Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

Re: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37319/canada-s-distinct-ownership-icons

We did create Canada as a distinct power and the extra ally does create imbalance- we took the money from UK so they are slow to do much. But my son was geeked up to order some UK troops and paint them cherry red.
We haven’t quite found a counter balance for the axis. Maybe we shall try Vichy France.
I lose more than win but my kid knows his ww2 history and world geography pretty well, so…

@The-Captain

Great Thank you

After the final play testing has succesfully ended, the Desert Army will be part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion under Optional Rules.

The Desert Army is also eligible for use with Global 1943.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

This rule allows players to move a specific number of land combat units in order to reinforce front line units, build up forces for future offensives or simply as decoy to confuse the enemy, etc.

Paratroopers and Soviet Partisans can both become handy in order to disrupt enemy Strategic Rail Movement.

G40 Strategic Rail Movement.pdf

I edited the Tacs in list.
Is there still a bid ?
BB & CR shore shot at 11 and 9 ?
How many table top games have you played ?

@Black_Elk just suggested what i think to be an excellent idea over at the triplea site. Have Normandy be “Original Owner True Neutral” or could make it “Pro_Allied”. Will start out controlled by France.

At any rate, when Team USA comes in and takes it and then Liberates Paris, it’ll still be USA controlled. Which is historical as well.

Gonna add it to the House Rules : )

Edit
So you’d need to use Gamerman1’s Normandy turns Pro-Allied if not Axis controlled after turn 1 as well. Can add a 2 PU objective for France if US of A controlls Normandy and Paris is free if you want.

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.