Global 1943 Expansion, Revised

@FranceNeedsMorePower

There’ve been many country-specific national advantages proposed over the years (many historically based). A great place to start is The Captain’s House Rules Expansion (I don’t find his implementation of many of the rules completely accurate, but he has some really good ideas):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SRDOsOwlO4Aa13cULwkWrorrXEmCmiN-/view

Specifically, there are some great Soviet ones in those rules.

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

@fat-belly-general

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

@sweetchops27 Sorry mods for necroposting again but this is gorgeous 🤤 In my Atlantic Battlefront 1940 Map, I have very similar convoy boxes to yours (which is cool!) Your large text is neat but the font is a little too wacky. The darker sea color is a nice addition like A&A Zombies, I thought about adding it to mine but I don’t think it’s exactly practical. Anyways, I give it a 4.8/5.

My map (which I haven’t worked on in a few weeks) only takes place in the European side of the map (with no South America) for practical reasons. I hope that whenever it is printed, it isn’t too big and the nation economies are balanced and the setup is okay :>

The problem with 1936 is that Com China is so weak at the start of 1936 that KMT can easily destroy them within two turns and USSR can’t do anything about it since they can’t Lend-Lease due to Com China not boarding USSR.

@Valladares said in G40 Historial v1.1:

@SS-GEN These are some preview, new things, that we include in our new version 1.2:

New National Objectives:

UK Europe: Theme “Mediterranean supply line”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Europe controls Malta.

UK Pacific: Theme “Jewel of the far East”: 2 I.P.C. if UK Pacific controls all: India, West India and Cylon.

Japan: Theme “USSR Oil trade”: 2 I.P.C. if Japan is not at war with Soviet Union.

ANZAC: Theme “Anzac new day”: 5 I.P.C. If Anzac have at last one land unit in Egypt, Alexandria or Crete

China: Theme: “Asian Sherman”: China can purchase tanks if at last one USA land unit is in china controlled territory. Historical context: http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/china/
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/m4a2-sherman-in-chinese-service/

Modes of play

Historical and Victory Conditions: With year historical restrictions and game max duration is 12 rounds, and axis or allies have 3 of 4 victory conditions, at the end of the round 12.

Majority of victory cities in Europe.
Majority of victory cities in Pacific.
Majority of oil world producing areas.
Majority of global team I. P. C. (Map and bonuses)

Axis & Allies Global 1940 Historical MOD 6° Play Test
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Med supply. Malta. I like if any axis ship between Malta and Gib blocks this

Anzac had guys in Egypt.

China building tanks based on a US tank or 2 in China at end of war should be a no go.
Keep in mind this game your playing isn’t a lot like mine. Just feel NOs should have some type of resources on them to get. IMO
Just me. Not knocking your ideas. Try them first. You guys may like them

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.