G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Yea im just going by that list which includes Vichy.

@Baron:

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.

But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

About Vichy, for tabletop players, I believe we should  work in two directions.
France as OOB player and France as Vichy being a minor power.
The idea is to give more playable options, I mean real ones, when there is many players at table.
Or giving France to someone playing a minor power to give him more things to do.

Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.

But realistically, I would be interested to see the Vichy dynamic as an individual player. Sounds incredibly boring and probably takes away from Germany/Italy’s ability to fight how they want, right?

IDK about modalities here.
I was just talking about goal to improve France action. Not an issue on Triple A because it is mostly, if not exclusively one vs one player.
What I’m talking about is something which either convert some France units into British (like Fg in UK) while France becomes an active Axis player under Vichy. Or, all France remains Allies but allows to collect and built at least Infantry and artillery in some part of the african colonies, and maybe Tank or planes in UK (but no Inf or Art)? So France can collect income and play as China works, at least. If Germany and Italy already get more money under VCs options, they probably can face a bitter France opposition than OOB. That way, France player may have a small role in Africa and Middle-East.
I must acknowledge I cannot sketches details on that one. It is just a general aim I’m suggesting.
At least, to look at it to see if there is a way to make France an active player somehow.

@Black_Elk:

It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.

Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842.  Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.

But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII.  The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards.  The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

It wouldn’t seem unreasonable to imagine that Canada might have played more of role in the naval showdown in the Pacific, had they made that priority, but historically they were already oriented Atlantic in 1940, and getting something going in the North Pacific for production would require some pretty substantive changes either to the map values or to the way factories work. I didn’t push to hard for the idea here, since I didn’t want it to overshadow the other candidates for an NB expansion. I’d probably rather have one to activate an island in the central pacific, or maybe one to make a route connecting the Southeast Pacific to the Southwest Atlantic (maybe Fiji?). But if it was a more broad based expansion, I don’t think an NB for British Columbia would seem totally out of place, if it it provided more interest for a showdown in the North, or made a potentially play against Alaska for J a bit more workable.

Actually, British Columbia does have a naval base, which has been operational (in one way or another) since 1842.  Its current name is Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, and it’s located at the southern end of Vancouver Island, roughly in the same neighborhood as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.
But I agree that Canada was Atlantic-oriented during WWII.  The Royal Canadian Navy’s main job in WWII was convoy protection in the Atlantic, and most of the RCN’s ships were small; as I recall, its Tribal-class destroyers were considered major assets by RCN standards.  The Pacific is twice as wide as the Atlantic, and Japanese submarines were never a problem there to any comparable extent to the German U-boat presence in the Atlantic.

A NB without IC seems a way to convey the historical facility available there: repairing shipyards and refueling capacity: +1 bonus move.
UK player would never built a NB there, always bigger fish to fry for little use.
But NB gives two purposes: increasing the value of this TT for Japan and making it a one way trip 3 SZs from Japan SZ6 to be able to go west to east and east to west and to reach Midway or Hawaii. Tactically more functional for IJN mobility. On the other side, USA may stage an invasion force in Western Canada directly toward Japan. Not negligible assest.

@barney:

Idk about strategy. I think UK is probably better off putting most of their dough into Africa or the Atlantic, but … :) As far as “what if” goes, I’d say it would be very plausible. I think it was Olympia where the US pumped out a pile of Liberty ships. Don’t know why Vancouver couldn’t do the same for Canada.

Thanks, Barney.
It is was instructive.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwiibayarea/ric.htm

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

@General:

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

ITALY NOs:
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.

+5 for each, if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar & Morocco are Axis captured, Axis conquest of Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan), Axis conquest of Panama’s Canal.
Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

JAPAN NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Hawaii AND either Wake or Midway

+5 for each, Japan controls Panama or Aleutian AND Alaska
Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication centers.

Does something like this can still suit you?
So both Japan and Italy would benefit from Panama’s canal.

UK EUROPE:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Panama, Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

+5 if Allied controlled: Skagerrak-Kategatt strait (Norway and Denmark),
Theme: Capture of vital Axis iron ore trading and communication waterways.

What about this one?
Enough NOs for Canal control?

I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

Here are a few thoughts about the France / Vichy / Free French subject which has been discussed.

A basic question that would be useful to answer is: should France be made “interesting enough” (for want of a better phrase) to be playable by a single player who isn’t also controlling another power?  Currently, under all the OOB “Number of Players” rules, France is always tacked on to the responsibilities of a player who’s controlling something else: the USSR, or the USSR + US + China, or all of the Allied powers.  This is presumably because OOB France operates under severe restrictions which relegate it to a peripheral status.

If France, in an improved version of A&A, keeps its “not interesting enough for a single player” status, then one possibility after France falls would be for its territories and playing piece assets to be divided into a Free French portion (which would continue to be played by whoever is playing the power or powers that pre-fall France was paired with) and a Vichy portion (which would be played by whoever is playing Germany).  This would be a variation of the idea mentioned earlier by LHoffman: “Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.”

