[Global 1940] More Options for Lenningrad

I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.

@Lil-Blue-Spider I understand what you mean. Just one thing to add on… the capital ship ability is clearly outlined in most A&A rule books. It states that this ship may take TWO hits. And on that note; technically you could negotiate whatever you want. I will edit House rules a bit for them to makes sense. Like wait three turns to use a territory if you ceded that territory, etc. Thanks for the comment!

@CWO:

A&A is fundamentally a board game, and its relationship to more rigorous military-simulation wargames (both hobby-level and professional-grade) is roughly the relationship that the Monopoly board game has to the kinds of economic-simulation games that are detailed and accurate enough that they could be used as teaching tools in a management school curriculum.

I agree to the Monopoly comment, or maybe better said, without historical events and situations to use in conjunction with play, then A&A is just a glorified version of Risk.  But, I want some history and random events that change the play of the game.

@Cmdr:

Yea, I always wished that ABs added 2 to fighters/TBmbs and 4 to Strat Bombs…but that isn’t how it is, so my wishes be danged. lol

You can still HR that an AB on island TTy is treated like an Aircraft Carrier.
That way, StB or Fg going out only received only +1M bonus, but any Fg or TcB taking off and landing on the same AB gets a +2  bonus move.
This allows TcB and Fg to attack an island in another SZ and be able to land on the island Air Base. .

Nice try, but the problem with house rules is they unbalance the game. Who will buy trannies anymore when you can put infantry on destroyers ? You must then change cost and abilities to the whole shebalong of units, in order to rebalance it, so now you got a brand new game, the A&A Carolina edition.  :-D

just for some historical facts, I happen to know about 2 incidents where infantry used destroyers for transport. First was the amphibious assault on Norway 9. april 1940. A German destroyer with a crew of 360 sailors could take 200 infantry as cargo. For the attack on Narvik, 2000 Austrian infantry that was part of an mountain division, did sail on 10 destroyers, from Germany to Narvik in Northern Norway. Their first problem was they could not make an amphibious assault against a well defended shore. They had to debark at a port like passengers from a liner. And the only reason they succeeded debarking at Narvik was the Norwegian officer in command at Narvik was a pro Hitler Nazi. Their other problem was that all heavy equipement and supply had to come on trannies. So there are no way around a tranny. Their last problem was that after 9 days under deck the fighting spirit was low, so they would need a couple of days to recover. There are a reason the Allies made Landing Crafts for the Normandy invasion. Another issue conserning your game is that an average A&A infantry unit is supposed to represent an army of 100 000 men or something, not 2000 men. A rule like this could work in a tactical level game, but now so much in a grand strategy game like A&A. But with that said, this was actually an optional rule in the A&A Revised edition from 2004.

Oh, and the other example I know is the Dunquirk evacuation after the fall of Belgium, this is also in 1940. The myth says it was a fleet of civilian sailboats, rafts and canoes that lifted 350 000 british infantry from the beach over to UK. The fact is, it was 20 british destroyers that did the job.

So to make a house rule that got a link to the real war, I say a destroyer got the ability to ferry, or bridging, one infantry unit across one or two sea zones in the combat phase only, either as amphibious assaulting an empty enemy territory, or if its not empty let the defender roll a preemptive strike, and if the infantry on the destroyer survive, he can attack. Or for a Dunkirk evac, let one defending infantry retreat via a friendly destroyer, even if this last suggestion is blatantly cheesy

I’ve always felt the same way as the jetset. For me the dice rules are an important part of the narrative aspect of the game. They allow for more surprises or turn arounds or crushing upsets at the last minute, the kind of thing that allows you to build out a uniqur story around what just happened in a given combat.

I understand the appeal of Low Luck, but the gameplay is substantially different.  A build or combat strategy that is guaranteed to come off in LL, could fail miserably in a dice game. Sure you might be able to model averages for expected results using an LL scheme to map your strategy in a dice game, but there’s always a chance that the dice end up disagreeing with you ‘that time.’

