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!

I have to disagree.  Imagine Japan building a micro in western China or the Novosibirsk area.  That would allow a quick overrun of the unprotected Soviet territoriies while the Russians are cornered in Moscow.  It tales a fast unit four turns to get from the Chinese coast (where factories can be built) to Moscow, while a micro could bring troops to the front immediately.

Even a micro in the Shan State or Yunnan could be detrimental to India simply because of the added range. Though a micro is not as economical as a minor, it gives Japan a privilege it rarely ever gets early on: building inland.

I personally have more than one way to “win” the game for each side.

Axis -

Economic Victory - The Axis powers make 150 IPC’s combined
Total Victory - The Axis powers control all Allied Capitals
Victory Objectives - The Axis powers have 5 Victory Objectives
VC Victory - The Axis powers control 12 Victory Cities or the OOB rules

Allies -

Economic Victory - The Allied powers make 200 IPC’s combined
Total Victory - OOB Rules
Victory Objectives - The Allied powers have 5 Victory Objectives
VC Victory - The Allied powers control 16 Victory Cities

World Domination is also a possibility, one we play when we have time.

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.

I had an idea to calculate an axis win at the end of each full game turn

Each capital held is worth 3 points (india counts as a capital)
Each other victory city is 2 points
Each completed national objective is 1 point.

Total up on Germany’s turn, on Japans turn and Italy’s turn.
Lets just spitball and say, if the axis number is 31, if they score 31 at any time during rounds 5-10 they win.

For the allies to win, they need to bring the axis down to a certain number, lets say 15

As the game goes on, the numbers get closer to eachother, so lets look at it this way

Turns 5-10
Axis wins with 31 points, lose if they fall below 15 points
Turns 11-15
Axis wins with 27 points, lose if they fall below 19 points
Turns 16-20
Axis wins with 24 points, lose if they fall below 21 points

All 3 Iranian tts are pro-Axis.