason to keep playing G40 is fine with me.
-
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
-
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
-
I think 12 , as it now.
-
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
They’re 12 IPCs at this point, although, newly purchased minor factories can never be upgraded, minors that have been downgraded due to capture can be upgraded back to a major factory (but never an Industrial Complex) after liberation for 10 IPCs.
-
@Young:
@Young:
I’ve been thinking that minor factories should cost 15 IPCs, does anyone agree or disagree?
Is the current cost still 12?
What is the fee to upgrade to Major?
They’re 12 IPCs at this point, although, newly purchased minor factories can never be upgraded, minors that have been downgraded due to capture can be upgraded to a major factory after liberation for 10 IPCs.
Oh, okay. Understood.
I am not sure. If you are trying to make new production centers less common, then 15 is good. I think it is a suitable amount. Personally, I like the idea of being able to upgrade to a major if it was yours to begin with (not-purchased), however, I think this may have already been hashed out. Besides, there might only be 3 or 4 powers on the board that are able to do so.
-
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
-
@Young:
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
True. After all, people didn’t just drop centers of production wherever they wanted during the war. It should be an expensive venture.
-
@Young:
Understood LHoff, I only think of it because it would be more difficult for the UK to build a minor factory in Egypt turn 1 (which they may do anyways with the extra income), and it may slow down Japan when they want to build 4 minor factories along the Asian coast.
True. After all, people didn’t just drop centers of production wherever they wanted during the war. It should be an expensive venture.
I’m also comparing a production facility which is $12 to an air base which is $15, doesn’t add up for me even with the unit restrictions on minor factories.
-
If you want putting Minor Factories to be somewhat prohibitive, do you think raising them to $15 is enough? I mean, that’s basically one less infantry you could buy that round. If I’m Japan and I want to put several factories along the Asian coast, I would still do so at $15.
Now, if you bumped the price up to $20, that might cause players to think twice. It’s like wanting to buy a battleship. That would definitely make UK think twice if a Sealion was feared. As for Japan, that would just drain their resources too much. It’s hard enough with them at $12.
That being said, I don’t think I would be a fan of increasing the cost of Minor Factories. I think their build limitations is enough.By the way, if you use the UK Strategic Advantage “Commonwealth Aid”, which lowers the cost of non-infantry units by $1, could a UK Minor Factory then build Tactical Bombers?
-
If you want putting Minor Factories to be somewhat prohibitive, do you think raising them to $15 is enough? I mean, that’s basically one less infantry you could buy that round. If I’m Japan and I want to put several factories along the Asian coast, I would still do so at $15.
Now, if you bumped the price up to $20, that might cause players to think twice. It’s like wanting to buy a battleship. That would definitely make UK think twice if a Sealion was feared. As for Japan, that would just drain their resources too much. It’s hard enough with them at $12.
That being said, I don’t think I would be a fan of increasing the cost of Minor Factories. I think their build limitations is enough.Than 12 IPCs it shall stay.
By the way, if you use the UK Strategic Advantage “Commonwealth Aid”, which lowers the cost of non-infantry units by $1, could a UK Minor Factory then build Tactical Bombers?
Not to confuse visitors here in the Halifax thread when talking about Delta… but yes it could.
-
Once again, I must gripe about Factories! :-D
Honestly, we have to make a choice. Do we want factory purchasing strategy to be part of the game, or don’t we?If we want it to be part of the game, than we should open things up and make the unit flexible. In which case a cost at 12 ipcs (3 lower than the old regular factory, is going to be more fun.)
If we don’t, then we should go to the other extreme, eliminate the unit from the purchase roster and just place them wherever it is we want them to go at the outset, so that players don’t have to deal with them as a purchase problem. I’m fine with either approach.
Trying to go somewhere in between just introduces confusion, and anyway, as always, the issue is mainly to do with Japan balance. In my view Larry has already effectively killed the original A&A “factory strategy” game, by placing restrictions on where new factories can go (i.e. not on islands, not anywhere less than a value of X, not anywhere that isn’t an “original” territory.) etc
If you are going to place so many restrictions on where newly purchases factories can go, then the way I approach things, I think it’d be better to eliminate the unit altogether, and hard balance the locations from the outset. Because then its one less thing players have to worry about, and one less place where confusion can enter into the game. Then you could eliminate the whole problem of “restricting” them to original territories at a value of 2 or more. My thinking on this subject is all over the Larry boards, and I have gone basically from one extreme to the other. For years and years, I favored dropping the regular factory to a cost of 12, because I felt that 15 was prohibitive. As time goes on, and more weird factory rules are introduced, I now lean towards eliminating them from the roster altogether. I either want a purchasable unit that is fun to play with, or else I think get rid of it as a “Unit” and turn it into just a feature of the gameboard like a VC, or a printed IPC value. Something that is just a fact of the game, so you don’t have to think about where to purchase, or how to deal with Japan dropping a train.
So now we are at G40, which does not have a gamemap that can function absent the new factory system. In other words, you can’t go back to the old system, because the printed IPC values on the map are too low to support the old factory. Basically we are forced into the new system by the map values.