In that respect I don’t see a huge amount of cross over. Playing 100 dice games won’t really prepare you or teach you a whole lot about what to expect in an LL game. As mentioned before low luck alters a lot of things, with respect to deadzoning and strafing, the number of defensive units required to back down an attack entitely, the way the airblitz works, the way anti aircraft fire works, etc. Just too many differences to really say that a strategy that anticipates the one style of combat is going to graph onto the other consistently.

I think after playing a few games, most players are able to determine which style of gameplay they prefer. If you love the consistency of LL, and hate the unpredictably of dice, then wait for a match with another LL player. If you hate LL, but love dice, then wait for a match against a dice player. Especially in a long game like global, if you start a playing with a combat system you dislike, then chances are that the game won’t be very satisfying for you. There are enough players out there who enjoy both ways of playing that you can probably find a likeminded opponent if you just stick it out for a little while.

To the initial question about why LL isn’t used more often, the answer is probably just because the manual doesn’t offer a description of how Low Luck works, or provide the kind official endorsement for that combat system that would probably be necessary for a larger groundswell of support. In regular tournament play it foes have a bit more cache, since that is where the systemperature was first put into practice… Fortunately for those who do enjoy Low Luck, tripleA  created simple “click tab” option in the game options menu, that allows any game to be played with universal LL rules, which I think has done a lot to popularize that style of play. There are also tripleA scenerios out there which were designed from the ground up with the LL playstyle in mind, which helps. I don’t know if the G40 designers took LL into account when they created the set up. If it was designed for LL, I imagine some of starting unit distributions might have been a little different. But again the game is pretty flexible, so even a game that wasn’t created with LL in mind, can still be adapted pretty easily, although the playtime required or the usual bids might be slightly different.

Still testing.

Turn order is the same as the official 1942 setup:
USSR>Japan>USA>China>Germany>UKEurope/UKPacific>Italy>ANZAC>France

Japan still has all Kamikaze attacks available, All National Objectives included, Victory Conditions the same.

Soviet Union (26 IPCs):
Russia: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase
Novgorod: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Volgograd: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Mech., 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Minor
Karelia: 1 Infantry
Archangel: 2 Infantry
Vologda: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Tambov: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caucasus: 2 Infantry
Samara: 2 Infantry
Kazakhstan: 2 Infantry
Urals: 2 Mechs, 2 Tanks, 1 Strategic
Novosibirsk: 4 Infantry, 2 AAA
Timguska: 2 Infantry
Evenkiyskiy: 1 Infantry
Yenisey: 2 Infantry
Yakut S.S.R.: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 2 Infantry
Sakha: 2 Infantry
Amur: 2 Infantry
Siberia: 2 Infantry
Soviet Far East: 2 Infantry
Northwest Persia: 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 115: 1 Submarine, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 127: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer

Japan (54 IPCs):
Japan: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tacticals, 2 Strategics, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Korea: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Paulau Island: 1 Infantry
Formosa: 1 Fighter
Siam: 4 Infantry
Manchuria: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 AAA, 1 Control Marker
Jehol: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Shantung: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Anhwe: 4 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Kiangsu: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Kiangsi: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Kwangsi: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Yunnan: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Kwangtung: 2 Infantry, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Shan State: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Malaya: 1 Figther, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Borneo: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Gilbert Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Sumatra: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Control Marker
Java: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Celebes: 1 Control Marker
Dutch New Guinea: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
New Guinea: 1 Control Marker
New Britain: 1 Control Marker
Solomon Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
French Indo China: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Philippines: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Guam: 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Wake Island: 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 6: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 19: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 20: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 24: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 33: 2 Submarines, 2 Destroyers, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 37: 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 45: 1 Battleship

United States (52 IPCs):
Eastern United States: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Central United States: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Mechs, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic, 1 Major
Western United States: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical, 2 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Alaska: 1 Infantry
Panama: 1 Infantry
Hawaiian Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Midway: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Airbase
Brazil: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
United Kingdom: 1 Strategic
Sea Zone 10: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 25: 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 26: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 64: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 101: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser

