Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain You’re absolutely right, but as the Russian player I’ve been glad to see those factories bombed out. Germany has moved the Southern Italy, Berlin, and Paris factories underground as they consider those the main factories they’ll be producing from. The Allies learned this the hard way too the India Industrial Complex took a lot of bombing damage. It’s kind of late but UK may finally put that factory underground.

@shadowhawk said in [Global 1940] Changing AA in the game:

Well atm they are free hps. After the pre-combat shots they dont do anything in the fight except take a hit. So as a defender unless its clear im winning the first hits go to the AA, they are dead weight at this point.

When they can return fire every round against planes ( might want to keep the @1 because they target units ) then it might give the defender a reasonable choice.

I agree. I thought when you said that you were referring to the version with your house rules, not the out of box version.

IMO they represent flak88 batteries, a bit more specialised AA guns then the divisional version but a lot weaker then the static stuff that defends ports/airfields and the likes.

Agreed.

@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.

@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

Hi Erocco,
these numbers are based on a formula found during Classic time by Dauvio Vann and his friends, then improved and adjusted to better fit the need of Second Edition units. Here is one link in House Rule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40346.msg1684954#msg1684954

Below, you get the whole formula and a short explanation:

@Baron:

@Dauvio:

It came to my attention that one of my formulas are already out there that I discovered 30 years ago.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=185969 has also discovered the formula P^2*N=S
And just for fun you can try these formulas also. S/P^2=N. √(S/N)=P
P=POINTS
N=NUMBER OF UNITS
S=STRENGTH OF ONE KIND OF UNITS IN A TERRITORY
This formula should replace the punch formula. It is much better then the punch formula.

Now the next formula is (P100)/(C^26)=S
P=POINTS
C=COST
S=STRENGTH OF THE UNIT BASED ON COST
With this formula you can also price units according to their strength. √((P100)/(S6))=C
This formula is for points. (S*(C^2*6))/100=P

For better results for some of these formulas, have all your units cost ten times then what they are. These are some of the VANN FORMULAS I came up 30 years ago.

If you have any questions about these formulas, please ask.

I found how you can get the main part of Vann formula or Baron-Larrymarx according to a specific unit as benchmark.

I took the Fighter A3 D4 C10 and I wanted to convert into Tank A3 D3 C6 as benchmark (Baron-Larrymarx formula).

Then I saw what I did.

Power (of attacking Fighter): A3 * C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) * 1 Hit Point C6 (cost of Tank)/C10 (cost of Fg) = 1.08
You can reduce this equation because (cost of Tank)(cost of Tank)/ (cost of Fg)*(cost of Fg) is same to
(cost of Tank) IPCs^2 / (cost of Fg) IPCs^2 and give a simple ratio.

C6^2*A3/C10^2 = 1.08
36 squared IPCs 3 Power * 1 Hit /100 squared IPCs = 1.08 PowerHit Point

This explained what is hidden in Baron-Larrymarx formula:
Offence or defence strength factor= 36*Power/Cost^2.

The whole Enigma formula is
Refence unit Cost^2Power of the actual unit1 HP/Cost of the actual unit^2

So, the Basic offence or defence strength factor result (1.08, in this case) is express in Power*Hit Point
1^2*Power (of a given unit)*1 hit/Cost (of this same given unit)^2

And this formula can be adapt according to any benchmark, for instance a 1 IPC unit:
131 hit/10^2 = 0.300

And this is a very small number. That’s why Vann formula:
Strength= (Power100)/(Cost^26)

add an arbitrary 1001/6= 16.667…
So, 16.667131 hit/10^2 = 0.5
And this would provide the Fighter strength attack factor based on an hypothetical benchmark unit of √16.667 = 4.0825 IPCs.
A 5 IPCs revised Tank in Vann formula gives a Strength : 16.66731 hit/5^2 = 2.00 powerhit

Can you elaborate on the ship calculations?

Destroyer strength: .30144/8^2  = 0.675
Cruiser    strength: .60144/12^2= 0.600
Battleship strength: .701442.618/20^2 = 0.660

These numbers means that Destroyer is the most optimized unit for combat to buy for each IPC invested, then it is battleship and finally Cruiser.
Said otherwise, Cruiser is sub-optimal for the cost.
3 DDs C8 A3 D3 (A9 D9, 3 hits) will be stronger than 2 Cruisers C12 A6 D6 (A12 D12, 2 hits) if you can use a Battlecalc to test D10-sided values.

From stronger to weaker for 120 IPCs basis:
15 DDs A3 D3 (A45 D45)
6 BBs A7 D7 (A42 D42)
10 CAs A6 D6 (A60 D60)

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

The 1939 game can be played like Global 40, actually the rules are Global 40 rules with some exceptions and optinal rules for the hard core gamer. It also incorporates a D12 combat system which is alot more fun in my opinion. Its Axis and Allies with a Xeno games World at War Twist!

The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.

Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough.  Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.