In Halifax is was suggested for simplicity that we remove some of the complexity involved by giving players only 1 purchase option instead of 2 (this was done using the knp suggestion to get a third tier with the factories.) So basically 1 step back 2 steps forward. Even though we introduce a new factory, we simplify the roster, by taking ICs and Majors out of the unit roster.
Now only Minors are left…
Questions: will anyone buy them? If so, where? Are minors in such locations desirable?
If not, does making the factory more expensive really prohibit such strats, and is it worth it, given how nerfed the unit is already (in terms of where it can go)? And finally if Minor factories are desirable then wouldn’t it make sense to have them cost slightly less, 12 instead of 15?**ps. Might I make one “minor” suggestion for clarity? :-D Instead of referring to these things with the names used so far, wouldn’t it make sense to call them…
Major Industrial Complex (no purchase)
Minor Industrial Complex (no purchase)
And then Factory, Base, Hub or something else (purchase)**To distinguish this last one from the 2 types you can’t buy? I just think the shorthand “Minor” is not the most helpful to describe the one that can be bought. If there are two types that are fixed from the outset, then those should be the “Major/Minor”, and have the purchase option Unit with a different name. Something that sounds more like a familiar unit name and generic: Factory Base, Factory Hub, Factory etc.
If the first two types cannot be bought, then I think it makes sense to refer to them as Industrial Complexes (Major/Minor), As no Inustrial Complex should be available for purchase as a unit. Its stupid to have a unit that costs 30 anyway ipcs heheh. So there, that’s handled, but now the name for the purchaseable unit…
How bout a name that makes a little more sense as something that can be bought. Like Factory Base, since its reasonably familiar and fits the old games.
-
If we want it to be part of the game, than we should open things up and make the unit flexible. In which case a cost at 12 ipcs (3 lower than the old regular factory, is going to be more fun.)
If we don’t, then we should go to the other extreme, eliminate the unit from the purchase roster and just place them wherever it is we want them to go at the outset, so that players don’t have to deal with them as a purchase problem. I’m fine with either approach.
I assume your “fine with either” statement was amended to “eliminate them” by the end of your post?
Generally, I favor flexibility or options, but in this case I think the game can be made simpler and less prone to exploitation with both placement restrictions and only minors purchasable.
Trying to go somewhere in between just introduces confusion, and anyway, as always, the issue is mainly to do with Japan balance. In my view Larry has already effectively killed the original A&A “factory strategy” game, by placing restrictions on where new factories can go (i.e. not on islands, not anywhere less than a value of X, not anywhere that isn’t an “original” territory.) etc
If you are going to place so many restrictions on where newly purchases factories can go, then the way I approach things, I think it’d be better to eliminate the unit altogether, and hard balance the locations from the outset. Because then its one less thing players have to worry about, and one less place where confusion can enter into the game.
Is having only Minor Factories buildable all that confusing? I think that limits the options sufficiently (down to only one) while still allowing some strategic flexibility with the ability to buy one if desired. Minor Factory rules of placement should still exist, but I don’t think that is much of a complication. It is pretty straightforward: only in original territories, no islands and only with 3+ IPCs (or whatever it is). For a newbie player that may be a little much to memorize, but it is just a few more straws in the massive haystack of G40 rules. For veteran players (already used to the IC rules), this should not be an issue at all.
How would the game be hard balanced at the outset in a fashion that will not alter gameplay? My conception of that statement means that if factory building is abolished, then Japan must have more land forces in China to start with to balance for the fact that it would inevitably buy factories to put units there. (Correct me if I am wrong) However, giving Japan more units at the outset would possibly be more detrimental to the Allies than if they were allowed to build later. I don’t know… it is hard to project these things. What is your interpretation of “hard balancing”?
Now only Minors are left…
Questions: will anyone buy them? If so, where? Are minors in such locations desirable?
If not, does making the factory more expensive really prohibit such strats, and is it worth it, given how nerfed the unit is already (in terms of where it can go)? And finally if Minor factories are desirable then wouldn’t it make sense to have them cost slightly less, 12 instead of 15?Depends on the price set… if we have restricted this far, we could easily up the price to 15 (which I think is decent) or 20 which would effectively eliminate factory purchasing by everyone except maybe Japan. My opinion is that they are desirable items and should therefore be difficult to obtain.
Just because they become rare does not mean they should be done away with altogether. The same thing could be said of battleships… at 20 IPCs and with the advent of the 2-hit carrier and the bombardment ready cruiser, battleships are generally a poor investment. I rarely, if ever, see their purchase, but they are still available.
-
EDIT: in response to LHoffman’s question above. Since I think YG wants to lock the thread and move the discussions along :-)
Yes, let me clarify. What I said at the outset concerns the general design of “Factories” as a concept in A&A games, and not necessarily this specific situation we are dealing with in G40 under the Halifax rules.
In G40 we basically have to work with the system the way it was set up. But if you have ever played a game where factories are removed altogether as a purchase option, with fixed locations at the outset, then you will see what I mean about players no longer having to worry about “how much they cost” or “where to place them etc.” An example of hard balancing the locations and removing from the roster would be to just give Japan all their factories at the outset (in Manchuria say). But obviously, that’s not going to work here.
If it is a purchase option (and the only one), the way we’ve been discussing. then I favor a cost at 12. Otherwise I don’t think anyone will buy them. In which case all the restrictions and extra rules clarification are basically just redundant ;)
-
EDIT: in response to LHoffman’s question above. Since I think YG wants to lock the thread and move the discussions along :-)
Yes, let me clarify. What I said at the outset concerns the general design of “Factories” as a concept in A&A games, and not necessarily this specific situation we are dealing with in G40 under the Halifax rules.
In G40 we basically have to work with the system the way it was set up. But if you have ever played a game where factories are removed altogether as a purchase option, with fixed locations at the outset, then you will see what I mean about players no longer having to worry about “how much they cost” or “where to place them etc.” An example of hard balancing the locations and removing from the roster would be to just give Japan all their factories at the outset (in Manchuria say). But obviously, that’s not going to work here.
If it is a purchase option (and the only one), the way we’ve been discussing. then I favor a cost at 12. Otherwise I don’t think anyone will buy them. In which case all the restrictions and extra rules clarification are basically just redundant ;)
Okay, I understand. And there is something to be said for your reasoning. I suppose this was all a bit of an aside, but thanks.
-
For sure man. I guess at this point, if the rules themselves are complete, then it’s time to start testing them in earnest :)
-
G40 HALIFAX RULES ARE FINISHED
HAPPY PLAY TESTING EVERYONE, AND PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR STORIES, STRATEGIES, AND QUESTIONS.
-
**ps. Might I make one “minor” suggestion for clarity? :-D Instead of referring to these things with the names used so far, wouldn’t it make sense to call them…
Major Industrial Complex (no purchase)
Minor Industrial Complex (no purchase)
And then Factory, Base, Hub or something else (purchase)**To distinguish this last one from the 2 types you can’t buy? I just think the shorthand “Minor” is not the most helpful to describe the one that can be bought. If there are two types that are fixed from the outset, then those should be the “Major/Minor”, and have the purchase option Unit with a different name. Something that sounds more like a familiar unit name and generic: Factory Base, Factory Hub, Factory etc.
If the first two types cannot be bought, then I think it makes sense to refer to them as Industrial Complexes (Major/Minor), As no Inustrial Complex should be available for purchase as a unit. Its stupid to have a unit that costs 30 anyway ipcs heheh. So there, that’s handled, but now the name for the purchaseable unit…
How bout a name that makes a little more sense as something that can be bought. Like Factory Base, since its reasonably familiar and fits the old games.
I had a similar clarity concern as you mentioned above. Most players would find the term Factory, and Industrial Complex to be interchangeable and meaning the same thing. The term “Industrial Complex” referring to what used to be a Major IC, and the term Major Factory now being used used for the new mid level center that produces 5 units is where the problem lies IMO. You’re trying to change how our minds have worked for a long time. You introduced a new mid level center that produces 5 units so you need to give it a new name IMO.
When I have explained this new production system (to guys in my group) I have used the term “Mid Major” to describe the new center that produces 5 units. The other two pretty much do what they did before (with some restrictions)
So you could have:
-
Major IC (10 units like before)
-
Mid Major IC (5 units new IC)
-
Minor IC (3 units like before)
Problem solved
Also fits into how you can’t purchase the the 10 unit, or 5 unit ICs, because they both have the word Major in it. You could also lump them together when describing downgrading when captured etc…. It is easy enough to say the only IC that can be purchase is a Minor IC.
You could use Minor factory if you want to differentiate it as the only purchasable production center, but like I said most people would see it as the same anyway.
-
-
I myself have a problem describing a major factory as a mid-level factory, or mid-level industrial complex, can’t really imagine it being used in historical terms either. But these are just my preferences, which are based on my own perception… for example: to me an Industrial Complex is not a factory at all, I understand it to be a mass military conglomerate consisting of an intelligence agency, a secret research facility, a political safe house bunker, and a huge weapons industry. In fact when I see or hear the words industrial complex in books or movies, they don’t say “a industrial complex” they say “the industrial complex” which speaks volumes to me personally. Factories are just factories… some are bigger than others, some are smaller than others. I suppose if enough people complain about it, it should be changed in the first post, but I have no problems with whatever people want to call them around their own game tables, as long as the concept works.
-
I for one have no problem with YG’s naming of the different production levels.
Industrial Complex = 10 units per turn. Non-purchasable. When captured, downgraded to Minor Factory.
Major Factory = 5 units per turn. Non-purchasable and non-upgradable. When captured, downgraded to Minor Factory.
Minor Factory = 3 units per turn. Purchasable at 12 IPCs and can place on any territory worth 2 IPCs or more. Can be upgraded to Major Factory ONLY when liberated by original owner.If you really want different names, here is another possibility.
Major Industrial Complex = 10 units/turn.
Minor Industrial Complex = 5 units/turn.
Factory = 3 units/turn.
Suggested Topics
