G40 Delta 1st Edition

[cyanight]

If you limited the I-400’s to carry only one plane each then they are very close but not better than Essex CV’s. Although being able to submerge a CV can have many possible strategies other than and automatic hit of the Kaiten torpedos. In a game built on chance with dice I don’t like anything to be automatic unless we are playing Low Luck with everything.  I like having a random possibility for failure on any attack or defense.  Even the atom bomb should roll dice for IPC’s destroyed. It most likely will still destroy all of the IPCs in that territory but at least make it likely to fail as well.  Roll 4d6 or something to at least give the random possibility of failure.

I do very much like your variants you have created. It is going to be fun playing it.

[Young Grasshopper]

@mattsk:

Hi, I don’t have anything against your Russian cards, but just to have fun, an original Russian would read it: (- means there is no such letter in their alphabet.

Tyadi–-'/sigma/ya-di…

I have since changed the font, thanks.

[Young Grasshopper]

@knp7765:

I was thinking about the Japan advantage of “Dug In Defenders” but I just took a look and saw that you must have removed that one in favor of something else. That would still be a good one for Japan on all those Pacific islands.
What I was thinking about was a way to nullify that advantage by using flamethrower infantry from the HBG Marines set. Of course, flamethrowers would not be a national advantage but rather a special unit that the US player could purchase. I guess if you wanted the dug in defenders for Japan, that could also be a special unit, like the heavy MG infantry unit in the Japan Expansion set, rather than a national advantage for Japan.
In fact, I think Coach suggested that in how to use the heavy MG infantry unit in a post about the new Japanese units on HBG’s Facebook page. They are cheaper than infantry units and have no attack ability, but a heightened defense value.

Hey KNP,

The Dug-in Defenders advantage was not removed, but rather merged with Tokyo Express in order to balance the pairing. This works historically as well (at least in theory).

5B - Tokyo Express
Each Japanese destroyer may now transport 1 infantry unit during their non combat phase, provided their cargo is unloaded onto a Japanese controlled Island. Also, all Japanese infantry units on Islands now defend @3 or less.

As for flame-throwers and HBG pieces, I’m trying hard to make a set that won’t require getting extra sculpts or game pieces of any kind, so that all a player would need is the card deck. However, more advanced players like yourself should feel free to house rule and modify Delta as you wish so to fit it into your own games.

[Young Grasshopper]

@cyanight:

If you limited the I-400’s to carry only one plane each then they are very close but not better than Essex CV’s. Although being able to submerge a CV can have many possible strategies other than and automatic hit of the Kaiten torpedos. In a game built on chance with dice I don’t like anything to be automatic unless we are playing Low Luck with everything.  I like having a random possibility for failure on any attack or defense.  Even the atom bomb should roll dice for IPC’s destroyed. It most likely will still destroy all of the IPCs in that territory but at least make it likely to fail as well.  Roll 4d6 or something to at least give the random possibility of failure.

I do very much like your variants you have created. It is going to be fun playing it.

These are all excellent points and I will definitely consider this, although a complete change of advantages is unlikely until I develop 2nd edition in a few months, I will make a note of this for review.

[Jennifer]

If you add that ability to the Japanese submarine - which I do not have an issue with - then the price of the submarine should go up by at east 2 IPC, IMHO.  Also, you may want to indicate that a fighter may not be launched in defense of these submarines when they are on the defender side of the battle (assumption: they are submerged to avoid attack, cannot launch fighters under-water.)  This would have the added benefit of retaining some function for the surface carrier for the Japanese (fleet defense specifically.)

[Young Grasshopper]

Had a play test today and got a lot of great feedback which I won’t get into details tonight, however, the group did have issues with the R9 pairing, therefore, I’ve decided to change the advantages for japan (R9) based on the suggestion made by Cyanight earlier. Heres the new pairing for R9…

9A - Banzai Attack
All Japanese Infantry units now attack @2 or less (no longer supported by artillery), and the defense value of each allied infantry unit matched against each attacking Japanese infantry unit is now @1.

or

9B - 1-400 Submarines
Each Japanese Submarine may now carry 1 fighter (all aircraft carrier rules apply)

I’m really trying to minimize changes, but I felt this one was necessary.

