Made last minute refinements, going off to war now for 3 games in 3 days with the following Halifax rules… wish me luck.
G40 HALIFAX RULES
A special thanks to knp7765, afrothunder12, Black_Elk, and Wild Bill for their contributions to the development of these rules.
New Production Unit Profiles:
Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured
Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured
Minor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs*
There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:
*1. The original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
New Single UK Economy:
The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital. The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.
New Commonwealth Nation:
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as South Africa and South West Africa will now be know as the British Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian and South African territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zones #106 and #71).
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. However, if both Ottawa and Sydney are under enemy control, the Commonwealth must immediately relinquish all IPCs to the bank, and remove their roundel from the income tracker until at least 1 of these two original victory cities are liberated.
If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada, as well as South Africa and Western South Africa.
New National Objectives
All national objectives for the United Kingdom and ANZAC have been removed, and are now replaced with the following:
United Kingdom National Objectives:
5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya
5 IPCs if there are no Axis Submarines in the Atlantic
The British Commonwealth National Objectives:
5 IPCs for control of all original Commonwealth territories
5 IPCs if the Allies control all original Dutch territories in the Pacific
New Rule Modifications
Setup Adjustments:
American War Economy:
During each collect income phase in which the United States are at war, they may roll 2 dice and collect the amount shown in IPCs.
Okay, maybe I missed something but I am not understanding why you messed with the US Production facilities and their DOW.
Your rule states that upon the US DOW on the Axis or an Axis DOW upon the US, the US can upgrade ONE (1) of their major factories to an industrial complex.
All three US factories are supposed to upgrade to industrial complexes upon the US entry into the war. This is supposed to indicate the US ramping up from peacetime production to wartime production.
I mean, we all thought that the US wasn’t making enough money so you gave them the War Bonds so the US would have more money to spend. Then you nerf their production like this? Suppose they choose the EUS factory to upgrade to an IC, then on the Pacific side they will not be able to compete with Japan productively because they can only produce 5 units per turn there. Even if they build minor factories in Mexico and Alaska, the units they can build there is still limited.
Are you thinking people will upgrade the WUS factory to an IC? In which case the US could produce 10 units on each side as the CUS and EUS would produce 5 each and both territories feed into SZ 101. So do you just not want the US to be able to produce 20 units into the Atlantic?
I think you should remove that stipulation. This is just my opinion and these rules are yours so it is up to you. I will say that we will not be using that part in our games.
@Young:
Gonna play option 1 for all 3 games this weekend, easier to sell it to the group than #2… gonna be a great test.
I agree that ppl would be more inclined to play Op#1 (at least in the beginning). That was my point, and I’m glad to see you re-focus in that direction (for now). Think its important to get a viable (dare I say basic) scenario up and running before you introduce the other things that were mentioned.
I was also wondering about the US restricted to only one upgrade (knp outlined it well)?
Looking forward to hear your game reports YG
No problem guys, thought it would be an interesting choice for the Americans, but I can see how it’s unnecessary. Went back to this…
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
Thanks for keeping me on track, my goal is to get an endorsement from Krieghund, and the tweaks have to be minimal for that to happen.
What do you guys think about the rest of it?
Looks good… Just curious, why did you add South Africa to the Commonwealth?
Looks good… Just curious, why did you add South Africa to the Commonwealth?
I don’t want to put words in YG’s mouth, but in the test game he reported the UK had its handful with London/India and kinda neglected the S African IC (lack of funds). Not sure if the Commonwealth would be much better off though because they have even less income. The thought was the CW might be able to spend there early in games. Plus there was a couple posts of a heavy CW investment in S Af to fortify Africa that gained some interest.
Since then though I think UK got a new NO to help with that, so maybe it was a bit premature to pull the plug on a UK controlled S Af. Even in regular G40 games S Af can get neglected, and the UK is supposed to feel the squeeze (especially early). I think it is good to test it both ways, and maybe he’ll give it another shot in one of the test games this weekend.
Finished our first play test game today, and I’m ready to give a brief report… (gotta get up early for the FMGC).
