G40 Variable start to turn order: Opening roll
This is a rough outline for how to achieve a variable opening, bid alternative for Global second ed. Its more notes and potential direction, than anything concrete, but I wanted to set up a separate thread, where I could think about this stuff in relation to Global.
It has long been a dream of mine to get this system working on multiple boards, learning from AA50 and taking tips from other excellent ideas I’ve seen floating around I think I know how to approach this now for the 1940 games.
I envision a basic core set up, but with modular rules optioned on if desired. The essential idea is this. To randomize the start, with an initial roll which will determine which player/nation opens the game. This set up uses the commonwealth concept and the Fixed factory concept to work (3 types as outlined elsewhere). All Major factories= Factory 10, All Minors= Factory 5, set (restricted purchase etc) as outlined in the Halifax thread. Everything there sounds solid so far, so I think it will balance better if I start with that as a foundation.
This is a process, building up to it, in rough sketches
Step 1: Set the board as normal according to standard Global. In order for this system to work, and be as widely compatible and adaptable as possible, we begin the OOB set up.
Step 2: Control Marker adjustments. Place the following National roundels on the following territories:
Anzac - Canada: Newfoundland and British Columbia
UK - all remaining territories with a UK and UK Pacific roundel are considered one and the same.
Japan - Occupied China (Jehol, Shangtung, Kiangsu, Kiangsi, Kwangsi)
*Optional Universal Rule: Manifest Destiny, USA takes direct control of unoccupied China (Szechuan, Yunnan, Hunan, Kweichow, Sikang, Tsinghai, Kansu, Shensi, Suiyuyan, Chahar, Anwhei, Hopeh.) All Chinese units in territories with USA roundels are switched out for American units. China is considered USA supported Chinese Forces, represented by American units and behaving according to Normal rules for USA movement. This rule is not necessary for the variable rules to function, but it simplifies the war in China and eliminates their nation specific rules, by simply placing them under direct US control.
Or Option: “Comintern” basically could do the same thing as above except here China is placed under the aegis of the Soviet Union. Instead of the Kuomintang KMT under direct Washington control, you would have the Communist Chinese CPC under direct Moscow control. In this case, Yan’an rules, you would replace all Chinese roundels with Soviet ones, and switch out Chinese income and unit for the Russians instead of USA.
*Optional Universal Rule: Chunking!
China is made a full faction, given a VC and a starting Major factory in the territory of Szechwan which serves as their capital. This brings a 20th VC into contention. For the purposes of gameplay the Chinese function with all the same rules and phases and movement as every other nation. The flying tiger is considered Chinese and matches the roundel. China’s wartime capital territory is considered an original Chinese territory and its imaginary value raised by a single IPC (written on a piece of paper, or denoted with a coin or chip) so the territory can support the factory. This is an abstraction for gameplay purposes and for consistency with all the other starting factories on the board under Halifax. The Chinese Factory is the end line of the Burma road, and its VC likewise considered to be at the “End of the Line.” In keeping with the materials in the box, the Chinese could be limited by their unit roster to only purchasing infantry. Or, if desired, you could allow China to purchase Artillery with the burma road open. This works best to make them a functioning power since it allows them to spend a remainder of 1 ipc on Artillery, instead of having to save it pointlessly. In that case I suggest using American Artillery or substitute in pieces from another board. I particularly like the Lime Green Brits of Revised for this purpose.
*Optional Universal Rule: Capital Cash Either A.) The capture the capital dynamic does not apply for Minor Allied player nations or B.) The capture the capital dynamic does not apply for ANY player/Nation. This is a major decision on options, as it effects the endgame.
Another option C.) Capital Cash dynamic works as normal for all nations but with this important difference, a Nation which still has a production facility may still collect income. So if their capital is taken the player must still yield up their cash to the conqueror, but the following turn, if they still control a production facility, they are allowed to Collect income.
Step 3: Replace all units so that they match the roundel of the territory they occupy according to the Boxed set up cards. (or China preference) So in short basic Roundel replacement here means…
All units in territories with Canadian roundels are considered part of the Commonwealth Dominions (Canada +Anzac: CAnzac) and are switched out for the CAnzac unit set, per ideas outlined in the Halifax thread. All units in territories with UK roundels are considered part of the British Empire. Income from these territories counts towards the total economy of each respective player/nation. Co-Located units are switched out at this point, to match the National roundel (so French units in UK become British, Malaya units, Egypt etc.) Count all ipcs by roundel to determine the starting income for each nation. (Anzac would have +7, If USA controls china they would receive +12 for example.) All national markers are made consistent with units and total starting income.
