G40 Delta 1st Edition

@Young:

Yes, I had forgot to mention in the intro that the new Fortunes of War phase now replaces the Research & Development phase, that has now been noted in the first post. The meat and potatoes of this new Delta set is based on a complete over haul of the old R&D system, while frankenstein-ing in some Revised National advantages, and some new creative ideas. So, if anyone liked these previous game mechanics as they are, than Delta is not a variant rule they would enjoy.

I do have an affinity for the game mechanics and elements of G40 as they officially stand, but am not averse to trying something to improve them. While the existing rules are very good, they certainly are not perfect. We can get back to the Tech Research part in a minute…

@Young:

I agree it looks overwhelming, however, as ideas become integrated from the feedback of others, the system becomes more and more refined. The document edited as of today is much less complicated than earlier versions, and it’s safe to say that Delta will continue to get chiseled down a little bit more. Yes, the concept is not brand new, and that’s great when the application of it, and the advantages themselves come from the A&A bloodline.

Sometimes I have the propensity to treat concepts like this as having been already fully thought out by their creator and that I am seeing the “final version”. Obviously this is not true, and like the game itself these rules are a work in progress. I apologize for that inclination in advance.

@Young:

Yes, the fortunes of war phase is brand new, however, it aids in the simplicity of all the advantages because it provides the packaging needed for everything to happen. During the FOW phase, the strategic advantages are chosen, and the progress rolls are made. After the FOW phase is over, its business as usual and a whole game round proceeds, once a round ends after France, everything that’s new is done in the new phase. This way players don’t have to remember to do new things during their turn, someone else’s turn, or during a particular phase. Players won’t forget to do something unless the whole FOW phase is forgotten, and how can you forget something like that? �

I understand the “packaging” concept. All of the workings of Delta take place in this phase, which is essentially not new, just replacing the old R&D. That makes the concept simpler.

One thing that may or may not be of concern is Strategic and Progressive Advantages being decided before the Turn (or Round) effectively begins. maybe this will not be a big deal, but it allows Powers earlier in the Turn order to make moves accounting for what new abilities they know their opponent will have.

For example, Germany knows that Russia will likely reach their Progressive advantage (Winter) before the next Turn Cycle begins. Knowing this Germany pulls back all their infantry units from Russian territories before Russia will be able to use this. This was the only real example I could think of, and it may not actually be possible for Germany to make this preemptive move if they are farther into Russian territories… but it might be something to consider.

Although another may be that it is Turn 5 and Japan sees a couple American Carriers within range. Based on how the game is going they know that the US will get to choose between bombers and the carrier advantage in Turn 6, so they decide to attack the American carriers now before they are “magically” converted to Essex class carriers in the middle of the ocean (side point there). Again, this is a bit of a weird example, but perfectly plausible. You may say that it is Japan’s choice to risk this, but it is also something that could hurt the American player inadvertently (it wasn’t because of any choice of their own that this happened). My overall point is that there is something to be said for surprise in getting Tech/SO in the game. The Delta system takes most of that (chance for) surprise out and replaces it with certainty of a known decision. I suppose those two formats are up to personal taste.

@Young:

The SOs were not created to change decision making, they were created to reward nations for the decisions they were already making. Yes, Shanghai will give Japan an automatic $2 SO to begin the game, not unlike the 50th AE scenario 1941 where Germany began the game with control markers on Russian territories.

I thought I read that they were intended to channel resources and tactics more towards certain objectives… I must have been seeing things.

