G40 Halifax Rules

[Young Grasshopper]

Sorry, didn’t mean to lock the thread… it’s open now.

WE JUST HIT +10… WOW!

[Witt]

F**k me!
Fantastic achievment.

[Young Grasshopper]

@wittmann:

F**k me!
Fantastic achievment.

Awesome eh?

+11 now…

:-o

[Young Grasshopper]

+16

…are you freaking kidding me? I won’t be changing a single word on the Halifax rule document in post #1 …ever!

well… I may have added this for clarification purposes:

“Minor factories that have been purchased and placed on the board my never be upgraded”.

OK, starting…… NOW!

Krieghund, how many votes will it take for you to endorse this?

[baron Münchhausen]

It is actually +17. WOW!

There is maybe something that should be watch carefully during playtests.
I was thinking about the multi-nations assaults on Germany.
Halifax rules adds Canada in the equation, it means UK, USA and Canada can attack in sequence before Germany get a chance to react.
Maybe it is an Achilles heels, so it becomes the most viable KGF strategy.
How is this advantage have an impact over the longer game?
Does Australia and South Africa draining too much IPCs to be really relevant?
Or letting Canada draining all IPCs makes it for a quicker, unstoppable Allies Victory?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

It is actually +17. WOW!

There is maybe something that should be watch carefully during playtests.
I was thinking about the multi-nations assaults on Germany.
Halifax rules adds Canada in the equation, it means UK, USA and Canada can attack in sequence before Germany get a chance to react.
Maybe it is an Achilles heels, so it becomes the most viable KGF strategy.
How is this advantage have an impact over the longer game?
Does Australia and South Africa draining too much IPCs to be really relevant?
Or letting Canada draining all IPCs makes it for a quicker, unstoppable Allies Victory?

Good point, it’s the old “do I split the income, or divide the income” question. This has not been an issue with our play test games so far, however, as the Allies strategize further to try and gain an advantage using Halifax rules, I could see a triple can opener being a threat. I believe the Allied presence in the Pacific theater would be less than strong, and Germany would need to really defend Denmark eliminating their Moscow crush option. From what I’ve seen so far, the Allies have been unable to generate sizable multi-national forces to do much, it’s almost as if some monies and territories were shuffled around having little effect on the strong opening strategies of the Axis.

However, if the Allies could get their act together to build and move cohesively, they might be able to turn these rules into something positive for themselves. I’ve been holding off on giving the Allies extra stuff, or taking away Japanese planes for the hope that the Allies can break the Axis status quo attacks. Therefore, I would be OK with this type of problem… because just like the Axis standard moves for success, the player needs to execute properly in order for it to work, and so many things can happen when trying to organize something as large as operation overlord. I think like all of us, I would be worried about the prospect of the “just do this, and this and you’ll win” strategy… but we need more play testing from more experienced players.

[Black_Elk]

For sure, I didn’t even notice their was an option to do the little “arrow up” until you mentioned it. I took us up to lucky 13  :-D

I think there is just a lot of core ideas in this thread that are very appealing to me. It provides a basic structure that I just enjoy a lot more, and which seems to afford some interesting opportunities to innovate and build upon. I love for example, that this mod gives me a way to ditch the UK Pacific, while at the same time bringing the Commonwealth up to par. This coupled with the production aspect makes this variant ideal for what I like to do with A&A games.

I think we’ve only just scratched the surface in terms of its strategic potential. I know in my first serious face to face game, my friend Jennifer really wanted to bolster Australia at the outset, which was fun. But I am probably more intrigued by the Atlantic, and potential for a dual theater game. It has long been my desire to see an A&A set up that encourages this, and Halifax gets pretty close. Granted I am also using a fair amount of modification and tweaking on things like income and objectives, (not least of which being a tweak in turn order, and other things I have been exploring) but even then, the core rules outlined in this thread just seem to fit much more comfortably for me. Its a happier starting point for me, than the OOB game, so I’m really grateful that it now exists.

Thanks a lot to everyone who has commented here, and especially to young grasshopper for working to stitch things together here and make it a more cohesive system of HRs. I hope a lot of people will give it a shot

[toblerone77]

YG you and others have really been hard at work and easily deserved the +1. I have not been following this work as closely due to work and my own projects. Namely I am trying to get a solid war games group going and am working hard to recruit close friends and family to help get this going. Eventually I want to have a podcast based on a monthly weekend meet-up of popular war-based board games.

More on topic I see with this and other projects, a rebirth of what made this franchise so great! Kudos.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thanks guys… and I think it’s time to ask the balance question. I assume that we can all agree that Halifax rules don’t hurt the Allies, but how much does it help them?

On a scale of 1-10 (with 5 being an average bid) how much do Halifax rules benifet the Allies as far as balance?

