Global 1940 July 4th 2024 Game (start) report #2

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

From what I’m reading yes you can move those pieces on your actual turn again.
As midnight said US can make non combat moves to plan.
China have a bit of hope. Lol
Calcutta saved ?
This will give each country some extra planning and moves to think about during turns which was stated to keep players more focused per each countries turn.
Lots of things to check out

Thats it right there…a lot of realism is sacrificed for ease of play.
Personally, i think global is complex enough and long enough without this add on. I must admit, it is an interesting and simple mod.

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

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.

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

@Bardoly:

My main point though, is that giving techs for free is definitely a house rule, while allowing one’s opponent to pay 5 IPCs and you assume that the tech die that he rolls is automatically a “6” and then his Chart 1/2 die is automatically forseen, is more of a gentleman’s agreement rather than a house rule, and as such, could possibly be allowed in League play.

Whether it’s a light beer or a wheat beer or a pilsner beer, it’s still a BEER.

In other words, I am pretty sure any gentlemens agreement is still a house rule, and would technically be against any league play rules.  Sorry  :cry: