Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

For players who have questions to the Game Mechanisms of the G40 HRE game, we draw attention to the fact that this thread explains what is “Behind the Scenes”.

See the top of the first post in this thread for further information.

We’ll gradually add more Information & Explanations about the remaining Units & Rules in the G40 HRE rulebook.

@Trout

True - a Dessert Army is a regular PG / TG and land combat 3 units.

@barnee

Hi barnee, the Set Up for Global 1939 is the same as G40 OOB and HRE - unless otherwise mentioned in the Global 1939 rulebook & Set Up.

I’ll clarify this in the G39 Expansion rulebook.

I figure there aren’t too many things classified as Islands that would have air bases so far away as to make them invulnerable to shore bombardment. The air fields on Guadalcanal and Wake island certainly got hit and both Hickam and Pearl could be hit from the sea. By definition, this ability assumes no defenders. Even a single scrambling fighter or defending destroyer nullifies the ability.

I’d have to imagine considering making those territories have the ability to build major complexes would be a bit too steep and game altering. It’s an interesting rule though! I like the idea of just producing one more IPC, but not counting towards industrial complex strengths. You can make it so they can be bombed as well and have to be repaired, like any other facility as well. If it’s bombed, you don’t get the bonus income until repaired.

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.

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

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.