Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@cthuwu said in Neutral Territory Infantry:

Do neutral territories regenerate infantry?

Say you attack Turkey, and only take out 6 of their infantry and you get wiped out, would their infantry regenerate back to 8 immediately, or when they remain with 2 until someone finishes them off?

If u want a house rule I can pm it to chat so don’t tie up this topic.

… Back to the European half of the G40 board…

Another intriguing possibility arising out of a significant Axis presence in South America is a pathway to an option for German Government in Exile in… you guessed it: Argentina.

@imperious-leader said in Global 1940 Fixed Units Variants:

@gen-manstein right, just off the top of my head.Baron M. could collaborate

Barons to busy. We don’t need his collaborate.

@andy-palmer

one HR we experimented with was “French Resistance”. During the French turn, you roll as if a submarine is potentially damaging each of the 3 French Factory territories held by the Axis (1, 2, 3 = the amount of damage. 4-6 is no result). This provides a reason for the Axis not to take the territories as soon as possible. If they do and they focus their money and attention elsewhere, the factories may have damage or be wrecked when its time for the Axis to start defending against invasion.

The rule was kind of hard to remember to roll every turn, and most of the time, it does very little damage overall.
But, it was part of a set of small changes intended to slow the Axis income but leave choice intact (they can still use their full money for units but if they do, they lose the chance to place units in such advantageous places).

Likewise, and on a different note, we added $1 to Sicily, corsica, crete, cyprus, malta, new guinea etc. to make those have some greater incentive to take them over than just having a new landing spot and denying the enemy one.

Rule set we are currently playing by
.IMG_20201119_190421912.jpg

In my opinion, the ultimate expression of anti-aircraft cruiser was built too late for the war: the US Navy’s Worcester class cruisers. Six twin-gun 6" turrets, with semi-automatic loading. They were capable of launching 144 rounds a minute at maximum rate of fire (12 rounds / minute per barrel, 12 barrels). Or, put another way, each of those 144 shells weighed 105 to 130 lbs, for a mass of about 7 1/2 tons of steel and explosives launched in the air. Every minute. I mean, when you’re done messing with Kamikazes…

Just, not commissioned until 1948…

-Midnight_Reaper

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.

@knp7765:

I like these new NOs, especially the one for China. So instead of extra cash, they get extra artillery for keeping the Burma Road open. I want to see this one work.

I thought you decided against removing the Japanese planes in Manchuria. Or is this something different?

It has been removed from Halifax core rules, these are my own additions… just wanted to chalange the Axis and if it’s too strong… I’ll put them back.

Ya… we never see China with artilley even if they have the road, this way we will see them more and it’s an additional $2.