G40 Delta 1st Edition

[Young Grasshopper]

@SS:

YG, you ever get a chance to try your new commonwealth rules in your game past weekend?

Yes we did, it worked out very well however, even though the UK player had a bigger stack of cash, there was a lot of complaining about only being able to build 3 units on India. Since then I have implemented KNP’s idea of a new mid level production unit which has solved the problem. Here is a link to the same rules as a stand alone rule set for 2nd edition outside of Delta…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.0

[General 6 Stars]

Not trying to go off topic, but in tigermans 39 game you can build up to 6 units ( minor factory) but the first 3 pieces you buy have to be infrantry. Makes sense to make India’s factory a major. I am going to try this new commonwealth in 39 game. But will be posting in global war from now on or house rules under new topic.

[Young Grasshopper]

@SS:

Not trying to go off topic, but in tigermans 39 game you can build up to 6 units ( minor factory) but the first 3 pieces you buy have to be infrantry. Makes sense to make India’s factory a major. I am going to try this new commonwealth in 39 game. But will be posting in global war from now on or house rules under new topic.

Can you tell me who exactly were the people responsible for creating GW39?

[General 6 Stars]

HBG. Historical Board Gaming.

[LHoffman]

@SS:

HBG. Historical Board Gaming.

Is Tigerman a HBG guy? I have never been able to tell, but I thought the only actual HBG people here were Coach and Variable. I ask because it has seemed like 1939 is Tigerman’s brainchild, but HBG makes, markets and sells it.

[General 6 Stars]

Yes I believe its tigerman’s game but sold on HBG.

[knp7765]

Tigerman contributes a lot to HBG, particularly their games. He had a lot to do with Global 1939. I think he also helped to develop the Midway and Okinawa games. In fact, I think he was almost exclusively involved in the Midway game.
I believe he also helped develop the Barbarossa game.
I don’t know if Tigerman is an “official” part of the HBG team or if he comes up with ideas for these games and hands it over to Coach for manufacture.

[Young Grasshopper]

OK, I will ask them as I’m feeling the need to credit one of them on the “G40 Halifax Rules” for coming up with the earliest concepts of a Commonwealth nation. G40 Halifax Rules have become popular and has the potential to really take off, I would like to give proper credit for ideas where credit is due.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

OK, I will ask them as I’m feeling the need to credit one of them on the “G40 Halifax Rules” for coming up with the earliest concepts of a Commonwealth nation. G40 Halifax Rules have become popular and has the potential to really take off, I would like to give proper credit for ideas where credit is due.

What is this? What we have already been discussing or something different?

[Young Grasshopper]

@LHoffman:

@Young:

OK, I will ask them as I’m feeling the need to credit one of them on the “G40 Halifax Rules” for coming up with the earliest concepts of a Commonwealth nation. G40 Halifax Rules have become popular and has the potential to really take off, I would like to give proper credit for ideas where credit is due.

What is this? What we have already been discussing or something different?

Halifax rules are not Delta… just G40 2nd Edition house Rules

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.msg1311089#msg1311089

[LHoffman]

@Young:

Halifax rules are not Delta… just G40 2nd Edition house Rules

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.msg1311089#msg1311089

Okay. So essentially you are going to be combining Halifax and Delta for Delta’s Revision1 ?

[Young Grasshopper]

@LHoffman:

@Young:

Halifax rules are not Delta… just G40 2nd Edition house Rules

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34111.msg1311089#msg1311089

Okay. So essentially you are going to be combining Halifax and Delta for Delta’s Revision1 ?

Correct, and I wouldn’t waste your time on a Delta rule book yet until we shore up these last adjustments.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

Correct, and I wouldn’t waste your time on a Delta rule book yet until we shore up these last adjustments.

Understood. I have read up on the Halifax thread and will be monitoring the updates.

