Subtle Changes for Global balance

I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).

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.

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.

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

But how would you know how many IPC Ottomans would have if you didn’t do any study on the economic capabilities of the other nations relating to 31 IPC? How would you know how many infantry they would have in each area if you didn’t study where they even had armies in 1914?

You need to just draw a map with territory borders that allows good player options and is realistic. Don’t redo 1914, that’s garbage. This is redesign, not use what you got

This is not checkers my friend.

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.

Hi Procas!

I like the concept. The main difficulty I see with a 2 ipc rule though, is that the some of the major transcontinental railways that existed at the time would violate the rule (by passing through 1 ipc territories.) The Trans-Siberian, Trans-Canadian, Tran-Australian would all be out for example.

Something along the lines of what Narvik suggested might be workable, but there the issue would be max capacity of the rail lines. For example, it’s conceivable that some units could be redirected from one end of the rail network to the other, but not all units at the same time. So would there be an upper limit on how many units could move around like that, within the broader region they control by rail?

It might be interesting if the total rail capacity was somehow related to total production capacity of a Nation. For example, if the max number of units that could be moved around like this, was limed either by your total IPCs or by the number of nearby factories, or something of that sort.

The idea of caping the movement at 2 for all ground units would fit with the concept generally, but would definitely diminish the value of tanks and mech as others pointed out. A bonus of +1 to all units, is another alternative, though this would dramatically increase the value of tanks and mech. Its an interesting trade off, but on the whole expanded movement makes me a little nervous. It really needs to be handled delicately, since it’s much more powerful than expanding say attack or defense values. The long range air tech, or ABs have been an example of this, and they can be very potent, and crazy game changing.

I still like the idea of a rail base though, or some kind of rail component to the factories, or ways for Infantry to move at an accelerated pace under some conditions like those.

yeah smaller territories with the World at War variant

starting with OOB you actually want to WEAKEN SBR rules
you can make German bleed in a way thats too powerful for both gameplay balance and realism

hitting things during production is a great idea
it doesn’t make sense to be able to destroy IPC at an unused IC
but I wouldn’t make it actual units but remain as IPCs

its not easy to make a nice rule for OOB though
the income and production is all messed up by the USSR,Germany,UK,Japan,US play order