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.

[Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid)


  • 2018 Customizer

    After putting forward this idea last year, it’s been discussed in various other threads so I’m splitting it out here to avoid derailing them. I’m sure someone else has thought of this, but it seemed original and interesting enough to warrant consideration. I see this applying widely but at least to Anniversary '41 and to AA42.2.

    Colonial Outpost
    Before the start of the game, in lieu of any bid, the Allies may instead elect any one Allied-controlled territory to be the “Colonial Outpost” for that game. If they do, add a Industrial Complex* and AAA unit** to that territory and increase it’s IPC value by +1 (but not over 3) for the duration of the game. If the Colonial Outpost is ever captured by the Axis Powers, the Industrial Complex there is destroyed (not captured) and the value of the territory reverts back to the original value printed on the board.

    * This is a Minor IC in games that include Minor ICs
    ** Only in games where ICs do not have built-in AAA
    

    The background for this idea is the combination of two problems that seemed to have dogged at least the ‘mainline’ games like 42.2 and Anniversary:

    1. Axis bias (sometimes extreme)
    2. Godzilla-Japan (KJF is an order of magnitude more difficult than KGF; JTDM; etc.)

    The consensus fix for balance’s sake is an Allied bid. Bids do offer a kind of flexibility and balance, but are by definition minimal (usually no more than one unit per TT allowed)- and they can be subject to fiddly restrictions or ultimately swept away by a single unlucky roll of the dice. A hitpoint in Egypt in no way guarantees it holds against even a nominal G1 attack; and Indian bid cannot ultimately preserve it from Japan; units in Russia have to be scrutinized to avoid breaking the tenuous R1/G1 balance; and so on. What makes the Colonial Outpost idea so interesting to me is that it can’t be negated with dice alone (it’s a vector change, not just an incremental blip) while also being very simple: just place a factory and bump the IPC value up by 1 (unless it’s already 3+).

    Some additional considerations of a Colonial Outpost rule might be

    1. Maybe we want to allow any IC placed by the allies as part of a bid to be considered a “Colonial Outpost”, following the same rules as above, ala: “Any IC placed as part of an Allied bid is considered to be a ‘CO’…”
      – This would allow the CO to be just a part of the bid and not the entirety thereof, meaning you could have this AND some elements of a normal bid, or they could be combined for an even stronger CO e.g. CO +1 Inf in the event of a bid of 18, etc.

    2. For that matter, maybe we build in a free Infantry or two to the CO, to widen the range of possible locations to include those where a naked IC could fall even before it’s owner takes a turn.

    3. Maybe we should set a bid threshold that would have to be met in order to depoloy the CO with this: “In any game where the settled bid is greater than X, the bidding side may elect to waive that bid and designate a CO…”
      X =…18? 20? You can already just bid a factory, if you want, and the +1 IPC/turn is nearly worthless by itself… but +100% or +50% production capacity is obviously a game-changer in a default 1 or 2 IPC territory.

    4. [ G40 only ] Maybe we should preclude the risk-free upgrade of the CO into a full-blown Major IC with this: “If the Colonial Outpost’s Minor IC is ever upgraded to a Major IC, that Major IC is exempt from the special CO rule above and is not destroyed automatically when the territory is captured. Follow the standard OOB rules for IC capture instead.”

    I’m teaching either AA50 or AA42.2 to a group soon, and I’m intending to give this rule a try. I’m not sure that this rule wouldn’t also be some fun for the Axis side as well, I just can’t think of a game other than Revised where anyone ever has to bid to take the Axis 🙂



  • I like this idea allot. I think your secondary ideas (bullets 1 thru 4) are good starting additonal thoughts at this point until you’ve tried to play a few games with the initial ideas/concept to see if the Colonial Outpost is too strong for the Allies or not enough help for the Allies.

    I surmise that just the CO might not be enough for the allies, though.

    So to your point about the CO as part of a bid, I propose that the side that has the advantage (in AA50, the Axis) bid progressively larger amounts to give the weaker side (Allies in AA50) to have the ‘stronger’ side. For example, I will take the Axis and give the Allies $10 (in bid units or IPCs). Opposing player may believe he can still win with the Axis giving up more than $10 IPCs, so he says he will take the Axis and give the Allies $15 (in bid units or IPCs). This goes back and forth until the Allied play accepts the extra units.

    Instead of starting at $1 IPC and bidding higher, the starting bid for the Axis is the Colonial Outpost (as described aboove). Now the opposing player can bid for the Axis giving the CO + $3 IPCs… on so on.

    So, should standard bid placement restrictions would be in play (like 1 unit per TT?) I believe you should be able to put one unit with the CO complex.


