Thank you for the advice!
Maybe there should be an “Axis and Allies following the rules of war” game.
G40 Delta 1st Edition
-
@Young:
Your research is good enough for me Hoffman,… Super Fortresses it is. Sorry for the bad quality, but here’s a pic of the new card.
That is AWESOME! Great job YG. :mrgreen:
Need to get my deck.
NP, Thanks for the feedback, I will do everything I can to help players get their own deck, but it will take a while.
-
Here are some more rough draft card designs…
-
America - Essex Class Carriers
-
Germany - V-Rockets
-
Russia - Trans-Siberian Railway
-
United Kingdom - Around the Clock Bombing
-
Here is an interesting tech for Japan
I-400 Super Submarines
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics : All the abilities of a submarine. Can carry 2 fighters or tactical bombers.The IJN’s I-400 was the first real super submarine. It was 400 ft long and built to be an underwater aircraft carrier. Japan had plans to build 18 of them but only 4 were built before the end of the war.
-
Here is an interesting tech for Japan
I-400 Super Submarines
Attack: 3
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics : All the abilities of a submarine. Can carry 2 fighters or tactical bombers.The IJN’s I-400 was the first real super submarine. It was 400 ft long and built to be an underwater aircraft carrier. Japan had plans to build 18 of them but only 4 were built before the end of the war.
Hey Cyanight,
That’s a good tech, I like the idea of a different sea unit carrying planes. However, Enigma for Germany is awfully close to this, and Exess Class Carriers for the US gets an extra plane, so I’m gonna stay with Long Lance torpedos, and Kaiten torpedos as advantages special to Japan.
Thanks for the suggestion.
-
I was thinking about the Japan advantage of “Dug In Defenders” but I just took a look and saw that you must have removed that one in favor of something else. That would still be a good one for Japan on all those Pacific islands.
What I was thinking about was a way to nullify that advantage by using flamethrower infantry from the HBG Marines set. Of course, flamethrowers would not be a national advantage but rather a special unit that the US player could purchase. I guess if you wanted the dug in defenders for Japan, that could also be a special unit, like the heavy MG infantry unit in the Japan Expansion set, rather than a national advantage for Japan.
In fact, I think Coach suggested that in how to use the heavy MG infantry unit in a post about the new Japanese units on HBG’s Facebook page. They are cheaper than infantry units and have no attack ability, but a heightened defense value. -
Hi, I don’t have anything against your Russian cards, but just to have fun, an original Russian would read it: (- means there is no such letter in their alphabet.
Tyadi–-'/sigma/ya-di…
-
If you limited the I-400’s to carry only one plane each then they are very close but not better than Essex CV’s. Although being able to submerge a CV can have many possible strategies other than and automatic hit of the Kaiten torpedos. In a game built on chance with dice I don’t like anything to be automatic unless we are playing Low Luck with everything. I like having a random possibility for failure on any attack or defense. Even the atom bomb should roll dice for IPC’s destroyed. It most likely will still destroy all of the IPCs in that territory but at least make it likely to fail as well. Roll 4d6 or something to at least give the random possibility of failure.
I do very much like your variants you have created. It is going to be fun playing it.
-
Hi, I don’t have anything against your Russian cards, but just to have fun, an original Russian would read it: (- means there is no such letter in their alphabet.
Tyadi–-'/sigma/ya-di…
I have since changed the font, thanks.
-
I was thinking about the Japan advantage of “Dug In Defenders” but I just took a look and saw that you must have removed that one in favor of something else. That would still be a good one for Japan on all those Pacific islands.
What I was thinking about was a way to nullify that advantage by using flamethrower infantry from the HBG Marines set. Of course, flamethrowers would not be a national advantage but rather a special unit that the US player could purchase. I guess if you wanted the dug in defenders for Japan, that could also be a special unit, like the heavy MG infantry unit in the Japan Expansion set, rather than a national advantage for Japan.
In fact, I think Coach suggested that in how to use the heavy MG infantry unit in a post about the new Japanese units on HBG’s Facebook page. They are cheaper than infantry units and have no attack ability, but a heightened defense value.Hey KNP,
The Dug-in Defenders advantage was not removed, but rather merged with Tokyo Express in order to balance the pairing. This works historically as well (at least in theory).
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.As for flame-throwers and HBG pieces, I’m trying hard to make a set that won’t require getting extra sculpts or game pieces of any kind, so that all a player would need is the card deck. However, more advanced players like yourself should feel free to house rule and modify Delta as you wish so to fit it into your own games.
-
If you limited the I-400’s to carry only one plane each then they are very close but not better than Essex CV’s. Although being able to submerge a CV can have many possible strategies other than and automatic hit of the Kaiten torpedos. In a game built on chance with dice I don’t like anything to be automatic unless we are playing Low Luck with everything. I like having a random possibility for failure on any attack or defense. Even the atom bomb should roll dice for IPC’s destroyed. It most likely will still destroy all of the IPCs in that territory but at least make it likely to fail as well. Roll 4d6 or something to at least give the random possibility of failure.
I do very much like your variants you have created. It is going to be fun playing it.
These are all excellent points and I will definitely consider this, although a complete change of advantages is unlikely until I develop 2nd edition in a few months, I will make a note of this for review.
-
If you add that ability to the Japanese submarine - which I do not have an issue with - then the price of the submarine should go up by at east 2 IPC, IMHO. Also, you may want to indicate that a fighter may not be launched in defense of these submarines when they are on the defender side of the battle (assumption: they are submerged to avoid attack, cannot launch fighters under-water.) This would have the added benefit of retaining some function for the surface carrier for the Japanese (fleet defense specifically.)
-
Had a play test today and got a lot of great feedback which I won’t get into details tonight, however, the group did have issues with the R9 pairing, therefore, I’ve decided to change the advantages for japan (R9) based on the suggestion made by Cyanight earlier. Heres the new pairing for R9…
9A - Banzai Attack
All Japanese Infantry units now attack @2 or less (no longer supported by artillery), and the defense value of each allied infantry unit matched against each attacking Japanese infantry unit is now @1.or
9B - 1-400 Submarines
Each Japanese Submarine may now carry 1 fighter (all aircraft carrier rules apply)I’m really trying to minimize changes, but I felt this one was necessary.
-
@Cmdr:
If you add that ability to the Japanese submarine - which I do not have an issue with - then the price of the submarine should go up by at east 2 IPC, IMHO. Also, you may want to indicate that a fighter may not be launched in defense of these submarines when they are on the defender side of the battle (assumption: they are submerged to avoid attack, cannot launch fighters under-water.) This would have the added benefit of retaining some function for the surface carrier for the Japanese (fleet defense specifically.)
I would agree with you on not allowing the fighters on I-400 subs to participate in defense. It would be a good way to not make them overly strong and your logic seems sound to me.
However, you shouldn’t increase the price. These are national advantages that each nation has to work toward. They shouldn’t have to pay extra on top of that. -
@Young:
America - Essex Class Carriers
Another historical edit:
The picture currently on this card is showing an American light or escort carrier, not an Essex class carrier. I would change the image.
-
@Young:
America - Essex Class Carriers
Another historical edit:
The picture currently on this card is showing an American light or escort carrier, not an Essex class carrier. I would change the image.
How’s this?
-
…or this?
Suggested Topics
