Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@barnee

Nice.

Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.

Why don’t you post the rules here for all other people to see and if they want ? Be easier.

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

Well the proposal was for a single roll for the tech for all nations, not an individual roll for each nation separately. The turn order in this game is fixed, so even though the tech is activated for everyone at the same time, Germany would always get the initial benefit, since they go first in the turn order.

Basically it’s rolled for everyone on G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. On G 6 autotech shipyards for all is guaranteed.

Auto tech in round 2 would seem the easiest method, but for people who wand to add variety, the shipyards roll per round could provide it. It’s not a luckfest, the results are very predictable, since they mirror exactly a progressive 1d6 throw.

This would be a single die rolled for All nations (at once, together) to activate shipyards for all at the beginning of the round (together). The number which this die hits at is based on the game round.

Round 1 at 1 = 16.666%
Round 2 at 2 = 33.333%
Round 3 at 3 = 50%
Round 4 at 4 = 66.666%
Round 5 at 5 = 83.333%
Round 6 = 100% guaranteed Shipyard tech advance.

So you can see, the odds are no different for individual nations. Everyone is subject to the results of the same roll, it autotechs for everyone at the same time (the beginning of the game round.) This way there is no seeing “who gets it first” only seeing when everyone gets it, or seeing when the naval race begins in earnest for all players. This wouldn’t totally throw out the first round option, it would just drop the odds on it to about 16.67%.

I’m clearly cool with a round 2 auto activate for simplicity, but just wanted to offer another system that involves a roll for those who like to play it that way.  Under rolling conditions the more advantageous shipyards is to Axis per round, the more challenging the roll is. From the 3rd round on its 50/50 or better. In the 6th round, if it wasn’t already activated by then, there is no longer a need to roll, it autotechs for everyone at 100% 1d6 at a 6. Make sense?
So there is variability in the first 5 rounds, but always certainty during the end game. Eventually, after the 5th round, ships will be cheap for everyone, no matter what.

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.)

that would be cool :-D

Yo crusa, I don’t have those rules about Germany hiding ships.

LOL…I’m waiting for this reply!!!
U-Boat rules = Old rules, I forget to put it on english version.
For the warship. Take a look at WAW Port Rules. Chapter I or II.