Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@crockett36

No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.

Okay so I that title sounds kinda clickbait-y and I apologize for that. To get it said and done, no I don’t think France should be scrapped entirely replaced with Britain or something. I just think that as is, it needs way more to be an actual nation worth having a person play if you have a lot of people while still being balanced. So we all know that 99% of the time, France is gonna fall on the first turn to Germany. Maybe they pull some weird new mega brain ultra plan but that’s pretty unlikely. Paris falls, Germany gets cash money and the French are left playing the most minor and conservative support role known to man.
This really sucks for you when you first pick up the game and think maybe there’s gonna be some interesting new faction with special rules like China but instead you’re just a stepping stone. So here’s what I would suggest:

Instead of having just France it be France and a collection of the other minor allied powers in exile. So France, Dutch, Poland, etc. Change Congo to this new faction and place an infantry down there. Maybe one infantry in Indonesia and one in Indo China, an extra fighter in Britain, and maybe a Transport in either the Atlantic or Med.
But that still isn’t really much of an improvement for the player, so similarly to China I would say that the exiled Allies should get some special way of recruiting units. It’d be very small like at the end of every turn roll a die and if you roll a one you can place one infantry down in any territory of yours worth at least one IPC. While I do want to make it more interesting for the exiled Allies player, I don’t want to make them too powerful to significantly hurt the Axis. To counteract this maybe make a few territories they own worth an extra IPC? They won’t be making money once Paris falls and a few more IPCs I think would add up to a rough equivalence. Territories like Normandy, Indochina, Tunis, etc.

I’m not gonna pretend like I’ve actually tested this yet and I’m also fully admitting that I might be accidentally suggesting some horrible completely unbalanced idea that would throw it to the Allies. But this is just a little idea I thought up to try and help make things slightly more fun for the poor French player. Is this a good idea? Am I a big dumb-dumb? (Those are not mutually exclusive.) I really want to know your guys’ thoughts on this before I actually try it or anything I could do to change or fine tune it so please let me know!

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 ?

I’d have to imagine considering making those territories have the ability to build major complexes would be a bit too steep and game altering. It’s an interesting rule though! I like the idea of just producing one more IPC, but not counting towards industrial complex strengths. You can make it so they can be bombed as well and have to be repaired, like any other facility as well. If it’s bombed, you don’t get the bonus income until repaired.

No the AAA’s ability to reduce aircraft attack power does not stack, but having two AAAs will allow you to reduce the attack value of up to 6 aircraft.  Also, the controlling player (attacker) chooses SBR casualties.

From our limited experience, one fighter usually isn’t enough to deter a SBR.  Remember that there are no longer any AA shots on attacking planes during a SBR so fighters are the only thing the defender has to inflict damage on the attacker.  If he chooses not to intercept due to escorts, the attacker will inflict bombing damage with no losses.  Escorts were used more to take hits from the defending fighters so the bombers would continue to do damage.  A territory defended by an AA gun and a stack of fighters is a hard target and usually not cost effective to bomb unless you have a massive air force.  Germany needs to use it’s full airforce if it wants to SBR England effectively.  Russia needs to actually build fighters or ask for allied fighters if it wants to defend it’s factories.

We could increase the max damage a facility could take to increase the potential damage of a SBR.  We’ll have to play more games with this to see how changes things.

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.

[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

goto thrashers site ill bet you find it there.