G40 Halifax Rules

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?

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.

@Black_Elk:

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.

@Black_Elk:

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”?

@Black_Elk:

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 ;)

@Black_Elk:

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 :)

@Black_Elk:

**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:

1. Major IC         (10 units like before)

2. Mid Major IC    (5 units new IC)

3. 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 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.

I think a consistent naming convention is best. We should provide a good standard that everyone can adopt.  Instead of the current wording I suggest no prefix for the Factory at 5. Just call it “Factory” and leave Major 10, Minor 3 alone.

I also think of a complex involving much more than factories, like the whole spread imagining it as whatever you want it to be. It’s hard to give these things new names. It doesn’t matter how many hairs we split in the definition, people will still refer to them as “Factories” and “ICs”. Thinking about it some, if confusion enters in, it will probably be because we are taking the names in OOB g40 and giving them different values.
In G40 Major is worth 10, and here, in the current wording you have “Major factory” worth 5.
The minor stays essentially the same in terms of its value at 3. But the change in definition of Major is problematic.

I agree with Wild Bill, the mid level factory should have a different name rather than substituting one that already exists (this to prevent confusion when referencing OOB G40 or G40 Halifax.) But the problem is that there is no good name between minor factory and Major Factory. Or is there…? Lets blow everyone’s mind with how simple we can make this. ;)

instead we use…

Major Factory 10
Factory 5
Minor Factory 3

Then you don’t have to change the names or definitions. The Major and Minor have the same values as OOB. It is assumed that the middle one, called simply  “Factory” is the most common, and thus it doesn’t need a qualifying prefix.

Basically the normal “Factory” 5 is the one between Major and Minor. It’s not quite major and not quite minor, but simply a “Factory.” You could even use the chips in 1942.2, since they are generic and don’t have a value printed. Just say all those normal “Factories” are the 5s.

Then if you like you can substitute Industrial Complex IC for the same…

Major IC 10
IC 5
Minor IC 3

Makes sense? Nobody has to shake old habbits or start calling things by different names. To me this would be preferable to changing the names of the two OOB units around. The mid level one doesn’t need a prefix, just call it what it is “Factory.” Sound good?

This will make the rules sound better, especially the first rule. Since here in Halifax you upgrade the starting Minor Factories to standard Factories… normal Factories, regular Factories, plain old middle of the road “Factories”, that don’t need to be described with a prefix because they are just so very normal hehe. This gets rid of the first rule requiring a change in definition of unit names.

For me the main advantage to this production system is that it fixes the two largest types of factories,  but allows the smallest to go anywhere that satisfies the production requirement (a territory at 2 or more.) I think by opening it up we will allow for more entertaining uses of the unit. Just to clarify, “the Minor factory can go anywhere at 2 right?” Right! ;)

Everything is made simpler with this ruleset. Which is why it rocks

I think  Black_Elk hit it out of the park, might not need a prefix

If you do use a prefix though, “Standard IC” or maybe “Base IC” ?

I think I prefer the later (because its shorter and to the point)

@knp7765:

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.

I prefer either one of these myself. Both are good still perfectly understandable. I like the “Industrial Complex” being the largest one because it implies as much and also hearkens back to all A&A games before it. Speaking of which ……

@Black_Elk:

instead we use…

Major Factory 10
Factory 5
Minor Factory 3

Then you don’t have to change the names or definitions. The Major and Minor have the same values as OOB. It is assumed that the middle one, called simply  “Factory” is the most common, and thus it doesn’t need a qualifying prefix.

This is nice and simple, but it totally changes the wording from that used in all other A&A games. While you could have “Minor IC”, “IC” and “Major IC” … I think this would be even more confusing because G40 has already ingrained that there are only two levels of industrial complexes. (Thought running through a player’s head -->)How is the middle one distinguished from the others??? Everyone just calling them industrial complexes (or factories), for short, during gameplay will inevitably be confusing…. etc. (I suppose you could just call the ‘normal’ industrial complex a “Mid Industrial Complex/Factory”… but some of the aforementioned confusion would remain. And I struggle with calling the middle one “Base” because that implies it is the lowest block from which to build; e.g. the Base model being the first or smallest. But this is not true in the above system… with a Minor Factory/IC you have something that is below the Base one, which seems very odd.)

There is a balance between simplicity and specificity. The Minor, Base, Major Factory (or IC) system is very simple on paper, but I think there can be a lot of underlying confusion in practice. Plus, using “Factory” deviates from all of A&A tradition.

The Minor Factory, Major Factory, Industrial Complex system is both simple and specific. Factories are the lower strata and the traditional Industrial Complex is the ultimate production center. This is a very logical progression both linguistically and historically (from the game’s perspective and world history). Only the largest powers of the world were able to forge the “military industrial complex”, and then only on their home soil. This system will reinforce that. It is not confusing in the least.

If we really wanted to make it plainly obvious which one of the type can be purchased then we should go with KNP’s second suggestion:

Factory
Minor Industrial Complex
Major Industrial Complex

This has the benefit of theoretically adding only one new unit type and retaining the Minor-Major convention from G40. The only memorization needed is to remember that a factory builds 3 and the minor now builds 5. Perhaps this is the best compromise of all systems.

@Young:

This sentence in the rules needs to make sense…

Setup modifications for all nations: All Minor Industrial Complexes are now Major Factories.

not…

Setup modifications for all nations: All Minor Industrial Complexes are now Minor Industrial Complexes.

Why not just take it out and rephrase it?

Setup modifications for all nations:

There are now three levels of production facilities:  Factories, Minor Industrial Complexes and Major Industrial Complexes. (Assuming we are still using G40 2nd Ed setup) All existing Minor ICs in the setup remain as such, but their production capacity is now 5 units. All existing Major ICs remain as such and their production value is still 10. Factories are the only production facility allowed for purchase and may produce 3 units. (add all other rules here…)

I’m going with the suggestion called with

Industrial Complexes =  10 units

Major Factory =  5 units

Minor Factory  =  3 units.

I’m also going to paint my factory’s either to YG suggestion or paint what I want. Right now I have dark grey = IC, light grey = Major and white = Minor.

Always liked the 3 unit factory called a Minor.

YG did say to chime in so thats my say.

@Young:

I will definitely add something like this as an intro to production units, but not under setup modifications.

Well I feel sheepish… you did have in nice red letters: Setup modifications for all nations:

Should teach me to really read before I write.

My comments would do better in an intro, but as for setup modification you really would not have to add/clarify anything. Minors and minor, majors are majors… nothing changes, which is a good thing.

Now… if we were to do the Minor Factory, Major Factory, IC route or the Minor, Standard, Major route… then you would have to explain the changes. First method is easier to write out.