G40 Halifax Rules

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 :)

@Black_Elk:

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 :)

Yes, I was interested in keeping the rulebook (if that comes to fruition) clear and consistent. People can (and probably will, as you said) call them whatever they want for shorthand. Thanks for the discussion about it.

I’ve been waffling all morning about whether or not I should enter this discussion.  I have no strong feelings about the subject itself (so I was inclined to stay out of it), but I also do like terminology that’s precise and clear and correct and (ideally) simple – so for whatever it’s worth, here’s my two cents.

It would be nice if whatever terms get used for the three factory/complex types could immediately and unambiguously express how big they are relative to each other when the three terms are seen side-by-side, and preferably even if they’re seen in isolation.  It would also be nice if the chosen terminology didn’t deviate too much from established A&A practice.  The official rules call these units Industrial Complexes (hence the handy acronym IC).  The term is, in my opinion, conveniently generic (potentially covering everything from a single factory building to a whole industrial city), in the same way that IPCs are a generalized and abstract representation of gross domestic product rather than dollars.  On the other hand, the IPC sculpts that were part of the older games look like a single factory building, not like what we’d call an “industrial park” today.  Their design, however, is a conventional abstraction for industry in general (see the examples below from Frank Capra’s Why We Fight films), so it can plausibly stand for more than just a factory building.

By the way, just to toss in an extra item from everyone’s favourite unofficial source of information, Wikipedia’s view on the subject is that:

Industrial complex may refer to:

A factory or collection of buildings relating to industrial production

Military-industrial complex, the term referring to a close and symbiotic relationship between a nation’s armed forces, and its private industry.

Anyway, taking as a starting point LHoffman’s comment that…

“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.”

…my suggestion would be to use these terms:

Major Industrial Complex
Minor Industrial Complex
Single Factory

Here are the pictures I mentioned.  Forgot to attach them.

@Young:

How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?

Well, to turn the question around: what are you planning to use as your three markers types?  Three cardboard tokens with different values printed on them?  Three different sculpt types, differentiated by size or by number of smokestacks or something?

@Young:

How do we explain that the Minor Industrial Complexes (original units producing 3) in the initial set up… are to be replaced with Minor Industrial Complexes (new units producing 5) without baking everyone’s noodle?

I still don’t see why this is a big problem. If the Halifax rules are intended to better gameplay by altering parts of the game… then it should be expected that a change like this will occur. People will have to just accept the fact that production facilities have changed slightly and new game pieces may be needed to represent this. I don’t think this will be too hard for everyone to grasp or accept. They have been doing it for a number of years.

And as I said before, remembering a couple minor changes here are quite insignificant compared to the vast swath of information needed to play G40… which we are assuming has already been memorized.

Thanks for the additional information, YG.  I’m beginning to think that whatever these units end up being called, their names are in a sense the least important thing about them.  To echo what LHoffman said (“remembering a couple minor changes here are quite insignificant compared to the vast swath of information needed to play G40… which we are assuming has already been memorized”), in practical terms, what matters during game play is for players to know and remember:

• What they look like (shape and colour)
• What their production number is (10, 5, 3)
• The various rules that apply to their purchasability, upgradeability, damage-resistance, etc.

Players need to keep all these details straight in their minds to use the units properly, and changing any of these things would affect how the units function.  Their names, however, have no effect on anything.  It would make no difference if you called them 10s/5s/3s, blues/reds/greens, Class-A/Class-B/Class-C factories, or any of the other nomenclatures that have been discussed here.  The names are labels, not performance specifications, so in principle anything would do.  Their sole purpose is to help the players mentally categorize them, and it would therefore be advantageous to have a nomenclature system that’s as straightforward and unambiguous as possible.

I’m not going to frame the following as a recommendation, because I’d be very surprised if you liked the idea, so I’ll just frame it as an abstract argument.  I’d argue that the most unambiguous approach would be to completely scrap the terms “major” “minor” and “industrial complex” because they replicate words that have very specific meanings in the official A&A rules; thus, any use of them is likely to create confusion in your house rules.  You pointed out that it would be a confusing deviation from the original rules to keep the name Minor Industrial Complex and give it a new output value of 5 rather than 3.  Fair enough…but I’d argue that it’s just as much of a confusing deviation from the original rules to have a unit retain its output value of 5 but to rename it a Major Factory rather than a Major Industrial Complex, and to have Industrial Complexes take on a new meaning separate from the original major/minor dichotomy.  (After all, when players use house rules, they know that they’re using rules which, by definition, deviate from the official ones, so it should come as no surprise to them to run into units whose numbers or values have been changed from their by-the-rulebook origins.)  So I think the possible issue here is that the OOB terminology is being retained but partially re-wired and redefined, rather that either being kept completely intact (in which case they wouldn’t be a house rule) or being replaced with an entirely new and unambiguous nomenclature that breaks cleanly with the OOB wording.

@Young:

I like what we have, but I suppose it would be helpful if we had a third stand alone term, like…

Complex, Factory, and ___________

Sweatshop

@Young:

Complex, Factory, and ___________

“Plant” might work.

scrap the terms “major” “minor” and “industrial complex”

Yes! I think this is the best approach for overall clarity. Rather than trying to retain terms that already have definitions but change those definitions, it’s probably easier to find substitutes for all 3 if possible. Sorry I opened such a can of worms haha

Hehe a green plant ;) sign me up