G40 Delta 1st Edition

[cyanight]

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@cyanight:

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.

[knp7765]

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.

[mattsk]

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…

[cyanight]

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@mattsk:

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@knp7765:

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

@cyanight:

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.

[Jennifer]

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.)

[Young Grasshopper]

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.

[knp7765]

@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.

[LHoffman]

@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 Grasshopper]

@LHoffman:

@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?

[Young Grasshopper]

…or this?

[mattsk]

Aint those the Box-arts on some plastic models ?  :-D

[Young Grasshopper]

@mattsk:

Aint those the Box-arts on some plastic models ?  :-D

Could be, I’m just google searching images and looking for the best art work.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

…or this?

Go with your second one. That is correct.

The first was a Yorktown class carrier… probably the Hornet.

[Young Grasshopper]

Changes to pairing #7 today based on group play test yesterday. Coastal Guns is now Coastal Defense and the rule has been modified. Title Changes include Enigma - now Enigma Machine (rule unchanged), Blitzkrieg - now Blitzkrieg Tactics (rule unchanged), and 1-400 Submarines - now Super Submarines (rule unchanged)

7A - Coastal Defense
All German controlled territories adjacent to a sea zone (except in Africa) now contain built in coastal defense systems. Therefore, all German infantry on such territories now receive 2 dice each when defending from an amphibious assault (as if 2 infantry units were defending).

or

7B - V-Rockets
During the SBR step of each resolve combat phase, a single rocket attack may be launched from each operational airbase under German control, towards an enemy facility up to 4 spaces away. Germany rolls 1 die per rocket attack and will cause that amount of damage to the targeted facility.

[Jennifer]

So two dice per infantry defending against amphibious assaults on European territories.  Is that every round?  Seems a bit overpowered considering the resistance that can be put up.  What about first round only - to signify that they are firing at units of men in, and currently leaving, landing craft.  After that, it’s closer to a traditional battle so they go back to standard rules?

Just a suggestion.  Keep in mind, 36 defending infantry now have the withering fire of 72 defending infantry…that’s a bloody awful lot of transports going to be needed to overwhelm that defending force.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

So two dice per infantry defending against amphibious assaults on European territories. Is that every round? Seems a bit overpowered considering the resistance that can be put up. What about first round only - to signify that they are firing at units of men in, and currently leaving, landing craft. After that, it’s closer to a traditional battle so they go back to standard rules?

Just a suggestion. Keep in mind, 36 defending infantry now have the withering fire of 72 defending infantry…that’s a bloody awful lot of transports going to be needed to overwhelm that defending force.

For now, it’s 2 dice every combat round for each infantry unit defending in a German occupied territory being attacked by an amphibious assault. This sounds powerful, however, The Germans would have to use a lot of resources to defend 4 or 5 territories, and the Allies always control the option of landing on the least defended, or a completely undefended coastal territory avoiding the advantage all together.