• Customizer

    @Young:

    Correct, a territory which had an Industrial Complex downgraded due to capture, may never contain anything greater than a major factory for the rest of the game.

    This really makes sense to me from a realistic point of view. Say you have a territory with a big Industrial Complex on it. An enemy force attacks and conquers the territory. Then you send in a force to take it back.
    With two large battles, that territory is now devastated. Being one of your original territories, you would have the proper resources to restore the minor factory back up to a major factory. After all, you would be more familiar with the area and where the proper materials would be and the local populace would speak your language.
    However, the war is still ongoing and as stated, the area is in worse shape than it was during peacetime so you can’t really reinstate a large industrial complex there. Let’s face it, during war some things and abilities will simply be lost and not recoverable.
    As for a conquering power, this territory is foreign to you and you would be lucky to be able to reinstate even a Minor factory there. The people here don’t speak your language and they are probably hostile toward you, thus not so willing to help you find the materials needed to construct a major factory. Possible sabotage would be a concern as well.
    Also, while we use “factory” pieces for convenience of the game, a Minor Factory wouldn’t necessarily mean an actual production facility but perhaps more of a shipping port or strong beach head where you could be receiving supplies, weapons and new troops to send to the front. For example, when the Allies occupied France and much of Western Europe, they had a lot of Sherman tanks flowing into the theater, but they didn’t actually make those Sherman tanks at a factory located there in Western Europe. They were made back in the States and shipped to Western Europe.
    Could you imagine trying to play this game without using the factories? The Allies would never be able to establish a beach head in Europe. Unless you could say that the beach head or ports were available to use upon capture and able to “produce” next turn.


  • @Young:

    @Black_Elk:

    I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

    In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

    In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

    I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

    Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

  • Sponsor

    @CWO:

    @Young:

    @Black_Elk:

    I dig all the concepts and naming conventions introduced so far!

    In my play group we often use shorthands to describe basic set up or rules adustments that we are particularly fond of. For example, in AA50 we have a set up tweak that we refer to as AA50 “Chunking Rules!” where china begins the standard turn order. Basically they get a free turn, by going before the first Axis player in either set up 41 or 42.

    In my head I was already referring to this set up tweak for Global as “Halifax Rules” haha

    I like it a lot… “Halifax Rules” it shall be.

    Just out of curiosity: why “Halifax Rules”?  Is this a reference to the city of Halifax?  Lord Halifax?  In either case, what’s the connection with the proposed rule tweaks?  The title sounds good, but I’m just perplexed about what it means.

    Not sure, maybe Black_Elk who suggested the name is from there, I myself like it because it sounds like a code name… like “operation Halifax”

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Haha I’m actually from San Francisco, (I was thinking about it last night and there was a big 6.1 earthquake!). For some reason the name jumped out at me, since I kind of view this series of rules as a way to sneak Canada into the mix (with a simple and elegant mechanism, by joining them up with the Anzac faction). Here, this charming old timey film clip from the era might do a better job of explaining than I can…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkbaKvRQ4K4#t=134

    Basically its a major Atlantic port city that served as a hub for North American war material shipped over for the defense of Britain during the conflicts of the early 20th century.

    But yeah, I just thought it had a cool sounding ring to it  :-D

    For whatever reason it always seems like the secret code name type titles always want to stick. It’s the enigmatic nature the thing I guess. Just a shorthand for a series of minor tweaks taken together that players like.  Comes out of the old classic type names I guess, that never really explained what they did but instead used normandy invasion code words hehe

    These rules are clearly destined to Rock!
    Poseidon “the earthshaker” approves! ;)

    Nice work

  • Sponsor

    Great story about the earthquake, let’s hope these rules send shock waves. I also like the name because I’m Canadian and have been to Halifax… Awesome city.


  • Excellent work. Have tested this with proficient G40 2nd ed. players and works a treat !

    We decided to include cruisers as capital ships as far as minor IC production is concerned. Also USA is allowed to build on Philippines - was this intended ? Great job nonetheless.


  • Nice to see players using “Halifax”.

    I think cruisers could go either way for production at minor IC’s. The navies that are represented by the new CAnzac power did have a handful of cruisers, and set-up gives them a cruiser (sz63). I know these ships were built at UK shipyards. Some were ordered and paid for by the Commonwealth Navies, others re-commissioned to them. The cruiser in this game isn’t purchased to often (whole debate about cruisers vs destroyers), so I don’t see much of a problem allowing this newly merged power to build them to give them a little bite.

    With that said I could also see also players house ruling the production abilities of all three ICs. If this was the case though some of the starting minors would probably need to be upgraded at set-up.

    Maybe this, or some variation:

    Minor builds units up to 8 IPCs: Inf, art, mech, tank, AA, destroyer, transport.

    Major builds units up to 12 IPC: adding cruisers, ftr, tac, bombers

    IC builds all units

    BTW the Phil doesn’t start with production ability, and as an island can’t be added either.

    Here is a site that list the individual allied navies

    http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/

  • Sponsor

    Wild Bill,

    Players will always house rule house rules, but if someone like Krieghund were to officially support or endorse this, then I would lock this thread as to not change what has been approved and call it Alpha+4  :-D. With that said and after much thought, the only change I’m making today is to explain production from a minor factory being any units that cost 10 IPCs or less. I like it because it’s easier and cleaner to explain without listing all units that can’t be built by a minor, and I also like the idea of listing Krieghund as a contributor to the development of Halifax rules. You are still credited as a developer of this game mechanic because if not for you sharing your idea, Krieghund would maybe never have come here to share his own (which was pretty much the same idea as yours with a small twist).

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I love the additional historical flavor this adds, and gives ANZAC some punch in the Pacific. I do wish Western Canada were 2 IPC so it could have a minor factory. Could launch ships and air from there to help out the US in the North Pacific.


  • Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

    Like I said the cruiser in my mind could have gone either way. The Commonwealth didn’t have the shipyards to produce the larger ships, but acquired a few from other means (mostly from UK).

    I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units. This is somewhat of a testament of what they had at the start of the war, how their own production abilities grew as the war progressed, and what the UK commissioned to them along the way (or could have). Yeah, they may not have been able to build a heavy cruiser or even an escort carrier, but many of the battle groups were formed by multiple nations. The game doesn’t allow for multiple nations to attack together, so allowing the CAnzac power to have them if they invest is a good compromise.

    Canada built a lot of aircraft (including bmrs), and ended up with the 4th largest navy in the world at wars end although it was comprised of mostly of smaller vessels, and escort ships. This mechanism allows for this.

    PS YG just a clarification.

    When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

    “May not be purchased, or upgraded”

    I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

    I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

    Is the intent of  “May not be purchased” under major to force a 2 stage build-up, or was it simply an oversight? Maybe you don’t want a power to drop 22 IPCs in one turn to build a major (which would be pretty cool BTW if they couldn’t)

  • Sponsor

    @WILD:

    Don’t get me wrong YG, I wasn’t suggesting you change your proposal to limit what a “mid major” could produce, or to reduce further what could be built at a minor (although you have done the later). It was more of a reflection of something that could be done strictly as a house-rule tweak to Halifax (sorry for the confusion). BTW I too thought it was pretty cool when Krieghund chimed in, and the 10 IPCs cut off makes a lot of sense to me as well. Hope to see him again, his feed back holds a lot of weight. I would probably steer away from calling it Alpha+4 though if you want a Krieg (or Larry) endorsement. No way they open that up again for G40 lol

    No problem… and I may agree with you about the Alpha+4 bit, I may even be treading in copyright waters.

    I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units.

    Not sure, but you may have misread the intended rules which say that all original minor industrial complexes in the initial setup become major factories. Therefore Canada and ANZAC both have major factories that can produce up to 5 units of any type to begin the game.

    PS YG just a clarification.

    When you describe the individual production centers the last line for a major is a bit confusing.

    “May not be purchased, or upgraded”

    I know you can’t upgrade a Major to a full fledged IC.

