G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)


  • Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy as before.

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?

  • '17 '16

    ANZAC:
    +3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

    OOB

    • 5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories.
      Theme: Malaya considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.

    • 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
      Theme:Strategic outer defense perimeter.

    +2 for each Allied controlled territory

    Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya

    Theme:

    +5 for each Allied controlled territory

    Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.

    OOB
    When the United Kingdom Is at War with Japan (awarded to the Pacific economy):

    • 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
      Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

    +2 for each Allied controlled territory

    Burma

    Malaya

    Kwangtung

    OOB
    When the United Kingdom Is at War in Europe (awarded to the Europe economy):

    • 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls all of its original territories in its European economy.

    Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

    +2 for each

    Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Crete and Cyprus.

    +5 each

    Denmark

    Normandy.

    OOB
    When Italy Is at War:

    • 5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean sea (sea zones 92 through 99).

    Theme: Propaganda and strategic advantage.

    • 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least 3 of the following territories: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece, and Egypt.

    Theme: Stated national objectives Greater Roman Empire.
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
    Theme: Stated North African military objectives.
    +2 IPCs per territory if Italy controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia.
    Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.

    ITALY NOs:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis. (Max.: 13 IPCs)
    +5 if no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar is Axis captured OR Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan) is Axis controlled.
    Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

    OOB:
    National Objective and Bonus Income: Germany’s objective is Lebensraum (living space). Extra space was needed for the growth of the German population for a greater Germany. To reflect this objective, Germany collects bonus IPC income during each of its Collect Income phases in the following situations.
    When Germany Is Not at War with the Soviet Union:
    +5 IPCs representing wheat and oil from the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Beneficial trade with the Soviet Union.

    When Germany Is at War with the Soviet Union:
    +5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow).
    Theme: High strategic and propaganda value.
    +5 IPCs if an Axis power controls Caucasus. Theme: Control of vital Soviet oil production.

    When Germany Is at War with the United Kingdom and France:
    +5 IPCs if at least 1 German land unit is in Axis-controlled Egypt.
    Theme: Gateway to the Middle East oilfields (high propaganda value).
    +5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled.
    Theme: Access to iron ore and other strategic resources.
    +2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia.
    Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.

    REDESIGN
    GERMANY:
    +5 if not at War with Russia
    +5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, (Persia and/or Northwest Persia ?).
    +5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
    +5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.

    OOB
    When the Soviet Union Is at War in Europe:
    +5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union.
    Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
    +3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.
    Theme: Propaganda value and spread of communism.
    +10 IPCs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin).
    Theme: National prestige.

    REDESIGN
    RUSSIA:
    +5 if not at war with Japan.
    +2 for each Axis territories under Soviet control.
    +5 if at War, for each open supply route: Persian Corridor, Pacific Route ALSIB Northern Trace, Arctic Route.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I have nothing against framing the NO as a negative income effect, but we are proposing so many changes to so many different systems that I think it’s hopeless to expect any kind of Allies v. Axis balance to persist from the OOB version, which, itself, was not really all that balanced. We will have to sort out balance through playtesting once we’ve got a complete rough draft.

  • '17 '16

    @Imperious:

    Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy as before.

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?

    This is what I’m actually considering.
    In fact, USA will probably be around +10 or +15 IPCs NOs (and a few more from VCs) while OOB it was near +15 or +20 IPCs:

    Also, this is why I like Argo suggestion about Axis Submarines in SZ89 and SZ64 nullifying the bonus.
    Making a harsh time on USA, so 5 IPCs bonus would only remain.

    OOB USA NOs
    +10 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Eastern United States, Central United States, and Western United States.
    Theme: Basic national sovereignty.
    +5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands.
    Theme: National sovereignty issues.
    +5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies.
    Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
    (Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)

    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:

    A- Pacific Islands:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Continental North America:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Continental Central America:
    +5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    OOB
    When Japan Is Not at War with the United States:
    +10 IPCs if Japan is not at war with the United States, has not attacked French Indo-China, and has not made an unprovoked declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC.
    Theme: Strategic resource trade with the United States.

    When Japan Is at War with the Western Allies (United States, United Kingdom/ANZAC and/or France):
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
    Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
    +5 IPCs per territory if Axis powers control India (Calcutta), New South Wales (Sydney), Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu) and/or Western United States (San Francisco).
    Theme: Major Allied power centers.
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.
    Theme: Strategic resource centers.

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Philippines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of 5 vital US Pacific bases and strategic outer defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Panama OR Aleutian and Alaska OR New South Wales (Sydney)
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    I have nothing against framing the NO as a negative income effect, but we are proposing so many changes to so many different systems that I think it’s hopeless to expect any kind of Allies v. Axis balance to persist from the OOB version, which, itself, was not really all that balanced. We will have to sort out balance through playtesting once we’ve got a complete rough draft.

    I believe we should be not too far from regular OOB bonus, otherwise it will be difficult to compare the Redesign effect.
    With too much IPCs, it will distort the analysis. Keeping the same order of money within + or - 10%, might probably help recognize functionnal patterns or dysfunctional ones.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Baron:

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways theme could be:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    Would that mean SZ89 and 64? Might as well give Japan a shot at disrupting it too.

