Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Go to https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/

Click on the latest version (the top post).

Under “Assets” there should be a set of links. Click on the one that fits your computer (if you use Mac, click on the link with the macos, Windows, the one with windows in it, etc.).

Click on the file in Downloads. It should open up a TripleA downloader similar to the one you used when you first downloaded TripleA. It should open (if there’s an error, it’s probably on your end).

It’s a vast improvement over 2.5 but is very easily navigable.

@barnee

Nice.

@fat-belly-general

I really like this idea, as it allows even in a three player game to have two players as the Axis.

@Pitt79 please elaborate the usa russia scenario thanx

It is best to buy Mechs and can open and support Germany on the East Front. If the opportunity arises, and the U.K. and US player allow it, buy a DD to keep your convoying down. Don’t make it easy for the Allies to deny you income. German Fts often have to park in Rome to scramble to sink Subs.
Playing Italy is about bothering the Allies, forcing them to spend in the Med, when they want to go East, towards the ME.

I’m reviewing all Vichy rules available out there, as I plan to make a unique mod, because I like historical realism and simplicity, with minimized luck of dice, and some “asymmetric balance”.

Some major points I’ve posted elsewhere in the forum:

The main issue for this expansion is how to develop French neutrality, while at the same time providing a bonus to Germany. Apparently ignored by most players, in real life (IRL), Germany economically exploited Vichy, which had to richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France. Therefore, in the game, it only makes total sense that Germany gets the 3 IPCs from Vichy Southern France.

Another related major issue is what to do with French colonies in terms of neutrality/occupation and IPC flows. I agree that the Vichy setup should reflect what happened IRL: North Africa, Syria, and Indochina go to Vichy, while other French colonies stay Free. However, it messes up Italy’s incursions into North Africa (as IRL, Hitler denied French colonies to Italy). I’m not sure yet as to the best approach to subjecting these colonies to invasion, occupation, and who gains IPCs (other than agreeing that Japan has easy access “rights” over Vichy Indochina), and also remote units…

Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game. Just remove Vichy units.

The uncertainty surrounding local pre-battles is quite interesting (will Vichy troops welcome or resist Allies in North Africa?..). However, I’d try to minimize dice randomness that is often used to decide some outcome. IRL, Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, then there should be no battle but quick surrender. Or, make it highly unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I’m now working on my own house rules, for an expansion (HBG lingo) that is quite realistic, fun yet simple. If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll be happy to share my rules when ready…

phd_angel@yahoo.com

Chicago, December 2020

@Caesar:

I’d rather do the dog fight rule, it makes a lot more sense.

Yes that’s what I meant by combat.

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.