@barnee said in G40 House Rules Expansion TripleA Games Archive:
It’s so we can upvote when we can’t anymore. An upvote is often used simply as a easy way to acknowledge a post without having to type
See my PM, please.
Also @VictoryFirst , please.
G40 Delta 1st Edition
-
R1- SA Observation
A lack of airbases or ones located in strategic areas anyway, will force Japan’s hand into taking War Time Production, which is far from a second place prize for them. It will be difficult to defend the mainland with those kind of numbers coming at the allies once the minors are built.
-
R1- SA Observation
A difficult choice for the United Kingdom, based on what they project to take R4, R1 choice could be anything. The smart money suggests that they take war time production over airborne assault troops.
-
R1- SA Observation
Italy takes airborne assault troops every day, that’s at least 4 extra infantry in Africa early, could be just what Italy needs to get off the matt after the Taranto raid. Africa becomes more of a fight, and an American beach head in Spain is a little less safe.
-
R1- SA Observation
ANZAC takes war time production for sure, good to have if they start making a little money, but don’t want to spend for a second factory. Airborne assault troops don’t really help them at all, so this is a no brainer.
-
R1- SA Observation
France takes airborne assault troops all day, it could help them do something brave with the 2 infantry on London. So it looks like 3 for 1A, and 4 for 1B… good balance so far.
-
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.
-
@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.
Done, I also added that a land unit must be present to avoid infantry trying to 3 space non-combat move onto empty territories.
1A - Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away provided that the territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. The territory under attack may not contain any enemy fighters, and must contain at least 1 occupying land unit. -
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.
That’s a good idea Mattsk, however, after the new Italian progressive advantage… there is no more room for new advantages as I’m trying to fit all the Delta rules on a 54 card deck.
-
@Young:
Done, I also added that a land unit must be present to avoid infantry trying to 3 space non-combat move onto empty territories.
1A - Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away provided that the territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. The territory under attack may not contain any enemy fighters, and must contain at least 1 occupying land unit.Excellent… good revision I believe. Nice call with preventative against non-combat move into empty territories.
Wasn’t there a rule for paratroopers in some game recently that they had to stop in the first enemy controlled territory they reach?… meaning they could not just drop a bunch of guys behind the enemy front lines, especially in empty territories. The 1 enemy ground unit rule sort of addresses that, but not entirely. I know it would be incredibly annoying if you are either Germany or Russia to have guys constantly being dropped behind your lines, harassing you and blocking 2 move units from reaching the front line.
-
@Young:
Done, I also added that a land unit must be present to avoid infantry trying to 3 space non-combat move onto empty territories.
1A - Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away provided that the territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. The territory under attack may not contain any enemy fighters, and must contain at least 1 occupying land unit.Excellent… good revision I believe. Nice call with preventative against non-combat move into empty territories.
Wasn’t there a rule for paratroopers in some game recently that they had to stop in the first enemy controlled territory they reach?… meaning they could not just drop a bunch of guys behind the enemy front lines, especially in empty territories. The 1 enemy ground unit rule sort of addresses that, but not entirely. I know it would be incredibly annoying if you are either Germany or Russia to have guys constantly being dropped behind your lines, harassing you and blocking 2 move units from reaching the front line.
It’s fine as long as the attacker can get units there by using other methods besides an air drop.
-
@Young:
It’s fine as long as the attacker can get units there by using other methods besides an air drop.
Yeah, that is more-or-less what I was driving at. However, it is a loophole or point of contention if it isn’t mentioned in the rule.
-
@Cmdr:
German Long Range Artillery:Â
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.)Â 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.
Very good point. Anti-aircraft guns are neither field artillery nor divisional artillery; their role and performance characteristics are quite different. One possible idea, however, for making German AAA units a more attractive purchase is to have a house rule that would make them dual-purpose weapons: anti-aircraft guns, but also anti-tank weapons. Germany discovered in WWII that its 88mm FLAK, which was intended for use as an AAA weapon, also had a superb anti-armour performance. I think the mounting was adapted to make it easier to use in that role, and the gun itself also started being fitted to armoured vehicles like the Tiger tank and, as I recall, the tank-destroyer version of the Panther.
-
R5 - Japan
Here is my latest attempt to balance the Japanese strategic advantage pairing. I know they are both powerful, but that’s not important to me, what I really need to know… “is this a difficult decision for Japan to make”?
5A - Long Lance Torpedos
All attacking Japanese destroyers now receive a “surprise strike” every combat round against defending surface warships. Attack rolls from destroyers must be divided between defending surface warships, and submarines and/or air units which are immune from such surprise strikes.or
5B - Tokyo Express
All Japanese transports now become surface warships with a defense value @1. Also, during their non combat movement phase, Japanese transports may now transport 3 units (2 infantry + 1 land unit) provided they are unloaded on a Japanese controlled Island (must still be last removed). -
@Young:
Limited Action
Damaged battleships may no longer bombard during an amphibious assault.The phrase “Limited Action” is kind of vague. Seen in isolation from its full context…
Limited Action
Damaged battleships may no longer bombard during an amphibious assault.…it would be impossible to guess what it refers to. How about using the phrase “Damage Control”? It’s well established as having a naval or maritime context, and it basically means dealing with a shipboard emergency (such as battle damage). Depending on the nature of the emergency, a battleship crew could very well suspend shore bombardment operations to deal with serious battle damage as its top priority.
-
@Young:
R5 - Japan
Here is my latest attempt to balance the Japanese strategic advantage pairing. I know they are both powerful, but that’s not important to me, what I really need to know… “is this a difficult decision for Japan to make”?
5A - Long Lance Torpedos
All attacking Japanese destroyers now receive a “surprise strike” every combat round against defending surface warships. Attack rolls from destroyers must be divided between defending surface warships, and submarines and/or air units which are immune from such surprise strikes.or
5B - Tokyo Express
All Japanese transports now become surface warships with a defense value @1. Also, during their non combat movement phase, Japanese transports may now transport 3 units (2 infantry + 1 land unit) provided they are unloaded on a Japanese controlled Island (must still be last removed).They are both powerful, though I know which one I would take probably 90% of the time. (It is hard to say because a lot of consideration must be give to how that game is playing out)
I would go with Tokyo Express, because I don’t purchase many destroyers (if any) with Japan. Also, the ability to transport 3 units cannot be overstated for Japan.
HOWEVER… I question the real utility of this Advantage.
- The transports only unload their 3 units onto a Japanese held island? What about mainland held territory?
- They cannot unload 3 in the combat phase?
- Also, not explicitly addressed is if they can be involved in both a combat phase (either amphib or surface combat) and pickup-transport-unload in non-combat with their special ability.
Regarding questions (1) and (2) - This would be a no-brainer Advantage if the transports could lift/drop 3 units into combat. To be honest that is where it would be most useful.
More importantly, by Turn 5, when Japan has taken all the East Indies and the Philippines and is busy fighting India and China… who is going to want to waste 3 valuable land units by dropping them off on some island away from your main combat zone which is probably only going to be bypassed by the US or Britain anyway? Having the transport’s 3 unit ability limited to friendly islands in non-combat is potentially useless.
This is all ignoring the fact that the Tokyo Express was actually destroyers being used as transports rather than what we have here… but we could bend the truth to suit our purposes I suppose.
-
LHoffman,
If you want Tokyo express 90% of the time as is, than why make the advantage stronger? Besides, Tokyo express was all about suppling and reinforcing islands already held by the Japanese, so it’s historically correct as is. As for the destroyer aspect, I have been having difficulty creating a game play friendly destroyer into transports that will stand up to long lance torpedos, and other problems involved with it, so I decided to turn transports into destroyers for the purpose of tokyo express. I like the non combat limitations on transporting 3 to islands because I don’t want either choice to be a “no brainer”.
COW Marc,
I felt that limited action was good due to their inability to bombard in a strategic landing operation like amphibious assaults, but could in tun defend themselves on their way home for repairs.
-
@Young:
LHoffman,
If you want Tokyo express 90% of the time as is, than why make the advantage stronger? Besides, Tokyo express was all about suppling and reinforcing islands already held by the Japanese, so it’s historically correct as is. As for the destroyer aspect, I have been having difficulty creating a game play friendly destroyer into transports that will stand up to long lance torpedos, and other problems involved with it, so I decided to turn transports into destroyers for the purpose of tokyo express. I like the non combat limitations on transporting 3 to islands because I don’t want either choice to be a “no brainer”.