  • 2018 2017

    I have nothing to add except I like this idea and would like to explore it further.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • 2018 Customizer

    The four setups I want to evaluate for this rule are 42.2, 42.2TR, Anniversary '41, and Anniversary '42. For starters, for each of these setups, I want to look at a few obvious destinations for the OC (India, Australia, Egypt, SA, Hawaii, and SFE), and for each examine the strongest possible Axis response on turns 1-5, compared to Allied reinforcement potential. The result will be a table I’ll post below as I test. You veterans, are there other locations you think are worth checking for the first round of tests?



  • @vodot said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

    The four setups I want to evaluate for this rule are 42.2, 42.2TR, Anniversary '41, and Anniversary '42. For starters, for each of these setups, I want to look at a few obvious destinations for the OC (India, Australia, Egypt, SA, Hawaii, and SFE), and for each examine the strongest possible Axis response on turns 1-5, compared to Allied reinforcement potential. The result will be a table I’ll post below as I test. You veterans, are there other locations you think are worth checking for the first round of tests?

    I can only speak strongly of AA50-41, that is what we mostly play.
    Two others on your list might be a USA colonial outpost in brazil. Also, If russian were going to pressure Japan, I think a bryatia IC might be better than the SFE listed. USA can support with fighters off SZ56 based carriers.
    BRY is more positionally valued than SFE.

    Other comments on current list (ordered in highest to least valuable):
    India. Best all around, will need initial help from russia to sustain
    Egypt. Can you hold it round 1? if so, very key as well
    South Africa. Good, solid way to fight the Africa Korps and hold onto UK IPCs. Will the axis commit that much to africa?
    Australia. To use most effectively, USA needs a fleet to back up small UK navy that would help to take back UK islands
    Hawaii. Don’t see too much advantage to a 2-unit producing 1 sea zone forward naval base.
    Soviet Far East. might be acceptable since farther away from Japan mainland


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

    Here are a few thoughts on this concept. I’ve had a look at this thread, and at the linked one where the idea was first developed, and if I understand correctly the concept involves replacing the Allied bid by letting the Allies pick one of their territories and give it a three-element enhancement (1 IC, 1 AAA and a +1 IPC boost) which would disappear if the territory is ever captured.

    The concept in itself sounds basically okay, but I’m wondering if it might benefit from being tweaked to deal with a few points. The points have to do with the questions “What does this concept represent in real-life terms and how is this reflected by the terminology being use to represent it?”

    Seen in isolation, the phrase “colonial outpost” evokes (at least in my mind) the image of an isolated and fairly small military garrison established by a colonial power in one of its relatively undeveloped colonies. The concept being described, on the other hand, more closely resembles the idea of what could be called a “fortified concession” (though I’m not really suggesting that this phrase be used instead), i.e. an economically-developed and militarily-defended zone that a foreign power has set up on someone else’s territory…roughly what Shanghai was prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    A related point has to do with the fact that, as I understand it, any Allied power can alter any one Allied-controlled territory in this manner. This raises the question of whether the “colonial” part of the phrase applies, depending on what territory is being altered by whom. Britain altering a territory in India would be classically colonial, because India was a British possession at the time, but things could get murky in certain other situations – in no small part because of political optics. For example, the self-governing Dominions at the time (Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) would have been outraged at the notion of Britain setting up a “colonial” outpost (or a colonial anything else) on their territory. The United States, while it did indeed have a number of overseas possessions (like the Philippines) which it controlled to various degrees, didn’t (as far as I know) refer to itself as a “colonial” power, a term which I think the Americans tended to despise as being too closely associated with the European great powers. And there’s also the question (whose answer I can’t discern from the discussion threads, though I may just be missing it) of whether Allied Power X could give this kind of upgrade to a territory controlled by Allied Power Y; if yes, this too raises the question of whether “colonial” would be the right term. (Example: the American base built at Argentia in Newfoundland under Lend-Lease was not regarded as a “colonial outpost”. I think it was seen more as an American enclave on Commonwealth territory. As a case in point, I read that within the Argentia base vehicles drove on the right side of the road, as per American practice, while outside the base they drove on the left, as per the British practice being followed in Newfoundland at the time.)

    In one sense, this is all just a picky point of terminology, so it can easily be discounted. But I’m wondering if a two-birds-with-one-stone solution might be to tweak the concept slightly – maybe by specifying in more detail which power can make this change to which territories, and maybe even by splitting the concept into slight variants with slightly different names, depending on which of the scenario types I’ve described above are (and are not) being envisioned.