Step 4: Place a control marker roundel from each player nation next to each other in a line. In the following 6 position groupings, which will describe the possible turn order sequences. See image below for an idea of how this might look…
position one - Germany
position two - Russia/France
position three -Japan
Position four - UK/Commonwealth
Position five - Italy
Positon six - USA/China
Step 5: Flip a coin : The player who calls will either play heads (Allies) or Tails (Axis) depending on the result of the toss.
Step 6: Roll 1d6 to determine which Position (of Player/Nations) will open the game! The player position that wins this roll will open the game. They are moved to the front of the turn order, with all other nations following them thereafter according to the standard sequence. This starting nation (whichever one it is) is considered in Prime position.
*Optional Rule: Restricted Opening. Just like in the old Classic game, it is possible to give the opening nation a restricted opening similar to Russia in Classic 3rd edition (familiar to many from the cd game.) Under this type of opening the player who wins the roll, does not get to engage in combat during the first round. They can only buy units, non combat and place. Whether this option is necessary will depend on player preference and game feedback. Otherwise, the player who wins the opening roll wins the chance to go first with their full phases in the turn order!
Step 7: bonus money is added to starting income of the Nation (or the Lead nation only in case of the split position Allies) based on their order in the turn sequence. These are paired off by position, so that like bonus always follows like, in three basic tiers by side…
Gold Position 1: +30 ipcs
Gold Position 2: +30 ipcs
Silver Position 3: +20 ipcs
Silver Position 4: +20 ipcs
Bronze Position 5: +10 ipcs
Bronze Position 6: +10
*option Minor Allied powers get a mini bonus (Canzac, China, France) get an automatic additional +5 bonus to starting income (allied economic might)
The set up to this point will carry into a basic situation where, any of the main player Nations could potentially lead off the turn order, and all the bonuses to starting income taken together provide new purchasing strategy openings that will be very different from what could be done OOB. This all based on the variable bonuses and position in sequence awarded to the power that wins the role (and then down the line for each player thereafter.) The bonus is a one time thing, and it replaces the bid. The challenge for players is to play out the position, whatever the outcome of the opening roll to the best of their ability, using the bonus awarded to try and grab an edge over the enemy.
Step 8. Begin the game, all nations at war, no DoW, total war! Test for function and game balance.
Step 9. Add on supplemental or expansion HRs to balance the economies of individual nations and to encourage optimal flow and combat patterns for exciting gameplay. I like to add in the +1 battle bonus for taking land, and a bonus for control of VCs. Basically the goal here is to get a game which could potentially function without NOs, but onto which NOs could be added if the players so desired.
Step 10. Determine the appropriate conditions for Victory by side. And how (whether) to handle the VC and Capital dynamics.
So that anyway, is the rough outline that I am building off of. Laying it out step by step, or trying to, so as to gather in the thought process and see what you guys think. The bonuses suggested above were the values used in AA50, but may prove inadequate or overpowered in Global, this remains to be determined. Maybe they need 60, 40, 20 or some smaller set of bonuses, the exact amount is flexible enough, but its the concept that I dig. G40 has the advantage of a much less scripted opening. Less units destroyed out of the first round than some earlier boards, so this encourages me as Variable tends to work best when players can’t immediately crush each other in the first round on one sided rolls. Instead this game variant would aim to give everyone more flexibility to determine the course of their war, by essentially giving all players a bid at the same time.
Here its not just by side or the set turn order and weakness exploits (battle breaker bids etc) but instead everyone gets a chance to buy more stuff at the outset, the advantages are less one sided, and the purchase responses more flexible.
Obviously this idea is incomplete, but I would love to here any feedback or thoughts you guys might have. It seems to me this board might be perfect for an alternating scheme, provided we could group the players into 6 positions, and find the right opening bonus amounts to balance the variable roll to open.
