Thanks Mattsk,
If you’re playing with multiple players. the best way to help play test these rules in your games, is to not only play them out, but to ask every player each round “which strategic advantage would you choose if you were playing the nation assigned to decide at this point in the game”? You could also make a chart to compare the bonus income each nation would receive when playing with strategic objectives, and how much would get collected in a regular game using national objectives. Any findings and posted analysis from such research would be tremendously valuable to this house rule project. I’m also play testing it today, and you can be sure that I won’t be making any changes to the first post all day, so the rules are as-is-as-of last night.
Here is a brief over view of our play test today during a 6 player group game.
Before the game and upon review of the rules, someone made a suggestion that if the Russian Winter FOW advantage was based on the chance of a severe winter, than why did they have the choice to skip their roll? the question made sense and we decided to make the roll mandatory every round which made for interesting fun because the Russian player was trying to avoid a 6 while the were at peace with Germany. Also, Germany was cheering for a 6 while they had no units on the Russian territories, I found this dynamic worthy of a change in the rule.
Here is what each nation choose for their strategic advantages round for round:
R1 = Germany - 1A / Russia - 1A / Japan - 1B / USA - 1A / UK - 1B / Italy - 1A / ANZAC - 1B / France - 1A
Notes: Germanys choice was a no brainer, Russia was torn between the two but decided to go with paratroopers (this R1 choice really helps Russia), No brainer for Japan with all the ICs they will buy and lack of ABs, USA had a tough choice as both are a bit lame for them, they decided Paratroopers with all the ABs they own, ANZAC wisely went with 1B, and France took Paratroopers hoping to use their London infantry for a holland attack from Normandy.
R2 = Germany - 2B
Notes: Player wanted Enigma but lost 4 out of 5 subs turn 1, so took Blitzkrieg instead.
R3 = USA - 3B
Notes: Everyone agreed that this was lopsided and all said they would take the 4 infantry in a heartbeat. When I suggested 3, they all agreed that would make the decision harder. This feedback was enough for me to change it back from 4 to 3.
R4 = UK - 4A
Notes: It was suggested that Radar is much better than Commonwealth Aid, and that the pairing may need a tweak to balance it.
R5 = Japan - 5A
Notes: It was suggested that Long Lance Torpedos are much better, than Tokyo Express and that the pairing may need a tweak to balance it.
R6 = USA - 6B
Notes: Very difficult choice for the American player, he eventually to Essex Class Carriers because he had more of those than he did bombers, may need to reduce attack value by 1, but a more tactical strategist may buy bombers with the intent of taking Boeing Fortresses… this and Germany R2 are shaping up to be the most balanced and most difficult choices.
R7 = Germany - 7B
Notes: Everyone was telling him to take Jet fighters because they were losing the Atlantic and Med, but he decided on V rockets because he lost both bombers and wanted to weaken the Russian factory to compliment his blitzkrieg.
R8 = Japan - 8B
At this point in the game, there were not many opportunities to attack with just infantry because players buy mech or tanks on their mainland factories, Bushido was the obvious choice… tweaks may be needed.
R9 - Russia - N/A
Note - Moscow was captured during Germany’s round 8. May need to push Russia up a couple, more testing needed.
R10 - Game ended …due to Allied surrender, as much as everyone wanted to reach R10, it was late and there was no use going on for the allies.
Group decided not to try the Strategic Objectives, or Fortunes of War for now (except for Russian Winter and others we house ruled in the past), because they didn’t want to absorb to much at first, but said that they really want to try them, especially after the post game discussions involving the objectives.
That’s it for now… very tired… gonna make the suggested changes to “Uncle Sam Campaign”, and “Russian Winter”, but that’s it for now.
Hi, unfortunenatly i didn’t have time yesterday so I’ll play test today,
I read your results and this is what i think:
Russian winter
Really should be changed, so that dice rolling will start first time Russia is at war w Germany and will be repeated each round until 6 is rolled. Btw a chance that russian winter will happen before Round3 which is a German DOW standard is 42,13% which is rather high.
Uncle Sam
Agree.
Commonwealth aid
Actually it depends on German strategy and UK strategy. If germany sends several bombers to SBR London each round than it’s better to go for Radar. However, if they are sending those bombers after Russia than UK should go for CA and send units to North Africa from South Africa easier. I often build 1 TNK and 2 Mech in SA for 14 IPC total and this leaves me 19 IPCs (playing with original NOs and keeping all my original tts in Europe). However if this would cost me only 11 IPCs it would leave me 22 IPCs for much greater variability of possible builds.
Tokyo express and Banzai attack
Both of them seem unbalanced so why not try to switch them?
Thanks Mattsk,
Made changes today to the overall structure with the creation of the fortunes of war phase, made progressive advantages much cleaner and tighter, and rearranged as well as modified a few strategic advantages… all based on ideas coming from our play test yesterday and all for the better in my opinion. still a bit rough and in need of refining, but better than last week.
Let me know what you think.
So, I am playtesting right now and this happened:
Germany chose paratroopers, attacked RN in SZ110 with 2 transports loaded w 4 infantry to amph attack London. Also it moved 2 paras from WGermany and moved the whole luftwaffe in (except for 2SBRs which participated in the sea attack and 1 tac that attacked Egypt)
Now, this is what happened: Germany lost the naval battle losing both transports. But paras took London w 1Inf remaining for germany and altough losing a lot planes they now have some 114 IPCs to spend for Barbarossa. I look forward how this will turn out, hovewer I don’t see it very realistic that 2 paratrooper units can take out the whole country.
@Young:
Advantages are chosen at the start of each game round (before Germany’s turn), and become effective immediately. Also, nations must be in control of their capital city in order to choose a strategic advantage, and once a nation’s capital city has been captured, they must forfeit all previously held strategic advantages permanently.
I have two questions and one comment about this.
The questions: Does this means that, for example, if a player loses his capital in round 5 (thereby losing all of the strategic advantages he has gained thus far) and regains it during round 7, he becomes eligible to pick up the strategic advantages that appear in the chart from round 8 onward? And is this intended to give players a strong incentive to defend their capitals?
The comment: This is just to point out that, realistically, the fall of a capital could well affect certain advantages but that it would have no effect on various others, notably on weapons that have been deployed operationally. For example, I can see why some American citizens might think twice about buying war bonds if they see Washington D.C. come under Nazi occupation, but the paratroops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions in Europe wouldn’t suddenly forget how to do parachute jumps because the American capital had fallen.
So, I am playtesting right now and this happened:
Germany chose paratroopers, attacked RN in SZ110 with 2 transports loaded w 4 infantry to amph attack London. Also it moved 2 paras from WGermany and moved the whole luftwaffe in (except for 2SBRs which participated in the sea attack and 1 tac that attacked Egypt)
Now, this is what happened: Germany lost the naval battle losing both transports. But paras took London w 1Inf remaining for germany and altough losing a lot planes they now have some 114 IPCs to spend for Barbarossa. I look forward how this will turn out, hovewer I don’t see it very realistic that 2 paratrooper units can take out the whole country.
Did this happen round 2? It couldn’t have happened round 1, because Germany only starts with one transport.
@CWO:
@Young:
Advantages are chosen at the start of each game round (before Germany’s turn), and become effective immediately. Also, nations must be in control of their capital city in order to choose a strategic advantage, and once a nation’s capital city has been captured, they must forfeit all previously held strategic advantages permanently.
I have two questions and one comment about this.
The questions: Does this means that, for example, if a player loses his capital in round 5 (thereby losing all of the strategic advantages he has gained thus far) and regains it during round 7, he becomes eligible to pick up the strategic advantages that appear in the chart from round 8 onward? And is this intended to give players a strong incentive to defend their capitals?
The comment: This is just to point out that, realistically, the fall of a capital could well affect certain advantages but that it would have no effect on various others, notably on weapons that have been deployed operationally. For example, I can see why some American citizens might think twice about buying war bonds if they see Washington D.C. come under Nazi occupation, but the paratroops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions in Europe wouldn’t suddenly forget how to do parachute jumps because the American capital had fallen.
You make an excellent point, thanks for the feed back… what advantages do you consider void, or operational without a capital?
Be sure to review the changes made today, therefore to your point, a nation should not be able to make its progress roll while their Capital is captured.
@Young:
You make an excellent point, thanks for the feed back… what advantages do you consider void, or operational without a capital?
Be sure to review the changes made today, therefore to your point, a nation should not be able to make its progress roll while their Capital is captured.
I’ll review the advantages to see which ones I think would (and would not) be voided by the loss of a capital and I’ll put my results in a post later today.
My first question wasn’t actually about whether a country can make a progress roll when its capital is occupied, it was about whether the advantages it gains after recapturing its capital are retroactive (going back to round 1), or whether they apply from the recapture round onward, or whether they apply from the first complete round after the recapture onward.
@CWO:
@Young:
You make an excellent point, thanks for the feed back… what advantages do you consider void, or operational without a capital?
Be sure to review the changes made today, therefore to your point, a nation should not be able to make its progress roll while their Capital is captured.
I’ll review the advantages to see which ones I think would (and would not) be voided by the loss of a capital and I’ll put my results in a post later today.
My first question wasn’t actually about whether a country can make a progress roll when its capital is occupied, it was about whether the advantages it gains after recapturing its capital are retroactive (going back to round 1), or whether they apply from the recapture round onward, or whether they apply from the first complete round after the recapture onward.
You’re right, I didn’t answer your question properly, here is the revisions I made to the paragraph in question…
Strategic Advantages are chosen during the Fortunes of War phase, and become effective immediately. Also, some advantages become void when that nation losses their capital city. Advantages that become lost due to their capital being captured are noted in the advantage description, and become reinstated once their capital is liberated, all other advantages are unaffected.
Let me know if I forgot something, Cheers.
Sorry I missed this thread YG… otherwise I would have chimed in earlier. Thanks for letting me know about it.
Let me provide some preliminary statements before I critique anything:
I have been playing A&A for 10+ years now (starting with Revised and Original Europe and progressing through everything since, even dabbling with the Original once). I play semi-regularly with two very different groups of people. Group 1 is a family unit which I first began playing A&A with, they are definitely the more experienced and strategically competent group. Group 1 plays Global 40 exclusively nowadays; go big or go home. Group 2 is some friends that I occasionally play with, though they are on the whole a little less advanced. I introduced them to Anniversary and the Global 40 version, which they thoroughly enjoyed. However, they tend to revert to playing Spring '42/Revised… mostly due to time constraints and their own comfort with that rule set. That said, Group 1 would be the one most open and able to playtesting new rules.
In terms of playtesting, I would say it is unlikely that I will be able to do so mainly due to the low frequency which I actually play. While I love considering new House Rules to make the game more dynamic and fun, while retaining playability, I am more of a theoretical tactics jockey than a playtester. Just wanted to throw that out as a disclaimer before I continue.
Now, to my thoughts:
My impression is that this system will do away with Tech Research…? If that is true, I am conflicted. It could be a good move, because on a whole, Research is an underutilized (fun) element of gameplay. However, I do not like that this system essentially scripts gameplay and, to a degree, removes the ability to choose.
At first glance this system also seems more complicated than necessary. I am not saying that I have an immediate solution for that (considering I speedily read through the proposition about 10 minutes ago), it is just an observation. Some of that may be just the newness of the system, because I am sure with one game of play the format becomes pretty easy to follow. Having a series of Strategic Advantages that activate at predetermined times is not a totally foreign concept, as other A&A games have used that and the Advantages themselves are mostly re-purposed from Tech Research or old NAs.
The real issue is dealing with another added Turn phase (consisting of 2 elements - one of which is a brand new concept) and memorizing all that is involved. This would definitely be for veteran players and not for rookies.
It is both good and bad that the Strategic Objectives (NOs) have been streamlined. Standardization is good, but it also makes them seem less unique to each Power; a uniqueness which I personally like in gameplay. On that note, I think the names of many could be refined to give a little more individual character. I do not think these ‘Strategic Objectives’ are very different from existing NOs, which is good, but why not just keep them as ‘National Objectives’ rather than change their name? Also, I do not believe they focus a Power’s efforts any more than existing NOs do… after all, most of them are the same.
The only new addition is Enemy City bonus, which I do not believe will change decision making all that much. Besides it is almost exclusively an Axis SO because all the listed cities are Allied except one (Warsaw) … Which brings up a question, why not Shanghai? I know that it is in a Chinese territory, but Japan begins with it in gameplay… this would mean that Japan begins the game with an automatic SO, which seems to take away from the intent.
Also, the Enemy City SO is effectively a downgrade for Germany since the last time I checked, Germany got 5 IPCs/turn for taking Stalingrad or Leningrad. Having an everyone gets 2 IPCs bonus is a real hit to German income stream and willingness to take these cities (being 2 out of the 3 that Germany is likely to fight for in the game - the other being Cairo). Having Paris worth 5 IPCs per turn in exchange is, I think, maybe a fair trade but may offset the balance of the game in ways we cannot yet foresee. Germany will certainly have Paris (+5 IPCs Capital Bonus) from Turn 1. Generally it will take until at least Turn 3 or 4 for Germany to take Leningrad. Stalingrad even longer. All the while Germany will be collecting 5 sure IPCs per turn from Paris though. That is 15-20 extra IPCs that Germany will collect before they even have the chance to take Stalingrad or Leningrad. Don’t know how I feel about that. I can see the Allies complaining though.
I don’t really like that only Germany can get Jet Fighters or that only the UK can get Radar. I know that this was true in the Revised NAs, but I think it is more fun to allow all Powers a chance at these universal tech upgrades… a reason I like the Research route versus a National Advantage for tech upgrades as opposed to a National (tactical) Advantage like “Wolfpacks” or “Kamikazes” or “Russian Winter”.
Also, was the timeline for introduction of Strategic Advantages and Progressive Advantages arbitrarily decided upon or was there some level of rationale to the decision? I ask because some of them happen late or very late in the game and may end up being of little to no use in gameplay. We do not usually keep definite track, but I believe many of my Group 1’s Global 40 games are finished or projectable by Turn 6 or 7… well before some of the SAs or PAs in this format would come into play. I am not sure of the last game I played that went beyond Turn 7 or 8. The concern here is that the Advantages may come too late to be of use or never come at all. We may never see some of these in gameplay. One suggestion I do have here is that you double up some of the Advantage disbursement cycles: e.g. Turn 2 has Germany and the US, Turn 3 has Britain and Japan, etc… Another negative here is that most Powers will have 2 Advantages (for a long time) before Russia even gets 1 (discounting everyone’s Turn 1 freebie). Not very fair to the Russian player. That said, I would not put Russia’s Tankograd Advantage very early in the game as that is a huge Advantage over Germany and could throw the game. However, placing it all the way back at Turn 9 might mean that the game will be decided, one way or another, before it can be of use.
Here are some things I like initially:
Having a research/national advantage track essentially laid out allows even the smaller guys to get in on the action, which can be good, though it may be artificial in the overall picture. For example, the R-1A Strategic Advantage: Airborne Assault Troops. To my knowledge only the USA, Britain and Germany - maybe Italy - had significant success with airborne units, due partially to their decision to train such elite units and having a military model to support them. Simply giving this ability to Powers like ANZAC, France, Japan and Russia would be 1) ahistorical and 2) a freebie which essentially will give everyone the same capability. The only Powers I can see that would choose the 1B (War Production) option would be Britain and maybe Japan or Germany… because they need every frontline unit they can get. This would forever remove the ability of UK/Germany to have a tactical element that was a major part of their war experience. Perhaps that would just be a choice they have to make, but it does not seem equitable.
I like the idea of a “Fortunes of War” phase or element to the game, much like the optional card set you can play with in A&A D-Day. While the version here and that in D-Day is a little different, I do like the element of chance and uniqueness it brings to the game.
More money is better: Adding any amount of IPCs to the table via bonuses is nice to see only because there is always something else to spend it on. This would be good for Research purposes if it still existed.
While it may seem that I am predominantly critical so far, I do like the line of thinking here, especially as it pertains to Strategic/Progressive Advantages as they hearken back to the National Advantages of Revised. I was always a fan of those, but many people on the forums tend to dismiss them as being too powerful or one-sided. I will say that it may be hard to find the right balance with them, but I bet it can be done.
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.
I could get very detailed here, but this post is already long enough. I have picked out a couple Advantages off the bat that could use some tweaking in my estimation, but I will get to those at some other point.
I’ve checked the list of advantages, and in my opinion most of them would be unaffected by a player’s loss of his capital. I think that, realistically, such a loss would only void an advantage under one of these conditions:
If the advantage represents a weapon or other device which is manufactured in the capital and nowhere else.
If the advantage depends for its existence on a high degree of centralized political control or centralized military authority or centralized financial support. (Your previously mentioned Fifth Column / Nazi Propaganda advantage would fall here, but it seems to have been removed from the list).
If the fall of a nation’s capital into enemy hands is considered so disastrous to that nation’s population and its allies (or so impressive to the enemy, to the enemy’s allies, and to uncommited neutrals) that it would have a major impact on the morale of one or both sides. Even then, it could be argued that the domestic effect might go both ways: French morale collapsed when Germany invaded France in 1940, but Russian determination to stop the invaders gradually stifferened (after a period of initial confusion and disarray) as the Germans advanced deeper into the USSR. As a hypothetical example: assuming that wartime Washington D.C. fell to an invading Nazi army, would the probable result be an increase or a decrease in the number of Americans across the country responding to the Uncle Sam appeal to enlist in the fight against fascism? An increase or a decrease in the output of the war factories in the unoccupied parts of the USA? Would the Nazi conquest of Washington have demoralized Americans or galvanized them? (I kinda think it would be the latter, considering how they reacted to Pearl Harbor.)
On the basis of the three criteria I used, I’ve identified just six advantage that might be affected by the loss of a capital. Intriguingly (because I didn’t set out to make the list come out any particular way), only one of these advantage affects everyone, and the remaining five ones are all Allied advantages (and of those, three are American ones). So for whatever it’s worth, here’s the list:
1B - War Time Production (Germany / UK / Russia / Japan / USA / Italy / ANZAC / France )
3A - War Bonds Campaign (United States)
3B - Uncle Sam Campaign (United States)
4B - Commonwealth Aid (United Kingdom)
R6 - The Manhattan Project (United States)
R6 - French Resistance (France)
Great contribution LHoffman, and thanks for your well thought out feedback. I will digest this over night and address everything you have offered soon. Cheers.
@CWO:
1B - War Time Production (Germany / UK / Russia / Japan / USA / Italy / ANZAC / France )
3A - War Bonds Campaign (United States)
3B - Uncle Sam Campaign (United States)
4B - Commonwealth Aid (United Kingdom)
R6 - The Manhattan Project (United States)
R6 - French Resistance (France)
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.
@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.
Without looking at anyone else’s comments:
2B - Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during their non-combat phase.
Eh…not really impressed. Better would be you can pair 1 artillery with each tank in place of 1 mechanized infantry when blitzing. That gives them an OPTION of Artillery or Mechanized Infantry (for realists, just imagine they are hitching those howitzers to hitches mounted on the back of the tanks, that gets them there, they drop, spin and fire to bring them to battle. Kay?)
Or better:
German Long Range Artillery:
Fire 1 shot at 4 for each Anti-Aircraft Gun in a territory a land assault originates from, in opening fire (ie as if it was a submarine.) Helps move those AA Guns out of the capitols, also encourages people to purchase some…not a big encouragement, but encouragement!
Afrika Korps:
3 German units in Africa??? Maybe make it Alexandria, Egypt and/or Sudan only. Gives them a bit more ability to get the objective while not hamstringing the British into HAVING to defend every coast of Africa!
Home Land for Russia:
Adjust, all original territories West of Yenisey (that includes the one directly south of Yenisey that is adjacent to China as well.) I think that allows Russia to pull back and just slow the Japanese advance - if it comes - without too much penalty, and really, would the Russian people give a flying you know what if they lost frozen, unusable, tundra?
Love the China Capitulation one for Japan. At least it rewards them for caring about getting all the Chinese territories.
I would enjoy a rule that says that the allies cannot, under any circumstance, take a French territory. They can liberate it only. This way the Axis don’t have to worry about taking the territories from France after the capitol falls. Maybe it’s just me though. I hesitate to move through North Africa with the Italians because I know I’m just feeding more money to America later.
Now, these are just my thoughts and only my thoughts. I have no desire to dictate how I think it should be done. I am only giving opinion because I was asked to do so. :P
Thank you for your contribution Cmdr Jennifer, your feed back is greatly appreciated and you have given me a lot of great advice to work with. Let me digest it all before commenting in greater detail.
Cheers.
Sorry I missed this thread YG… otherwise I would have chimed in earlier. Thanks for letting me know about it.
No problem, and thanks for writing.
Let me provide some preliminary statements before I critique anything:
I have been playing A&A for 10+ years now (starting with Revised and Original Europe and progressing through everything since, even dabbling with the Original once). I play semi-regularly with two very different groups of people. Group 1 is a family unit which I first began playing A&A with, they are definitely the more experienced and strategically competent group. Group 1 plays Global 40 exclusively nowadays; go big or go home. Group 2 is some friends that I occasionally play with, though they are on the whole a little less advanced. I introduced them to Anniversary and the Global 40 version, which they thoroughly enjoyed. However, they tend to revert to playing Spring '42/Revised… mostly due to time constraints and their own comfort with that rule set. That said, Group 1 would be the one most open and able to playtesting new rules.
In terms of playtesting, I would say it is unlikely that I will be able to do so mainly due to the low frequency which I actually play. While I love considering new House Rules to make the game more dynamic and fun, while retaining playability, I am more of a theoretical tactics jockey than a playtester. Just wanted to throw that out as a disclaimer before I continue.
Now, to my thoughts:
- My impression is that this system will do away with Tech Research…? If that is true, I am conflicted. It could be a good move, because on a whole, Research is an underutilized (fun) element of gameplay. However, I do not like that this system essentially scripts gameplay and, to a degree, removes the ability to choose.
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.
At first glance this system also seems more complicated than necessary. I am not saying that I have an immediate solution for that (considering I speedily read through the proposition about 10 minutes ago), it is just an observation. Some of that may be just the newness of the system, because I am sure with one game of play the format becomes pretty easy to follow. Having a series of Strategic Advantages that activate at predetermined times is not a totally foreign concept, as other A&A games have used that and the Advantages themselves are mostly re-purposed from Tech Research or old NAs.
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.
The real issue is dealing with another added Turn phase (consisting of 2 elements - one of which is a brand new concept) and memorizing all that is involved. This would definitely be for veteran players and not for rookies.
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?
It is both good and bad that the Strategic Objectives (NOs) have been streamlined. Standardization is good, but it also makes them seem less unique to each Power; a uniqueness which I personally like in gameplay. On that note, I think the names of many could be refined to give a little more individual character. I do not think these ‘Strategic Objectives’ are very different from existing NOs, which is good, but why not just keep them as ‘National Objectives’ rather than change their name? Also, I do not believe they focus a Power’s efforts any more than existing NOs do… after all, most of them are the same.
Yes many are the same, but in many ways the whole system is different as I will explain below…
The only new addition is Enemy City bonus, which I do not believe will change decision making all that much. Besides it is almost exclusively an Axis SO because all the listed cities are Allied except one (Warsaw) … Which brings up a question, why not Shanghai? I know that it is in a Chinese territory, but Japan begins with it in gameplay… this would mean that Japan begins the game with an automatic SO, which seems to take away from the intent.
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.
Also, the Enemy City SO is effectively a downgrade for Germany since the last time I checked, Germany got 5 IPCs/turn for taking Stalingrad or Leningrad. Having an everyone gets 2 IPCs bonus is a real hit to German income stream and willingness to take these cities (being 2 out of the 3 that Germany is likely to fight for in the game - the other being Cairo). Having Paris worth 5 IPCs per turn in exchange is, I think, maybe a fair trade but may offset the balance of the game in ways we cannot yet foresee. Germany will certainly have Paris (+5 IPCs Capital Bonus) from Turn 1. Generally it will take until at least Turn 3 or 4 for Germany to take Leningrad. Stalingrad even longer. All the while Germany will be collecting 5 sure IPCs per turn from Paris though. That is 15-20 extra IPCs that Germany will collect before they even have the chance to take Stalingrad or Leningrad. Don’t know how I feel about that. I can see the Allies complaining though.
**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 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.**
- I don’t really like that only Germany can get Jet Fighters or that only the UK can get Radar. I know that this was true in the Revised NAs, but I think it is more fun to allow all Powers a chance at these universal tech upgrades… a reason I like the Research route versus a National Advantage for tech upgrades as opposed to a National (tactical) Advantage like “Wolfpacks” or “Kamikazes” or “Russian Winter”.
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.
- Also, was the timeline for introduction of Strategic Advantages and Progressive Advantages arbitrarily decided upon or was there some level of rationale to the decision? I ask because some of them happen late or very late in the game and may end up being of little to no use in gameplay. We do not usually keep definite track, but I believe many of my Group 1’s Global 40 games are finished or projectable by Turn 6 or 7… well before some of the SAs or PAs in this format would come into play. I am not sure of the last game I played that went beyond Turn 7 or 8. The concern here is that the Advantages may come too late to be of use or never come at all. We may never see some of these in gameplay. One suggestion I do have here is that you double up some of the Advantage disbursement cycles: e.g. Turn 2 has Germany and the US, Turn 3 has Britain and Japan, etc… �Another negative here is that most Powers will have 2 Advantages (for a long time) before Russia even gets 1 (discounting everyone’s Turn 1 freebie). Not very fair to the Russian player. That said, I would not put Russia’s Tankograd Advantage very early in the game as that is a huge Advantage over Germany and could throw the game. However, placing it all the way back at Turn 9 might mean that the game will be decided, one way or another, before it can be of use.
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.
Here are some things I like initially:
- � 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.
However, all that said, in my experience there are relatively few Powers that have the financial surplus or tactical consideration to use it. Generally this precious balance tends to fall to the USA (obviously) followed by Germany, then Japan/Britain. Russia, Italy and certainly ANZAC are typically left out of the technology race because even 5 IPCs is very valuable to their stretched economies. In the end, it will end up mattering nothing to France since they will never be able to utilize it anyway.
Absolutely agree and understood.
Having a research/national advantage track essentially laid out allows even the smaller guys to get in on the action, which can be good, though it may be artificial in the overall picture. For example, the R-1A Strategic Advantage: Airborne Assault Troops. To my knowledge only the USA, Britain and Germany - maybe Italy - had significant success with airborne units, due partially to their decision to train such elite units and having a military model to support them. Simply giving this ability to Powers like ANZAC, France, Japan and Russia would be 1) ahistorical and 2) a freebie which essentially will give everyone the same capability.
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.
The only Powers I can see that would choose the 1B (War Production) option would be Britain and maybe Japan or Germany… because they need every frontline unit they can get. This would forever remove the ability of UK/Germany to have a tactical element that was a major part of their war experience. Perhaps that would just be a choice they have to make, but it does not seem equitable.
- � I like the idea of a “Fortunes of War” phase or element to the game, much like the optional card set you can play with in A&A D-Day. While the version here and that in D-Day is a little different, I do like the element of chance and uniqueness it brings to the game.
And for this reason I don’t want my comments to come across as defensive, I am extremely grateful that you took the time to write your opinions and I am well aware that there are ideas in this project that you like very much and I hope to refine it enough so that it is more polished upon first glance.
- � More money is better: � Adding any amount of IPCs to the table via bonuses is nice to see only because there is always something else to spend it on. This would be good for Research purposes if it still existed.
I agree, and I would also like to add to that by saying “more powerful units are fun”.
While it may seem that I am predominantly critical so far, I do like the line of thinking here, especially as it pertains to Strategic/Progressive Advantages as they hearken back to the National Advantages of Revised. I was always a fan of those, but many people on the forums tend to dismiss them as being too powerful or one-sided. I will say that it may be hard to find the right balance with them, but I bet it can be done.
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).
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. **
I could get very detailed here, but this post is already long enough. I have picked out a couple Advantages off the bat that could use some tweaking in my estimation, but I will get to those at some other point.
YG,
I just want to say that another reason I like this idea is that all countries can not get all the same techs. A little while back, we tried out a game giving every nation free tech rolls so we could get some tech into the game. What ended up happening was almost everyone had almost all the techs. Then it ends up becoming pretty much a regular game of G40. Even the great techs like heavy bombers or jet fighters didn’t give anyone an edge.
This way, you can see a little bit of which advantage might end up being better than another. Or, if one type of advantage can be sort of voided out by another nations different advantage.
Looking forward to seeing if this gets finally completed (if it can ever be said to be complete).
@Cmdr:
German Long Range Artillery:
Fire 1 shot at 4 for each Anti-Aircraft Gun in a territory a land assault originates from, in opening fire (ie as if it was a submarine.) Helps move those AA Guns out of the capitols, also encourages people to purchase some…not a big encouragement, but encouragement!
For about 5 whole minutes I read this and thought it was talking about artillery pieces and got very excited. Reminded me immediately of A&A D-Day.
Then I realized that it says Anti-Aircraft Gun… This would incentivize AA gun purchase, and maybe it is better to use AA guns than artillery pieces, but it does not make a lot of sense when you read it. Anti-Aircraft guns become long range artillery… and the real artillery pieces are still just that? Just a matter of words… nothing more.
One thing that is important to me, is to find or create a rule set which allows for the use of the many different unit types being made by HBG (being that I paint them). This way, if you had a long range artillery rule, you could just use these units:
This Delta system won’t accommodate the HBG pieces in the way I would like, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see myself playing with it.