[Young Grasshopper]

Here is KNP’s report from his Delta play test…

Here is the progress on our game. We are just about to begin Round 10. So far it is an overwhelming Axis victory. Japan has all of Asia east of Moscow. Germany has most of western Russia and all of Europe + England. Italy has the Middle East, 3 south Russia territories and most of Africa. Italy is currently duking it out with the Commonwealth at the doorstep of South Africa.
Japan also rules the Pacific. The US Navy has been vanquished. The Commonwealth has tried sending a few subs out of Sydney, but Japan keeps sending more destroyers to deal with them.
It’s actually already an Axis victory on both boards but we are playing it out a bit longer just to try and take advantage of the new weapons. Japan used “Banzai Attack” in their attack on Hawaii and due to their increased power, they wiped out the US troops (1 tank, 1 artillery, 4 infantry) in the first combat round.
Even though the UK, Russia, France are pretty much out of the game, we went ahead and let them choose between the Round 10 Advantages.
As for the Progressive Advantages, Germany got their Jet Fighters.
Russia got the Russian Winter just before losing Moscow and killed all German infantry in Russia (only 5). Germany had mostly mechs and artillery due to Blitzkrieg.
Japan got the Kamikaze Honor but it is useless to them because they have done so well in the Pacific. They hadn’t even used the first stack of Kamikaze.
The US got the Manhattan Project and A-Bombed Japan. It cost Japan 13 damage points on their IC, 3 IPCs direct cost and 3 AA guns in unit cost. Japan had no other units on Japan itself. By the way, it is ONLY for the territory of Japan, not including Sea Zone 6, right? Anyway, at this point it really won’t matter much. Japan is making over 100 IPCs per turn with their Strategic Objectives and City points.
China got up to 21 points before losing their last territory. Russia tried to send a tank running around liberating territories, but Japan had too many tanks and mechs around China. They hunted down the Russian tank and blitzed the liberated Chinese territories. So China was stymied again.
UK lost London with 16 Progress points and pretty much stayed there.
Italy got a lot of 1s and 2s in their rolls. They are at 18 points now.
Poor France lost their last territory with 24 progress points. The French are extinct now (no units, no territories).

I think the Allies just made bad strategy decisions. Germany went Sealion and was barely successful at it (1 tank left). However, Japan attacked round 1 so the US was in the war and decided to go all after Japan. I think the US only put a couple of destroyers in the Atlantic to keep German U-Boats at bay. The US should have been able to trounce Japan, but I think they took too long trying to build up a huge attack fleet plus transports and troops instead of taking what they had and going after what Japanese navy they could have killed. Sure you get your ships killed, but you also kill Japanese ships and if US is going 100% Pacific, for the first few rounds they can out build Japan.
However, with Sealion accomplished, Calcutta was no longer a factor so Japan kind of dealt with China and the remnants of UK India fairly quickly and were able to spread out deeper into China, up into Russia and even down through India.
Also, on a couple of occasions, the US led amphibious assaults and while they were successful, they exposed their transports leaving men stuck on an island. Hawaii was one and the US currently has a large force stuck on New Guinea. I think our US player might have played too cautiously against the Japanese Navy and perhaps when he did take chances it was the wrong time and he got burned. Our Japan player is pretty good though and pretty keen to take advantage of oversights.
With Germany taking London, Russia rolled over the border. However, Germany had a LOT of money to spend and did so well. Russia was actually over extended deep into Europe and Germany was able to snuff out their advancing forces and push them out of Europe. Russia decided to play aggressively and kept trying to go on the offensive. Even with cheaper tanks, Germany just kept pushing into Russia. Finally it got to the point where Japan had all of eastern Russia, Italy had a small force coming up through the Caucasus and Germany had lots of tanks, mechs and artillery all through western Russia. Also, being offensive minded, Russia really didn’t have a lot to defend Moscow. I think in the final battle it was something like 2 AA, 4 Infantry, 1 artillery, 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 fighters and 1 tactical bomber. Really different from the 50+ infantry stacks you usually see on Moscow.
Of course, another reason Germany was able to finish off Moscow was because the UK was pretty much out of the picture and the US was all in the Atlantic. At present, all 3 Axis are starting to close in on the US and Canada.
Germany is building an invasion fleet and already sending a few U-Boats to harass what’s left of the US Navy and try to do a little convoy raiding. Italy is still fighting the Commonwealth in South Africa, but they can afford to send a few subs as well. Japan is building more subs to send to the undefended US west coast while also building transports and troops. Although they still need to deal with ANZAC and their occasional subs.

Well, that is how my game has gone so far. Kind of a blow out but trying out your Delta deck was fun. The majority of the advantages really don’t require any alternate units, which I was hoping to get to use, but it was still fun. I am getting to use HBG’s neat little Me262s. We will probably wrap this up in a couple of more rounds or so. Then again, we may carry it out to total domination.

