Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Finished the first game:

2023-8-13-World-War-II-Global-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

The game was certainly unique and spiced up from the original rules. It’s quite biased towards the Axis, with the “cannot move into pro-Allied territories while the Soviets and/or the Americans are neutral” is crippling.

I definitely could’ve been more creative as Japan, but overall it was still a fun and unique 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.

Resource token values.
Worth 1 Icp each. Built in AA D@1
WHEAT
OIL DERRICK

Worth 2 Icps each. Built in AA D@1
COPPER
RUBBER
IRON
REFINERIES Built in AA D@2

Worth 3 Icps each Built in AA D@1
URANIUM
If you have an AA Gun in theses territories with tokens you can D@2 but not use both AA guns.

These all can be SBRed up to 3 damage each. Lose income for them until repaired
and refineries up to 6 damage. Don’t repair refineries
suffer a -1 movement for ground or naval or planes or nothing.
Have a chart for this.
Also all of these can be convoy raided up to 3 also.
This represents all transporting vessels at sea.
Remember most of these resource tokens are in normal territories too.

Start out slow with this. You don’t want to keep chasing it.

Pill box counter ? Can SBR them ?

Need to take this to a new topic thread for resource stuff.

@Dashofpepper:

Hey guys -

I see this has been moved into house rules…and that a moderator tagged this as Global 1941.   This is for Global 1940 - I’ve never played Global 1941, so I don’t know if there are differences or if the advice would be the same for Global 1940.

Typo corrected, thanks.

@Argothair:

I think I’m shooting for something in between those two extremes, Caesar. We have a rough idea of the manpower reserves of each nation – so maybe nations can only purchase X infantry per turn at the low cost of 3 IPCs per unit, and then after that they have to pay a higher cost of 3.5 IPCs or 4 IPCs per unit? And then X can vary by nation based on what we know about the nations’ manpower.

E.g.
China – 20 infantry / turn
Russia – 18 infantry / turn
America – 16 infantry / turn
UK Pacific – 14 infantry / turn
Germany – 12 infantry / turn
Japan – 10 infantry / turn
UK Europe – 8 infantry / turn
Italy, France, ANZAC – 6 infantry / turn

I’m not saying that’s accurate; that’s just an illustration of the level of detail that interests me. Other players might be interested in more detail or less detail than that.

Not a bad idea but China and Russia will never have issues because 20 Chinese infantry equal $60, literally larger than the possible total value it can have unless you’re working a rule where China can leave their territories. I think 18 infantry for USSR would be $54 which is larger than it’s own national worth unless it captures Axis territories which the excuse for that is now it has more population to use.

@Transports - I did some test battles.  I think it is better to leave transports on the OOB system where they have to be chosen last.  Otherwise, they will just become meat-shields to protect BB’s (when empty).  Or, they will become too high-value targets when full.

For my personal playing system and House Rules set, I’m just going to have transports be able to be targeted when a TAC rolls a “1”, otherwise they must still be targeted until last.

Also, @Baron.  I accidentally hit -1 instead of +1 on one of your posts on this topic thread!  Sorry about that!  It has been corrected.  :-D

Thank you kind sir. If you get the chance, try it out and give me the results. I am adding Romanian today. :wink: I am changing a few things for Finland as well.

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.)