G40 Delta 1st Edition

[Young Grasshopper]

@mattsk:

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.

[LHoffman]

@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 Grasshopper]

@LHoffman:

@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.

[LHoffman]

@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.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

@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.

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

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).

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[LHoffman]

@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.

1. The transports only unload their 3 units onto a Japanese held island? What about mainland held territory?
2. They cannot unload 3 in the combat phase?
3. 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.

[Young Grasshopper]

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.

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[Young Grasshopper]

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?

[LHoffman]

@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.

[Jennifer]

@LHoffman:

@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:

I was kind of taking a more literal definition of anti-aircraft.  Specifically they are cannons loaded with shells that fragment in the air when shot.  Theoretically, that same gun could be elevated a little lower, loaded with a high explosive charge and fired as indirect fire against an entrenched enemy.

I also enjoyed the idea that it pulled AA Guns out of Germany and encouraged them to purchase more AA Guns.  Giving it to Artillery, which in my opinion, is a pretty useful unit already, seemed to give the Germans something without really balancing out anywhere in exchange.

[Jennifer]

@Young:

R5 - Japan
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).

Why not just take the Axis and Allies Revised: Enhanced rule for Tokyo Express instead?  Each destroyer may also carry one infantry unit.  I believe they could only off-load in NCM (sorry, it’s been a WHILE and a few computers since I did AAR:e) which kind of balanced them a bit as well.

I would also enjoy a rule that allows for submarines to evade destroyers when only destroyers and submarines are in a battle.  For instance, perhaps the destroyer would have to roll to hit to find the submarine and again to sink it.  Or even more fun, IMHO, have both attacker AND defender roll, whoever rolls higher wins.  If attacker wins, the submarine is sunk, if the defender wins, the submarine submerges and evades the destroyer.  That would be based on a 1:1 pairing.  What makes it more fun, in my opinion, is that it’s more like a test of skill between the destroyer captain and crew and the submarine captain and crew.

Note, if the destroyer has a cruiser, or fighter, or anything else with him, battle resolves as normal.  This would only be a submarine vs destroyer thing.

[LHoffman]

@Cmdr:

Giving it to Artillery, which in my opinion, is a pretty useful unit already, seemed to give the Germans something without really balancing out anywhere in exchange.

That was the real issue. Hard to justify making artillery units as useful a buy as they would be with such an advantage. Support inf, bombard and attack… a bit much. Granted those abilities could be made mutually exclusive somehow.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

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?

Um – honestly, no.  Giving a merchantman extra guns for defense isn’t a problem (it was pretty common in WWII), but to boost its speed substantially you’d have to completely rebuild it, which would be a colossal waste of time and money that could be better spent on building additional true freighters and additional true warships.  This is especially true in the case of Japan, which didn’t have the spare shipyard capacity to fool around with such a project. Most WWII freighters has triple-expansion steam engines: cheap and simple to build, easy to operate, but not very powerful.  Some WWII warships had turbo-electric drives, some had diesel engines, but most had steam turbines: very powerful, but very complex (for instance due to the required reduction gearing, which was both massive and delicate).  Tearing out a freighter’s triple-expansion engine and replacing it with a steam turbine (plus the associated machinery) would be a huge project, and that’s even assuming that there would be enough room inside the hull to accommodate the new power plant.  Plus, the freighter’s engine room crew would need serious retraining to operate the new engine.

Another problem is that freighters, by their very nature, have hullforms which optimize cargo-carrying capacity.  Translation: they tend to be tubby, and tubby ships have poor hydrodynamic performances.  Warships, by contrast, tend to be long and slender; a good example is the Iowa class, which had a distinctive bottle shape well adapted for high-speed performance.  (Iowa-class skippers liked to think of them as giant destroyers: they could steam at 33 knots, and because of their twin rudders they could make very tight turns.)

So in my opinion, the concept of using freighters as slow-speed troop transports is fine, and the concept of using destroyers as high-speed troop transports is fine too, but the concept of using freighters as high-speed troop transports isn’t workable unless you seriously bend history (and the laws of marine engineering).

[Young Grasshopper]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I have taken the comments provided and came up with this next pairing. Again, what I really need to know is, how difficult of a choice is it for Japan?

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
Each Japanese destroyer may now transport 1 infantry unit during their non combat phase, provided their cargo is unloaded onto a Japanese controlled Island. Also, all Japanese infantry units on Islands now defend @3 or less.

