G40 Strategic Advantages - Delta

@Young:

Thanks for that CWO Marc, I like your ideas and the way I see it, the democrat Roosevelt motivated his war time population with a little more pride than fear, and the communist Stalin motivated his his population with a little more fear than pride. Regardless, I did a little research and I am completely sold on “Tankograd” as a title that encompasses the relocated factory and the massive tank production from Russia, and “Trans-Siberian Railway” speaks for itself. please review all the titles and let me know if any don’t make sense, I hated Dug-in Defenders and Tob suggested “Code of Bushido” which I think is better. At this point I think everything is solid as far as titles, but you never know.

Richard Overy has the interesting theory that the USA did well in war production because its industry operated entirely on the principles of free-market economics and that the URRS did well in war production because its industry operated entirely on the principles of a state-commanded economy, whereas Nazi Germany’s industry was based on a clumsy mixture of both systems that ended up falling between two barstools.

I’ll have a look at the current SA titles later today (which is shaping up as a busy day at the office) and I’ll post any feedback I might have.

I’ve looked at the latest version of the list, and most of the titles and concepts look fine.  The new “Code of Bushido” title for enhanced island defense is a good choice because it’s distinctly Japanese and because it highlights the overall death-before-surrender philosophy that powered Japanese resistance rather than just the narrower concept of “Dug-In Defenders” (which is potentially applicable to most armies, since a soldier’s best friend on the battlefield is often his shovel rather than his rifle).  I also like “Tankograd”, which nicely exemplifies the Soviet war industry, focuses on the all-important element of tank production, and is better known than Magnitogorsk.

“Civilian Labour” is a tricky one, in the sense that it’s an imperfect term for which the alternatives are even more problematic.  Every country had civilian labour, in both peacetime and wartime; what changed in WWII is that many countries mobilized labour on a vast scale (including the recruitment of great numbers of women) and converted much of their industrial capacity from the production of consumer goods to the production of war materials.  Expressing this in just a couple words applicable to all countries, however, isn’t easy.  “Rosie the Riveter” was a tempting choice, but it’s too American and too focused on the specific element of female industrial employment.  (And as the aforementioned Richard Overy pointed out, “Wanda the Welder” would have been a more accurate phrase in view of changing production methods.)  So I don’t know what might work better.  “Civilian Mobilization” would be one possibility, and “Home Front” is another, but neither term sounds precisely right.

I have two comments about this one: “Boeing Fortresses: When American strategic bombers attack weather in a battle or SBR, they now receive 2 dice each and the player may select the best result. Also, American strategic bombers now hit at 2 or less when defending against interceptors, and are now immune to built in AA fire around facilities during SBRs.”  First, it sounds like four added advantages rather than one, which seems a bit generous.  Second, I get the impression that the term “Boeing Fortresses” tries to reconcile the Round-the-clock-bombing concept (centered on the B-17) with the Super-bombers concept (which is understood to mean the advanced, pressurized, high-altitude, large-capacity, long-range, remotely-operated-gun-turret B-29, since the B-17 was quite conventional by comparison).  I don’t know what to recommend for this one, since the optimal title will depend on what capabilities the title is meant to represent.

“Kaiten Torpedos” is problematic because the bonus described applies to all Japanese subs in all Japanese-controlled territories, whereas the Kaiten was in fact a suicide torpedo/mini-sub that was used when Japan was on its last legs.  A better (but not optimal) title would be “Long Lance” (or “Long Lance Torpedo”), since this oxygen-fuelled weapon – its Japanese designation was the Type 93 – was the best heavyweight torpedo in the world and thus a genuine Japanese advantage.  The two problems, however, are that it was already in service when WWII started, and that it wasn’t limited to subs: it was also carried by destroyers and cruisers, as I recall.  So here too, I don’t have a clear-cut solution to propose.

I’d propose changing “Shipyard Engineers” to “Shipyard Improvements”.  All shipyards have engineers, so “Shipyard Engineers” would be vague in terms of what it conveys.  “Shipyard Improvements” implies enhancement, and is also sufficiently general that it would be applicable to most countries.  The US, for example, adopted ship prefabrication techniques on a scale that nobody else matched, but several countries (including Japan) eventually made the sensible decision to build simplified ship designs in some cases (notably transport ships and escort vessels), and also switched from riveting to welding (which had the added advantage of saving weight in the finished product).

Wasn’t “Arsenal of Democracy” used in A50? Could be applicable for increased wartime production.

Oh I see. I think CWO Marc’s suggestion of Home Front is the most appropriate then, even it isn’t a perfect match.

“Modernized Shipyards” is fine: general in concept and applicable anywhere, so it works.  The package-encompassing argument for “Boeing Fortresses” sounds all right too.  I like “Airborne Assault Troops” too.

I have reservations about “Patriotic Work Force”, which seems to imply that without this upgrade a country would have an unpatriotic workforce.  “Mass Production”, to me, simply differentiates between making things on an assembly line rather than hand-crafting them one by one, and doesn’t inherently refer to a wartime situation.  (Detroit was producing cars on assembly lines long before WWII.)  How about “Economic Mobilization” or “Total War Economy?”