[knp7765]

@Cmdr:

If you add that ability to the Japanese submarine - which I do not have an issue with - then the price of the submarine should go up by at east 2 IPC, IMHO.  Also, you may want to indicate that a fighter may not be launched in defense of these submarines when they are on the defender side of the battle (assumption: they are submerged to avoid attack, cannot launch fighters under-water.)  This would have the added benefit of retaining some function for the surface carrier for the Japanese (fleet defense specifically.)

I would agree with you on not allowing the fighters on I-400 subs to participate in defense. It would be a good way to not make them overly strong and your logic seems sound to me.
However, you shouldn’t increase the price. These are national advantages that each nation has to work toward. They shouldn’t have to pay extra on top of that.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

America - Essex Class Carriers

Another historical edit:

The picture currently on this card is showing an American light or escort carrier, not an Essex class carrier. I would change the image.

[Young Grasshopper]

@LHoffman:

@Young:

America - Essex Class Carriers

Another historical edit:

The picture currently on this card is showing an American light or escort carrier, not an Essex class carrier. I would change the image.

How’s this?

[Young Grasshopper]

…or this?

[mattsk]

Aint those the Box-arts on some plastic models ?  :-D

[Young Grasshopper]

@mattsk:

Aint those the Box-arts on some plastic models ?  :-D

Could be, I’m just google searching images and looking for the best art work.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

…or this?

Go with your second one. That is correct.

The first was a Yorktown class carrier… probably the Hornet.

[Young Grasshopper]

Changes to pairing #7 today based on group play test yesterday. Coastal Guns is now Coastal Defense and the rule has been modified. Title Changes include Enigma - now Enigma Machine (rule unchanged), Blitzkrieg - now Blitzkrieg Tactics (rule unchanged), and 1-400 Submarines - now Super Submarines (rule unchanged)

7A - Coastal Defense
All German controlled territories adjacent to a sea zone (except in Africa) now contain built in coastal defense systems. Therefore, all German infantry on such territories now receive 2 dice each when defending from an amphibious assault (as if 2 infantry units were defending).

or

7B - V-Rockets
During the SBR step of each resolve combat phase, a single rocket attack may be launched from each operational airbase under German control, towards an enemy facility up to 4 spaces away. Germany rolls 1 die per rocket attack and will cause that amount of damage to the targeted facility.

[Jennifer]

So two dice per infantry defending against amphibious assaults on European territories.  Is that every round?  Seems a bit overpowered considering the resistance that can be put up.  What about first round only - to signify that they are firing at units of men in, and currently leaving, landing craft.  After that, it’s closer to a traditional battle so they go back to standard rules?

Just a suggestion.  Keep in mind, 36 defending infantry now have the withering fire of 72 defending infantry…that’s a bloody awful lot of transports going to be needed to overwhelm that defending force.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

So two dice per infantry defending against amphibious assaults on European territories. Is that every round? Seems a bit overpowered considering the resistance that can be put up. What about first round only - to signify that they are firing at units of men in, and currently leaving, landing craft. After that, it’s closer to a traditional battle so they go back to standard rules?

Just a suggestion. Keep in mind, 36 defending infantry now have the withering fire of 72 defending infantry…that’s a bloody awful lot of transports going to be needed to overwhelm that defending force.

For now, it’s 2 dice every combat round for each infantry unit defending in a German occupied territory being attacked by an amphibious assault. This sounds powerful, however, The Germans would have to use a lot of resources to defend 4 or 5 territories, and the Allies always control the option of landing on the least defended, or a completely undefended coastal territory avoiding the advantage all together.

[Young Grasshopper]

“Around the clock bombing” has been modified to strategic bombers departing from an operational airbase, and not just London.