[Azathoth]

Hello everyone. I am new to global, and really like these rules. Am starting my first game and so I want it to be out of the box rules for just this one time, but in the future I plan on making at least this set of rules changes permanent.

What I am wondering is, do you think the additional UK income from recombining the empire will make sealion unlikely, or even imposible?

Also, how about the more powerful Canzac with extra money now, will that upset any sort of balance in the pacific?

Thanks! :-)

[Young Grasshopper]

@Azathoth:

Hello everyone. I am new to global, and really like these rules. Am starting my first game and so I want it to be out of the box rules for just this one time, but in the future I plan on making at least this set of rules changes permanent.

What I am wondering is, do you think the additional UK income from recombining the empire will make sealion unlikely, or even imposible?

Also, how about the more powerful Canzac with extra money now, will that upset any sort of balance in the pacific?

Thanks! :-)

Hello Azathoth, and welcome to the forums.

If you have never played 1940 Global oob, than it is best to play by the book not just once, but a handful of times before trying any house rules. There are a few reasons for this, of course you should first play the game as it was intended by the creators who published the rules, as well, most house rules are designed to counter certain end strategies that have prevented the game from reinventing itself. For example, after playing a few times, you and your friends might feel that the Allies are winning easily, therefore making it illogical to improve the Allies current situation.

All that said, it is obvious that Halifax rules benefits the Allies more than the Axis, and the question as to how much has yet to be answered fully. However, from the Halifax games that we have played, the advantage is not at par with the advantage of an average bid… (Yet). If you consider the responsible oob UK purchase of 6 infantry and a fighter (all on London), and 3 infantry and 2 artillery oob purchase on India, and compare that with the Halifax purchase of 6 Infantry and a fighter on London, and 1 infantry and 1 artillery in India, than one could argue that sealion is even more likely to happen with Halifax rules.

What about the new bigger, and stronger Commonwealth which replaces ANZAC? well… if you step back and look at the map, Ottawa, South Africa, Sydney, and Honolulu form a bowl like shape. The forces generated from those outer points need to penetrate the middle where are the action is (Persia, Moscow, Calcutta, Philippines). So even though the Allies have more freedom to spent where they like on the board, and to place even more units due to major factories… the Axis continue to be successful by keeping all the Commonwealth money to the outside. Of course, we continue to use these rules and experiment with different strategies, but it has not been proven that Halifax rules improve the Allies equal to or more than an average bid.

[Azathoth]

Thanks for the reply!

I know I should play the rules as is for awhile first, but unfortunately I won’t have many opportunities to play this monster game and I have always been eager to incorporate good house rules into any game and, well, i just love the idea of making UK one economy like in the original A&A. Plus giving the commonwealth some more money will I believe make them a more fun and intersting power to play. Also the factory rules are cool too!  :-D

However my only real concern was sealion. I like that germany has that option, but with the extra money available to london I was wondering: if UK saw germany buying all those transports they could just drop 10 troops in the capitol (at the expense of any buys in calcutta for a turn) to make it too difficult for an invasion attempt, so germany should just go for russia every time.

Assuming england isn’t caught by surprise, is sealion still a viable option?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Azathoth:

Thanks for the reply!

However my only real concern was sealion. I like that germany has that option, but with the extra money available to london I was wondering: if UK saw germany buying all those transports they could just drop 10 troops in the capitol (at the expense of any buys in calcutta for a turn) to make it too difficult for an invasion attempt, so germany should just go for russia every time.

Assuming england isn’t caught by surprise, is sealion still a viable option?

I know exactly what you mean, I remember being upset when Alpha +2 came out because it was very anti-sealion. I played classic a thousand times and the German strategy was always the same… charge toward Russia and fight a war of attrition, so when Global came out I was very excited to have an option. However, even though the odds are against it in 2nd Edition Global, sealion still happens in our games from time to time, not the old way of spending $70 worth of transports turn 2, but more like catching the UK off guard in later rounds. In this sense, sealion is still feasible using Halifax rules because defending London still requires a responsible defensive war effort from the UK, and an aggressive player might not spend appropriately.

Although sealion is easily defended in Halifax rules with the right approach and execution, the real threat in today’s 2nd edition Global is an early Japanese attack on the Pacific Allies, and Halifax does little to curb this. If Japan stays true and relentless with their proven strategies, it might draw the UK money toward Calcutta, and that’s where spending gets really tricky for the UK when it comes to leaving London vulnerable. I know the quick thought is that the UK can put 10 infantry on London making sealion impossible, but that’s not looking at the big picture. If Germany builds a couple of transports each turn (valuable units to have no mater what their plans are) than you force the UK to defend London at the expense of India. If the UK is defending India due to Japan threatening the mainland and spreading fast, chances are an opportunity for sealion will present itself.