The latest rules discussion have excited me greatly. I dig the 3 factory idea, its one of my favorites in a long time. Introducing the middle tier factory at 5, Fixing the starting IC and Major Factory locations, solidifying the downgrade mechanics and making only Minors a purchase option just strikes me as brilliant. All the Canzac ideas and uniting UK to UK pac. It makes me feel that Global is now approaching the sort of rule adaptation models that might actually allow me to get a working Variable board up off the ground. Its been my goal to figure out how to do this for like a decade hehe, but somehow the latest flurry of good ideas has me particularly optimistic.
Ideally I’d like a Variable game that was modular, so you could build layers on top of it. Going from the most basic total war start with only limited or generic bonuses, to something much more complex, like the ideas for National Objectives and Deck expansions. I just hope the 1940 sec ed boards stay in print for a while, so we have enough time to figure all this stuff out, before the boards start selling for a grand on ebay! I just ordered some extra copies right now to cannibalize
Hello again, glorious echo chamber! Watch this thread end up being exactly as dead as my AA50 one haha, with me just ranting on in isolation to myself, like a madman on a zero ipc desert island… even though I honestly think this is the best basic idea for Axis and Allies that I ever came up with!
OK lets back up here, I need to start by making clear to you guys why this variable start thing has been the holy grail for me since Classic.
The reason is very simple, because I believe the game will never be balanced to perfection under the current system of game start. I believe this in an impossibility, because of the way the structure of the game is handled in terms of “Who plays Who.” Any attempt to achieve perfect balance on any board will always be defeated in the end, absent some element to randomize the starting conditions. Experience bears this out, not just with Official boards, but with every TripleA scenerio I ever made (and there were quite a few!) and every house rule system my playgroup has ever tried, and every popular pre-placement bid strategy we’ve ever adopted… on every A&A board going back to the 80s!
Every single Axis and Allies game (no matter how narrow the bid ends up, or how brilliantly the map is put together), the starting set up will always eventually be broken by experienced players! In case you guys don’t remember how this goes down, every single time, let me refresh your memory…
New Official Axis and Allies comes out (joy!). Everyone is immediately elated, and excited. We all buy it and play with new eyes and new dreams, hoping against all rational and reasonable expectations, that this “will finally be a perfect game.” You know, with both Axis and Allies sides balanced evenly and no need to alter the set up! Then a few months go by, and some hard core brilliant strategist comes up with a way to “break the set up.” Everyone rages and jumps into a frenzy, now side X “can’t win!” and unless some change is made to the set up, the game is unbalanced for experienced play. Skilled players the world over teasing out winning strategies that rapidly take on a character of “undefeated inevitability.” After determining which side is at a disadvantage, a bid (our only real mechanic for dealing with game balance issues) is suggested, which seeks to take the whole balance of the game down to what is effectively a single roll, in one opening battle. Units and Units destroyed out of the first round, in a series of scripted battles, and the results of these rolls, to a large extent determining the likely outcome of the entire game. Now dice! And Dicing! As players who adopt the system realize how the whole game can basically come down to the results of a few critical engagements at the outset. Everyone rails “if I lose battle X, then the game is basically hosed, so I need to spend all my bid in one direction to ensure certain results from the roll.” If achieved, the player is happy. If not, the player feels defeated. This goes on and on, until at some point a standard preplacement bid or a hard unit change is adopted universally, at which point the process repeats. Or at least until everyone loses interest and moves on, because some new board is out.
This is how Axis and Allies works, not because the game itself necessarily needs to play out like that, but because our solutions for fixing game balance always go down the same rabbit hole, e.g. trying to fix balance by stripping the whole thing down to a narrow sequence of battle events that must play out, and then how to “break” that sequence with a bid, such that the result is always the same for the side you are playing. Why does this happen?
Well I think I know why. Because the bid system is essentially ineffective as a way to achieve essential balance. Now when I say essential balance, I don’t mean the sort of mathematical puzzle perfection of a once in a millennium type game like chess. Axis and Allies is not ever going to balance out like that, its a dice game after all! Instead by “essential” balance, I mean the “feeling” of balance, the sense of “even sides” and the possible outcomes of any given game, from the perspective of the players who are playing it. This is different than a game which is tactically balanced out of the opening round, but an experience or sense of experience, that you are determining the outcome of the gameplay in conjunction with the randomized aspect, and not just going through the motions in some pre-set series of gameplay steps. A script where everything hinges on a single battle, or a couple key battles out of the first round. Basically with the Bid, as currently conceived, I think we are concentrating on the wrong sort of fix for this issue. Or rather, instead of a bid for one side to balance, what is really needed is a bid for all sides!
Because when you give money to everyone at the outset, instead of just to 1 side, you increase the number of variables involved. The goal should not be a starting set up which is perfectly balanced on combat, but rather one which is perfectly balanced, because its start is unpredictable. This works better with starting income adjustment than with starting unit adjustment, because you give the players more freedom and thus increase the potential for variation.
The trick is not to figure out “how can I win this game by doing such and such out of the first round” but how to design a game start where you always have a chance from the starting position. Or at least, that it would be near impossible to predict every potential outcome, so instead you shift focus from “winning” in the first round, to just playing out the conditions on the ground, and trying to position for a win. Why does it make sense to give every player additional starting money, as opposed to just one? Well, because this promotes more total variation. It takes the Bid out of the realm of hard balancing act, and puts it instead into the gameplay.
If it is a roll, a randomized thing, then it is a game instead of a script. This is why the best methods for promoting the feel of game balance come from things like Decks, or Dice, or random conditions that you can’t necessarily control. Because it is an equalizer.
You can’t choose to roll a 6 for example, or to draw a particular card!
That is what makes it a game, and the play aspect comes from what you do given those outcomes. So what you are encouraging is in fact a certain attitude of play. One that accepts the outcomes of the rolls or the draws, and plays on from whatever start conditions the gameplay produced. Now this happens automatically already, in the form of first round battles, but the problem here is that one crushing roll, or one unexpected exploit, can tank the whole set up. One misplaced infantry unit and the whole set up could break, because up until now the set up out of the first round has been scripted.
The easiest way to get around this is to use a bonus scheme that alters and randomizes starting income, and starting initiative. I favor money over a pre-placement bid, because it is easier to make universal and it doesn’t alter the boxed set up on unit placement i.e. it leaves one important part of the game alone “the units” and puts the only variability into the money. This is better anyway (for anyone that understands fiat currency) because the money is flexible. You can change the money, with NOs for example, and everyone immediately suspends disbelief.
**It is easier to imagine a bonus +X to starting income as historical abstraction, than it is to imagine that Germany suddenly has another Tank column somewhere!
Or that a U-boat magically materialized out of thin air, at just the right time and in just the right position, to win the whole war for the team!
Or “good thing that magical extra infantry division was on hand to take that critical shot, and make sure its now impossible for Egypt to (die/survive)!!!” I mean honestly, I thought the units were supposed to represent real armies and positions at a specific time in the war? You shouldn’t be able to just wish another starting army into existence, and break with the OOB “supposedly historical” unit situation.**
But that is what a preplacement bid does, and lets face it, that’s just silly. If you stick instead with the boxed set up, you can ensure that everyone is dealing with the same situation on the ground. And by changing only the starting income of the first round, you get rid of the pre-placement bid “battle breaker” problem.
In the earliest games of Classic, before resorting to preplacment bids, we used to have a normal income bid. Where, in that game, Axis received +X ipcs to starting income. I have always wished that instead of this, we might have tried giving both sides +Y ipcs to starting income (some larger amount at the outset), but done in a way that was slightly randomized and unpredictable. With more money for purchase, so that the unit starting set up was less important, and purchasing decisions out of the first round were more important. Unit replacement out of the first round less cost prohibitive, which encourages risk taking on battles to seize the upper hand, and more varied purchasing by all players. This is the basic thrust, that players have more fun when you give them many potential purchase options, instead of just a few. The goal for me is to push the variation out far enough in the starting income, so that all players, regardless of which side they are playing, still feel as though victory can be achieved, regardless of the outcome in the first round.
My recommendation for this is to use gameplay randomizers, Coin flips, and dice rolls…
Stuff like that to determine which player/nation goes first, and how much money everyone gets for starting income. Have everything else (in terms of the boxed unit set up remain the same.) So that is the gist. I am very interested and open to hearing what someone thinks about this, anyone. Reply let me know I’m not totally insane here? Surely there is a better way to achieve gameplay balance and enthusiasm for all players involved, than yet another bid suggestion for an A&A game. Why not give everyone a starting cash bonus instead, and leave it up to the player to decide how to spend his funny money, to make new units.