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

So in my opinion, the concept of using freighters as slow-speed troop transports is fine, and the concept of using destroyers as high-speed troop transports is fine too, but the concept of using freighters as high-speed troop transports isn’t workable unless you seriously bend history (and the laws of marine engineering).

A good summary. There is something to be said for historical accuracy.

@Young:

5A - Long Lance Torpedos
All attacking Japanese destroyers now receive a “surprise strike” every combat [ATTACK] 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.

While it is pretty clear I would just add that extra “attack” in there. Seems minor but some people get confused or legalistic or both.

Also, what exactly does “divided between defending surface warships” mean? Torpedo hits must be spread equally such that they do not hit a single ship more than once? You cannot take two hits on a single battleship? Who chooses hits… the defender? Or are hits targeted, such that you map out which destroyers are firing at which ships and you roll specifically for those instances?

@Young:

5B - Tokyo Express
Each Japanese destroyer may now transport 1 infantry unit during their non combat phase, provided they are unloaded on a Japanese controlled Island. Also, all Japanese infantry units on Islands now defend @3 or less.

This is much more acceptable, IMHO. If it must be non-combat then so be it, but I still don’t like that it is only on islands. Still find reinforcing islands to be a waste of time and resources. I will almost certainly never do that.

Infantry defending @ 3 on islands is an interesting addition and helps even the cause… but it does not seem very related to Tokyo Express. All considered, I would still go with Long Lance Torpedoes. We are getting there though…

Oh hey… ever considered revisiting the “Lightning Assaults” Advantage from Revised? That was pretty cool too and sort of in the vein of this Tokyo Express discussion.

[Jennifer]

I agree, transports cannot be armed any longer.  In the original edition sure, because there were no cruisers, no cover air patrol (ie scrambling) no destroyers, etc.  So it made sense to let them defend against attack.  Now it cannot be justified.

As for Artillery:

Artillery

• Cost 6 IPC
• Attack 2
• Defend 2
• Move 1
• Special:  May be paired 1:1 with an infantry unit so that the infantry may attack at 2 or less.  May be used INSTEAD, to bombard enemy territories akin to Battleship/Cruiser bombard rules (ie there has to be at least one attacking ground unit for each artillery bombardment, but the artillery hang back in the territory adjacent to the territory being attacked.)  May be dragged by an armored vehicle, in non-combat movement, 2 spaces instead of 1 if the armor and artillery both start and end their movement turn in the same territory as each other, and neither were engaged in combat this game round.  (Germany’s round 7 for instance.)

in regards to 5b - Tokyo Express
Change islands only, which allows you to use them for Malta mind you, to Pacific Theater only (ie what normally is on the Pacific board.)  Prevents them from being used to amphib assault DC/London which, IMHO, isn’t a HUGE deal, but you know…still lets them be effective in theater.

[LHoffman]

@Cmdr:

As for Artillery:

• Special:  May be paired 1:1 with an infantry unit so that the infantry may attack at 2 or less.  May be used INSTEAD, to bombard enemy territories akin to Battleship/Cruiser bombard rules (ie there has to be at least one attacking ground unit for each artillery bombardment, but the artillery hang back in the territory adjacent to the territory being attacked.)  May be dragged by an armored vehicle, in non-combat movement, 2 spaces instead of 1 if the armor and artillery both start and end their movement turn in the same territory as each other, and neither were engaged in combat this game round.  (Germany’s round 7 for instance.)

On second thought, I am not sure how effective bombardment would be in this way (for the attacker/Germany).

• Reduces potential enemy units prior to land assault but also removes the same (or likely greater) number of attacking artillery units - possibly a draw there

• However, the reduction in attacking units will deprive the attacker of consistent (at least 2 rounds worth of) rolling to attack with the artillery AND would remove the bonus applied to infantry unit’s attack value for at least one round maybe more

All things considered this doesn’t appear to be a generally worthwhile tactic. The attacker (Germany) is better off using the artillery in the assault than in a bombardment capacity. Effectively the attacker is trading his artillery, and their associated inf bonus, for enemy infantry… which is certainly what the defender will remove first. It also prevents the artillery from being chosen as casualties before taking hits on tanks… which means you will also lose tanks more quickly if you bombard first with artillery.

Bad deal.

The only good reason for artillery bombardment is if there are just a few infantry in a territory and you can wipe them all out with a bombardment before subjecting your guys to fire… but I thought that was why the new amphib bombardment rule went into effect, so the defender has a chance to to fire back and the enemy can’t just nuke him without consequence.

Needs more work.