Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

*HR: Commonwealth Question for Halifax rules



  • Please help us end the debate,

    Thank you


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    UK.


  • '14

    Commonwealth


  • Customizer

    Commonwealth


  • '14

    My thought is basically this, anyone with a second ed Pacific board is going to have to chip out W. Canada for a roundel anyway. If we already have to put out 1 roundel chip, why not drop a few more and have the faction cover the following 5 participants under the same umbrella

    Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, Union of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Shown below, in that order, with their flags/ensigns of the period…

    Here is a map showing my ideal breakdown (with South Africa, S.W. Africa, under Newfoundland also under Commonwealth control)… for the 20/35 split on starting income.

    The alternative, having Union of S.A. under UK control, would likely require a substantially stronger UK economy (per round) to be functional. Which I suppose is the real alternative under consideration.

    commonwealth dominions.jpg
    Commonwealth suggestions.jpg



  • @Black_Elk:

    my ideal breakdown (with South Africa, S.W. Africa, under Newfoundland also under Commonwealth control)… for the 20/35 split on starting income.

    Agreed. I play with South Africa and SW Africa as part of a Commonwealth with Australia and Canada. I use this structure because:

    1. A stronger starting income of 20IPCs simply makes it a better power to play for the Commonwealth player, whereas the marginal benefit of that income going to the UK doesn’t notably enhance the play of that power IMO.

    2.  Helps to balance the game by giving the Commonwealth the income to take greater advantage of some relatively secure industrial complexes (Canada most notably). Basically, the more income the Commonwealth has the more units the Allies will be able to put into the Atlantic through Canada or the Indian Ocean through S. Africa and bring greater force to bear more quickly against the Axis.

    3. It seems most historically natural



  • I chose keeping S Af w/UK for the following reasons, but I’m open to the idea of it being CW. Although a UK controlled S AF seems to gets little support in Halifax (and G40), is it because of income (this could be fixed), or is it because of strategies.

    1. Logistics/distance between London, and Calcutta (S AF in between). w/o S AF the UK would have to transport over long distances and probably through hostel waters to get it’s own units to Africa, or be forced to buy a factory for Egypt.

    2. UK starts with most of Africa, and has units there other then the 2 S Af territories. UK/CW units can’t attack together (only def). Don’t want to restrict the ability of the UK units already in Africa to def only (not enough punch).

    3. Many ppl buy a second UK tpt for S AF to employ the transport system to supply Egypt w/units (instead of buying an IC for Egypt). I would want those units to be able to not only def Egypt, but to attack together to clear N Africa as well.

    4. S Af as CW, would it make the Canadians nonessential (income to fund S AF has to come from somewhere, and Canada is the most secure)

    5. Roundels, ok yes Western Canada (2nd ed), was a screw up (needs to be Canadian), but Newfoundland doesn’t have a value so doesn’t really mater (can’t see UK or CW building an AB or NB there), but should go CW I suppose. That shouldn’t be an excuse to also include S AF though just because you already have to make roundel adjustments.

    6. The CW would have more starting production facilities then UK, and less income to fund them over all.

    Just theory crafting here, because I’ve not played Halifax (HX) yet.

    With the UK able to fully support India in Halifax, is it spending too much there to keep it when Japan goes full tilt after it. Keep in mind that in G40 India has a limited amount of funds because they loose most of their territories (income) the round Japan goes to war. If Japan wants it in G40, there’s not much that UK India can do about it. HX allows the UK to spend more in India even as it looses Pac territories. If your UK strat is to keep India at all costs, then yeah other IC’s are going to get under funded and you’re not going to under fund London. S AF would take the hit, but is it more because of your new ability to stack India as a strat.

    I’m hearing that the CW has a better opportunity to fund S AF. The same ppl are saying that Anz, and Canada can go with out to make this happen (prob Canada because it is the most secure). I was exited to hear that Canada was being added with this rule, because their war effort was huge. If adding S Africa to the CW is going to make Canada non essential, then that’s something I can’t support. I want to see Canadians clearing subs from the Atlantic, and landing in Normandy, Norway, Italy, or N Africa (maybe even giving them an NO to get ground units in Europe).


  • '14

    Excellent points as always Wild Bill. I will say in answer to your question, that the issue is indeed economic.

    I would prefer a UK south africa if the economic situation was different. But by different I mean more than just half measure NOs at 5 ipcs.

    There is not enough money in OOB G40 (especially for UK) to support the new production structure we are proposing. There is probably not enough money in OOB G40 to support the OOB production structure either, but I’ll leave that point alone for now. I think Wild Bill at least knows where I stand, since we’ve had many conversations about IPCs on the Larry boards
    😄

    This was the point I was trying to make early on, and which I think YG also noticed in playtesting. For example, playing with VC income bonuses the Allies  (and especially UK) can ‘just about’ make use of their Major factories (and that was giving them a sizeable boost compared to the normal money). At regular income levels, the new production scheme is harder to get off the ground in terms of its strategic interest potential. Since you guys scuttled the City Objectives idea and seem pretty intent on keeping income adjustment very limited, then I definitely have to come out in favor of a Commonwealth that includes S. Africa (for gameplay balance strategic reasons), because UK is too weak to do anything with it otherwise. Even though I agree with all the points, regarding the UK and the factory spread, that Wild Bill just outlined.