[mattsk]

Japan I-400s should act as normal subs during the defense, so their fighter loaded on them will act as cargo /like any other/. The way it is now, you can buy two subs for 12 IPCs carrying (did I spell it right ?) 2 planes with attack value of 4, defense value of 2 and and you need two hits to kill em both, not talking about they roll 4 dice during convoy disrupt.
CV costs 2 IPCs more, doesn’t roll any dice during C. Disrupt, has 4 less attack power. The only things that CV is better in are that they can repair one damadge and they can carry one Tac. And last but not least, you need a destroyerto attack subs if you don’t want them to simply submerge.

[knp7765]

@mattsk:

Japan I-400s should act as normal subs during the defense, so their fighter loaded on them will act as cargo /like any other/. The way it is now, you can buy two subs for 12 IPCs carrying (did I spell it right ?) 2 planes with attack value of 4, defense value of 2 and and you need two hits to kill em both, not talking about they roll 4 dice during convoy disrupt.
CV costs 2 IPCs more, doesn’t roll any dice during C. Disrupt, has 4 less attack power. The only things that CV is better in are that they can repair one damadge and they can carry one Tac. And last but not least, you need a destroyerto attack subs if you don’t want them to simply submerge.

You don’t necessarily need 2 hits. If you attack the I-400 sub with one of your subs and score a hit, his sub will die and the plane will have to find a landing place or it will also die.

@Young:

For now, it’s 2 dice every combat round for each infantry unit defending in a German occupied territory being attacked by an amphibious assault. This sounds powerful, however, The Germans would have to use a lot of resources to defend 4 or 5 territories, and the Allies always control the option of landing on the least defended, or a completely undefended coastal territory avoiding the advantage all together.

Another idea for the Allies is if the Axis makes the mistake of allowing Italy to put up the defense. Since this advantage is for Germany, Italian infantry will still only roll 1 die. In some games, since Germany needs all they can in attacking Russia, they will let Italy produce infantry and stack them on the French coasts. Thus Germany will end up nullifying their own advantage.
Plus, if Germany does stack up the coastal territories with a lot of infantry to take advantage of this advantage, then that means they are spending less in Russia. So the German advantage could end up being a round-a-bout advantage for the Allies.

[LHoffman]

@knp7765:

Another idea for the Allies is if the Axis makes the mistake of allowing Italy to put up the defense. Since this advantage is for Germany, Italian infantry will still only roll 1 die. In some games, since Germany needs all they can in attacking Russia, they will let Italy produce infantry and stack them on the French coasts. Thus Germany will end up nullifying their own advantage.

Plus, if Germany does stack up the coastal territories with a lot of infantry to take advantage of this advantage, then that means they are spending less in Russia. So the German advantage could end up being a round-a-bout advantage for the Allies.

Both of these are general assumptions which may not be correct. Not that it is unheard of, but in my experience Italy rarely has enough resources to buy enough units to be the sole defender of France. Yes there may be a limited number of Italian units there, but as a definitive strategy, Italy funneling much of their resources in that direction is not a profitable venture for the Axis. It allows Britain to keep Africa relatively uncontested.

Secondly, Germany may “stack up” in coastal territories without impacting their fight against the USSR significantly. A couple infantry per turn for Western Europe defense is a pretty normal buy in my experience.

The simple fact is that in any situation this still means two dice per one German infantry in coastal territories. Any Italian infantry defending in the territories will absorb hits and allow the German ones to stick around longer and keep firing with two dice. I am inclined to agree with Jennifer that this seems a bit too powerful, though I am willing to wait and see what the playtests show.

Maybe another solution (if you don’t like the first round of combat only idea) is to have the Germans roll 2 dice every turn, but they act like heavy bombers in that you may choose the best result. That way German infantry will not be able to utterly obliterate any attacking force. That method would necessitate each German infantry rolling separately (not in all in one large roll) so as to keep accurate track of the choice between the dice.