Oztea's 1942 Global Setup

@SuperbattleshipYamato agreed

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I crossed out my eighteenth point because I’ve changed my mind and those rules do make sense. I still think the new damage and repair rules are flawed with regards to historical accuracy.

There was a bit of discussion recently over here…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42496.0

…about what the victory conditions ought to represent from a realistic viewpoint.

@WILD:

@Imperious:

Well if you allow BB and CV to take 2 turns to build and pay half each turn, it makes alot of sense to buy cruisers. The 3 move is great, but not sure to give it a 4 MOVE if from a naval port.

I’m also experimenting with many more convoy zones (UK convoy routes) mostly in the Atlantic, around Africa, and the Med. I’m hoping that giving the cruiser 3 moves (4 from nb) allows the axis to use it as a convoy raider at times because it can out run (or keep pace) with the allies ships. Adding more convoy zones is also making German subs more viable as commerce raiders.

To Baron Munchhausen, yea escort or light carrier would probably be a better terms then support carrier. I’ve been using A0, D1, M2-3, C12-carries 1 plane.  You bring up a good point about many of these light carriers were built on cruiser hulls though. Being this is a new ship for me at a relatively low cost (12 IPCs) I think I will keep it with the standard move of 2-3 for now (to warrant the cruiser at 12 IPC as the only fast ship), but will probably take a 3-4 move light carrier for a spin at some point.

PS: I’m really liking the 2 turn capital ship builds, and it is making ship building pretty interesting.

I’m also thinking about limiting 2 turn capital ship builds to major ICs (exception of USA who’s minors will be majors at some point). You can drop a capital ship at one of your minor ICs, but it takes an extra turn for delivery (3 turns to build). This is basically to stop the US or Japan from building capital ships in remote places. I would allow the UK Pac, Anz, Canada etc to build capital ships at their minor ICs, but theoretically they pay for the ship, it is built in England and delivered to the minor IC over 3 turns (same concept for the other powers building at their minor ICs). I realize that you could make a point that any ship built at a minor IC should be +1 turn because most ship yards would be at in the home territory where the major IC is (looking at that too lol).

Adding CVL to Cruiser, both at M3-4, makes a way to depict the historical US Fast Task Force fleet in PTO.
I made a house rule for Convoy Raid. It works well with 1942.2 and AA50.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1467061#msg1467061

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.

@Black_Elk:

That’s a clean map Ryuzaki_Lawlie!

The color selection is ideal. Though the black impassibles still jump out at me

From a design standpoint the only things that catch my eye are the two round sea zones surrounding Japan and Hawaii.

It feel like you need one in the Atlantic to balance things out aesthetically. Have you considered the possibility of one surrounding the British Isles?

Or maybe Iceland? Or maybe both?

I still think Mercator is a bit tight in Europe, a little stretching there might be ideal, even if it was just along the vertical axis. I think the map would still read fine, but you’d get a few more pixel for units into those key European spots. Also if you were willing to shrink South America slightly you could almost curve off a 10th of the map height at the bottom of the screen (which is notorious for players forgetting units in the south sea hehe) without really needing to change Africa/Australia of the pacific. Basically a slight bend would go a long way, even if using Mercator for the baseline.

Oh and I think the possession colors for Dutch Borneo and British Sarawak and North Borneo should be reversed.

My only suggestions :)

Nice work man. That would be a fun map to form the basis of a 1939 game, or any year from 39 on.

I like that you have not yet imposed on the map any extraneous information such as IPC values or VC. This means the map is adaptive for many purposes. I like the general division of territories. Only that the projection is a bit large at the poles for my tastes. If we could shrink them up slightly I think the map would be ideal. Its really more about screen dimension for me when it comes to the Big World Map that Wandering Head made. These days most screens are very long relative to their height, so standard Mercator always seems blown out a bit in tripleA to me, especially at the south end, and of course Europe is always tight. I wish the center picker for tripleA was better at housing units to smaller scales. Its a little better than it used to be, especially with the guiding lines, but still Europe loves to clutter up haha.
:-D

Again though, great design direction!

I’ll probably shift the continents (turning their general direction), and stretch out northern Africa and Europe, will probably require North America to get a bit skinny, but I think the big benefit from this, is that potentially more European spaces can be added. This will allow me to add more to the Mediterranean however (and it really needs the space), perhaps round out where Rome is. Africa, I think needs a bit more work. South America possibly as well, but I sort of need an idea of which cities can be considered major not only there, but elsewhere. Vladivostok will defiantly get added in with it’s own space.

I picked black for impassables, since it tells me that there is nothing there, no play space, it’s simply temporary, and they are there for the designer’s benefit.

I’m not sure where else to put a rounded Sea Zone, I’m considering more though.

Great idea I will post mine tonight and any feed back would be great one thing your NO’s look like NA’s I’m thinking there is a way to do both keep balance in the game and stool have fun

Japanese destroyers can carry one infantry.

typo.