Well, the Anniversary 1942? scenario was essentially a different game on the same map. In a completely ideal world, a second map would have been included in which the Russian territories would have been represented as German ones for that scenario. My point is that it is all a bunch of technicalities here, but it still remains that the Enemy City SO is essentially only for the Axis. Unless, as you suggest later on here, the Allies also get these bonuses for re-taking or liberating Allied cities. To me, that does not make much sense… From below: “The other thing to remember is that once the Axis take a city, they give the Allies an opportunity to profit from liberation.” Example, Cairo is taken by Italy. Italy gains the 2 IPC City Bonus for Cairo. If they retain control for the next Turn, do they get 2 IPCs again (like other Bonuses)? Now let us imagine that Britain retakes Cairo on the following Turn… Britain now gets a 2 IPC per Turn bonus for having their own city? Seems like they should let the Axis take Cairo at the beginning of the game and then re-take it so they can forever collect the 2/Turn bonus.

This same scenario could apply to any city on the map. Other cities that change hands quite a bit are Leningrad and Warsaw. Does rule mean that after they change hands once, the territories are effectively worth 2 extra IPCs per Turn from that point on?

@Young:

**I’m having trouble following your math so I’ll just go a few rounds with Germany… In G40 on G1, Germany would collect $10 ($5 for the strait and $5 peace with Russia) / in Delta on G1, Germany would collect $10 ($5 for Paris and $5 for all original territories). however, lets say Germany attacks Russia G2, in G40 Germany collects $5 for the strait, but in Delta, Germany still collects $10 for Paris and original territories. When they reach Lenningrad, in G40 Germany will be collecting $10 for the strait and the city, in Delta Germany will be collecting $12 for Paris, original territories, and $2 for the city. I suppose when and if Germany reaches Stalingrad, they’ll be out $3 per round, but how many rounds did they gain $5 from the time they invaded Russia to the time they took Lenningrad? Either way, I don’t see the big economic swings that you’re suggesting, but we will definitely see the true effects when play test reports come in. SOs like Africa corps to me are better because it prevents getting 1 unit in Egypt as nothing but a money grab, but 3 units is more like a force and will take a minimum of 2 landings to get them there.

I did not take into consideration that the normal G40 Bonuses/SOs will not exist in Delta. This does alter the calculus slightly. All in all, it is likely that Germany will mostly get 10 IPC bonus (regularly) from Home Land and Enemy Capital and Russia will get 10 IPC bonus (regularly) from Lend Lease and National Pride. This should even out the Strategic Objectives between the two.

One more question… does Russia get bonuses, specifically Homeland and Lend Lease, but also National Pride, when not yet at war with Germany? If so, this is a huge advantage for Russia (10 or 15 extra IPCs/Turn) as long as Germany decides not to attack. (In G40, all USSR bonuses are specified to be effective when they are at War in Europe.) I think this would make the game very unbalanced in that Russia would be extremely hard to fight.

@Young:

I do however love the fact that someone finally asked me about the Strategic Objectives and not just the Strategic Advantages… thanks LHoffman, maybe that’s a sign of their unpopular nature. At a glance, they all seem very generic and unnecessary (and perhaps they are), but if you look at them through a different lens like the one I described for Germany, one will see that there is a tremendous dance involved between the two concepts and economic balance is key. As for the objectives themselves, both UK India and China profit from a open Burma road, and ANZAC, USA, AND jAPAN will all benefit from the same group of Islands in the south Pacific. So the targets and strategies haven’t changed, however, the strategic objectives make for more fierce fighting. The other thing to remember is that once the Axis take a city, they give the Allies an opportunity to profit from liberation. � �

�

Like the NAs, I also like the NOs or in this case SOs. More than anything else, money/IPCs have the ability to direct strategy in the game which closely mirrors historical motivations. Bonuses are a great way to enhance that even more. It makes the game a little more complicated than just going for the jugular of the enemy’s capital. It is a long road to victory and you need money to fight the war.

@Young:

I believe it’s been well documented in these forums that the R&D phase of G40 is extremely flawed from the system in which you receive tech, to the techs themselves… and lets not forget getting stuck with Mr. useless after all that investing. Russia with improved shipyards, America with Rockets, or the UK with improved Mech infantry. One thing I will say for sure, Delta is not for those who prefer the R&D phase over Advantages.