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    @Baron:

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways theme could be:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    Would that mean SZ89 and 64? Might as well give Japan a shot at disrupting it too.

    That is the case SZ64 is in Pacific (But on Europe Map). Do you agree or not?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Baron:

    @LHoffman:

    @Baron:

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways theme could be:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    Would that mean SZ89 and 64? Might as well give Japan a shot at disrupting it too.

    That is the case SZ64 is in Pacific (But on Europe Map). Do you agree or not?

    Yep. Agree.

  • '17 '16

    It gives me 24 NOs actually.
    Easier to approve: ANZAC (1), UKPac (1), Italy (2), UK Europe (2), France (1), China (1)
    Intermediate to approve: Russia (3), Germany (4)
    Harder to determine if still OK: USA (4+) much complexity, Japan (5).

    This excludes all Sphere of influence penalty NOs (4).

    It makes 28 including 3 peacetime NOs: 1 Germany, 2 for Japan.

    My suggested USA NOs list is written in a way to explain three possible Japanese strategy:

    Offense USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
    (Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)

    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)

    Defense USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:

    A- Pacific Islands:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Continental North America:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Continental Central America:
    +5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    Wake Island, Philippines, Guam were conquered (also part of Japan NOs).
    Midway was next step for Japan to reach its own NO. Wake already cut a US 5 NOs.
    Aleutian were captured by Japan, this cut another 5 IPCs from US.
    Finally, if Panama’s Canal was next target, it would cut another 10 IPCs from US NOs.
    Leaving not much money to built units.

    In addition, A and B are on Pacific map while C and D are on Europe map.

    Would you like to see Greenland as part of North American continental NOs with Alaska and Aleutian ?
    That way, it may allows Germany a way to undercut a US 5 IPCs NO?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @Imperious:

    Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy

    For me it would be more important to list the possible expanded objective goals first, then modify the values as needed. Rather than the other way around, if that makes sense? So for example, once you know that Panama is a desired objective, it’s easier to pick an appropriate value relative to the others, or to pull money off another objective and put it into this one, or perhaps modify any of these somewhere down the road if the initial value proves too high/low to make the objective relevant.

    Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.

    I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.

    Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.

    I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.

    I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.

    For the NO expansion, I think we’re working under the idea that it’s best if used with a VC expansion (and catered to those conditions), but also could work independently.

    To that last Q, I think Greenland could be added, not sure where it should go though. I suppose if you consider Alaska/Greenland as part of an Arctic control NO they could go together, but it seems to make that one a bit thematically ‘fuzzy.’ I would nix the word “continental” from each, since it’s not very descriptive for any objective that includes Greenland or Aleutians or West Indies.

    I like the idea of regional Sovereignty NOs, where the theme serves as a mnemonic device for the region effected. So in that sense it might be nice to have the Alaska NO as it’s own discrete thing, rather than attaching Greenland (even if I like the idea of Germany have some potential to disrupt a US NO if they managed to conquer that TT.) It never really comes into play at all OOB.

    Of the 4 listed, C seems like the one with least gameplay interest. Because in order to disrupt it Axis would have to hold one of these territories through the US collect income phase, which seems rather challenging for some already far flung TTs. Seems to require that Axis take Central America and land blitz blockers in Mexico to have a chance at holding it long enough to disrupt. Or I guess if G landed in W. Indies, or the US had no blitz units at the ready it’s more doable, but still seems like a lot to take down the NO.

    D seems a lot more attractive since it can be disrupted with ships. I wonder if the wording there needs to specify submarines? Seems like having a destroyer or a carrier or a battleship ought to be equally disruptive. Even if subs are the most likely.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    ps.

    @Imperious:

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?

    Just to clarify my thought for the US was to eliminate the OOB freebee objective (the one I listed earlier generically as +10 at War) and replace it with a few objectives that are more interesting. That’s basically what Baron did. This shows the OOB objectives and how they might be replaced.

    10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Panama NO, and the Alaska NO.

    5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Hawaii NO

    5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
    Removed

    5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Axis island NO

    5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.
    Replaced by the Normandy NO.

    I think the Mexico NO could just be dropped altogether in favor of something else that is more focused/achievable for Axis, or to increase the value of some other NO. Especially if Panama/West Indies sea zones are already incorporated in another NO.

  • '17 '16

    Here is another draft based on your intent, Greenland is place with the other ATO TTs NO:
    This provide a way to interrupt this NO via either Panama, Greenland or West Indies opportunistic invasion.
    It keeps Panama as a highly valuable target (cut 10 IPCs).

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)

    Replaced by:

    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:

    A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Alaskan Territories:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
    +5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

  • '17 '16 '15

    You could give the 5 bucks for whack’in it and the 2 bucks for control. Replace “captured” with, “captured or recaptured”

    or “liberated” if you prefer

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

    Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.

    Something like this:

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney) OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)

    However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).


  • @Black_Elk:

    Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.

    I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.

    Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.

    I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.

    I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.

    “Backward” may not be quite the right word.  Along the lines of what I discussed a few posts ago, when I was talking about design methodologies, I think it’s more a case of what the logical outcome is for a particular design approach.

    In one approach (call it the goal-driven approach), Step A is to set the specific objectives of the project, as clearly and in as much detail as possible, so that one knows what to aim for.  In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to generate ideas and to check them against the objectives set in Step A to see if these ideas fit the desired goal.

    In the reverse approach (call it the option-driven approach), Step A is to generate lots of ideas, without imposing on them any restrictions that pertain to whether or not they fit a precise, detailed goal.  In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to figure out what can be done with all of these ideas…in other words, to see how they can be integrated into (to use an automotive analogy) a functional four-wheeled vehicle rather remaining a collection of separate components.  This building-up-from-the-components approach, in its pure form (and I’ll say more about that in a moment), basically creates a situation in which you look at your collection of separate components and say, “Okay, if we put together components A, B and C, we can create a game that does this; if we put together components C, D and E, we can create a game that does that…” and so forth.

    That analogy isn’t perfect in the case of an A&A redesign, of course, because we’re not dealing with a pure form of the building-up-from-the-components approach.  We’re dealing with a game that already exists, and there’s an aspiration to improve it in various ways.  This discussion thread has, by and large, been following the option-driven approach rather than the goal-driven approach, so Step A / Step B as described under the goal-driven approach don’t apply.  However, because we’re dealing with a pre-existing game, Step A / Step B as described under the option-driven approach don’t necessarily have to apply either because there’s another option…and I think it’s perhaps what Black Elk was driving at in the part of his post that I’ve quoted.

    To go back to my automotive analogy, I think that at this point Black Elk isn’t aiming for a single finished product, but rather is aiming to create a “car customization kit” that would present a whole bunch of options to the individual car buyer and which would leave it up to each individual buyer to decide what features he wishes to use in the customized car he orders.  The basic car would always be the same, but it could be customized in all kinds of ways: Do you want a moderately conservative blue paint job, a very conservative black one, or a flashy red one?  Whitewall tires or black?  An upgraded music / sound system?  Manual transmission or automatic?  Retractable hood or fixed?  Do you want leather-covered seats?  Do you want armoured doors and bullet-proof windows, if you’re a VIP type of person?  And so forth.  And it would be up to the buyer to be sensible about what options he would combine, because some combinations would be less optimal than others.  (Example: the previously-mentioned safety-conscious VIP who wants to keep a low profile would be poorly served by a car that combined armour plating and bullet-proof glass with a retactable roof and a flashy red paint job.)

    Black Elk said at one point that “I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title.”  That’s possibly one way of looking at it, but an alternate way of looking at it would be in purely practical terms.  Since any A&A redesign process involving more than one person is almost guaranteed to generate various degrees of disagreement, and since even a single person may be at a loss to decide which among many options he wants to use to solve a given problem (because choosing option X means rejecting option Y), the whole “problem” of reaching a decision can be avoided entirely by offloading the problem to the end user (the car buyer, in my analogy) by saying: “Here are the options we’ve devised for you; now go ahead and choose which ones you want to use.”  It’s pragmatic.  And in a sense, it also solves another old problem: replayability.  Any “finalized” redesign of A&A is likely to meet with the same fate as the OOB game: it will get decoded and “solved” to the extent that experienced players will eventually figure out the optimal set-piece moves for each power…and, ironically, will also figure out the redesign’s flaws, which in turn will make them want to redesign the game again, which will bring us right back to the starting point for all of this.  The car-customization-kit approach, by contrast, creates the possibility that players will never play twice under the same set of rules, which automatically creates variety.  In such a scenario, the “testing different combinations” phase would not be a means to achieve the end-result of the redesign process; the practice of playing with different combinations would instead be the actual end result of the redesign process.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think your analogy perfectly captures the spirit of what I’m driving it!

    And since we’re kind of on the same page, I’m sort of hoping for one that ends up looking like this…
    Hehehe

    Is it for everyone? Hard to say there. Will I end up crashing it into a tree the following week from inexperience? Let’s hope not! But least it gives me something to pine for
    :-D

    1968Corvette_700.jpg


  • i never figured out why Larry when he added NO’s never considered why some areas are of benefit to capture ( which adds income), while other areas cause players problems ( which should cost players income).

    If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
    If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income
    If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income
    If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
    If the allies sweep the axis out of Africa, Italy loses income
    If the axis control Archangel, Amur, and Persia ( all parts) the Soviets lose income- that’s where 100% of the lend lease came from 25%/50%/25%
    If the Allies take Sweden, Germany loses income
    If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses income

    etc…


  • Oh crap i got a 69 L-68 with factory side exhaust blk/blk

  • '17 '16 '15

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

    Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.

    Something like this:

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney)OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)

    However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).

    Well if you want the 2 bucks it could look like this:

    Screenshot_VC_2017-03-22_18-40-44.png

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 13
  • 28
  • 1
  • 33
  • 12
  • 1
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts