Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@FranceNeedsMorePower good point

@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.

Rules Clarification:

Concerning islands in the Pacific Ocean with increased IPC values:

The starting IPC level for each Nation is the same as OOB. The increased IPC values on the islands in the Pacific Ocean has no influence at the Starting Income from game start.

When an islands is captured by the enemy it goes like this:

Japan captures Philippines Islands in Late 1941 (round 4). The Japanese IPC level is increased with 5 IPC - and the US IPC level is decreased with 5 IPC.

If Philippines Islands is recaptured by Allied forces, the US IPC level is increased with 5 IPC - and the Japanese IPC level is decreased with 5 IPC.

The same rule aplies when Dutch islands are taken over by either Axis or Allied forces.

@tincanofthesea

I don’t have time to test your house rule, but it sure looks interesting. I might use it sometime.

@Caesar:

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

Yes that’s what I meant by combat.

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

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.

Maybe a morale tracker for Alliances instead of Powers.

When Capitals worth 12 IPCs together were captured, the alliance that lost these capitals has to give up fighting.