On the other hand, if France, in an improved version of A&A, gets upgraded to a power that’s “interesting enough for a single player,” then the situation becomes more complicated.  If this “interesting enough for a single player” version of France gets fractured into a Vichy part and a Free French part, would these diminished separate parts continue to be “interesting enough for a single player”?  If the answer turns out to be no, then France, in order to remain “interesting enough for a single player,” might need to be kept as a unified power, which in turn raises the question: does it remain a unified Allied-affiliated power or does it become a unified Axis-affiliated power?  (I don’t know the answer; I’m just wondering about the possible implementation scenarios.)

On a related point, one possible way of making France “interesting enough for a single player”, but without changing the way France operates, might be to pair it with Global 1940’s other oddball Allied power, China (which operates under some weird restrictions of its own), and assign both powers to a single player who’d play just them.  Depending on how many players are at the table, a variation of this idea might even be to bundle France, China and ANZAC together and assign them to a dedicated player.

Under the OOB rules, in a six-player game, France is paired with the USSR, China is paired with the US and ANZAC is paired with the UK.  Detaching these three junior partners from the three senior partners and bundling them together, but without changing the way France and China and ANZAC operate, might create an “interesting enough for a single player” three-power block, while allowing the USSR, US and UK players (assuming there are three of them) to concentrate exclusively on their own workload.  This would require four players in the Allied side, in other words.  In principle this would imply a seven-person game, with one player each for Germany, Italy and Japan, but a six-person version could be contrived by applying the Axis configuration that’s used in the OOB rules for five players: one player controlling Germany and Italy, and one player controlling Japan.

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

@Imperious:

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

^ What he said.

Whether in person or otherwise, France is a total drag to play solo. Also slows the game. In practice, UK/US takes control of remaining French units. Vichy rules should exist only to determine what is handed over to the German player and what isn’t.

@Argothair:

I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

**I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace.** I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

As I see the game, it is hard to make the assumption more land= more money, if we stay strictly on realistic/historical POV. From what I learned about Easter Front, getting more ressources from these war ravaged TTs than what they drag to maintained and protect seems a theoretical POV. Any positive bonus put on a contested TT is not from a realistic economic POV. Even Caucasus Rostov-on-Don oil field was not really able to produce and deliver oil to Germany. Placing 5 IPCs on Leningrad or Stalingrad are not realistic: these VCs would have been reduced to rubble, and how effective can be such labor camp?

All incentive bonus on enemy’s TT as NO should be understood by Industrial and Progress Credit name, and Progress is the more important term. I would aim at giving for the same essential TT NO, an Industrial bonus to the owner while it should be seen as a Progress Bonus for the conquerer POV.
Only keeping the broad POV in NOs as a way to incente more historical kind of play or more dynamic and yet credible strategy.
Such as, giving bonus to Allies when they reach Normandy is more for acquiring an historical goal of opening a western front war (than being able to get resources from this war zone). DD-day and debarkment was not made for a profit. Also choosing Normandy over France also incente Germany to not retreat inner land to escape from Allies direct assault and shorebombardment. That way it better reenact the idea of Atlantic Wall strategy.

It can be positive bonus to get hit (for Allies) and also positive bonus to hold it (for Axis).
That way, it increases IPCs swing value for a given TT making radically and of upmost importance.

I tend to suggest NOs which rather express what is not explicit on map.
What kind of resources and communications ways were very important to one side or the other.
It can certainly put into one side get +10, +5, 0, / to +5, +10 to the other side. Canals can receive more Global attention that way. So, a single 0 IPC TT can still produce a 20 IPCs swing if people think it was that vital for both sides.

Also, we have to consider what resources need to be “wasted/invested” on a given objective to be acquired.
Ocean travelled objectives requiring many turns to prepare, launch and fight need money incentive. Otherwise, easier and nearer objective will mostly be chosen as a more cost effective way to win the game.

@Imperious:

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

If the case, why not make a config in which Free France is considered UK, and some Vichy wholly Italian or Germany? It will allows to skip France turn and speed the pace somehow.

I liked the config CWO Marc suggested: letting 1 major power to 1 player, all axis to 1 player and China, France and Anzac to another, allowing a 7 players config, if UK is one player, with enough action for each (maybe less for Italy, but still it is an aggressive minor power.

I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

Rostov-on-Don oil field

You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

Only if the game starts at an earlier point. The setup makes a French collapse highly likely. If a dumb German player lets it be, its alot tougher on Germany to win.

@Argothair:

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

This actually raises an interesting point about objectives in general (such as victory cities, national objectives, national advantages and so forth).  The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”, meaning an objective that benefits one specific side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by that side, but that doesn’t benefit the enemy side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by the enemy.  From the enemy’s point of view, therefore, taking control (or whatever) of that objective has what could be called the “single benefit” of depriving the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective.

By contrast, a “symmetrical-benefit objective” would be an objective that benefits whichever side controls (or whatever) the objective.  From the enemy’s point of view, taking control (or whatever) of such an objective has a “double benefit” effect: you not only deprive the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective, you also get to make use of those IPCs (or other desirable features) for your own purposes.

The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.