I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.
But yes, that makes sense.
G40 Delta 1st Edition
-
@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).
-
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. -
@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.
-
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. -
@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.
-
Would be more useful for strafes. Inf + Art vs defending Inf, the Art can fire from the adjacent territory and so if the attacker does win, they may not take the territory (defender/attacker would be wiped out.) Germany with a larger economy might be able to do this in an effort to weaken the Russians. In turn, this could free up aircraft to protect Europe since you won’t need them for this type of attacks farther inland.
Remember, the artillery would be allowed to move in or chose to fire indirectly. Attacker would have the choice either way as he or she sees fit.
-
Seeing as Tokyo Express and Dug in Defenders have been combined to chalange Long Lance torpedos… here are modifications to the last Japanese strategic advantage pairing, after dug in defenders was removed. I looked at Lightning assaults, but I didn’t like it.
9A - Banzai Attack
All Japanese Infantry and mechanized infantry units now attack @2 or less (but not 3 when supported by artillery).or
9B - Kaiten Torpedos
During the first round of their resolve combat phase (attack or defense), Japan will score an automatic hit to an enemy surface warship of their choice.This seems like a situational decision, but if you have a need for both… which might you choose?
-
Could limit Banzai to first round of combat only…so as not to make them overly powerful and negate the need for Japan to purchase and transport artillery altogether.
Maybe give the US Marines that are the similar - attack at 2 for the first round of any amphibious assault.
Limit both Japan’s and America’s special infantry attacks to the Pacific theater?
-
@Cmdr:
Could limit Banzai to first round of combat only…so as not to make them overly powerful and negate the need for Japan to purchase and transport artillery altogether.
Maybe give the US Marines that are the similar - attack at 2 for the first round of any amphibious assault.
Limit both Japan’s and America’s special infantry attacks to the Pacific theater?
Thanks for the feedback Cmdr Jennifer,
I don’t have an advantage for the US Marines, I’m quite happy with all 4 American strategic advantages, and their progressive advantage. As for Banzai attacks, don’t you think if it’s limited to the first combat round only, that the Japan player will take Kaiten Torpedos 100% of the time? I understand what your saying about taking away the need to buy and transport artillery, but to be honest… artillery aren’t getting purchased by Japan anyways (at least not in our games). After the 3 minor factories get built on the mainland by turn 5, Japan cranks out mechs and tanks supported be their massive air force, the only Japanese artillery I see throughout the game are the 7 that are in the setup. I know Banzai Attack is an overpowering advantage but so is Kaiten Torpedos, and at round 9, it may not even mater, the question is… does one get chosen over the other 90-100% of the time?
-
If only there was an online version of G40 that was customizable for all of us to play. That would make play testing something like this much more effective. I’m stating something that everyone’s aware of already, but I just like to put it out there. That would allow several different play styles to come together, which would make the process of refining these projects go much faster.
From what I read, everyone seems to have some sort of strategy they’ve adopted and stick to, which they deviate a little bit from game to game with no drastic core changes.
I’ll try to put this into perspective a little bit. In the games that I play with the group I meet up with (which are G40 and the big GW39 variant), Japan pretty much evacuates China immediately, because the Japanese have no actual real incentive to fight the Chinese, forcing the Chinese to literally become completely irrelevant to the whole war. There’s no bonus in the OOB rules to conquer China, and there’s enough cities out there to make up for Hong Kong and Shanghai. No factories ever get built in China. The real target is the Commonwealth in our games. China is just a distraction, period. Even with that bonus 5 Delta gives for wiping out China, the Japanese SAs actually have great potential of being well balanced by isolating China. That’s just a small example of how things differ from group to group, game to game. Another one too would be that I never do the Taranto raid UK1 (for my own reasons, of course), which might have a factor in a development in some undetermined way of some other HR that some other guy is developing. Just speaking hypothetically here about these scenarios. I’ll repeat myself here: the more scenarios you can base your judgement on for making these rules (providing the scenarios are preferable and good ones, overall), the better you can refine them.
About the banzai attacks being on the 1st round of combat only, I wouldn’t play the game with that rule in place. I like it to be recurring as it stands now with the rest of the advantages.
As for the German artillery having pre-emptive shots from a long way away, that duty was actually given to rail guns. You know those ridiculously huge guns that you could barely operate? :p I have them for GW39, they work good for that. I think a separate unit would be necessary for this kind of thing. I realize that won’t work for this project though, so I’m not sure how else to approach that.
-
ATTENTION!
Delta is complete, any future modifications to these house rules will only be considered if based on play test results.
Thank you.
-
YG,
I just got done printing up your first post. A lot of really neat ideas to try out. I have a couple of questions about the Progressive Advantages. Sorry if I missed this in some earlier post.1 > Japan and United States advantages are marked R8 and R6 respectively. None of the others have an R#. Does this mean that even if Japan or the US reach 20 points earlier, Japan can not use the Kamikaze Honor until round 8 and the US can not use the Manhattan Project until round 6 at the earliest?
2 > When the Japan Kamikaze tokens get reloaded to 6, that is it for the rest of the game, right? OR, and I know this would be a long game, could Japan keep rolling their dice each round, get another 20 points and get 6 new Kamikaze tokens?
3 > Russian Winter. Is this a one-time advantage or do they get to do this every round?
Everything else seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Thanks for your time.
-
Every SA is one time only, so Russia wont have the coldest winter every year and Japan Kamikazes won’t keep reappearing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
-
YG,
I just got done printing up your first post. A lot of really neat ideas to try out. I have a couple of questions about the Progressive Advantages. Sorry if I missed this in some earlier post.1 > Japan and United States advantages are marked R8 and R6 respectively. None of the others have an R#. Does this mean that even if Japan or the US reach 20 points earlier, Japan can not use the Kamikaze Honor until round 8 and the US can not use the Manhattan Project until round 6 at the earliest?
Those were a type-o and have since been removed, thanks for pointing them out
2 > When the Japan Kamikaze tokens get reloaded to 6, that is it for the rest of the game, right? OR, and I know this would be a long game, could Japan keep rolling their dice each round, get another 20 points and get 6 new Kamikaze tokens?
One reload per game
3 > Russian Winter. Is this a one-time advantage or do they get to do this every round?
One time immediately when reaching 20 progress points
Everything else seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Thanks for your time.
Thank you for your time as well KNP
-
Every SA is one time only, so Russia wont have the coldest winter every year and Japan Kamikazes won’t keep reappearing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You are correct Mattsk, however, “Russian Winter” and “Kamikaze Honor” are PAs, not SAs :roll:
-
For anyone who wishes to see how much work has been done over the past week can compare post #1, with reply #12 (I’m glad now that Commander Brado didn’t delete that quote).
-
@Young:
ATTENTION!
Delta is complete, any future modifications to these house rules will only be considered if based on play test results.
Thank you.
May I just say this seems a bit hostile in nature? I am sure you did not mean for it to sound that way.
And I’d be glad to try and test play it with you - via the board forums. Uhm, but if you would like, may I ask that we wait until after America’s Birthday Party?
-
I didn’t have a chance to test this project over the weekend, busy life and all… I’m going to try as soon as possible though, hopefully within the next couple weekends. There are a few different things that I’m going to differently however, because we have our own house rules and preferences. Hopefully they don’t differ too much from everyone else’s, I’d like my results to be considerable for this.
-
Ottawa will be considered a capital city because Canada is its own playable nation, having its turn between Russia and Japan. I’ll just use the NOs I created for them in this case.
-
All available aircraft are allowed to scramble from territories containing the Nation’s capital adjacent to sea zones. This isn’t to be misconstrued with being able to do this with enemy capitals, this is only meant for the controlling power’s capital.
-
Sea units are no longer able to act as “blockers”. Once the sea zone is cleared, the remaining forces that didn’t engage in the fight may proceed. We have our reasons for putting this one in, no point in explaining it in this thread…
-
Neutral countries are politically divided by continents, nullifying the effect of neutral countries turning pro one side if another is attacked on another continent. There are also rules for certain individual countries to turn pro one side by having certain conditions met. Argentina starts as pro-axis.
-
The Commonwealth Aid SA will be changed because of Canada being in the game. I’ll just switch the factory originally intended for Canada to Egypt. Hope this isn’t too big of a deal… I’ll see if that’s viable at all or not. If it isn’t, I’ll just use that SA for South Africa only and call it good. Canada will also be able to participate in the Around the Clock bombing SA, since it uses some of the IPC’s originally intended for the U.K. anyway.
-
And lastly, I think we’ll be removing the immunity from AA fire for the Boeing Fortresses, because I can see my axis playing friends having a problem with that. I don’t disagree with it personally, but we’ll see how it goes. I’m on the Allied side over 90% of the time lol.
That’s it for now on my part. I’ll write back here when we can get this game started and finished up, hopefully sooner than later.
-
-
@Cmdr:
@Young:
ATTENTION!
Delta is complete, any future modifications to these house rules will only be considered if based on play test results.
Thank you.
May I just say this seems a bit hostile in nature? I am sure you did not mean for it to sound that way.
And I’d be glad to try and test play it with you - via the board forums. Uhm, but if you would like, may I ask that we wait until after America’s Birthday Party?
I suppose I should have been more specific, what I meant to say is… I need to start designing the card deck immediately in order for it to arrive in time for the FMG convention in September. I would be more than willing to design a 2nd edition Delta house rule card deck after the convention if significant editing is required, this gives us almost 3 months of play testing to find out if modifications and a 2nd edition is even necessary. I appreciate your offer to play me via the forums, however, I am strictly a table top player with at least 4X 10 hour games scheduled every month, besides… its very uncertain if this house rule set can be translated and used in trippleA or play by forum.
-
I didn’t have a chance to test this project over the weekend, busy life and all… I’m going to try as soon as possible though, hopefully within the next couple weekends. There are a few different things that I’m going to differently however, because we have our own house rules and preferences. Hopefully they don’t differ too much from everyone else’s, I’d like my results to be considerable for this.
-
Ottawa will be considered a capital city because Canada is its own playable nation, having its turn between Russia and Japan. I’ll just use the NOs I created for them in this case.
-
All available aircraft are allowed to scramble from territories containing the Nation’s capital adjacent to sea zones. This isn’t to be misconstrued with being able to do this with enemy capitals, this is only meant for the controlling power’s capital.
-
Sea units are no longer able to act as “blockers”. Once the sea zone is cleared, the remaining forces that didn’t engage in the fight may proceed. We have our reasons for putting this one in, no point in explaining it in this thread…
-
Neutral countries are politically divided by continents, nullifying the effect of neutral countries turning pro one side if another is attacked on another continent. There are also rules for certain individual countries to turn pro one side by having certain conditions met. Argentina starts as pro-axis.
-
The Commonwealth Aid SA will be changed because of Canada being in the game. I’ll just switch the factory originally intended for Canada to Egypt. Hope this isn’t too big of a deal… I’ll see if that’s viable at all or not. If it isn’t, I’ll just use that SA for South Africa only and call it good. Canada will also be able to participate in the Around the Clock bombing SA, since it uses some of the IPC’s originally intended for the U.K. anyway.
-
And lastly, I think we’ll be removing the immunity from AA fire for the Boeing Fortresses, because I can see my axis playing friends having a problem with that. I don’t disagree with it personally, but we’ll see how it goes. I’m on the Allied side over 90% of the time lol.
That’s it for now on my part. I’ll write back here when we can get this game started and finished up, hopefully sooner than later.
Absolutely Ben_D, house rule what ever you need for it to fit your games, please let me know over the course of the summer which pairings are unbalanced, and which advantages are to strong in your games.
-
Suggested Topics