Gone are the days when everyone could see that Germany was strategizing to land in London on turn 3, but that was Alpha +2’s doing with their 4 AA guns (5 with Scotland’s), and the removal of the German National Objective for control of London. However, I’ve seen sealion accomplished with surprise attacks, gutsy plays, and British negligence during later rounds… the same gambits exist when playing with Halifax rules, the perception should be that as long as Germany has and continues to buy transports, sealion is always on the table. If sealion was the standard strategy in 1st edition that no longer seems sound, then a turn 1/2 attack by Japan is the new standard for Axis supremacy. Therefore, the UK can defend London with all their money if they wish, but it is arguable that operation Godzila is more of a game breaker than sealion ever was.

[Black_Elk]

I am about to play my next Halifax game FtF tomorrow! My buddy has been just itching to try it again after our last 3 man game a week ago.

The last one we tried involved a Sea Lion. Not an opener but later in the game, not exactly an expert execution, but exploiting a weakly defended UK after a few rounds of sneaky saves translated into naval builds by G.

Like YG, I enjoy the potential for a Sea Lion in A&A. It remains a favorite “what if” scenerio each time a new board comes out. What I’m not into though, is a game balanced around London falling every time, with a scripted sea lion, in the first or second round. So for me the ideal is a 50/50 Sea Lion opener. Lately I’ve been trying to see which mix of income HRs with Halifax might allow for such a spread. My preference would be for a max defense of London which gets a roughly 50/50 or perhaps 60/40 chance, depending on how players choose to use the scramble mechanic. It’s of course hard to see everything when the game has so many “moving parts” but so far I prefer Halifax to OOB, on basically every level.  So again great work on this YG! It’s just a much stronger foundation to build on, at least for my group. My friends are fully converted haha

[Young Grasshopper]

Thanks Black Elk, what’s your opinion on the degree of an Allied advantage in Halifax, vs. oob 2ndE, or an average bid?

[Black_Elk]

That’s a really good question, and one for which I don’t have a ready answer. I would say that Halifax provides a definite Allied advantage over OOB, but the changes (particularly with respect to the production rules) go further than anything you could achieve with a pre-placement bid on game balance. The core conditions out of the first round are altered here, such that its hard to compare Halifax with OOB at bid X, or to equivocate.

Some of the changes here favor Axis as well as Allies on the production spread, but my gut tells me that what we have done here, definitely provides the allies with a leg up. I think this comes primarily from the way the British economy is handled, by collapsing UK pacific into UK, but its hard to put a specific amount on it in IPCs.

In my play group, we never did find a balanced bid for G40. Even with a pre-placement Allied bid between +12 and +18 ipcs, nobody I gamed with ever felt that the game was particularly well balanced even with such a bid. There might have been openings for the Allies to win, but this was do more to the chaos of dice rolls than to the pre-positioning of extra units. It is also still unclear to me at what point you start swinging irreparably in the other direction (e.g. at X ipcs on the bid, then Allies almost always win.) Consider for example, how even a bid of 6 ipcs spent in the right place, can swing a TUV trade dramatically in the opening round. This even more so, if people use LL, which I don’t, but can still appreciate the effectiveness of pre-placement just giving a single extra pip in a key battle.

We started at 3, like always, then 6, then 9. Axis still fairly dominant.

So basically we had a G40 range somewhere between 10-18 to be balsy or to be more comfortable. But again, those games still did not feel balanced to me. Nobody I’ve played with has accepted a pre-placement bid over 20, on the logic that “the game couldn’t possibly be that unbalanced!” or even if it was, that the corrective of 20 ipcs pre-placement would be more distorting than its worth on account of the power of aircraft in A&A games. So basically 18 at the high end for us, and of course Axis can still win quite handily.

Which is why I have gone over more and more to HRs at income as a solution to game balance, rather than pre-placement bidding.  G40 never felt balanced to me by side on production, even with a bid, at least not balanced in the way that Halifax feels roughly balanced right now. So I have not yet used a bid for this set up.

I would say we have probably not removed the overall Axis advantage on the board, but have put the Allies at least back into contention. I think it is wise to enable a UK defense of London. The cost in the Pacific is still significant, but a set up where UK cannot possibly win the battle of Britain or defend their home island at 50/50 seems somehow unacceptable for the gameplay. Likewise for a Moscow crush. If it seems like Axis just wipe the floor every time, either on London or Moscow, that’s when I begin to think of core changes. The original games play reasonably well as single theater games, but the balance as a joined up thing was shaky. Now it will be much easier to tease out just how well the British Empire stacks up against the Axis, or how Russia fares, absent a bid under this set up. More games will reveal where we are.

I will say though, that I already find myself exploring builds that I would not have considered in OOB with a pre-placement bid.

[Black_Elk]

ps. If anyone would like to playtest Halifax using tripleA to see how it compares to a bid game OOB, here is a gamesave you can use. Right now everything necessary can be handled via the edit mode. In the save below, you can see the list of game edits in the game history tab. For example, how UK Pacific is removed and its territory ownership transferred to Britain. Also how the Commonwealth is formed by Adding British territories to Anzac. Also, in this case all starting factories are set to Major, and it is the players responsibility to know which are allowed to produce at the IC, Major, or Minor (if captured) under the Halifax values 10, 5, or 3.

Basically all Halifax adjustments are via edit and the players responsibility to track things like NOs or total income. For example, in the place units phase you can edit income to match the appropriate values and then include a newly purchase “Minor factory” on the board. If a territory is captured you can edit the IC factory to a Minor factorywith the edit mode. Right now Major Factories are just ICs and the production limitation is up to the player to self enforce. Or if its more helpful, you just edit your unit placements at the end of the turn to match the correct values. The amount of editing currently required in tripleA, basically matches the changes you have to track in a normal game. Except here the set up has been handled already.

The next step is to create a full gamemap xml with appropriate production units, rather than just an edited save game using the two factory types currently available. But if you want to try it immediately, here is a save that shows the basic changes for Halifax: Commonwealth option 2.

Gamesave attached here…

G40 Halifax 2.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

A few images of the saved game above for TripleA.

You can see it uses the standard TripleA ANZAC faction, color and position in game sequence, but with the value at 20 to represent the full Commonwealth (option 2). Note how Eire is now blue, fighter in Ontario, and commonwealth ships at sea. UK pacific in the stats window is set to Zero, and the income added to the British. Check the values of ANZAC and British in the stats columns as these now correspond to the full Commonwealth and full British Empire factions under the Halifax rules.

With regard to NOs and to things like capital capture or liberating conquered territory, or factories, again it is up to the player to track the appropriate total income or make the appropriate “possession” edit in the game options. If you want to play a full game, just remember to edit your NOs, and to check territory ownership in the case of any of the adjusted territories being taken and reconquered, since they will then revert to the original owner. Example, Japan takes Burma, and then UK recaptures it, the liberated territory will show up as UK-Pacific, so at this point you need to “edit possession” back to the British. Same deal if capitals are captured or liberated, just make sure to edit your total IPCs and track your factory production according to the Halifax rules.

Next step for us would be to make the full xml gamefile (rather than just an edited saved game), with the full faction name Commonwealth, a chosen color for territories and units, and a Roundel. A new gamefile is also necessary to get all 3 production facility types available. But until then you can still play around with the savegame if you like, just load it into your saved game folder in tripleA to see the core changes under Halifax.

I generally use the map view at 60% for Global like the Atlantic image (60% gives a reasonably clear view with only a bit of ‘fuzz’) but the south Africa image shows the scale of the territories in the mapview at 100% for those who prefer the close up. Enjoy
:-D

[Black_Elk]

And here is the save for Commonwealth option 1, in case anyone wants to see what it looks like without all the other Dominions. Note the differences in the stats columns between Option 1 and Option 2 with respect to British and Anzac starting income and TUV.

So far I have been playing with the Full Commonwealth option 2, but for good measure now we have a savegame for both in case anyone wants to play.

G40 Halifax 1.tsvg

[ColonelCarter]

@Black_Elk:

Next step for us would be to make the full xml gamefile (rather than just an edited saved game), with the full faction name Commonwealth, a chosen color for territories and units, and a Roundel. A new gamefile is also necessary to get all 3 production facility types available. But until then you can still play around with the savegame if you like, just load it into your saved game folder in tripleA to see the core changes under Halifax.

Wait no longer! I made a gamefile for both Option 1 and 2 Halifax rules. It’s just ANZAC colored for now, but that is a simple change if a general consensus prefers a different color. TripleA even comes with a Commonwealth Roundel in the default game files, so that choice was simple. The only new rules that must be player enforced are the restriction on building units costing more than 10 from minor factories, as well as the Commonwealth having two capitals. (I just made Ottowa the Commonwealth capital, because how often does it really get taken?)

Here is a mediafire link since the forum won’t allow attachment of this size:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/fp2z76r282ukq8d/World_War_II_Global.zip

Note to Users: I highly recommend saving a backup of the original World War II Global.zip file somewhere so you have something to restore to if something somehow goes wrong in the transfer. Other than that, all you have to do is replace the normal .zip file with the one linked and the maps should show up in your game list the next time you start TripleA.

Also, to Young Grasshopper: There is a fighter in Ontario added to the setup, correct? I know you’re probably used to playing with it by now, but it’s not in the setup modifications section of the original post. Neither is all Major ICs (except India) becoming Industrial Complexes, but that’s more intuitive.

And, some pics of the new game.