Wild Bill is correct about why I decided to go with a Commonwealth that included SA, and it was confirmed today. The UK has a huge responsibility protecting London and Calcutta, the SA factory had cobwebs when controlled by the UK (both Halifax and OOB). At least this way, the Commonwealth can ignore Ottawa and build in SA if needed, in fact… the freedom to spend on 3 factories allows the Commonwealth the prioritize their income better than the UK, because Britain has more demanding strategies to adhere to.
As for our game today… the Axis won easily using the same dominate strategies as always. It was decided before the game that the US would only get 1 dice for extra income, however, as the game was reaching its end, it became clear that the US indeed needs 2 dice. The UK became very confident with their new economic situation and built a minor factory in Egypt turn 1. At the time it looked like a safe bet, however, things turned fast in the Med and the Italians captured the factory for good round 6. The situation was bleak and it proved to be the beginning of the end for the Allies.
My new philosophy for the UK (based on many games and not just today’s) is to not build a factory in Egypt or Persia unless crazy not to. I’m convinced that the UK money should be used to protect London and India, and if there’s money left over… start building an invasion force for liberating Europe (I’ve never seen Rome fall where it couldn’t be taken back next turn… fruitless). It’s still to early to remove the Japanese air units in Manchuria, but I’m sure Halifax may be headed there. As the US player, I rolled a 6,1,3,1,5,3, and 5 in 8 rounds of play (which took us 11 hours due to all the chit chat we indulged in).
The production facilities work awesome… placing units, bombing, repairing, and just the overall look of the table was flawless, although still in the air as to how it helps the Allies, at least there’s no doubt that it should help them in theory. Gonna try again tomorrow, although it might be an odd game of Halifax as my friend Mike will be teaching and integrating his oil barrel production house rule (which I find very interesting, but to left field for Halifax). I will try to report when I get home Saturday night.
Cheers and thanks for your time.
Sounds encouraging. Somehow I suspect it’s going to take some definite changes in strategy, coupled with some changes in early game income collection, if you want to see a g40 game where Axis don’t crush. Your friends idea about oil is also interesting, I’ve heard concepts like this mentioned before and I would support it, though I suspect (like the city objective) you will also meet with resistence. It’s very difficult to please everyone. As a GM you might wish to go more benevolent dictatorship than democracy, and try to find the game that works best for the tastes of your playgroup rather than trying to find one ruleset to rule them all hehe.
I know in my own group we find USA and Russia chronically underfunded, while Axis just stomp, and run the board. This is why I think I am maybe a bit more open than others here to a somewhat more dramatic readjustment of the OOB situation.
Until someone comes out and starts showing Allied victories, I’d say we’ve still got work to do.
Again I would come down against unit adjustment (removing Japanese aircraft etc.), because I think that changing the starting unit distribution messes with the game more dramatically than any NO you might introduce or remove, or any HR to tweak income. Others don’t seem to care at all about this, as the popularity of preplacment bids proves, but for me it remains the least desirable option.
I don’t see a strong difference for example between removing 21 ipcs worth of aircraft units on the Axis side, and adding 21 ipcs worth of ground units somewhere for the Allies. I think if you proposed adding 7 infantry to Russia people would balk at the idea. But how is it really any different?
Income adjustment is for me the only way to alter the situation without breaking early round battles. But again, I may be in the minority here ;)
I’d say you’ve got a pretty strong template to build off of here. How exacting you need to make it in the finer details is a question to ruminate on. Suggested options might be helpful here. Option A, Option B etc, for balance depending on player preference. But so far I like what I’m hearing in terms of the overall effect of the production scheme and the Commonwealth/UK.
Thanks Black Elk… I totally get what you’re saying, I mean if we have to rely on striping away Japanese air units, and giving the US 2 dice worth of money… than why the single UK income and Commonwealth if it’s all just a wash.
I’ve been playing around in my head an idea about the Allies piggy backing production unit capabilities… it goes something like this:
Piggy Backing Commonwealth Factories:
The Commonwealth nation now goes first in the turn sequence. At the beginning of every game round, 5 black chips are placed under each original major factory the Commonwealth owns, a chip is removed from a factory if a Commonwealth unit is placed there. The United States first, then the United Kingdom second, may build units on Commonwealth factories removing black chips for each unit placed there, up to the amount of available black chips under each factory. However, America may only piggy back Ottawa and Sydney, and the UK may only piggy back Ottawa and South Africa. Once a game round has ended, all black chips are reset to 5.