COW Marc,
I felt that limited action was good due to their inability to bombard in a strategic landing operation like amphibious assaults, but could in tun defend themselves on their way home for repairs.
5B - Tokyo Express
All Japanese transports now become surface warships with a defense value @1. Also, during their non combat movement phase, Japanese transports may now transport 3 units (2 infantry + 1 land unit) provided they are unloaded on a Japanese controlled Island (must still be last removed).I originally hadn’t done more than glance at this rule, so I didn’t really pay attention to the details until I saw your above post. I won’t address the game play elements, but in terms of historical accuracy there’s a minor issue and a major one with the rule as it now stands.
The minor issue is the concept of having all Japanese transports become surface warships. If this simply means (in real-world terms) that they were drafted into the IJN, that’s fine since it’s simply a matter of paperwork. What I’m wondering is what the defense value @1 represents. If this means giving them some defensive weapons like AAA guns and 3-inch guns, this would be fine – it’s is basically the concept of the armed merchant cruiser, which the British and the Americans used. If this represents armour, however, it wouldn’t work: merchant ships aren’t armoured, armour can’t be added after-the-fact to a ship unless you rebuild it, and the added weight would greatly slow its speed.
Which brings me to the major issue. Destroyers were used for the Tokyo Express because they were the only ships fast enough to do the job during the Guadalcanal campaign. The Japanese, who controlled the islands at the northern end of the Solomons chain, needed to reinforce their position on Guadalcanal; they could only do this at night because in daylight the Americans had air superiority over the southern Solomons. Japanese destroyers therefore had to race all the way down The Slot to unload their troops on Guadalcanal and then race all the way back up to the northern Solomons, all during the hours of darkness, to avoid being attacked by US aviation. Destroyers could do it because they could steam in the 30-to-35-knot range. Transport ships couldn’t do it because they were too slow. As a point of reference: in the Battle of the Atlantic, freighters capable of a speed between 9 and 13 knots were considered fast ships for convoying purposes; the ones assigned to slow convoys could only manage between 6 and 9 knots. The only troop- transport ships that could operate at really high speeds were converted passenger liners like the Queen Elizabeth, which could steam at 26 knots – and I don’t think Japan used any such vessels in the Solomons.
-
Thank you CWO Marc… great to have such a good historian on board. As a compromise, could the wording be changed to…
“Transports are now refitted into warships”, as a catch phrase for both extra speed and guns for defense?
-
@Young:
If you want Tokyo express 90% of the time as is, than why make the advantage stronger?
Because it isn’t very useful as-is.
My point is that it is a good Advantage, with (I should have said) potential to be very powerful. But with the rules as they are, I don’t see myself making use of an ability to reinforce islands I already own with little overall strategic value by Turn 5. A case of too little too late.
Maybe I will take the Destroyer Advantage on second thought. “Tokyo Express” is one of those advantages that will seem really good to a player at first glance, but in practice will not be of any help.
@Young:
Besides, Tokyo express was all about suppling and reinforcing islands already held by the Japanese, so it’s historically correct as is. As for the destroyer aspect, I have been having difficulty creating a game play friendly destroyer into transports that will stand up to long lance torpedos, and other problems involved with it, so I decided to turn transports into destroyers for the purpose of tokyo express.
Yes, I understand that, which is why I said we could bend our interpretation of history a little bit.
@Young:
I like the non combat limitations on transporting 3 to islands because I don’t want either choice to be a “no brainer”.
Well, in that I guess you have succeeded. I would need to see how it works out in practice, but I am skeptical of the Tokyo Express as defined here.
What you could do is make the Japanese player choose between two SAs for destroyers. Long Lance would be as you have currently but Tokyo Express would be something like it was in Revised. If I remember correctly, the rule was simply that destroyers could now carry 1 infantry unit and act as transports. They could conduct amphibious assaults with them or move with non-combat all while still retaining destroyer combat abilities.
You could do something similar here so that destroyers are incentivized for Japan, both to keep or buy more of. The Japanese player would have to decide which destroyer advantage would better suit their gameplay style or position. Not sure if you have tried that already or not, but that would make the decision much more compelling for me.
Suggested Topics
