Correct. While we all know the outcome of Axis forces in USSR, I am just pointing out here that the Just Cause for invading USSR heavily favored the Axis forces. And remember when Hitler gave the orders, the Heer was basically doing nothing but waiting to see if the air and naval power of Germany could contain UK so the army was doing nothing and neither the navy or a large air force was needed to invade USSR so why not? Personally, I would have waited for Stalin to make the first move.
G40 Halifax Rules
-
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.
-
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.htmlAs 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 :)
-
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 ipcsI 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
-
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.
-
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 5Not 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. -
Cool… Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
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 :)
-
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. :-)
-
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.
-
Haha Dartmouth variant it is! :-D
-
-
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 ipcsI 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I may try an answer: historical accuracy as a remnants of the initial creation of the Halifax Rules.
Anzac, Canada and South Africa were more autonomous Dominions or Countries.
Canada played an important support role in protecting UK’s supply line.Making 1 single Power with those 3 makes a more viable Power amongst the others from a gameplay perspective: a 17/20 IPCs per turn Power.
But they were never a unified entity such as UK and his colonial states.1 Commonwealth Capital is more a game decision.
What about making Commonwealth a more vulnerable Power but still able to work even with a lost head?
Makes Ottawa, Sydney and Pretoria joined Capital of Commonwealth.
If any is captured, Commonwealth loose all is actual IPCs in hand and gives to the conqueror.
Then, on the next turn, it can collect IPCs from the other territories hold firm.
If it loose a second Capital, then it loose again all his IPCs to the conqueror.
Commonwealth is nonetheless still alive, but probably very crippled, and able to collect IPCs at the end of his next turn.You can rationalize that loosing one of the three Capital simply meant a lot of disorganization in all political, economical and military structures (figured by all IPCs given to the winner).
What do you think of this? -
I actually like that last suggestion quite a lot. Though I would exclude Pretoria for the simple reason that there is no VC for it drawn on the map. Perhaps this could be adapted into Halifax Option 2, since it only matters if Commonwealth includes South Africa, where you could maybe add a 20th VC, but I think the same concept could work right now, for the two VCs that do apply.
No reason why you couldn’t do this for Ottawa or Sydney, since both those VCs are drawn on the map, and they are both key territories in Halifax option 1 and option 2.
I don’t recall the Capital thing receiving much discussion. I brought it up on page 3 of this thread but received no direct reply…
@Black_Elk:a normal Capital in Sydney with the normal mechanics, (as a bait for Japan, since unlike Ottawa, Sydney is contested)
I then proceeded to come down on the Dual capital concept, but I guess upon reflection, I definitely prefer a dual capital to No capital at all. This aside was overtaken entirely by a discussion of the 3 tiered production profiles, and what colors to use for factories, so it was never really addressed, but I still think its relevant.
:-DBasically in the case suggested most recently, if either VC is taken (Ottawa/Sydney), it awards the entire Commonwealth purse. But on the following round, providing Commonwealth still retains the other VC, it may still collect income.
Its not perfect, from the standpoint of wanting all player/nations to work in the same way, but China already screws that ambition anyway, no matter what we do, there will always be weird nation specific rules applying in G40. The way I see it, having 2 capitals, where either can be taken awarding the full purse to the nation that captures it, is much better than a system with no capital for Commonwealth. And definitely better than a system where the money is returned to the Bank rather than awarded to the conqueror. Otherwise the Halifax rules as stated give no real incentive for Axis to go after Commonwealth as a target.
This is mainly from a Pacific gameplay perspective, since Ottawa is unlikely to fall. But if somehow Italy or Germany do manage to take Ontario, then I feel they should be awarded the Commonwealth purse for doing so. A game where both VCs are taken (as outlined in the initial post for Halifax) and the money is returned to the bank, is unlikely to ever occur in an actual game, so its seems like a waste of space in the rules to focus attention on such a scenario. I prefer Targets territories, over safe havens and secure income for Commonwealth, since I think it would make the gameplay more enjoyable overall.
I would also suggest preemptively, that many people probably voted +1 to the lead Halifax post, not as a way of expressing perfect agreement about all the details in that post (which has been edited several times anyway) but rather they voted +1 as I did, because they want to support the general idea of the thread/subject. Or at least, it should probably be put to a separate poll vote. I’m not sure I see any advantage in closing off modification to Halifax simply because it has certain number of + votes, especially if there is still work to be done. When I voted +1 for example I did not take that to = “the rules as stated shouldn’t ever be altered” as it was still a work in progress when I voted, and because I really don’t think adequate time was allowed to playtest any of this stuff, before reaching a final decision.
:-DFor example, this lack of a Capital for Commonwealth, is something which did not seem hugely significant to me at first gloss, and certainly not when I gave this thread the thumbs up, but now I think it is ultimately problematic for the ruleset. No capital for Commonwealth, means no viable target for Japan in the Pacific (since Calcutta is gone), which I think undermines the gameplay on this side of the board.
At the very least, we should have an option to allow some form of Capital for Commonwealth, with normal Capital capture rules (e.g. conqueror takes the money). You can put it in Commonwealth option 2 if you like, since that’s the option I have been testing. But I really think it would be better for both options 1/2.
Any thoughts here? I mean now that we have a tripleA version of this Mod, all this stuff is coming under review for me. Right now the Capital rules are the most glaring. I feel like without a Capital, Commonwealth is not a viable target for Axis/Japan. And Japan really needs a target in the Pacific. Anzac/Sydney would be cooler than India was, since it drives Japan more into direct conflict with North America.
Also worth thinking about, can we please provide better Victory conditions in Halifax than are available OOB?
There is a discussion about this stuff going on right now in the G40 forums, and I think the VC conditions of the boxed game just aren’t making the cut for a lot of people. It would be helpful if Halifax had its own Victory conditions, designed to support the other set up changes. And I would vote that these be determined by a set number of VCs controlled per side, not split up theater for Axis the way normal G40.2 has it. Anyhow, these are some of the main issues I see right now with the Halifax core, that it would be nice to resolve. After all, if someone really has an issue with anything, then they can post arguments or suggestions and we can figure it out. Nothing is ever perfect on the first attempt, as A&A in general proves, and Global sec edition proves. This mod should be no different. -
New players get confused the divided UK AND then there is Anzac. Que??? is the reaction I have seen.
A Commonwealth is a very usefull way to solve that.
Using the Anzac units and markers this makes it much easier for new players to also play UK/Commonwealth.Does the Commonwealth need a capital at all? it is sevral different dominions under joint leadership- not one separate nation.
No capital= major boost (no way of stopping them fighting on if one part falls). As japan is kind off überstrong and in reach of calcutta nd/or Sydney I whould not mind at all. -
Thanks Magro, I haven’t visited this tread for some time but I plan on updating it and providing a 3rd Halifax option. Can’t answer the question on capitals until I reveiw more. Cheers
-
There has been some discussion about what to do with the ‘3-unit’ minor factories already on the board at startup. YoungGrasshoper has mentioned in the discussion that they should be changed to major factories, but it is not mentioned in the first post of this thread, so it is somewhat confusing :?
Do they become ‘5-unit’ major factories, or do they stay ‘3-unit’ minor factories?
Suggested Topics