    I also know that you can upgrade a minor to a major as long as it is a home territory, and is worth 2 IPCs (like Quebec, Sidney, or S Africa). I assume if UK builds a minor on say Egypt, or Persia, they could also upgrade that minor to a major as well because it is a 2 IPC territory (same for Germany on Romania/Norway or Japan on Korea etc…).

    Yes, in order to have a major factory on a territory like Egypt, the UK must first build a minor factory, and then upgrade it to a major during their next turn. I will edit the rules to better clarify this.

  • Sponsor

    Took Krieghund’s name off the credits for now, thought I would ask him first before slapping his name on this as a contributor.

  • Customizer

    Okay, hold on here. Why are we changing the factory rules?
    First we had the following:
    Industrial Complexes – Only available on setup (and US entry into the war). Once captured and downgraded to a Minor Factory, can NEVER be an Industrial Complex again. Can NOT be purchased!
    Major Factories – All existing Minor ICs at setup are replaced by Major Factories. India’s Major IC is replaced with a Major Factory.  Once captured it is downgraded to a Minor Factory. Can NOT be purchased!
    Minor Factories – Only purchasable factory available. Can be placed in any territory worth 2 IPCs or more except for islands.
    UPGRADES – If an Industrial Complex or Major Factory is captured and reduced to a Minor then retaken, the ORIGINAL owner may upgrade the Minor to a Major Factory for 10 IPCs. This is the ONLY upgrade available.

    Now you are saying a country may purchase a Minor Factory, place it, then upgrade it to a Major Factory next round? I am not liking this development. There was supposed to be NO UPGRADES with the exception of ex-ICs and ex-Majors that are recaptured by the original owner. Now you are going to have Major Factories all over the place. I thought these new rules were a way to restrict production in odd places. This will actually boost production.
    Also, I saw someone mentioning the US producing units in the Philippines. I thought we were sticking with the “no ICs/factories on islands” rule. Have we done away with that too?

  • Sponsor

    So the only allowable upgrade would be from a minor factory to a major factory, and only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex, and only if made by the original owner of that territory?.. I’m OK with that. As for ICs on Islands, that suggestion was never entertained. I’m hoping to put a lock on these rules quickly… thanks for your help KNP.


  • @Young:

    @WILD:

    I like the fact that your proposal allows this new CAnzac power to upgrade their starting minor production centers to a mid major for 10 IPCs so they can produce the higher end units.

    Not sure, but you may have misread the intended rules which say that all original minor industrial complexes in the initial setup become major factories. Therefore Canada and ANZAC both have major factories that can produce up to 5 units of any type to begin the game.

    You’re right YG, I misread that part (my bad). I thought the only Major Factory (Mid level) was awarded to India at the start, and the others stayed as Minor Factories that could be upgraded at some point (if on your own soil) if you wanted to make that investment.

    I will say that when Krieghund sited the testing minors with a 10 IPC limit, it kinda sounds like they might have been looking at keeping most of the starting minors as minors to restrict certain areas? I don’t want to put words in his mouth though.

    Obviously we weren’t privy to what else they looked at, but there must have been some discussions about India’s production abilities in the development phase before they went with 10 units (maybe they looked a a mid level IC and scrapped it?).

    To knp7765 about Major factories popping up all over being a concern. Being you can’t upgrade a minor fac to a major fac on foreign soil most powers won’t get more production in remote, or forward bases with the exception of the UK. At least it would take a couple turns to get it to 5 units and again it has to be on your original territory to do so.

    My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

  • Sponsor

    @WILD:

    @Young:

    @WILD:

    My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

    There have been discussions in other threads and more play testing is obviously needed, however, I believe that the Allies are at such a disadvantage (due to many cases of Axis domination even with large bids) that having all minor IC’s begin as major factories is more than acceptable to equalize the balance. Especially if we consider that with Halifax rules, the Allies don’t get any extra units, or extra IPCs to spend (actually some might argue that they have less with the UK and Commonwealth NOs being reduced), in fact the only thing the Allies have been given is the freedom to buy more units in the same places with less restrictions. Weather all this is to little or to strong is still in question, but I kinda like what we got to work with.

  • Customizer

    @WILD:

    My concern is that all the minors just got free increased factory production tech (5 units). Not saying it won’t work, but I wouldn’t close the door on keeping the starting minors as minor factories until you have given it some thought (or tested). By keeping Quebec and Sidney as minor factories the CAnzac power would need to split his income between both sides until he decides to upgrade one or the other. 3 units kinda self limits tossing all income into one theater unless you make an investment (thinking about saving income, or just doing well on one side or the other by taking Brazil or the money islands etc….) It is also intriguing to have what they can build be limited unless they make an investment.

    I can understand what you are saying about the Commonwealth pouring too much of their income in either Sydney or Quebec, but really that should be that player’s choice. In most cases, if they concentrate on one side while the other side gets smashed, it will hurt them in the long run.
    I am more for giving them Major Factories to start mainly for the limitations placed on Minor Factories – no units over 10 IPCs. Not so worried about the Commonwealth buying battleships or aircraft carriers, but with this limitation they can’t even build cruisers or tactical bombers. Also, I would be more inclined to allow them strategic bombers.
    Plus, with Calcutta no longer being a capital, if Germany goes Sealion then Japan might press Sydney really hard. They should be able to produce 5 units per turn without having to upgrade their capital factory for a good defense. Japan may still take Sydney, but it won’t be a cake walk.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Its about to go down!  :-D
    See the images below…

    Pay attention not so much to the order markers or the unit set up, as those are all chaos and unrelated experiments (haha!), but just check the 3 tiered factory scheme green, red, and blue!

    These are just the roughest of set up snapshot shops, but maybe it would be cool, once everything is finalized with the standard Halifax rules, to do some sample shots in the lead post. Especially for the production changes, since those are the most important, and the ones that need clarity with nice visually informative snaps.

    I favor fixed production for ICs, and Majors, only minors purchasable in green, or something similar. But whatever the ideal production scheme, once its established, take a picture to show exactly what tweaks are involved.

    So you know, basically showing how the units are switched out and arranged on the mapboard, how production can be modeled (using markers, or monopoly pieces, or pennies nickels and quarters, or something like that so you can denote ICs, majors, minors.) I find the visual can be helpful for showing the aesthetics and advantages of the adjustment.

    Like we could do factory snaps showing the values, canada+anzac shots, UK+UK pacific shots with India made clear, show the income with battlebucks, the turn order with control markers, show the distribution of all ICs and Majors etc, and make a little photo guide help aid in the set up like that.

    In these snaps our Canadian units got a little knocked around. I let my buddy try them out and he was pretty into it. I saved a couple snaps showing how we stacked the factories in colors. Tiny earthquakes (following the larger one) shook some stuff around, I just noticed in the snaps for factories, as we tried to lay it out on card tables. Anyway… I didn’t have monopoly pieces on hand at my friends, but we used these flag markers as placeholders. I have to double check his set up, because we were just playing around with ideas, and things got knocked as always, but my friend Tony and I are setting up for the showdown! I wanted to lay out the most basic set up for my friend to see if he liked our approach, e.g. incorporating Canada into the action, single UK, and new production system.) I have adopted a 3 tiered colored scheme as suggested elsewhere, shown here flags and chips below up to the operation value, with the factory unit alongside and dice values for reference.

    Some visuals to make clearer some of the core ideas…

    I also have some ideas about how 1940 could be played, that would compliment the basic thrust of the Halifax rules. Not necessary for them, but things that could be added around them to simplify or take the game in other interesting direction. The unit placements are a bit off, since I was paying more attention to Germany and Axis spreads, but I like the basic theme it builds off to have Canada in the same faction with Anzac, and UK brought together. I also just like the way it looks with ICs, and Majors and Minors having the color thing nailed. Blue for 10 will go next time, but just working with the stuff we had on hand red and green chips with the standards :)

    @knp7765:

    Industrial Complexes – Only available on setup (and US entry into the war). Once captured and downgraded to a Minor Factory, can NEVER be an Industrial Complex again. Can NOT be purchased!
    Major Factories – All existing Minor ICs at setup are replaced by Major Factories. India’s Major IC is replaced with a Major Factory.  Once captured it is downgraded to a Minor Factory. Can NOT be purchased!
    Minor Factories – Only purchasable factory available. Can be placed in any territory worth 2 IPCs or more except for islands.
    UPGRADES – If an Industrial Complex or Major Factory is captured and reduced to a Minor then retaken, the ORIGINAL owner may upgrade the Minor to a Major Factory for 10 IPCs. This is the ONLY upgrade available.