While I have admitted that there are certain inherent flaws in the R&D structure (e.g. not everyone has the money to make use of it and the system is therefore under-utilized), I have not been convinced that either the system or the technology is “extremely flawed”. In some respects, I think it actually models history decently in that only the larger nations have the resources to R&D new/advanced weapons. However, advanced weapons are quite different from from elite units like paratroopers or a bond drive.

Not being able to choose the tech is both good and bad. It makes investing in Research a gamble itself, but it also does not allow wealthy Powers to invest heavily and be rewarded with choosing a potentially game-changing weapon at the beginning with which to fight the entire war. If I was Germany or the US under a choose-your-tech breakthrough system, I would be picking Jet Fighters every time. This would be ludicrous. I think it far better for the game to leave it to chance and have the US seemingly always need to get Radar (which never fails to happen) before they get something useful.

I am not wedded to the R&D system as it stands, but I like the idea of it and believe that it can easily be improved upon. For example, a time-delay issuing of certain tech, much like your Strategic Advantages system. The window to develop a particular tech may be around for a couple rounds but after that it is gone, or a certain tech will not be available for research until Turn 5, or it is available only to certain Powers (like Jet Fighters only for Germany, US, UK and Japan). Sounds a bit complicated maybe, but you put it all on a physical chart in front of you and it would be easy to get used to.

@Young:

The timeline for advantages has 3 goals… 1. give all nations a choice between to minor advantages right away to start the game, that should make things really fun and interesting right from the get go. 2. Introduce certain advantages at certain times that had historical relevance to both aspects. And finally… 3. do so in a way that is as balanced and fair as possible. Obviously the project is still raw with tweaks coming, this is an inedibility as play testing continues and I request that nobody consider this project complete until suggested. With all that said, the Russian SAs could move up in the pecking order, but as far as balance is concerned, we need to always look at the big picture. During the FOW phase of the first round, The SA choice between Airborne Assault Troops, or War Time Production benefits Russia the most out of all the nations choosing between them. �

Understood. However, I will reiterate that many of the games I play are very well developed by Turn 6 and don’t last much longer than Turn 7 or 8. This will prevent many SAs from ever seeing the light of day. Might want to look at doubling them up or moving certain ones up or down. For example, I think Atlantic Wall is coming a little late by Turn 7. It is likely that the Allies have already invaded or have been doing so repeatedly. Also, would this be a repeatable Advantage? Say Germany has the Advantage and the Allies take Normandy. But Germany takes it back and the Allies invade again next Turn… does Atlantic Wall go into effect again?

@Young:

@LHoffman:

• � Accessibility of Advantages/former Research items: � as I said above, Tech Research is great because it adds diversity to an otherwise scripted game, allows you to choose how to allocate resources, makes up for some of the random chance of war and can be a useful strategic element.

It is because I disagree with the above statement so avidly, that I set out to create Strategic Advantages and the Fortunes of War phase, but I explained a little bit why earlier. I offer SAs as an even greater diversity to an otherwise scripted game, 4 rounds in a Delta game, and it will seem unlike any G40 script that could be imagined.

I think that is a slight bit of hyperbole, but I do not disagree that Delta games will differ somewhat from G40 games because of this new Strategic Advantage introduction.

@Young:

ANZAC getting paratroopers was also a possibility in G40 R&D, the fact that a nation does it well in history has less relevance than if they had the ability (even without success). V-Rockets in theory seemed like a great secret weapon back then, but it didn’t go so well for the Germans, and Jet fighters could have been to little to late, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the Germans who were the first to build jet engines just like America was the first to build a nuclear weapon.

Yes, ANZAC paratroopers is a possibility in the G40 R&D system, but it was not guaranteed and more than that it was highly unlikely… that is my point. Having a Strategic Advantage or Tech Research means that it is always 100% successful in gameplay. All three of your paratroopers will always hit their drop zones and live to see combat. Simply giving a small Power an ability that it did not historically have or sacrifice for in game play is not the best method in my opinion. Maybe whatever this implies on a macro-historical level is too deep to get into right now, so I should probably just drop it.

But I think, by your inclusion of Strategic and Progressive Advantages that history obviously has a good deal relevance. Otherwise why would you only have Jet Fighters for Germany and Heavy Carriers for the US, Radar for Britain and Nukes for the US? Those choices are all based on averages of historical fact. Meaning, that those items are typically associated with those countries for one reason or another, although multiple countries had said technology or capability… Or might have if the war had continued past 1945. (I will except Atomic Bombs from this argument, even if the possibility exists)

@Young:

I agree, and I would also like to add to that by saying “more powerful units are fun”.

Yes! (In moderation.) Which is a reason that different unit sculpts (HBG) can be useful in gameplay. Both to represent different unit types (Jets vs Prop aircraft) or to allow for caps on certain numbers of units (only 2 heavy battleships on the board at any one time). Etc… But this is not really where your Delta is headed. I digress.

@Young:

Thank you, and I hope the advantage parings in Delta become balanced and well thought out enough for your group 1 to give them a try… I will even mail you a deck of cards for easier play (I still got the address).

I would love that! You know where I live.  :wink:

@Young:

@LHoffman:

The way my Group 1 used to play with them in Revised was that we would roll two dice for our Power and those were the two NAs we got (since they were numbered from 1-6). No choosing the most powerful and no getting all six. I thought that it made the game great fun when I was Germany to roll a 1 and a 4 to get “U-Boat Interdiction” and “Wolf Packs” which I seemed to do with incredible frequency.

Our group has tried many different ways to bring tech into the game, but every thing seems to turn out “less than fun”, I hope this attempt has better results. �

In this instance I was talking about National Advantages from Revised… not R&D tech as it pertains to Global 40. I always thought rolling for a couple of National Advantages made games a little more unique while not utterly throwing them. Though we would always sigh and throw the dice when we saw the US get Superfortresses.  :roll:**

@Young:

LHoffman,

Those are good questions and I will address them in the very near future, thank you for your contribution, you have alerted me to a few minor loopholes that will need correcting.

Cheers

That is what I am here for. I apologize that it is so much to read and that I am so longwinded in it. But I feel that I have explained my points sufficiently.

@CWO:

@Young:

What about modernized shipyards? There would be no $ to build cheaper ships.

or

9B - Trans-Siberian Railway (void with loss of capital city)
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.

The TSR’s terminus is in Moscow, so yes, that would have been an effect on the western end of the line…but a railway which is nearly 3,000 kilometers long wouldn’t get knocked completely out of commission just because a city at one end of it is under enemy control.

As for the shipyards, some were naval yards but many of them were operated by private industry rather than the government.  Washington DC coordinates many financial matters — the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are situated there – but most of the US gross domestic product gets generated elsewhere.  The US would have continued to create plenty of wealth if Washington had been occupied, so there wouldn’t have been any lack of money in the GDP sense.  The US government would of necessity have relocated itself elsewhere in the country as the capital fell to the Nazis, and it would eventually have reconstituted the basic administrative infrastructure of the financial system…certainly not at peak efficiency, but enough to pay the government’s bills.

By the way, I’ll be away between now and Wednesday morning, so this will be my last post until then.  Looking forward to catching up on the discussion when I return.

For game purposes “Eastern US” includes the Brooklyn and Norfolk Navy shipyards (among others) as well as the huge population and production centers of the Northeast, so it makes sense to void advantages for the US if the territory is in enemy hands. It’s too bad the territory isn’t split into Northeast (above the Mason-Dixon Line for arguments sake) and Southeast (to include DC) territories at 14-6 values, respectively.

I guess it would be interesting for the US to have a reorganized capital in Chicago, so if it can’t have benefits at least it wont lose its treasury.

@Young:

This will be a relatively raw response to your post as I’m currently on my iPhone.

That sucks. Please do not rush on my account.

@Young:

It would be difficult for Germany to really know when Russian winter will happen unless the Russians only needed 1 more progress point. Even then (like you said) a full retreat of German infantry is to much of an anti strategy and logistic undertaking. Besides, what if Germany goes through all that trouble, and then Russia rolls snake eyes?

Well, if Russia needs 4 or fewer points to achieve their Progress advantage… they have an 67% chance of getting it. Good enough for Germany to take the gamble or at least know that it is likely coming. Feasibility of pulling back infantry is another issue, but outcomes of the next Turn Progress roll can be assumed. And snake eyes? I thought PA rolls were done with 1 die? Did I miss a revision?

@Young:

Your second example of this loop hole is a better one, but very difficult to fix. Besides, if Japan is capable of attacking the fleet with odds and the possibility of ECC is next turn, than maybe that’s the push they need in order to attack. However, if they make a suicide run just cause America is gonna get ECC, than I personally would wait and see what happens, besides, Japan has a nice PA in kamikaze honor that would defend nicely against ECCs, it’s just a matter of who gets there first. Another way of looking at it is, if you take out the carriers before hand, aren’t you basically handing him the other SO?

These are all things that would need to factor into decisions on either side. I was more just making the point that everyone knows that a given Strategic Advantage is coming and they will or might make moves based on that knowledge. I don’t see anything positive coming from this. It is an outside and uncontrollable force having influence on what happens in the game. If the Strategic Advantage system is something that proves to be workable or most people do not mind it, then I suppose my concerns do not matter.

@Young:

I totally understand what your saying about the allies abandoning cities in order to retake for $2 which would be a major problem if it became a consistent gambit. However, that is an anti strategy completely dependent on the enemy taking the bait, so this actually promotes strategies that not only take the city, but also hold the city (which ain’t a bad thing).

My comment about abandoning and re-taking was more me playing devil’s advocate than anything else. However, whether intentional or not, this will end up happening to virtually all cities in main battle areas. (IF… even retaking your own city will earn you the bonus - which is currently stated on Page 1)

If Leningrad is taken by Germany even once in the game, the Novgorod territory is worth 4 IPCs for everyone from that point on. Somebody will always be collecting that bonus… whether it be Germany, Russia from retaking it or some other Power. Same goes for Cairo, Warsaw, Stalingrad or any other city in the game. Heck, if the Japanese take Manila and the US retakes it, they will forever get 4 IPCs for having the Philippines (not to mention the 5 IPC bonus they get for having it too. That is a lot of money.)

Some method will need to be devised for showing which cities are now “active bonus cities”, where someone is collecting money from them. I suppose it could just be based on memory of who has attacked who, but seems like something to denote who has the bonus would be appropriate.

This brings up a question: Who retains the City Bonus when Britain liberates Leningrad (or an equivalent scenario)? Does Britain get it for actually taking the city? Does Russia get it because it is now a Russian territory again?

@Young:

Russia only gathers SOs when at war, and I will make the proper notes in post #1, also… in our games the rounds in which Russia gains an NO for lend lease is very limited, that’s why I split it so that there was a chance they get $5 every round for no allied units (especially now that I took the Iraq gambit away from them).

Why is it limited? In my experience the Lend Lease is not very difficult for USSR to achieve for at least 3 whole Turns. (Particularly if you separate the Allied Units rule, but even with it combined). And do you mean that Russia gets the bonus if there are no enemy warships in SZ 125 or 127? Right now your rules say if SZ 120 (which is Hudson Bay) is free of warships… don’t think that is correct.

Assuming you mean either SZ 125 or 127… Turns 1 and 2 Germany usually has subs or other ships in, or in range of, these zones. However, Russia is not typically at war yet anyway so can’t collect the bonus. By Turn 3, the Royal Navy or Air Force is generally rebuilt enough to not allow German ships to sit in those zones. Also, it typically takes Germany a minimum of 3 Turns (from the time they attack Russia) to reach Archangel. Even by Turn 4 or 5 I do not normally see Allied units in Russia… USA can barely get there yet and has other worries and Britain has her hands very full and going into Novgorod is usually out of the way. This way Russia would get 10 bonus IPCs per turn as opposed to 5. I cannot argue with your own experience, but the above has generally been mine.

All of this makes me think that there may be too many bonuses for Russia, hearkening back to the comment in my previous post.

@Young:

As far as your opinions about the R&D phase, I also like some things about it and I’ve tried my best to incorporate those ellements. I had a rule that gave 1 free dice when spending to R&D and many players attempted way more than before, but the last 5 games not one 6 got rolled and players lost a lot of money over that period of games.

That is a nice incentive. But you really need some new dice or something. Somebody put the Voodoo on those. FIVE whole games with freebie research dice for those interested (meaning at least two dice per try?), with an average of 7 Turns per game… and NOT ONE six was rolled!  Man those are some great dice for actual gameplay, but not so much on Research.  :-o

@Young:

I agree with you in the sense that our games as well are very developed by round 7 and end there or very soon after. However, some players here will play all through the night (as I did before I got married) and I wouldn’t want to deny them the excitement of late round strategies and stories. Besides, it’s much to late to make a change like doubling up on rounds.

Oh, I remember the days of playing all through the night. Still happens on occasion, but not as much because we are generally very efficient. Two people going at once… Otherwise everyone else is just twiddling their thumbs waiting for strategy to be thought out. Global games take F-O-R-E-V-E-R if you do not overlap individual turns.

But why is it too late to change to doubling up Strategic Advantage? Seems like a simple change of wording and you have done it. I thought this was a work in progress?  :wink:

1. Agree with all of your observations.
2. Now that Germany lost its “Fifth Column” which I actually didn’t like at all I would add an optional rule, which I found very historical:

German Allies

Sweden becomes a pro-Axis neutral when Moscow is captured by an Axis power.
Turkey becomes a pro-Axis neutral when Moscow is captured by an Axis power.
Spain becomes a pro-Axis neutral when London is captured by an Axis power.

Some historicans agree that Sweden, Turkey and Japan would join the war against Russia if the Moscow would have falled. Not sure about Spain but it makes sense since they didn’t join the Axis mainly because they feared what would happen to them if Germany would lost the war. (now we can say it was a pretty smart decision) Maybe the fall of London would encourage them enough to join the Axis.

Otherwise I can see Delta 99% finished from my point of view.

@Young:

R1- SA Observation

Germany choses the Airborne assault troops R1 and uses them from Paris and Western Germany to get 4 extra infantry in a sealion attempt, making the over all sealion strategy just a little less risky.

4 extra German infantry in a Sealion invasion is pretty significant in my opinion. Maybe the UK takes Increased Production, as you project, but that may not necessarily make up for the difference.

This is a thought that just came to mind:

For Paratroopers to be employed, you must have air superiority in the territory which you are attacking.

Air Superiority could be defined as a couple things…

a) a greater number of attacking fighters/tacs vs defending enemy fighters/tacs …… not so great a method

b) at least a 2-1 superiority ratio of attacker to defender fighters/tacs …… better but not ideal

c) there must be NO enemy fighters or tactical bombers in the territory being attacked…… much better

Personally, I am leaning toward option ©. Very cut and dry, no counting planes. Also, this most approximates the actual conditions in which paratroopers were employed (that I know of) in the war. Air superiority had to be achieved if the mission were to even be considered.

Note that we are talking about paratroopers specifically intended as a combat strike force… e.g. Overlord and Market Garden, which is what the paratroopers at an A&A scale would be equivalent to.