  • @CWO-Marc said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

    In one sense, this is all just a picky point of terminology, so it can easily be discounted.

    Sure, the name can be changed, it’s merely a tag on the free IC concept.

    @CWO-Marc said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

    But I’m wondering if a two-birds-with-one-stone solution might be to tweak the concept slightly – maybe by specifying in more detail which power can make this change to which territories, and maybe even by splitting the concept into slight variants with slightly different names, depending on which of the scenario types I’ve described above are (and are not) being envisioned.

    Why do that now? Try it out as laid out, see what may need to be reigned in if it seems too strong. Tweaking of a house rule is best accomplished by game play testing.


  • 2018 Customizer

    @CWO-Marc I too wanted to find a more generic term than ‘colonial’ which does have the aforementioned “optics” and historical accuracy problems. Remote was the word (instead of colonial) that I couldn’t think of until I read your post; so “Remote” or “Forward” or perhaps “Frontier” would be good, less politically loaded terms; “Outpost” could then either remain or be replaced with “Command” or “Base” or “Base of Operations”. These names might work especially well with ‘additional consideration’ option where any IC placed as part of a bid (or the whole bid) takes on this rule.

    Regarding what it’s supposed to represent, definitely the historical presence of centers of production and vectors of attack that weren’t the very capitals of the powers in question. NO power in AA50 or 42 has a second vector but the US, and vector #2 (the PTO) is basically a giant trap. The very first thing I always tell any new player with the UK is “don’t get excited”. I think it’s apparent that someone goofed when you look at the design in 1941 (or, of course, G40), neither of which commits this same mistake (41, anemic as it is, gives the British TWO extra factories (to place WHAT units, one might ask?). Why should the two most playable versions not do the same?

    I have nothing against bids for tournament play, but bids are kinda lame for games with friends until you know what you’re doing- and obviously newbies in particular cannot bid (or understand why a bid would be needed) and instead should have more fun and more options. I think this will work well.

    Regarding if a power can do this in a different power’s territory, I think certainly not. That’s confusing and against the spirit of the rule, which is to do something really simple with loads of fun, balance-y potential.

    @axis_roll said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

    I can only speak strongly of AA50-41, that is what we mostly play.
    Two others on your list might be a USA colonial outpost in brazil. Also, If russian were going to pressure Japan, I think a bryatia IC might be better than the SFE listed. USA can support with fighters off SZ56 based carriers.
    BRY is more positionally valued than SFE.

    Other comments on current list (ordered in highest to least valuable):
    India. Best all around, will need initial help from russia to sustain
    Egypt. Can you hold it round 1? if so, very key as well
    South Africa. Good, solid way to fight the Africa Korps and hold onto UK IPCs. Will the axis commit that much to africa?
    Australia. To use most effectively, USA needs a fleet to back up small UK navy that would help to take back UK islands
    Hawaii. Don’t see too much advantage to a 2-unit producing 1 sea zone forward naval base.
    Soviet Far East. might be acceptable since farther away from Japan mainland

    Great ideas, of course. India has got to be the main play, but then you forfeit the IPC boost… Is there a strat where hardcore KJF works with a Buryatia OC and an R1 2tnk buy, followed by UK1 Indian IC? There is a lot of Russian cannon fodder there that only wants for some offensive punch. I think that northern land threat is key to cracking Japan, especially if the UK has to pivot completely to Europe due to Sea Lion or big German tanks or something.


  • 2018 Customizer

    Not going to lie I really want to see if this makes a Russian Bearing Strait Sea of Okhotsk navy a thing.



  • @vodot said in [Various] The Colonial Outpost (an enhanced Allied IC bid):

    Not going to lie I really want to see if this makes a Russian Bearing Strait Sea of Okhotsk navy a thing.

    ONLY if somehow an USA fleet sails to the Sea of Okhostk first, then Russia adds 2 ships to that navy.

    Keep dreaming though…


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I think Persia might be the optimal play for the Allies under these rules – you can easily reinforce it from Stalingrad, and you can push either east to India or west to Egypt as needed. Persia’s usually not worth a factory in OOB play because it would only have 1 production slot, but with 2 production slots in Persia at the start of the game, you could really swing the center of the board toward the Allies.

    Anybody want to test this out by e-mail? I’ll take the Allies with a factory and AAA in a modified Persia that’s worth 2 IPCs and has 2 production slots for as long as I can hold it. I wouldn’t ask for any further bid; that sounds like plenty to me.


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

  • 12
  • 5
  • 7
  • 6
  • 32
  • 6
  • 16
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games

64
Online

13.0k
Users

33.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts