G40 Delta 1st Edition

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”

Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.

Yes, this works better.  A tweak I’d recommend would be a title change because, if I understand correctly, the US could use this rule to drop an A-bomb in Europe as well as in the Pacific, whereas the name Enola Gay is specifically associated with the Hiroshima mission alone: the Nagasaki bomber was called Bock’s Car, I think, and no bomber was used for the very first nuclear explosion of all, the test at Alamogordo.  Alternate titles would include “Manhattan Project” (which would fit your successive progress-role model), “Atomic Weapons” (or Atomic Bomb, or Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Bomb), and “Fat Man and Little Boy” (which was also used as a movie title).

Manhattan Project

The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die, and then adding that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.

The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, and if shot down… America may choose a different bomber, and attempt a new mission during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.

The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.

The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used immediately upon becoming operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.

[Commando Brado]

@Young:

@CWO:

@Young:

Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”

Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.

Yes, this works better.  A tweak I’d recommend would be a title change because, if I understand correctly, the US could use this rule to drop an A-bomb in Europe as well as in the Pacific, whereas the name Enola Gay is specifically associated with the Hiroshima mission alone: the Nagasaki bomber was called Bock’s Car, I think, and no bomber was used for the very first nuclear explosion of all, the test at Alamogordo.  Alternate titles would include “Manhattan Project” (which would fit your successive progress-role model), “Atomic Weapons” (or Atomic Bomb, or Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Bomb), and “Fat Man and Little Boy” (which was also used as a movie title). Â

Manhattan Project

The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.

The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, if shot down… America must choose a different bomber during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.

The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.

The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used once operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.

The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer? The US didn’t have the atomic bomb until very late in the war. Also, if the bomber gets shot down should the US get another atomic bomb? Historically, the US only had two bombs. Maybe you limit it to two bombs? This would give the Axis player a heads up of the atomic technology so they can possibly defend against it, depending on where the US bombers are. Call it espionage on the Axis’s part. Just a thought.

[Commando Brado]

Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

Manhattan Project
The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die, and then adding that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.
The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, if shot down… America must choose a different bomber during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.
The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.
The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used once operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.

Yup, looks nice.  A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn.  Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?  I raise this point because producing fissile material was very difficult at the time: by war’s end, the US had only managed to produce enough U235 and plutonium for three bombs, all of which were expended in July and early August.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.

Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage.  I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.

“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”

I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities.  I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.

“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”

I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.”  The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.

“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”

I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…”  It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing.  (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)

“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”

“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual.  (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.)  Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”.  Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.

Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage.  I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.

“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”

I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities.  I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.

It only effects the damage it causes during SBRs, mission briefings, maximum payload, fueling etc…

“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”

I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.”  The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.

Understood, but the roll is meant to represent a chance of a severe winter rather than controling the weather, plus it adds excitement from round to round for the Russian player.

“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”

I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…”  It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing.  (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)

Done

“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”

“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual.  (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.)  Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”.  Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.

Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Commando:

Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.

Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.

[Young Grasshopper]

A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn.  Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.

The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?

It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

@Commando:

Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.

Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.

The alternate “Hump” and “Ledo Road” suggestions I made (which by the way don’t need to be both implemented; if I had to pick just one, I’d pick The Hump) might help in this regard because, unlike the original proposal, they put a limit on how much artillery China can buy.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?

Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”.  Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?

Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”.  Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.

“Logistical Allies”?

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

“Logistical Allies”?

I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf.  The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning.  Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

“Logistical Allies”?

I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf.  The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning.  Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?

Maybe, but “comrades” sounds a little Russian

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

@CWO:

@Young:

“Logistical Allies”?

I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf.  The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning.  Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?

Maybe, but “comrades” sounds a little Russian

How about Brothers in Arms?

[Young Grasshopper]

Perfect!

[Young Grasshopper]

Got a couple of concerns through PM that the R2 Advantages for Germany are heavily tilled in favor of “Blitzkrieg” due to the sure fire strategy of Barbarossa vs. “Enigma” and the always risky strategy of Sealion.

One concern is that Enigma doesn’t really contribute to a Sealion, even with the extra dice to convoy, and the other concern is that tactical bombers are only $1 cheaper than a fighter making them to powerful with an unsupported attack @4.

I am thinking about modifying the R2 pairing to either…
1. weaken both, or
2. strengthen Enigma.

here are my thoughts…

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

1. Remove the 3rd die for convoy disruptions
2. give a +1 to all successful convoy disruptions and a 3rd die
2. give a +2 to all successful convoy disruptions and remove the 3rd die

or

Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during their non-combat phase. Also, German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones).

1. Remove the following. German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones)

[Commando Brado]

@Young:

A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn.  Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.

The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?

It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.

You’re right. Sorry. Read over it too quickly and thought it was two dice.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Commando:

@Young:

A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn.  Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.

The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?

It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.

You’re right. Sorry. Read over it too quickly and thought it was two dice.

No problem, I was sure there had to be some misunderstanding involved.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

I really want China to build artillery without needing the road, so I was kinda reaching. Is there any acceptable explanation that we could realistically and historically frame this rule around CWO Marc?
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.

I’d propose changing the current China rule into the following pair of rules (for which I’ve left some values as blanks for you to fill in, depending on which numbers you think would work best).

The Hump
Beginning with the entry of the United States into the war, China can purchase x artillery units per turn, provided that India and Szechwan are both under the control of an Allied power. � This option is available to China regardless of whether or not the Burma Road is open for use by the Allies.

Ledo Road
Beginning on turn [y, corresponding roughly to 1944], China can purchase z artillery units per turn, provided that India and Yunnan are both under the control of an Allied power. � This rule only applies when Burma is controlled by an Axis power, and it does not require Szechwan to be under Allied control. � When India, Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan are all under Allied control, the normal Burma Road rules apply.

The rationale for the first rule is that the Americans were able to fly some supplies to China over the Himalayas. � The upside was that this method did not require the Burma Road to be operational; the downside was that its capacity was limited by the great difficulties involved in flying this route – hence the need to put an x imit on how much artillery can be purchased by China in this way. � As compensation, the Flying Tiger requirement in your original rule has been dropped.

The rationale for the second rule is that the Allies were able to bypass the Japanese-controlled southern sections of the Burma Road by building a road connecting northern India to a northern section of the Burma Road. � By the way, the z number in this rule should be smaller than the x number of the previous rule because the Ledo Road only ended up delivering between one-sixth and one-tenth of the tonnage that was flown in over the Hump air-route (which remained in operation until the end of the war).

Not to dismiss your suggestions, but how about this?

Military Support
China may always purchase artillery units, however, they may also purchase tanks if the Burma road is open.

[Young Grasshopper]

Here’s an old Strategic Advantage that got dropped in favor of something else, but I’ve found a fun way to include it into the Alternative Rules (also gives the axis more weight when balancing the ARs).

Propaganda
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Germany may roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to influence a Strict Neutral territory of their choice into joining the Nazi cause. They may decide to make an attempt during a turn, or pass and save it for a later round. If / when successful, Germany will immediately take control of the standing army on the chosen strict neutral territory without the need of occupying it first, and without provoking the remaining strict neutral territories into joining the allies. There may only be one successful propaganda attempt per game (this rule is void if all strict neutrals turn pro-axis).