G40 Halifax Rules

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.

I think L. Hoffman et al, that you are missing the point of the names I suggested and Wild Bills comment, and I don’t see how this is in any way confusing or bucks tradition of the other games…

The point is that the words “Factory” and “Industrial Complex” are synonymous. They have always been synonymous in every A&A game since classic. If you try make them mean different things all of a sudden you will confuse people.

We don’t need to over think this…

Major Factory
(Normal) Factory
Minor Factory

Major Industrial Complex
(Normal) Industrial Complex
Minor Industrial Complex

This is the only wording that doesn’t require you to change definitions. The confusion I am worried about is not that people won’t know how to refer to the units on the gameboard (trust me they will all call them whatever they usually do). I’m concerned more about rules references for consistency. In other words, I don’t want a house ruleset that refers to things in different ways than other rulesets.

Ps. This is not the most important issue ever, since its just a reference name, but it is relevant. How about this, just put the number in front of the name.

10 Factory (Major)
5 Factory (normal)
3 Factory (Minor)

Synonymous with…

10 Industrial Complex (Major)
5 Industrial Complex (normal)
3 Industrial Complex (Minor)

Let the numbers lead, then for shorthand, you can Refer to them as 10s, 5s, and 3s, since the numbers make it crystal clear in the rules description which value is attached to each.

I admit for the record, that like YG and knp, in my mind it makes sense to refer to the largest as an Industrial Complex instead of a “factory”, but I know in every game those terms have been interchangeable, which is what concerns me, old habits being what they are.

@Black_Elk:

I think L. Hoffman et al, that you are missing the point of the names I suggested and Wild Bills comment, and I don’t see how this is in any way confusing or bucks tradition of the other games…

Well as far as I know, production facilities have only ever been called Industrial Complexes. Switching them over to Factories (in written rules) endorses a full name change. The Halifax rules do not stand on their own, meaning they are a modification of existing rules and reference back to those existing rules. Changing the naming convention in the rulebook is very different from whatever colloquialism different players might use during gameplay. So, yes, I do believe it deviates from tradition… if only in print and not in spirit. This is a minor point perhaps, but consider if Halifax were to become the basis for a future A&A official rule set… I doubt that Larry would alter the naming convention that has been used for the past 30 years in favor of something entirely new (even if it doesn’t change how the units work).

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but it is just my thought… please do not take it as only for the sake of argument.

@Black_Elk:

The point is that the words “Factory” and “Industrial Complex” are synonymous. They have always been synonymous in every A&A game since classic. If you try make them mean different things all of a sudden you will confuse people.

Well, no, they really are not. I think YG already explained his conception of the term “Industrial Complex” which is near to the true meaning. For strictly game purposes, either term could be used and I know that some people call them factories or industrial complexes interchangeably… but this does not mean that the definitions are interchangeable or that the words themselves do not have different connotations. If we want to get into linguistics… a factory implies an isolated and singular building where production takes place (i.e. small, focused and not widely developed). An Industrial Complex implies an undefined number of multiple production elements grouped together in a large and expansive conglomerate. At least, that is what it says to me.

@Black_Elk:

We don’t need to over think this…

Major Factory                         Major Industrial Complex
(Normal) Factory                    (Normal) Industrial Complex
Minor Factory                          Minor Industrial Complex

This is the only wording that doesn’t require you to change definitions. The confusion I am worried about is not that people won’t know how to refer to the units on the gameboard (trust me they will all call them whatever they usually do). I’m concerned more about rules references for consistency. In other words, I don’t want a house ruleset that refers to things in different ways than other rulesets.

Well, if you cannot control what other people call them, you have just the same amount of control over how they refer to or change the terms in their house rule sets. And if they are all called factories… that just goes back to my point above that it would do a disservice when refering to the ultimate rule set: the Official A&A rules.

The rules that you, we, YG, whoever creates can be just as specific and clear as they need to be if they are written that way. I would say that by having two different categories of production facility (small factory, large factory, Industrial complex) (or factory, Minor IC, Major IC) it will force people to be more specific in what they call them. It will foster that distinction between bigger and smaller and the perhaps tactical implications of each.

@Black_Elk:

Ps. This is not the most important issue ever, since its just a reference name, but it is relevant. How about this, just put the number in front of the name.

10 Factory (Major)
5 Factory (normal)
3 Factory (Minor)

Synonymous with…

10 Industrial Complex (Major)
5 Industrial Complex (normal)
3 Industrial Complex (Minor)

Let the numbers lead, then for shorthand, you can Refer to them as 10s, 5s, and 3s, Major Minor, small medium large, or whatever you want, since the numbers make it crystal clear in the rules description which value is attached to each.

This is a perfectly fine method for clarity’s sake, if rather uninteresting. As a shorthand for the game it would probably work well, but it might be a little more confusing to read in a rulebook.

Anyway, I have submitted my opinion and my reasons. I am fine leaving it at that.

–- Is this naming convention going up for a vote, or is the overlord of the thread just going to decide?

@Young:

It’s KNP’s Mid-Level IC rule, so it’s gonna be his call… if he wants it changed, I will change it.

Otherwise… just house rule it.

Nevermind. Question answered.

Actually that is a great point L. Hoffman, in the actual game Manual these units have been consistently referred to as Industrial Complexes from the start. At no point have they ever been called “factories” in a game manual. But I know the term Factory has been a popular shorthand for IC with players since Classic, which is why I said they were interchangeable. Not by the rules, but by popular convention. I suppose as long as we enforce a strict definition that agrees with the game manual then perhaps we can encourage proper referencing. So in this case we are encouraging people to use the term Industrial Complex to refer to the units you can’t buy. This makes sense to me.

Knps call, sounds good to me. At least no one can say we didn’t think about it before making a final decision :)