China (10 IPCs):
Chahar: 2 Infantry
Hopei: 1 Infantry
Shensi: 4 Infantry
Kweichow: 1 Infantry
Hunan: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Szechwan: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery

Germany (58 IPCs):
Germany: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Strategics, 3 AAA, 1 Major
Western Germany: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 2 Tanks, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Greater Southern Germany: 4 Infantry
Hungary: 2 Mechs, 2 Tanks
Romania: 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Poland: 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical
Denmark: 1 Infantry
Norway: 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 AAA
Holland Belgium: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Finland: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Bulgaria: 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
France: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Control Marker
Normandy Bordeaux: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Southern France: 1 Infantry, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase, 1 Control Marker
Morocco: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Algeria: 1 Infantry: 1 Control Marker
French West Africa: 1 Control Marker
Yugoslavia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Baltic States: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Eastern Poland: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Control Marker
Bessarabia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Belarus: 4 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Western Ukraine: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Ukraine: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Tactical, 1 Minor, 1 Control Marker
Smolensk: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Bryansk: 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Rostov: 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Vyborg: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Libya: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank
Sea Zone 87: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 93: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 103: 2 Submarines
Sea Zone 113: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 114: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 118: 2 Submarines, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 125: 2 Submarines

United Kingdom (Europe Economy, 37 IPCs):
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic, 4 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Scotland: 2 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Airbase
Gibraltar: 1 Fighter, 1 AAA, 1 Seabase
Iceland: 1 Airbase
Quebec: 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Minor
New Brunswick Nova Scotia: 1 Seabase
Malta: 1 Infantry, 1 AAA
Alexandria: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech
Egypt: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Seabase
Anglo Egyptian Sudan: 1 Infantry
Union of South Africa: 2 Infantry, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase
Syria: 1 Control Marker
French Central Africa: 1 Control Marker
French Equatorial Africa: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
French Madagascar: 1 Control Marker
French Guiana: 1 Control Marker
Suriname: 1 Control Marker
Eire: 1 Control Marker
Persia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Eastern Persia: 1 Control Marker
Iraq: 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Tobruk: 1 Tank, 1 Control Marker
Ethiopia: 1 Control Marker
Italian Somaliland: 1 Control Marker
Sea Zone 71: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 79: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 91: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 98: 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Tactical
Sea Zone 106: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 110: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 111: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship

United Kingdom (Pacific Economy, 6 IPCs):
India: 5 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Strategic, 3 AAA, 1 Major, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
West India: 1 Infantry
Burma: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter
Sea Zone 39: 1 Battleship

Italy (12 IPCs):
Southern Italy: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Northern Italy: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Strategic, 2 AAA, 1 Major
Sicily: 1 Infantry
Sardinia: 1 Infantry
Albania: 1 Tank
Libya: 2 Infantry, 1 Mech, 1 Tank
Greece: 1 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Fighter, 1 Control Marker
Crete: 1 Tactical, 1 Control Marker
Tunisia: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Yugoslavia: 2 Infantry
Bulgaria: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 94: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 95: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 96: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 97: 1 Transport, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 99: 1 Destroyer

ANZAC (10 IPCs):
New South Wales: 2 Infantry, 2 AAA, 1 Minor, 1 Seabase
Queensland: 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, 1 Tank, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
Northern Territory: 2 Infantry
Western Australia: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
New Zealand: 2 Infantry, 2 Fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Seabase
New Hebrides: 1 Control Marker
India: 1 Infantry
Tobruk: 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 54: 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 62: 1 Submarine, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63: 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Fighter

France (0 IPCs, capital occupied):
Syria: 1 Infantry
United Kingdom: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Gibraltar: 1 Infantry
Belgian Congo: 1 Infantry
Kenya: 1 Infantry
Tanganyika Territory: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 72: 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 91: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 110: 1 Cruiser

@knp7765:

I think the other nations would welcome such a development. “Oh, you have a bunch of paratroops and transport planes? Good! Now I’m going to invade you with my stack of tanks and mechs.”

Yes, this would echo the principle of unequal force ratios stated in the proverbial Law of the Sword, which says “The guy with the gun usually wins.” Â