Just before I posted this, I saw your post saying "3. Shuffled the availability rounds putting “Code of Bushido” with “Banzai Attack”, and “Long Lance Torpedos” with “Tokyo Express” – which you’ll be amused to see was going to be one of my suggestions.  The paragraph I’d written on this was: “Regarding “Code of Bushido” (currently R5) and “Long Lance Torpedos” (currently R8), how about switching their round numbers?  Japan had the Long Lance from the beginning of the war, so it would make sense for this advantage to be earlier in the game, while Japan’s fight-to-the-death defense of the islands it controlled was characteristic of middle and late phases of the war (when it was on the defensive rather than on the offensive), so it would make sense for this advantage to be later in the game.”  :-D

@Young:

“Paratroopers” might change to “Airborne Assault Troops” (not sure yet).

On this point, by the way, I think Airborne encompasses both paratroops and glider troops.  Which is fine, unless you want to refer specifically to paras – in which case “Parachute Troops” would be a good generic term.

R1 - Germany / UK / Russia / Japan / USA / Italy / ANZAC / France

Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away provided that the territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. Does this require bombers?

or

War Time Production
Major factories may now produce a maximum of 12 units, and minor factories may now produce a maximum of 4 units. The maximum damage that can be applied to these factories has not changed.

R2 - Germany

Enigma
German submarines now attack at 3 or less, and now receive 3 dice each when conducting convoy disruptions.

or

Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces. Also, each artillery unit now supports up to 2 infantry and/or mechanized infantry.

I would have tanks boosting infantry like artillery +1, plus Mech can blitz, but blitzkrieg has nothing to do with “each artillery unit now supports up to 2 infantry and/or mechanized infantry”
Look up what Blitzkrieg is and you will find 3 elements: planes, tanks, infantry. The solution should only involve mobile units.

R3 - United States

War Bonds Campaign
America now rolls 2 dice every round during their collect income phase, and may collect the amount shown in additional IPCs

or

Uncle Sam Campaign
America now receives 4 free infantry units every round during their place new units phase (2 in Eastern United States, and 2 in Western United States).

This will totally upset the balance. Thats FORTY INFANTRY IN TEN TURNS, who gets this makes the game imbalanced.

Arsenal of Democracy- US can loan up to X to UK and or USSR…

R4 - United Kingdom

Radar
All AA fire from both AA artillery units, and built in AA guns now defend at 2 or less. Also, all operational airbases under British control may now scramble up to 4 fighters in defense of an adjacent sea zone.

or

Commonwealth Aid
All units produced by British minor factories are now $1 cheaper.
How bout the ability to place an extra built unit in UK areas w/o need for factory?  This is a free infantry per turn thing again and will imbalance

R5 - Japan

Long Lance Torpedos
Japan may now choose the enemy casualties (including transports, but not air units) from all hits inflicted by their destroyers, in all combat situations.

or

Tokyo Express
Japanese destroyers may now transport up to 2 infantry units each. Destroyers carrying infantry may still attack during the sea combat step of an amphibious assault before unloading their cargo.

Should be 1 infantry, too strong. Japan will never build transports EVER. THEY ESSENTIALLY NOW GET 2-2 TRANSPORTS

R6 - United States

Boeing Fortresses
When American strategic bombers attack weather in a battle or SBR, they now receive 2 dice each and the attacker may select the best result. Also, American strategic bombers now hit at 2 or less when defending against interceptors, and are now immune to built in AA guns during SBRs.

or

Essex Class Carriers
All American aircraft carriers now attack at 2, and may now carry up to 3 American and/or allied fighters / tactical bombers.

R7 - Germany

Jet Fighters
Both the attack value and movement of all German fighters has now increased by 1 (including escort and interceptor missions).

or

V-Rockets
During the SBR step of each combat movement phase, a single rocket attack may be launched from each operational airbase under German control at an enemy factory, air base, or naval base up to 4 spaces away. Each rocket attack will cause an automatic 6 damage points on the targeted facility, however, Germany may not launch more than 1 rocket attack per target during the same round.

R8 - Japan

Banzai Attack
If Japan attacks an enemy territory with only infantry, those infantry will attack at 2 or less.

BUT IT MUST BE TO THE DEATH… this is basically giving 1/2 of the total Japanese units +1 in attack. Banzai was a desperate combat and too the death.

or

Code of Bushido
All Japanese infantry on islands now defend at 3 or less.

R9 - Soviet Union

Tankograd
During their place new units phase, Russia will now receive 3 free tanks on the territory of Samara (if under Russian control).

This is each turn? WTH?

or

Trans-Siberian Railway
Any number of Russian infantry, artillery, and/or AA artillery units may now move from Russia to Novosibirsk, Timguska, Yenisey, or Yakut S.S.R (if under Russian control) within a single non-combat movement. There may only be one destination per turn, and all such movements must originate from Russia.

R10 - Germany / UK / Russia / Japan / USA / Italy / ANZAC / France

Long Range Aircraft
The movement value of all air units has now increased by 1 (“Jet Fighters” can now reach 6, or 7 from an airbase).

or

Modernized Shipyards
Sea units are now cheaper to build:

Battleship = $17
Aircraft Carrier = $13
Cruiser = $9
Destroyer = $7
Transport = $6
Submarine = $5

Tankograd could just build cheaper tanks, not free tanks

Tanks could go to 5$ not less, or game imbalanced. Heck for $4 id only buy tanks.

actually perhaps you get discount of 1ipc but you must buy in two’s

Id rather you go with “Rasputita” and create a winter rule in Russia twice per game that effects Axis units in some manner.

All the discount units creates imbalanced games, certainly because we got 5 allies and 3 axis, so allies have a +2 advantage just in these rules.

I think only Russia and USA should have any advantage that effects prices. The other nations didn’t have capability to build cheaper units.  Colonial troops should only be something that allows placement in some area w/o having a factory ( just one unit per turn).