Basically you have to pick which aspect of the game is going to more abstract, the money or the units. I think its more natural to have the money be flexible and the units hard, as opposed to the other way around. And I prefer not to break the standard game phases, by allowing units to appear outside of the normal purchasing and placement mechanics. Pre-Placement bids do not satisfy us. They never will. We should learn from our experience with this time and again, to see if perhaps some new system to determine “Who plays Who” can be created.
Does anyone out there have even a remote interest in this? Or am I just a total loon here?
Here’s the basic point, if you are willing to take the whole balance of the game down to the results of one bid battle, then you are already putting the thing into the realm of a dice roll. If you are willing to do that much, why not start the whole game with just a single dice roll?
A dice roll which could give 6 potential start positions, or balancing acts, instead of just 1. And a dice roll, which gives everyone some advantage, instead of penalizing everyone at the same time (should the results of the one roll e.g. the one bid battle go wrong.) It would be easier to control a single opening roll. With certain set conditions. Than it is to control the results of a roll for an opening battle. That is why I think the idea is the way forward. You are rolling to determine game balance already anyway, why not make that roll a more significant part of the game, by making it basically a Bid roll, that gives starting income bonuses to everyone under some roughly balanced scheme, rather than pre-placment units to just one side (the side perceived to be at a disadvantage)?
To me it seems so promising. I wish there were more people willing to explore this idea with me
Remember one of the things that makes A&A great, from the very first, it has been a game that responds to player feedback. It is a collaborative and populist game that encourages players to explore history through play. Next to Dungeons and Dragons, it’s one of those games that over time has been expanded and fleshed out by a whole community of loyal enthusiasts. This gives me a lot of optimism, and tells me that just because we have been doing something for years, doesn’t mean we can’t still improve it.
I want a bid alternative game. Its something I have always felt A&A needed. Variable roll to open is the solution that strikes me as the most promising way to achieve one. I hope others will help me get a system that works.
And why change starting income over pre-placement unit position?
Well this is because, big surprise, money is not “real” in that same way that production is real, and resources, and hard rules of combat, and actual boots on the ground is real. The IPC is just a metric, players will accept changes to game money in a different way than they do changes to the unit starting position, (the same way people generally accept concepts like inflation, or winning the lottery, or markets tanking or taking off when it comes to cash.) The funny money can be funny, if it needs to be, but the hard components, like the unit set up and the production should be fixed.
Basically you have to pick along which dimension you want to abstract things, should it be the Money, or should it be the Units. I say abstract with the money, the IPCs, because it is more flexible.
Now why Turn Order?
Because, the main reason a bid is used in the first place is to determine “Who plays Who” or which player will take which side. If you allow this at the players’ discretion, you imply at the outset that the sides are unbalanced, you open it up to question “Which side can I win with?” This is not how the start to the game should be framed.
Instead what you could do is flip for sides, and use Initiative rolls to determine the basic character of the game.
Play Axis or Allies? : Chose by preference or Flip coin
Conditions: Roll 1d6 to determine the starting conditions of the game, (e.g. which nation starts, and what the starting income will be for that start position.)
The specific conditions brought on by this opening Roll can be various or strict, it could be anything really, so long as it takes the question of “Sides” out of the equation. I suggest a bonus to starting income because that seems like one players enjoy. More units to buy at the outset for more potential starts. But the exact conditions activated by the opening roll are not the thing, its “the idea” of an opening roll itself that is important.
The variation in start position brought on by the opening roll should be universal (e.g. either player could potentially end up playing under those conditions.) That is the way to determine “Who plays Who” and not by skill level or side imbalance. Because then everyone can enjoy slightly different start, and not just the player who gets an extra sub or fodder pip or army in some breaker location. Because you don’t know who will start the game, because that is determined by an initiative roll.
I suggested that the starting income bonuses should be set off against each other. “Paired off” so that no matter which position/nation starts the game, there will always be another opposing position on the other side, at equal power, to offset it. This is the idea of tiers, for the starting bonus.
6 positions Alternating by side, 1d6 for turn order. (With minor nations attached to major nations in the turn order so this works.)
Prime position (the first nations from each side to go) get the largest starting income bonus. Second Position (the next nations from each side) get a medium sized bonus. And Third position (the last nations to go) get the smallest proportional bonus. But everyone gets something. What you get depends on who wins the opening roll.
The exact amounts are not important, as they can be made whatever is necessary for balance, but the point is that everyone gets something out of the opening roll. It just sets the stage, what happens next depends on how the players use their money to make purchases.