What do you think?
It’s an interesting concept, and I am probably more willing than most to entertain things like adjustment in turn order as a balance corrective (as I saw this work very successful in AA50, nearly negating the need for an Allied bid, without changing the unit distribution, just the order in which China moved.) At the same time though, and despite all my ideas on how g40 might be improved, I sympathize with the point that Wild Bill made. Some players just want a game which is basically as close to regular G40 as its possible to be, while still including whatever new and novel element we are trying to introduce. So I would suggest the following…
Start with the basic Halifax ideas that have been broadly accepted so far, (e.g. the ideas in this thread that we haven’t changed position on) and set it there.
1. New Production model outlined above, in the 3 tiers suggested.
2. Unite UK and UK Pacific into a single faction
3. Incorporate Canada into the existing faction Anzac and rename it Commonwealth.
Point 3 probably needs resolution on the South Africa issue before going forward. Because W. Canada already needs to be chipped out for a Commonwealth Roundel in second edition anyway, and this to me would encourage a single faction for all the Dominions. This would include roundels on W. Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa and S.W. Africa (as this territory was controlled by the Dominion of S.A. at the time.) This is a very simple change only a few roundels, substitute any units.
Puts the Commonwealth at a solid 20 ipcs to start.
Ireland is a special case, because of the start date and history. Technically it is also a Dominion, but since it is neutral, Commonwealth could still occupy it. Or it could likewise be chipped with a Commonwealth roundel. Ireland could be left to player preference. Then again, why revisit things again at some future point, when Irish and South African fans of A&A also bemoan their own lack of inclusion in the Commonwealth. We could fix it all from the outset with this option. Or just allow the player to note the possession (zero ipc territories dont have to be chipped out with a roundel if desired, or if a roundel is needed for conquest you could take it off the zero ipc territories first.) Just depends how many commonwealth roundels you want to use.
20 Commonwealth, 35 UK
That right there is basically all you need at the core. Everything else beyond this is basically open, a question of NOs, or how to balance from that basic start up.
I like options at this point. If you wish to preserve all current NOs, and add in some new ones, might want to just focus on those first. If for example UK still can’t hold, at least at 50/50, then perhaps consider raising their objective from 5 to 10, or making it easier to achieve at the start. On balance, I think it’s easier to work within the new objectives you’re already adding, direct ipcs, rather than further unit addition/subtraction.
As long as it has a decent Allies vs Axis potential, say 1 game out of every 3, that would be a marked improvement.
Piggy backing sounds interesting, for those with black chips on hand, and a desire to try new options. But I would leave that stuff as suggested options.
Suggested options, framed as such, shouldnt have to be included for the variant to work, but might include things like additional income bonuses or advantages. VC rules. Oil/resource rules. Randomized Cards. Fortunes of War. Adjustment in turn order, Piggy Backing etc.
But leave the core stuff set, so you can then build it out from there in different directions, based on preference for game type. :-D
You’re right, core Halifax first then personal variations to follow.
For example:
KNP’s Halifax expansion
Black Elk’s Halifax expansion
Wild Bill’s Halifax expansion
Young Grasshoppers Halifax expansion
Gonna try this today at the convention in addition to Halifax rules…
At the beginning of every Commonwealth purchase new units phase, 5 black chips are placed under each original major factory the Commonwealth owns, a chip is removed from a factory if a Commonwealth unit is placed there. Then, The United States first, and the United Kingdom second, may build units on Commonwealth factories removing black chips for each unit placed there, up to the amount of available black chips under each factory. However, America may only use Ottawa and Sydney, and the UK may only use Ottawa and South Africa. when Commonwealth factories are used by the Allies in this manner, only units worth 10 IPC or less can be built.
YG, I like the theory of the UK/US being able to directly help, but if I read this right you’re allowing US/UK to build a limited amount of its own units directly at Commonwealth major factories? If thats the case it breaks a very long standing rule that you can’t build in your allies production centers. Plus it will allow the US and UK to add some fleet at places they couldn’t before (mostly worried about US). Then there will be the cries for the Germans to be given some limited builds from Italian factories. It basically becomes a pretty lengthy exception rule.
Suggestion: Being you have already introduced war bonds to the US (rolling 1-2 dice), maybe work this into a lend lease to where the US rolls a couple dice and they can keep it, or give the IPC’s to either the UK or Commonwealth (maybe even Russia). The IPC’s would still come from the bank.
This is maybe better (simpler):
During the collect income of each US turn the US rolls 2 dice separately. 1st dice is war bonds and the IPC’s stay w/USA (will be used to buy units on the next US turn). 2nd dice is lend lease and IPCs are immediately given to UK, CW, or Russia (must pick one). The lend lease IPCs are added directly to the ally’s bank that the US awarded the lend lease to, and they can use it to buy units on their very next turn. All IPCs would come from the bank.
*Could go one step further and say the US can only roll the lend lease dice if there are no German U-boats in the Atlantic? This could force the Canadians to do what they did in the war, protect convoys (building destroyers in game terms).
It still crosses a line, but at least there are no chips or restrictions to worry about, and it will allow some IPCs to get to the places needed. I like the US rolling 2 dice separately, because the US still gets some IPCs for themselves, and it would be less time consuming deciding how much to give the other allies vs how much to keep, you only need to decide who to give the IPCs from the 2nd dice (no splitting). Plus you can implement the German subs thing for the lend lease dice. This could take the place of the no German subs NO for the UK. Might have to come up with a different NO for UK/CW, like 5 IPCs if the allies have complete control of Africa (including F Mad), or 5 IPCs for control of the Middle East etc……
Piggy backing units are not part of Halifax, don’t worry… just thinking out load.
Haha gotcha, I thought the proposal was to replace NOS or faction control with the scheme you were brainstorming on. My thought was that it could be cool as an add on though. I guess what I like would be as few new mechanics as possible in core set.
Then a list of options beneath it for add ons that might be compatible. That way it could be layered ;)
Ps. I seen to have “removed” my earlier post from today, when I meant to “modify” a spelling mistake. Those buttons are too damn close together on mobile. Oh well.
Basically my earlier post just reiterated my preference for add ons to the core system, rather than introducing new mechanics into that core.
Lots to report, but way too tiered. Having an awesome time at FMGC weekend… I’ll report on Monday.
A few things before I go to sleep, everyone loves the production units, everyone loves the fact the Allies can spend money “differently”, everyone agrees it does very little to help the Allies win.
I would like to see this for starters…
Russian declaration of war:
The Soviet Union my now declare war against the European Axis powers on turn 3.
Essex class carriers:
All American aircraft carrier may now carry up to 3 American and/or Allied air units each.
Hey YG, I know you have put the City Objective idea on the back burner, but if you get a chance to try it out I would love to hear any feedback from your playgroup. I am using Halifax with my buddy Tony on monday, and we are adopting the scheme you initially proposed with the VCs at 5 and Capitals at 10. I have been playing solitaires today in preparation (resetting at round three, just to tease out openings.)
In our game we have decided not to restrict the City bonus only to “Nations at war.” Simple rule, control of the City awards the set bonus, regardless of the political situation. I let my friend make the call on this, and he said he didn’t want to play another game “where Russia gets slammed, and USA is a broke joke”, so that was my solution. :-D
We are keeping the DoW with the Mongolia rule in effect for Japan/Russia (the first one to attack the other, activates Mongolia for the enemy, but this has no effect on City Objective money). So in this situation Russia collects +20, USA +20 (or more), right from the outset. I can honestly say just looking at the solitaires, that this is the most fun I’ve had playing myself in a while ;)
This is considerably more money to the Allies than under some other schemes proposed, but to be frank, I think its not unreasonable at all.
Commonwealth including South Africa and S.W. Africa. and the balance seemed to definitely improve the Allies’ standing. Going to try this Face to Face on Monday.
Anyway, I don’t know how much interest there is on the City Objectives for Halifax, but I think its going to be a lot of fun.
To the last post, Essex Class carriers sound cool. For me, basic unit parity at the start is important though. Some players I’ve gamed with in the past, believe that National units should have different values and different costs in A&A games. I suppose if its going to work anywhere, it would work with G40 players. But I prefer when all unit types basically behave the same way at the outset, so you can see the comparative strength of all players at a glance (without having to memorize an independent unit roster for each Nation.) When unit values or costs do get changed, I always like it better when this is handled through some kind of Technology or standard Upgrade mechanism (something that could be available to all players). Even if it ends up being a “Free tech” awarded to just one Nation at the outset. So that might be something to think about.
Just out of curiosity, why round 3 for the Soviet Union? As opposed to say round 2 or 4?
I’m not opposed. But just to illustrate a point, in more general terms, one thing I don’t really like is when the game pretends that there is a fixed timeline in A&A beyond the “start year”, or proposes some “real” correspondence between game rounds and actual time months/seasons/years etc.
Why place restrictions on the sort of Narrative players can create? Beyond the “Start Date”, I prefer to imagine my own story about what’s going on with my games, or where exactly we are in the World War II timeline at any given point. Seems to me that when you fix a DoW by round, its like saying “OK by round 3 we’re definitely in 1941.”
I guess I just find the DoW weird and annoying in general. Introducing a whole complex layer of politics to achieve a fairly narrow gameplay outcome. I suppose my question on that issue is, wouldn’t it make more sense to just pick a round and say, “by this round all nations may declare war”? Just seems kind of curious to have one restricted to round 3, but another to round 4. Well anyway, I’ll leave that to people who find the DoW entertaining. My goal would be to find a way to get rid of DoW completely, while still preserving the same essential feel of a 1940 start but leading immediately into a total war situation as quickly as possible (where all players behave according to the same essential rules for movement, combat, and all the rest.) To DoW just seems like overburdened artifice, which is only there to restrict what the US/Russian player can do. I mean before DoW, we had a simple restricted opening in Classic that seemed to work reasonably well to a similar end, and it didn’t have all this complex baggage that influences the game beyond the first round.
Again, for those who do favor the current system, I’d much rather have the Russians able to DoW in Europe in round 3 as you suggest, rather than no DoW at all, (or no activity until London falls.) I guess I just really don’t like the DoW in general, as I don’t find that it adds very much to the gameplay for the all complexity it introduces into the game. Alas
Had it been Europe and Pacific 1941, combined for G41, the integration would have been so much smoother, but I guess that ship sailed a long time ago.
All that said, I like where you’re headed with this thing. Can’t wait to hear the after action reports after the weekend.
Have fun dude :-D
Ps. Not sure if anyone is interested, but I started a thread at tripleA if anyone wants to develop a mod to test some of these ideas we’ve been discussing.
It’s been a while since I did any real work on games for tripleA. I used to enjoy making graphics and maps though, and testing out ideas for HRs. I wanted to wait until we had a good idea about how the rules would look, but I think everything we need to create Halifax can already be handled by the engine, and anything that can’t just yet can be player edited fairly easily in the meantime.
So far the critical changes are all supported
Single UK faction with a single Capital. New faction Commonwealth. New NOs. The ability to change things like territory possession, starting income etc on the fly.
A new factory unit is not very complicated, even the purchasing options on such factories can be controlled, but the upgrade downgrade concept for now would have to be by player edit. Mongolia rules likewise can be handled with a player edit, for now anyway.
Still that gets pretty close, if anyone wants to see if we can get a beta going.
Here’s a place to discuss what sort of changes to the TripleA mapfiles and gamefiles might be necessary, or to make feature requests… http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Global-Variant-with-the-Commonwealth-Dominions-tp7586439.html
I’m so excited for my game tomorrow. :-D
There is a chance my friend Jen might come play too, which would be rad, but we’ll have to see. A 3 player Halifax would be cool to see (split Allies). She’s been itching to check it out, but work schedules can be hard to coordinate. That’s another reason tripleA could be fun for testing. Since you can save and play a few hours at a time, and reset to test strats with ease. Anyhow, have a great weekend all! Catch you soon
Elk out
Thanks guys for the great contributions to the thread, unfortunately Black Elk, I was unable to play the VC rule. However, there was lots of great discussion about Halifax rules between hard core gamers. so, a couple of things became clear to me over the weekend…
1. Word the rules to allow 2 separate options, a United Kingdom controlled South Africa, and a Commonwealth controlled South Africa.
2. Take out the American War Economy… if players want to add stuff like this, they will without putting it in the rule document.
3. Add a few National Objectives for balance.
Too tiered to chat about it right now… but that’s the jist.
PS: The Convention was awesome, Tons to report, many pics to post, and lots of stories to tell.
