G40 Halifax Rules

[Black_Elk]

@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.

I wanted to thank ColonelCarter again for putting these gamefiles together.

I have asked Veq to review it and to consider adding the Halifax mod to the next build of tripleA. But for the time being this gamefile works as an alternative, just be sure to save your G40 gamefiles under a different name for backup purposes ex. “World War II Global Original” or something along those lines, before you add the new gamefiles to your mapfolder. Also, if you do not use a Mac, you may find some of the files in Carters zip redundant. This may require you to unzip the file after download to get at the necessary materials.

The only request I made in addition to including this stuff in tripleA, is a way to make National Obectives for G40 optional. Right now they are part of the game, which means they are counted and added in automatically. For my purposes this is kind of annoying since I really don’t like National Objectives, and my game group does not use them in G40. But other than that, this gamefile at least provides a functional way to play Halifax in tripleA. I have to admit, I rather wish the names of option 1 and 2 were reversed, since I much prefer the latter, and I think it definitely makes a difference on game balance, but that’s not so big a deal. I would say however, that we should probably try to settle on which variants of this ruleset we really want to playtest in earnest, especially if Veq puts it up on tripleA. Its all well and good to have many options, and a bunch of specialized versions of the ruleset if you play Face to Face, but for the purposes of playtesting with TripleA it would be nice to fully explore one set up, before altering the conditions.

[Black_Elk]

Why test Halifax using TripleA?

Basically because I don’t trust anecdotal evidence when it comes to Axis and Allies anymore. Especially when the issue concerns overall set-up and game balance. Before making a serious judgment about anything, I would want to see hard data, and the only data that is reliable for me right now is the data gathered during TripleA playtesting. Why?

Well, essentially what it comes down to is a complete lack of confidence, on my part, in the playtesting methods used for the Official A&A Games. Put simply, I am not convinced that the OOB games are being properly playtested before they are released.

I regard pretty much all playtesting evidence from Face to Face games as anecdotal. That’s not to say its irrelevant or that its not useful in other ways, but when it comes to actually breaking the set-up and finding out where it tilts one way or the other on balance, the issue is quantity as much as quality. An FtF game can still be a lot of fun and tell you whether a game can be entertaining, even a hopelessly unbalanced one, but they are also harder to organize. It takes longer to play FtF, and when you are playing everything happens in tunnel vision. You can’t step outside the game to really analyse a specific roll, or see why such and such a buy went wrong, or how exactly a single battle in the second round altered the course of everything. Because then your turn comes up and you have to roll, and who has time for all that analysis when the rolls are up? While you are inside the game, its the play that’s important, and the analysis often falls by the wayside. Even for people who write things down, and who approach it more analytically, while the game is going on its the flow that captures all the attention. That’s cool when you’re playing the game, but not as much for trying to parse it out and scrutinize it for balance. Here’s the hitch with FtF…

Not only is there no way to confirm that a game was actually played (unless you witness it firsthand), but there is also no strong way to verify or track what actually happened in that game, after the fact. Even with a really dedicated group of playtesters, taking diligent notes, with video or photographs, even then, the best FtF playtesters still can’t give us the level of detail that tripleA testing can, not at anything like the same speed at any rate.  In tripleA each phase, of each turn, of each game round is tracked, and recorded in the game history.

This makes it possible to review each test game, to go back and look at what actually happened in exacting detail. So for example, if I tell you “The Axis are unstoppable for reasons X, Y, or Z!” or “The Allies always do A, B, and C!” you don’t have to take my word for it. You can actually go back and look at the gamesave, check the history and see for yourself. It would be impossible to overstate how valuable this is from a playtesting perspective. Not only can you track everything and review it after the fact, but you can also view critical statistics at a glance for every round of gameplay. You can check the odds on every first round battle, both under normal Dice and Low Luck conditions, and you can verify whether the game is actually being played at a high level of skill, (e.g. whether the buys and battles are expert, or middling, or beginner.) What’s more, you can test how any potential future set up change will effect the first round odds on any given battle or strat. And on top of all this, you can dramatically increase the number of games playtested in a given amount of time.

I have been trying since 2004 to persuade Larry and others of the merits of going digital for playtesting, using a platform like tripleA, for all the reasons listed above. To my knowledge this approach has not been adopted, and the result, so far as I can see, is a series of OOB games (rather poorly balanced by sides= bids or HRS necessary for balance) being released for sale to the general public before they are fully cooked.

I think if we are serious about creating a G40 mod that is “balanced”, then playtesting on the tripleA platform is the obvious way forward. Now that we have a gamefile for our set-up, it is time to invite our best players to try and break it against each other! If imbalances are discovered, and changes are made, at least we will have evidence to back them up. Make sense?

[variance]

I have now read through this entire thread and the Halifax Rules are pretty awesome.  For playtesting, I wonder if you could recruit a few of the really good online players (i.e. League tier 1 or 2) to run a few scenarios online with triplea.  They would have to use edits to change Canadian units and territories to ANZAC, and respect the production limits etc. but it should still be playable.  I would volunteer to play but I’m just not a very good player; you need the heavy players to test it.

There are a lot of unanswered questions.  First and foremost, what are the chances that Germany can do a sealion and what does UK/commonwealth need to do to prevent it (and what does sealion prevent mean for other things down the road like Taranto and the Med, flying fighters to reinforce Moscow, Middle East shenanigans, etc.).  On the other side, does India crush still work?  Is J1 DOW still playable?  What happens in China?  What happens in the Philippines?

We are all excited to see how this one works out.  A+ YG et al.

I wonder if there might be any interest among the heavy hitters in a HALIFAX RULES ONLINE TOURNAMENT?

[Young Grasshopper]

Thank you Black Elk for all the amazing work you have done in tripleA.

I don’t mean to be a sour puss, but the 5 Halifax games we have played have all ended in pretty big Axis wins (maybe we’re not doing it right). Anyway’s, I don’t mean to throw knp under the bus (it being his mid level IC rule and all), but I’ve come up with some changes to production units that might help. We don’t need it to be a part of Halifax for our group to use it, but I would highly suggest these changes if play testing Halifax in the forum gets the same results we’ve had.

Production Unit Profiles:

Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage of 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a major factory once captured

Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage of 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a minor factory once captured

Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage of 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May only be placed on territories with a victory city
Immediately removed from the board once captured

Production Unit Rules:

• Only territories with production units that have been captured (not liberated) must downgrade their facility by one level.

• Production units on territories that have been liberated must be relinquished to the territory’s original owner.

• Nations may only purchase and place a minor factory on the board if they are at war.

• Production units may never be upgraded under any circumstances.

• Strategic bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational air base.

Production Unit Setup:

Industrial Complexes
Western United States
Eastern United States
United Kingdom
France
Western Germany
Germany
Northern Italy
Russia
Japan

Major Factories
Central United States
Quebec
Southern Italy
Novgorod
Volgograd
India
New South Wales

Minor Factories
Normandy
Southern France
Ukraine
Union of South Africa

[Noll]

United Kingdom:

5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers
5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya

The second NO, as you worded it, works even if UK is not at war with Japan yet. I don’t like it. Now UK has like zero incentives to DOW Japan first. Especially since they will also lose the “United States are at war” untill turn4 if they do so.

Axis can’t even negate it untill Japan conquers Malaya (A decent Allies player will never lose Gibraltar and Egypt to German/Italy before US joins the war)

I’m not sure, I really really like the Commonwealth idea, but are we sure the “balance” problem is solved by adding 20 production IPCs in order to negate NOs to the Allies?

I mean, having Commonwealth as a new force being able to spend all the ANZAC money in South Africa isn’t enough of a boost to make Egypt and MiddleEast now -impossible- for the Allies?

Plus India being a lot more defendible by UK herself?

I’d play the HALIFAX as Allies like this:

USA commits 100% Japan
Commonwealth commits 100% Euro
UK 80% Euro

I already see ANZAC can opening for USA/UK vs Italy, and I’m willing to accept it, but the economy boost?

[Young Grasshopper]

The UK needed different NOs to reflect a global power with a single economy, and ANZAC’s NOs are obviously obsolete with the creation of the Commonwealth. So out with the old and in with the new, and I thought the new NO’s should at least match what was possible to earn even if they were easier to achieve. With that said, the NOs were created by me alone, which is good if there are better ideas out there, because I’m very fluid when it comes to changing things for the better.

[Black_Elk]

For TripleA…

Hey ColonelCarter, check the last post in this thread :)
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Hey-Veq-can-you-take-a-look-Global-Variant-with-the-Commonwealth-Dominions-tp7586439.html

As to the questions on balance and how to achieve it, I still feel pretty strongly that all balancing should be handled through income adjustment, whether this is starting incomes, or continuous bonuses to income (via NOs or whatever) that this is preferable to unit adjustment.

I don’t mind tweaks to the production profiles, but it would be nice to just pick something and go for it. I’m not wedded to any particular idea in this thread so much that I wouldn’t consider something else, if it served the gameplay and game balance, but first you need to know the overall conditions you’re working, before you can figure out how to balance it by sides. For example, with Halifax 1 and 2, I can already tell that these conditions are going to be different on balance. I favor Halifax 2 for creating more gameplay interest for allies, but I can see why others might not dig the African can opener. Doing 2 options for production profiles will probably produce a similar situation, where it balances differently under each. There aren’t so many people adopting these rules at present that you couldn’t change things, I just think it would be nice for the purposes of putting together a tripleA version, that we settle on whatever conditions you want to explore most, and focus on those to see how they work out.

In general I don’t like NOs, but if players are going to use NOs, then those should be the method to achieve balance by sides. Money is more flexible than units or the map itself. The specific amounts and where they are most necessary is the trick, and this requires testing first, to see. I would suggest figuring out which NOs really you want to include in the game, and then raise or lower the values of those NOs first, before adding in new ones to the already expansive list. I’d also suggest a fairly even distribution on these and a fairly simple wording. It’d be nice to know how much money is really needed, and then engineer the NOs to fit this need, rather than adding in the NOs and money first and then backing off them later. But again to do that, need to get in more test games, which is why I think tripleA is so important.

In my face to face games I have been using only the foundational set up adjustments for Halifax 2.
Full Commonwealth + Unified UK and the Production profile change.

I regard everything else as optional at this point.

In terms of game balance, I use an alternative to the NO system, since I see the G40 NOs as too complex and encumbering for game flow and my players just don’t like them. They find NOs too inconsistent and hard to memorize. This will not be the case for everyone though, and for people who do use the NO system, then I would try to balance the game just using those. I think the problem with the way they are designed right now is in the values awarded for achieving certain objectives, and whether the actual achievability of a given objective matches the income requirements of the gameplay. For example if Allies need more, then increase the likely income awarded via NOs that can be achieved. If Axis need more then up the likely income they are awarded for NOs that can be achieved.

If any of the most common OOB NOs are unachievable, or very unlikely to be achieved at any point, or if the values they award are too small to have an appreciable impact, then they are basically pointless and a waste of space in the rules. They should be replaced by better NOs in that case, if NOs are your thing :)

[Black_Elk]

I propose that a new cost structure for naval units be adopted in Halifax! At the values suggested in the recent HR thread in these forums.

Submarines 5 ipcs
Transports 6 ipcs
Destroyers 7 ipcs
Cruisers 10 ipcs
Carriers 14 ipcs
Battleships 17 ipcs

I believe this would yield a fun game with the Halifax rules (not least because it would allow for the Cruiser built at a minor.

I will test this in my next Halifax game Commonwealth v2

[Young Grasshopper]

Halifax rules has +23 votes, so it can not be changed due to those who endorsed this house rule set as is. I encourage members to create Halifax variants that use Halifax base rules with their own modifications, however, I won’t make significant changes to something that has already been endorsed by so many members. I consider that as using votes to promote different house rule ideas that original supporters may not be willing to accept… I personally am not a fan of changing unit costs.

[Black_Elk]

That’s a fine position to take, its what I meant anyway, a proposed HR variant, not an alteration to the core. :)

I prefer the Halifax set up to OOB, so I like trying to refine it even further to suit my tastes. The proposal above would be for a variant to these rules.

The simplest most expedient idea would probably be to “auto-tech” shipyards for all players. This was suggested by knp earlier in the form of a question about how lowered ship costs might interact with the tech. The cost values for Naval units with Improved shipyards are very similar, and it keeps to an outline already present in the rule book. The only difference here is that, instead of an optional Technology advance that you have to buy/roll to achieve, these cost values would be standard for all players from the outset. All players begin the game with the Improved Shipyards tech already activated.

Improved shipyards has the units at the following values in IPC cost:

Battleship 17
Aircraft Carrier 13
Cruiser 9
Destroyer 7
Transport 6
Submarine 5

Not suggesting that we need to edit the lead thread to make this part of the core mod, but I think it would be a cool option.

I was more curious about how people think this would effect the basic Halifax balance?
I think it would provide an interesting naval dynamic that would encourage the purchase of ships by both sides, but which might even things out in favor of Allies somewhat more than the situation in the core Halifax set up.

[Young Grasshopper]

Cool… Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Black_Elk]

No worries dude  :-D
But here’s why I think the rule would pair nicely with the Commonwealth either option 1 or 2.

Option 1 Commonwealth has 17 ipcs to start, which means they could throw down a Battleship! Which is just kind of rad unto itself, but here they could also get a carrier with enough left over for an artillery piece. Also and more feesible, combos with subs, destroyers, and cruisers.

Commonwealth Option 2 has 20 ipcs to start. Now offering them the dreaded Carrier + Destroyer combo, or the equally deadly 4 Subs buy! Haha! you know, since it fits so nicely.  But more  naval force projection in general, especially buying the cheaper warships, out of S. Africa as well as Anzac and Canada. USA and UK would likewise have more to kick around, which combined with the commonwealth could be more effective. I think this could be a fairly interesting way to counter balance the options that Axis get.

For Axis you get some stronger potential purchase options on the Baltic and the Med, which could encourage G to wage a more aggressive naval game there. Italy would benefit, since they could more easily produce naval units on their rather limited budget. Japan of course gains as well.

Commonwealth, Italy, and perhaps even Russia would have a somewhat easier entry into the naval game with Shipyards. Since the cheapest naval fodder unit would be at 5 ipcs, and cheaper destroyers/carriers can build off these subs, allowing for more effective mini fleet buys.

The lowered cost of transports favors all sides, perhaps not the same way, but at least its equitable.  The Axis gain the advantage of deeper transport drops in a single round, but the Allies (especially USA) definitely have much to gain from the reduced cost of transports/warships,  since all their ground units must cross the water to get into play.

It will almost certainly encourage the buying of more ships though, which I think would be fun under the Halifax set up. I especially like it for the option 2 set up, with three possible theaters for the Commonwealth to consider a naval build.

Unified UK could also drop a more impressive Navy for the same amount of cash, which would be entertaining, since they are often limited by their production capacity,  where every pip counts if you can spawn higher value ships for a lower price.

All in all I see a strong potential for an expanded Halifax naval game using this method.  Whatever the balance ends up being :)

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

All in all I see a strong potential for an expanded Halifax naval game using this method. Â

Expansions of the Halifax rules could be called Dartmouth rules, or Dartmouth variations, in reference to the city on the eastern shore of Halifax Harbour that became part of an “expanded” Halifax when the Halifax Regional Municipality was created in 1996.  :-)

[baron Münchhausen]

For my part, I give also a +1 to Dartmouth Rules,
I always feel that Cruiser and Battleship weren’t at there right cost.
Also, Navy can never be the units which can provide victory and a way to win the game but it requires the most expensive investment, I always think Naval is prohibitive.
The Advanced Shipyard provide a way to lower it and still keep a proportionate balance structure amongst units.

Finally, this will probably give a better chance to Allies, thus rebalance the initial bias of G40 toward Axis.

[Black_Elk]

Haha Dartmouth variant it is!  :-D

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

Haha Dartmouth variant it is!  :-D

LOL… I’ve got family that live in Dartmouth.

[theROCmonster]

@Black_Elk:

I propose that a new cost structure for naval units be adopted in Halifax! At the values suggested in the recent HR thread in these forums.

Submarines 5 ipcs
Transports 6 ipcs
Destroyers 7 ipcs
Cruisers 10 ipcs
Carriers 14 ipcs
Battleships 17 ipcs

I believe this would yield a fun game with the Halifax rules (not least because it would allow for the Cruiser built at a minor.

I will test this in my next Halifax game Commonwealth v2

Hrmmm this would be devastating for allies with Halifax rules. Germany could then build even more transports to take UK. This would be really bad for the allies since India is connected to UK.

How does UK do vs a Germany building carrier 2 transports saving 4. Then building 11 transports and a destroyer turn 2. UK would fold really easily…

I like this idea, but maybe add at least 2 more infantry to UK?

[Black_Elk]

I play the Halifax rules with a fair number of modifications. There are dozens of ways to balance an opening round in an Axis and Allies game, whether through NOs or other bonus mechanisms. In Halifax UK has more money to kick around, they can tank stack England for example. I don’t see Sea Lion as quite so certain, but it does give an incentive for more Axis naval action.

I think its worth exploring first from a gameplay perspective, and less from a game balance perspective right away, e.g. first just see does it introduce more entertainment on the high seas? If it does, then you can always find other ways to come back later and tweak a set up to handle a specific opening battle. I just think the naval gameplay and potential buys are more interesting at this cost structure.

If you play Low Luck, that may color your impression of the tweak,  because in an LL opener its much easier to predict how the number pips mobilized will effect a battle. But even in the case you could try other things, like a Minor in Scotland.

Dropping the full spread in transports would mean yanking almost all ground in Europe and dropping it on UK. Russia might pounce hard. I don’t know, it would be fun to see a double carrier throw down, just wild style all on England.

I just know that Subs at 5 are awesome, and all the other ships seem to fall in line after them when using the Improved Shipyards tech, with a reasonable balance on trades (vs air for example.) A better deal on unit replacement for ships can also encourages more ships used in attacks overall throughout the course of play, which can be very enjoyable. Some interesting late game navies too. Well anyhow, its always possible to try other things, if the only issue is balance on Sea Lion. Still seems like it’d be fun to try  :-D

After experimenting with all the Halifax stuff, and different bonuses, and variable turn orders and all the rest of it, I find myself less and less attached to the OOB game. More interested in how to the use the map, and different HRs to find a game that my friends and I really enjoy playing. One of the cool things about a restructuring of the unit costs for ships, is that it can work in conjunction with a lot of other rules, and isn’t necessarily broken by them since unit cost is a universal (works the same for everyone). This is why I think it might be cool to try them out in Halifax. Since the game already builds off an HR model, people who are willing to try it already, might be more inclined to try new things there as well. Just a thought anyway, cheap ships are a lot of fun. Whether the game can handle them absent some other balancing mechanism, or what mechanism that might be, remains an open question.

[Black_Elk]

ps. Question: what is the rationale behind not giving Commonwealth a Capital?

The Commonwealth nation does not have a capital, and as long as the Commonwealth controls Ottawa and/or Sydney, they may collect an income and build units.

From a gameplay standpoint, I think the Pacific would be much more interesting if the Commonwealth had their capital in Sydney. The reasoning would be to provide Japan with a stronger pacific target. Something for the Japanese/Axis to gun for. Right now, if you play with no capital, or the capital in Ontario, Japan has little incentive to invade the Anzac territories, since there is no chance for Axis to grab the commonwealth purse by doing so.

If you place the Capital in Sydney on the other hand, then you can put this option on the table. With no Capital you treat Commonwealth like China, which isn’t an industrial nation and has all the weird rules. If you put the Capital in Ontario, then you are creating another player with secure income (like USA) onto the Allied side. This seems a bit unfortunate, since Axis don’t have a way to contest it. I think its best if Commonwealth has a capital just like every other Industrial player/nation, and Sydney makes the most sense to me for the gameplay. It gives Japan something to do, other than mob India.

Also under the original production rules outlined in this thread, minors can be built anywhere worth 2 ipcs or more. This gives more options for Japan to build industrial complexes to position themselves on Australia, or once taken in places like Queensland or New Zealand, to pressure Honolulu and San Francisco.

Any thoughts? 17/20 or more IPCs to start as a Commonwealth Target, is much better prize than traditional Anzac. And the original Halifax draft allows it to be more interesting for the production of minors. With Australia and New Zealand both activated and Australia under Japanese control, it might be possible for them to contest North American production (with a full minor factory buy, that’d be 9 possible units out of Anzac and 10 out of Tokyo vs USA 10 units out of San Francisco.) Even if the full Pacific or War against North America might not be optimal strategy for Japan, at least it would be a little more likely, if Japan could steal the Commonwealth purse out of Sydney to set it up. I think this is better than Axis having no way to isolate or eliminate the Commonwealth player.

Any thoughts?

One thing I really like about Halifax, even more than the production unit profiles, is the fact that it unites the UK into a single economy, and eliminates the weird situation of a single nation having 2 capitals. So for me I have always favored giving Commonwealth and UK both a single capital that behaves like normal player/nations. The UK has theirs in London, and Commonwealth in Sydney. This way you preserve the total number of Capitals on both sides of the board Europe/Pacific.

[baron Münchhausen]

I find this idea more consistent with the basic rules.
Capturing such CW Capital is a way of not only increase Japan incomes but also a way of freezing money of Canada and South Africa, even if it stay out of reach. This also help Axis players.

Making it a Capital can better reenact the Pacific Ocean War around Solomons Islands where IJN was trying to cut the supply lines of Anzac coming from USA.

This become a way to lure/bait Japan outside is comfort zone strategy but can be probably much fun to play.