    The reality is that Allies are still going to get hosed. Perhaps there just aren’t enough people seriously testing this yet to see what the 3 tiered Production ideas are going to do to game balance, but I was noticing this from the first solitaire I tried…  with Rome producing 5 and Poland optiobs right now Allies are pretty underfunded. The production set up is essentially Axis advantage right now.

    If you do want a UK faction to control Africa, then I think you’re looking at a lot more ipcs per round out of their NO than has been suggested so far (they should likely have 2 or more NOs, at more value than a paltry 5),  but even then there is a very good chance that the UK player will direct this cash to other parts of the map anyway, given how tight things are. So to clarify with no substantial income adjustment overall, then I prefer commonwealth south africa. If income is adjusted then I favor UK south africa, for strategic reasons. But I believe this is going to require more money than you guys have been willing to allow into the Halifax game so far.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Since I like clean-cut cases, my own preference from the point of view of historical accuracy would be to have all of the Commonwealth Dominions (and their territorial holdings, as applicable) treated as a single block.  That’s actually the principle I followed when I customized my map table, by putting a “common Commonwealth roundel” (no pun intended) on all the applicable territories, as part of the default pre-war starter configuration I was aiming for (see http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0 for details).

    My feeling is that any undesirable economic distortions created by treating the Commonwealth Dominions as a block can probably best be dealt with by making house-rule adjustments to IPCs or whatever.  In other words, it makes sense in my opinion to have a historically accurate depiction of the Commonwealth Dominions and to adjust the economic system as needed, rather than the alternative of trying to redefine the Commonwealth Dominions (which ones qualify and which one don’t) to make them fit the game system’s economic model.

    Just to toss an added idea into this discussion, I’d like to note that Eire was one of the six self-governing Commonwealth Dominions that were given legislative independence under the 1931 Statute of Westminster.  Historically, Eire stayed neutral during WWII.  In Global 1940, Eire has the interesting status of being the only pro-Allied neutral country that has an IPC value of zero and no standing armies.  (Crete, Northwest Persia and Eastern Persia are pro-Allied and have no armies or IPCs, but politically they’re sub-national divisions of countries which do have IPC values and standing armies.)  So the argument could be made that Eire should be part of the “Commonwealth block” (if only for the sake of completeness) since its peculiar status means that it has very little effect on the game regardless of which player does what to it under the OOB rules.  And who knows – perhaps some interesting house rule adjustment could be made to it, though I can’t imagine what that might be.


  • '14

    Exactly CWO Marc!

    it makes sense in my opinion to have a historically accurate depiction of the Commonwealth Dominions and to adjust the economic system as needed, rather than the alternative of trying to redefine the Commonwealth Dominions (which ones qualify and which one don’t) to make them fit the game system’s economic model

    This is my feeling as well, and what I would really prefer is a new set up adjustment,  as clean as possible, that would support the real commonwealth. I’m just not sure how far people here are willing to go in terms of adjusting the OOB economy.

    Incidentally I tried to make the case for your Eire idea again in the Halifax thread at the bottom of page 14. The basic idea being,  “why risk pissing off the Irish?” Hehe  😄

    but seriously.  I think it does a disservice to potential fans in S. Africa or Ireland to give Canada/Anzac special treatment but not others.

    For example, if the issue is total UK production, then the solution might be to add in a minor on Egypt. Since this would be a new factory (and not an OOB upgrade from minor to major) it could conceivably be the only green one on the board at the outset. Or alternatively, if the issue is economic then why not provide an adjustment to starting income? If the issue is combat/movement DoW, then why not use a restricted opening where necessary ala classic 3rd edition? I just see a lot of options.

    It comes down to how much you want to change from the OOB situation. For the record I am not satisfied at all with OOB global. I don’t mind the seperate theater games,  but when they are joined together I think the integration was not particularly well handled. Because I don’t like OOB G40 very much, I am open to more radical adjustments. This may not be the case for some others here.

    I intend to HR the Halifax rules regardless to suit my preference, but it would be nice to have a scheme that is broadly accepted from the outset. That’s why I think it’s important to figure out what territories the commonwealth should include now before going forward on how to balance the overall situation Allies vs Axis.


  • '14

    The split on votes seems to be getting a little closer now, so its probably cool that you have 2 options.

    I can’t see any real effect on game balance, if a player using Option 2 wanted to include Newfoundland or Eire as well (both lack an ipc value) so that possibility could still be on the table for those who prefer a full Commonwealth under the rules you outlined above.

    This seems best for me. Now it is just a matter of playtesting these options to see how they hold up.


  • 2017 2016

    I didn’t read everything about all the Halifax rules and the VC substitute for NO.
    I think you are going in the right direction, although.
    My 2 cents:
    If Dominions needs a few more IPCs, just think about adding a VC to South Africa
    And, maybe, just gives a little more IPCs to the capitals terrritories amongst the Dominions.



  • @Baron:

    I didn’t read everything about all the Halifax rules and the VC substitute for NO.
    I think you are going in the right direction, although.
    My 2 cents:
    If Dominions needs a few more IPCs, just think about adding a VC to South Africa
    And, maybe, just gives a little more IPCs to the capitals terrritories amongst the Dominions.

    When I get around to customizing a new G40 Halifax map file, I would have no problem adding Johannesburg to South Africa… especially considering that it would bump the existing 19 VCs, to a nice rounded 20 total.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 8
  • 3
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
  • 8
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games

45
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts