Crazy idea for Axis And Allies 1940 second edition

@Partydad do a search on the forums here- there are several groups here that use a variety of well-tested event cards.

Not a problem.  Will do! 👍

@ABWorsham4 I’ve almost abandon G40 for HBG 1936 and they made Canada it’s own power in an expansion so I am fine.

France paratrooper can also simulate commandos  along european shore.

Also, you can identify special infantry or Marines with a Control Marker below the sculp.
That way, you can increase their cost without having to buy 1914 or 1941 to get different Infantry sculpt.
I still wonder if a 3 IPCs unit can be a balanced cost for a weaker Marines unit able to move with Cruiser and BB.
As written elsewhere:

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

About Infantry moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship, it cannot simulate the initiative and offensive role being taken by Marines such as Guadalcanal.
As far as I understand, Marines were first almost everywhere in PTO while regular army troopers were mopping behind Marines and garrisoning conquered islands. Maybe the exception is Peleliu in Palau islands.

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.

No problem, let the Americans send in Agent Blazkowicz and we’ll be fine…

I don’t think the US could be charged for passing through the Suez, since they’d have to be at war to get there.

@Gargantua:

Imagine if, even just a handful of territories, were wormholes to other zones on the board,  Say, Sz112 connected to Sz64.  For example.

Wormholes … Quark could appear and start doing trades with ferengi’s capitalist brothers at USA. But some ferengii with crappy translating could also appear and create various diplomatic mess (we suffered a lot from them here in Spain with Spanish-American  :? versions of DS9)  :lol:

And put an eye on those brave bajoran freedom-fighters … they could help french or polish resistance :wink: