Global 1940 & 1943 Expansions Game Reports

@The-Captain

Finished reading it.

Looks great!

Hopefully in the future you can add Japanese impulse rounds to reflect their action in the Second Sino-Japanese War (maybe even simulate Khalkhin Gol).

@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.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’s a better idea, especially since Japan is usually somewhat stretched to the limits on their declaration of war on the US.

@The-Captain

Yes I had made the mistake with the Elite USA Tank in the triplea mod. I have fixed it for the update

@the-captain said in Axis & Allies Global 1940 2nd. House Rules Expansion:

…Some players in our play groups have used online TripleA since september 2020.

We have created a House Rules Basic Expansion - and I believe these rules are implemented in TripleA online. …

Would you ask them to post the file ? I couldn’t find it on map DLs. I’m reading through everything again and while edit will be required for some of the rules, I think it can get close to 90-95%. Maybe 80% edit free.

At any rate, I’m gonna take a crack at it.

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.)

Yeah, that’s pretty much what it is.

You forgot to mention the difference in sub mechanics. By the way, we still keep the house rule of not having planes strafe subs without the presence of destroyers in our game of AAR with my group.