Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@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!

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

@Carolina:

I tend to take a historical slant, so thinking mainly of Iwo and Malta - but you would be correct where A&A powers are all treated equally and have the same capabilities.  Its a house rule - adjust and use as you wish.  I do like your China comment - will put some thought into that.

Another way to depict Iwo and Malta higher defense per soldier implied is simply that a single Inf unit represent pretty much less soldiers compared to European land units.
So this Inf worth the same combat value than 10x soldiers per unit in Russian battle field.
So no need to change from OOB.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

Just an idea, never tried this but it should work: put the “collect income” phase form the end to the beginning of the turn. Right now the rule book tells, that you have to collect income at the end of the turn, where you receive money for all countries you just conquered. It’s the widest expansion of your force in a certain round and for that reason associated with a “maximum income”. In the course of the round, when the other parties start their combat moves you probably lose previously conquered terrain and hence IPCs you just have “earned” in your turn of the round. Starting a turn with the collect income phase would let you earn less money a turn in comparison to the collect income phase at the end of the turn. Eventually that’s the logic behind the idea:

rules: collect income at the the end - widest expansion - maximum income - more units could be bought - prolongation of battles -more time invested
idea:  collect income at the beginning - smallest expansion - only minimum income -less unit could be bought - shortening of battles due to less resources - less time invested.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what it is.

Another way to consider this is the BOTB/D-DAY style models, were units can occupy the same territory.  With one round of ensuing combat.

If units become totally encircled… they can’t move and operate poorly.

Thanks for that report, I will comment on your post in detail when I have more time. I agree with your opinion and I have changed the US NO to include the West Indies. Cheers.