Alternating, because then, no matter which nation you play with you are always sandwiched between a strong position and a weak one, but also allied to a strong position and a weak one. Basically each position balancing off each other by side.
This way if players want to take advantage of an exploit then they have to do it through normal purchasing and positioning. If they want to beat their opponent, they do so not by breaking an opening battle, but by trying to read their enemy’s purchasing strategies and purchase their own stuff in opposition. That way you have a sense that you are adapting to the conditions on the ground on a more even footing and not fighting an uphill battle in a single territory, even though the conditions are random. That would be my ideal. The whole purpose is to replace even a need for a bid
Now I want to show you guys what I mean by Turn Order, or sequence or positions of Nations.
You can see from the first image below that it is possible to set the sequence in 6 alternating positions. Such that you could roll 1d6. There are several potential sequences of 6 we could do, but I like allied pairs, separated by Axis. This is done by attaching a Minor Allied Nation to each Major Allied Nation in sequence (ie. it follows the Major Nation immediately in the turn order.) Now there are 3 possible splits shown…
Each group of paired Allied Nations, is preceded/followed by 1 of the Axis nations.
Again there are several possible ways to do this: IGJ, GJI, JIG or GIJ, JGI, IJG or… you get the idea. The first series of images below shows Axis as “Germany-Japan-Italy” GJI sequence.
This is basically a game of fitting roundels together in 6 positions, to determine which standard order is optimal.
Optional rule: Minor Allied jump. Once you have the standard order, and awarded bonuses to all Major nations, it is also possible, (because of the way the Allies are structured together 3-3 a major nation and a minor nation in each position), possible to split the final Allied pair. Where the Minor Nation could jump from the end of the turn order to the front (by some randomized mechanic). This can happen to any Allied pair in the final position. Since its easy to just move the roundel from the last position to the first. This doesn’t have to happen, but could if you wanted. The last nation in position, if Allies, would roll 1d6.
If they hit a 6 their attached minor Nation jumps to the front. Sort of like an aagun, but for a sneaky turn order coup. The minor starting would necessarily be weak, but it would still sting the Axis side haha.
Here, this option for Allies is best explained with a visual.
Note how the last image below there is a different sequence of Axis alternation , (in this case “German-Italy-Japan” GIJ sequence.) In the Allied arrangement shown, where Russia/France go last, France (because it is the minor) could be made to jump from the last to the first spot, to open the game. And this does not alter the basic repeating sequence by side, only how the sequence starts (giving France in this case an extra turn). It shoots off its Major and leaps forward. This could be done for China and Canzac as well, if desired. Allowing for yet another type of potential radnomization. For the same player in this instance would still control Russia/France. This only effects the first round, since every round there after they go immediately after each other in sequence. This order of nations, is just an example since there are many possible sequences. But you can see how this is all handled through lining up roundels.
It doesn’t have to be fixed from the outset, provided there are enough nations to split in an alternating sequence. Do you see what I mean? The order of the Nations could potentially be any combination of these, so long as it alternated.
Basically the challenge is to discover the optimal order for roundels. This could then serve as the “Standard” turn order sequence, in a variable start game.
Ps. One final point, but an important one… I favor the basic idea of a turn order. I don’t favor a collapsed turn order All Axis vs All Allies. I know collapsed can work, that’s not my issue, but I think the gameplay suffers from collapsed order for one basic reason: it takes too long between turns and eliminates multilayer games. The whole reason to alternate is to maintain player attention and allow for the easy separation of turns, by making it easier on players to do all the stuff that needs doing. This is why alternation is best.
Collapsed would work for a 2 man dedicated match between experts, but a turn order works more smoothly in multi and for attention span game flow. This why I want to keep a turn order of nations, but make the start of that alternating sequence variable! Since it gives everyone a reason to stay on their toes at all times.
I will continue opperations, even in a vacuum, like a V2 rocket in outerspace.
The main principle and goal is to get a 6 position turn sequence. “Why six?”
Do we really need to ask?
Cue up Black Sabbath and this image below to make all my arguments for me hehehe…
Someday hopefully someone will take an interest here. Until then I will continue my work on Variable for all boards until I find the right system for each
What about cross pollination with War room: Bidding for turn order. Simultaneous resolution?