    Yeah, I don’t see a strong reason to restrict the unit types that can be produced at majors, except for the general cap on total placement. I favor ICs and Majors working basically like the familiar factories of other boards. The only distinction being the numbers cap and operation level (at 5 and 10 units total). No purchase, no upgrade. If there is a restriction on unit type that can be placed at a factory, then I’d leave it just for the Minors. Like a cap by unit cost at 10 as suggested elsewhere. Basically I think it would probably be easiest to adopt if the only factory that has specific rules is the minor. All the others are just there from the outset (with the exception of the IC/Major getting captured and demoted thing.) It seems like its easiest to fix the ICs and Major at the outset, so the only stuff that would change is if a Major factory gets knocked down to a minor, or a new minor is purchased, or if you like the DoW thing with USA getting the upgrade. I prefer a scenerio where USA likewise just starts with whatever ICs its going to end up having, but I also favor ditching the DoW, so people may not want to go as extreme as me hehe. But basically keep it simple with all the switches at the outset. I like ICs and Major, not available as upgrades, so you don’t have to deal with the idea of upgrading, just downgrading. Whatever the choice, once fixed, I say take some pics to show it

    Halifax Rules Production Canzac.jpg
    Halifax Rules 2.jpg

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    ps. This is not necessarily for the Halifax rules, but in our expanded games my friends are very interested in the potential adaptations of some of these new principles outlined in the thread above. Specifically how they might also be used in conjunction with other tweaks, to support a Variable start to the turn order on a G40 board, as well as a total war (no DoW) start. Using the player/nation structure, the economy, and factory systems outlined above, but also using Turn order adjustments (within a set turn order or “sequence of nations”), and with matching paired income bonuses at the outset as the balancing mechanism. The idea is a large ascending or descending bonus to starting income, depending on which nation wins the roll, for a randomized beginning to the game over the bid. Basically the same sorts of rules we use for AA50 variable start, but adapted to a 1940 set up. I mention this here, only because I wanted to show one of the cool features of including the Dominions. In such a variable you can create 6 positions, where Allies are paired equally. The exact sequence of nations, the bonus structure, and which Minor Allied nation should be attached to which Major Allied nation are all points still up for debate, but this is the goal I have been pursuing for a long time… A variable start to an A&A game to replace the bid. Right now there are still many features of this to be worked out. But with the Canadians included in the commonwealth spread I think there are several potential positions that can be explored… For example in Variable, the grouping on major-nations/minors-nations could have Russia/China, UK/France, USA/Commonwealth, because then you’d have the advantage of pieces in proximity (more concentrated for ease of the Allied player seating and piece movement.) Or it could have Russia/France, UK/Commonwealth, USA/China which gives a coordinated feel. Or it could have Russia/Commonwealth, UK/China, USA/France which spreads each ally (in a 3 man) out across the globe and gives everyone a navy to mess around with. How exactly to split the major-nations with the minor-nations is the current subject that my game group is playing around with, and whether to make this a randomized component of the allied sequence or a set one. More ideas along these lines in future separate threads. We are most interested in a variable set up that begins Total War, without the DoW. We would like to stick as much as possible to boxed set up cards, for ease of implementation, but instead use turn order and starting income (cash bonus) adjustments to balance, rather than adjusting unit positions via bids and the like.
    But anyway…

    I bring it up here just to say that we are fully on board with the production and set up changes that bring Canada into it, fix the production, and join the UK and UK pacific into a single spread. This will be the basis of any other rules we work on going forward. Thanks again to everyone who has been working on this stuff. I think its all great  :-D

    Halifax variable.jpg

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    pps. in the snaps above my stuff in Ontario and Quebec got all knocked around while switching out lime green Brits from revised and cAnzacs to play ahah. But you get the general idea we tried for in the end. Anyway, in our set up and tweak session I was a bit more focused on G with the variable. But we both were having fun trying to see how to get the Commonwealth up into the fight. We settled on regular Anzac units for Canada, (rather than confusing the situation with the lime greens) but I did find that I kind of like the lime green potentially for China as the fighter looks a bit closer than using a US model, and the artillery seemed to match up alright. Anyway, this shot was from lining things up trying to decide heheh, lots of things got shifted around from Quebec and Ontario and Nova Scotia as we were looking at the set up, so these snaps don’t show the fighters in the right place, but the other ones were blurry. In any case, it was fun just to set up! More thoughts in the days to come :)

    Back to Commonwealth Ideas…

    Also, again not necessary for Halifax, but another simple rule I hit on was:
    Universal rule: All units listed in land territories for the starting unit set up, must match the National roundel marker of the territory they are in. (Basically to get rid of all co-located units at the beginning of play, something which introduces confusion I find.) This would effectively mean that step one is…

    1. Place all roundel adjustments: in this case Canzac roundel control markers on W. Canada (and Newfoundland if desired) Halifax Rules!

    2. switch out co-located units on the gamemap, so they all always match the territory’s national roundel control marker.

    In this case all British units in Canada become Canzac. Which is desirable, but also with this simple rule, the Canzac unit in Malaya, and the French units in London would become British. This could perhaps be used in lieu of any need for Allied bid adjustment, since Britain would gain back some of the units it loses to Canzac. And the wording of the rule is universal, thus easy to implement! No need for co-location of different nations at the outset.

    I call this “control marker” unit replacement. Basically the unit set up could stay exactly the same as printed on the OOB unit box set up chart, the only new information you need is which territory roundel changes to make, and the unit changes plug in automatically.

    Using this mechanism you can eliminate all co-located units from the set up! Co-located units are confusing at the beginning anyway, and this workaround gets you a balance that strikes much closer to what UK would likely need. Because the rule is universal, you could do the same thing for China if desired. You don’t have to, but if you wanted, you change all China’s territories to an American roundel, all units immediately become American (this might weaken the Allies in the long run, as a counterbalance if needed, since they wouldn’t have as much inf wall potential). Or you could do it for France or on any territory that you wanted to collapse or change in terms of possession in different types of games. The numbers of units and unit types within the territory stay the same as those printed on the set up chart for that territory, but the roundel change means “replace units to the nation of the Roundel.”

    I think that would be nice as a universal rule, because it makes everything else simpler. First place Control Marker tweak (alter possession as needed for the given scenario), then switch out units to match the roundel change. Make sense?

    One thing I like to avoid, if it can be avoided, is a change to the Boxed set up cards. Pre-placement bids are one example of changes to the Box set up, but also hard set up adjustments. These introduce confusion because the set up doesn’t match the box. But with the control marker mechanic for unit possession, you could include Canada easily. All units at the start of play (the ones written down on the set up unit boxes), are replaced by units matching the national roundel of that territory (in the set up.)

    So for our purposes Canadian roundels are considered Anzac (Canzac) all units there become Commonwealth. The British would get an extra fighter and 2 inf in UK, along with the extra dude in Malaya to aid the Indian defense (the units change to Brits to match the roundel). This makes up for not having the Brit units in Canada, but also removes a strong need for an Ontario fighter in the Atlantic, since UK would have one in London for the Battle of Britain right from the start. Canada could buy more air if desired at the Major factory. UK gaining the units in Malaya and UK just makes for a simpler cleaner look, or in the case of the latest manual they could get the extra dude in Egypt too for g40. With one clean move, you get Canada in, and you get all co-located units out. Simplifies everything at a go.

    Sea Zones don’t count for this, because they don’t have national control markers.

    The advantage to the universal rule, is that you can make set up adjustments with control markers, without breaking the unit totals/types. Everything stays true to the boxed set up, for ease of use and wider adoptability.

    Also, another smaller earthquake aftershock in the Bay Area just now!!! Once more I take this as a sign!

    canzac messing around.jpg

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 33
  • 3
  • 7
  • 8
  • 1
  • 15
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts