G40 Delta 1st Edition

@Young:

Your research is good enough for me Hoffman,… Super Fortresses it is.

I was out of town and very busy for the past several days, so I’m now catching up with the board’s discussions since last Thursday.  I like the cards that YG has been making – they add a nice extra dimensions to his various Delta rules.  I recall from his video about his customized table that his earlier cards were laminated in plastic, which has the advantage of protecting the cards, making them easier to handle and giving them a professional appearnace, so I assume that’s the eventual plan for these new ones too.

On the Fortresses issue, I can’t remember the full details of my earlier posts on this subject – but as I recall, I’d said that “Boeing Fortresses” sounded like an attempt to straddle both the European bombing campaign (which made heavy use of the B-17) and the bombing campaign agaisnt Japan (which revolved around the B-29). And to echo the points made by LHoffman, I seem to recall pointing out that the Flying Fortress and the Superfortress were very different birds.  The B-17 was a good bomber with (by the standards of its contemporaries) a large defensive armament, but it was quite conventional in its design.  The B-29, by contrast, was a state-of-the art aircraft with advanced capabilities that put it in a different league from any other operational WWII bomber; I think each one cost as much to manufacture as a US Navy destroyer.  My feeling was that the phrase “Boeing Fortresses” lacked focus, or at least wasn’t clear about what it was trying to express.  So the new title “Super Fortresses” works much better in my opinion.

@Young:

R7 - Germany

7A - Coastal Defense
During each combat round in which at least 1 German unit is defending a German controlled territory from an amphibious assault (Europe territories only), the defender rolls first in the combat sequence, and the attacker second (casualties inflicted by defending units are immediately removed before the attacker rolls).

Wow… this rule seems nuts! Pardon my candor.

The Allies will be annihilated! No chance for them.

@Young:

Thanks CWO Marc and LHoffman for the guided help in modifying the advantage title, of course it will be up to the American player to alter history and use super fortresses in the European theater if they desire. I found an even better image to use on the card, here it is…

Nice picture.  Regarding the use of the B-29 on the European half of the game board, I don’t see it as being problematic.  It’s true that the B-29 wasn’t used historically in the European theatre during WWII, but that was simply because its capabilities (notably its very long range) were much more advantageous to use in the Pacific than in Europe.  There were no technical reasons why it couldn’t have been used in Europe.  Indeed, if the war in Europe had dragged on to the point where the A-bomb had become available in time and a nuclear strike on Berlin had been judged the best way to end the war quickly, the B-29 would have been a better delivery platform than the B-17.  On payload considerations alone, the B-29 would be the leading candidate.  The Little Boy uranium bomb weighed 9,700 lb and the Fat Man plutonium bomb weighed 10,300 lb.  Both numbers are above the standard bomb-load figures for the B-17 (4,500 to 8,000 lb, depending on mission range), but well below the figures for the B-29 (whose standard load of 20,000 lb was more than the B-17 could carry in overload condition, 17,600 lb).  The Lancaster could have handled a nuke (its normal load was 14,000 lb, and it could even carry the 22,000 Grand Slam bomb), but the Americans would undoubtedly have wanted to use an American bomber for such a mission.

@LHoffman:

Wow… this rule seems nuts!

That’s a quote from General Anthony McAuliffe, isn’t it?  :-)

@Young:

The Allies will only be annihilated if they play into it, let us remember that the Allies have 1st say as to where they land if at all, and obviously they will choose the least defended shore, or attack France via Gibraltar or Spain.

I’m wondering about this.  The house rule seems to make it prohibitively costly for the Allies to conduct an amphibious landing on a German-held territory, and your argument above states that the Allies can avoid falling into this trap by either not landing at all, or by landing on the least defended shore, or by attacking France via Gibraltar or Spain.  I recognize that A&A is just a game, and that it’s not meant to be a play-by-play recreation of WWII, but here are what I think are some potential problems.

Germany was never in a position to have massively tough coastal defences along the entire stretch of coastline that it controlled after occupying western Europe.  In his book The Longest Day, Cornelius Ryan wrote this about Hitler’s vow to create an impregnable Atlantic Wall: “It was a wild, impossible boast. Discounting the indentations, this coastline running from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Bay of Biscay in the south stretched almost three thousand miles.”  At best, Germany could make some limited portions of the coast too costly to attack: the Channel ports (which were indeed heavily fortified, a lesson that was driven home at Dieppe and that led the Allies to pick the open beaches of Normandy for the 1944 landings) and the Pas de Calais region.  But every German-controlled territory in Europe?  I think not.  Even the game board’s so-called “Normandy / Bordeaux” region is too large, since it encompasses France’s entire Atlantic seaboard.

Thie leave the Allied players with the following options once we exclude all German-controlled territories.

• The Allies can land on a territory they already control.  Easy, but it puts them at too much distance from the German forces they want to fight, which means they have to waste time getting there after landing.

• The Allies can land on Italian-controlled territories.  Historically accurate – the Anglo-Americans did precisely that in 1943 when they invaded Italy – but once again it’s a slow way of getting to the German forces (as the Allies in Italy found out in 1943…and 1944…and 1945.)

• The Allies can land in a neutral country (for instance Spain, as you mentioned).  Under the game rules, that will cause all the neutrals to declare war on the Allies.  I’m not sure the cost-benefit ratio would be worth it.

So I guess what I’m wondering is whether this rule is basically intended to dissuade the Allies from making an amphibious landing in France, either on its Atlantic coast or on its Mediterranean coast.  In WWII, the Allies not only had the capability to conduct either of those operations, they actually conducted both, successfully, just six weeks apart.

@CWO:

That’s a quote from General Anthony McAuliffe, isn’t it?   :-)

My equivalent I suppose  :-).

Although his was more in the context of a sarcastic, “Well, crap…”   Mine is specifically intended to convey, “That’s crazy!”

@CWO:

So I guess what I’m wondering is whether this rule is basically intended to dissuade the Allies from making an amphibious landing in France, either on its Atlantic coast or on its Mediterranean coast.  In WWII, the Allies not only had the capability to conduct either of those operations, they actually conducted both, successfully, just six weeks apart.

Agree with all your information here Marc and I second it. I wanted to get that out when I first read the rule, but figured I would wait a bit.

YG:   I think I understand your thought process behind drafting such an advantage. Correct me if I am wrong, but you want to make an Allied invasion of Europe much more of a serious undertaking for the Allies (and thus make it more realistic)? I get that and I generally agree that having the typical-game repeated landings and repulses in Normandy or elsewhere in Europe does not make for a very historically accurate experience.

However, I think this rule is a little overboard in the opposite direction. Marc has already addressed the historical implications of this rule so I will address the tactical and strategic implications it has on the game itself. Giving the Germans the ability to defend first and kill Allied units before they can attack, in every round of combat, is rather absurd, IMHO. The Allies will be annihilated because the smart German player will pick this SA every time and stock his coast to the point that it becomes prohibitive for the Allies to mount an assault. That is what I would do anyway. It would be much more advantageous to pick this SA over the Rockets one because dealing a few damage points to an IC is nothing in comparison.

If implemented, this SA will be incredibly powerful, whether it is utilized or not. If the Allies attack, Germany will benefit from it tactically; certainly wiping out large numbers of allies units before they can even strike. If the Allies do not attack (or attack via landing somewhere more remote), the Germans will still benefit strategically in that the Allies have been diverted and delayed, perhaps critically so. You say the Allies have a choice in the matter, but it is a choice of picking their poison, either of which may seriously hurt their chances at victory.

Revising this rule down so that the Germans may defend first only in the first round of combat is still probably too powerful, considering how much damage can be done to the Allies. What might be more appropriate is to have up to 3 German infantry defend (or fire) before the Allies attack, only in the first round of combat. This would still give the Germans a nice “free” punch as-it-were, but would limit how big that punch could be. It would also effectively simulate actual amphibious engagements in that your infantry units would be defending the beach first and could conduct an opening fire attack similar to the blockhouses in A&A D-Day.

Come to think of it, you could make that the rule instead:    Atlantic Wall/Coastal Defense:   Blockhouses now exist in all German controlled coastal European territories. When defending against amphibious assaults in these territories, up to three Axis infantry may take opening fire shots (rd. 1 of combat only) against the enemy. Any casualties are removed before the attacker rolls.

The infantry would still get to defend in their normal roll, but this effectively simulates the “manning”, or extent, of your coastal defenses. It would be less accurate to say that every territory can roll 3 dice against amphib assaults, regardless of how many of your units are present. Having it be per infantry, with a max of 3, forces Germany to at least commit some resources to make use of the advantage and effectively builds the defenses where you see value in defending.

I would even be cool with saying this SA could be used in Axis controlled territories (i.e. Italy) so long as German infantry units are present. That would be something else to consider.

I had a look at your Under Construction page – the cards look great.  I have a couple of questions / comments.

Tokyo Express: Can you tell me what Japanese destroyer class the picture shows?  It’s hard to tell from the small size of the picture, but it appears to have a tripod bridge strucure and two forward gun turrets, two features I normally associate with battleships.

V-Rockets: The picture shows a V-1.  The V-1 wasn’t a rocket, it was a pulse-jet “flying bomb” – what today would be called a cruise missile.  The picture should show a V-2 ballistic missile.  Come to think of it, the V-2 wasn’t a rocket either, it was a guided missile, so maybe the name of the advantage should be changed.  “Rocket” refers either to “rocket engines” (as a motor type) or to unguided rocket weapons (which various WWII ground-attack aircraft carried).  The term “V-Weapons” would be the easiest way to resolve the issue.

@Young:

Thanks guys, I’m sure this rule will see another edit tonight based on your opinions, right now I’m working on a thread to display the cards I made (of course they’re all drafts and subject to modification before going to print).

Actually, I would love to hear/see playtest results for the Coastal Defense rule as it stands. I just want to see if my theories prove true or not.

@CWO:

Tokyo Express: Can you tell me what Japanese destroyer class the picture shows?  It’s hard to tell from the small size of the picture, but it appears to have a tripod bridge strucure and two forward gun turrets, two features I normally associate with battleships.

It looked like an American battleship or maybe Northampton-class cruiser. Definitely not Japanese.

@LHoffman:

Actually, I would love to hear/see playtest results for the Coastal Defense rule as it stands. I just want to see if my theories prove true or not.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Rommel once said something very similar to von Rundstedt during one of their endless arguments on whether the expected Allied invasion should be repelled on the beaches or with mobile armour reserves.  :lol:

YG,
I was doing some thinking on the Progressive Advantages. It looks like four of the nations have a “one time only” type of advantage.
As for the United States using the Atom Bomb, I can definitely understand that being a one time use as it will probably end up being the end of whichever Axis they use it on.
Also, the Kamikaze Honor for Japan makes sense to make it one time. You don’t want to provide Japan with endless Kamikazes.
I was thinking that Russia and France should be able to do theirs more than once. They get to 20 points and use their advantage. Afterward, I think they should start over again at 0 points and get to start rolling and adding up points to reach 20 again. Even if they are really lucky and get a 6 every roll, they won’t get the advantage for at least another 4 rounds. In the case of Russia, Germany might have taken Moscow by then. At any rate, it just seems a little unfair to me that Russia and France only get to use their Progressive Advantage just the one time.
In contrast, Germany, England and Italy get to use their advantage for the rest of the game once they reach 20 points.
I actually think Japan and the US should also get to start over at 0 points and roll up to another 20 points for their Progressive Advantages, but since they do have pretty strong ones, perhaps they could be left at one time only. Russia and France just seemed kind of weak to be one time only.

Cool YG. I’m glad you like my idea. So that is good for all of them. I don’t think it would necessarily be too overpowering (even the US using the Atom Bomb). Rolling 1 die would take at a minimum 4 rounds to get to 20, and more likely 5 or 6 rounds.
So, if any of them actually get to use their progressive advantage twice in a game, your looking at a 10-12 round game already. While some think this would be too long and maybe a bit tiring, I think it would also mean it is a really good game and no one has been able to get a real advantage over the other side.