[knp7765]

Okay guys. If you ever wondered what the world might look like under total Imperial, Fascist and Nazi domination, well here you go. The Axis even decided to snuff out all the neutrals. The only ones left not conquered was Greenland, Iceland and Afghanistan. One more round would have seen Greenland and Iceland fall to the Germans. Afghanistan would have taken 2 or 3 rounds simply because none of the Axis had any units in that area. They had shipped everything west (Germany/Italy) and east (Japan) for the final attack on America. Kind of a prelude to HBG’s AMERIKA game. (Man, I’m so looking forward to seeing that game!)
Anyway, during this game we used Young Grasshopper’s G40 Delta rules and the Delta card deck. Total game went about 14 rounds and it was cool that someone got a new advantage for each of the first 10 rounds. Some were really helpful while others not so much. I think if our Allies would have played better, that may have made a difference in some of the advantages. UK’s Radar did take quite a toll on the Luftwaffe during strategic bombings and Operation Sealion.
I think the main problem for the Allies was the US going 100% after Japan but not doing it right. Usually, I have seen that strategy become an Allied win but the US has to start going after Japan right away. Our US player kind of sat back and built up this big fleet of warships plus transports and troops while Japan spread throughout Asia, increasing their income and also adding to their already powerful starting navy. I think the turning point was when the US staged the majority of their large fleet by Queensland intending to strike at a large part of the Japanese Navy around the Philippines. The Japanese Navy was kind of spread out around the DEI, Philippines and Caroline Islands and the US player simply failed to notice the positions of all the ships. As it turned out, Japan had more ships and planes that could reach Queensland from all the varying places and on Japan’s turn, she strikes and does it hard.
The result was that Japan did lose all of it’s smaller vessels, surviving with 2 damaged battleships and a couple of loaded carriers. The US lost everything there. They had 1 other carrier by Hawaii, a bunch of transports and a few smaller warships. Meanwhile, Japan was already working on a new fleet in SZ 6.
After this battle, it was pretty much downhill for the US Navy. Japan was making too much money and could now out build the US in warships and the US just couldn’t get the upper hand again.
This might be one disadvantage of the single UK economy. With London taken out, Calcutta was no threat to Japan anymore. ANZAC seemed unable or unwilling to help out the US as being part of the Commonwealth, they seemed more concerned with fighting with Italy over Africa. They put some stuff into the Pacific, but not nearly enough.
This game was 4 players: 2 Allied and 2 Axis
Player 1 = Germany and Italy
Player 2 = Japan
Player 3 = United States, Soviet Union, China
Player 4 = United Kingdom, Commonwealth, France
Our Allied players aren’t usually this weak. Maybe they were just a little off their game. It’s one thing to make some bad decisions, but usually they can reorganize and come back from it. I still think the US should have been more aggressive. Also, the UK didn’t devote enough to defense the first couple of rounds (bought a Minor Factory for Egypt round 1!) That probably contributed to Sealion.

Anyway, here are a couple of pics of the map under the New World Order.

[knp7765]

Here are a couple of more pics from my recent game.
First is the IPC tracking chart. Do you see any Allied roundels? NOPE! All of the world’s resources are flowing into the coffers of tyranny.
Next is my casualty bucket. Just look at all that death. The worst part is that is only from the last half of the game. Earlier I thought the bucket was getting too much, it was a little over half full then, so I decided to sort the pieces back into their playing containers.
Also, most of the time we will take attacking casualties and put them back in their containers rather than throwing them into the bucket because that container will be open at the time. One other thing, the casualties in my bucket doesn’t take into account all the chips that we use for large stacks.
So, just imagine how big this bucket would be and how full it would be if we went the entire 14 rounds, put both attacking and defending casualties in it, and didn’t use chips. That would be a big pile of units for sure, and probably a bigger bucket.

[CWO Marc]

@knp7765:

Next is my casualty bucket. Just look at all that death.

Coincidentally, the early version of the American Medium Tank M3 (the Lee / Grant) was called “a bucket of death” by its crews because its hull was riveted rather than welded, with the result that certain types of hits by enemy rounds would cause the rivets to sheer off and fly around inside the tank.

[Young Grasshopper]

OK, so I’ve been noticing a few underlining trends with Delta. One being the Axis domination as they easily won in all 5 of our play test games, and now in KNPs first. Mind you we didn’t play any of those games with the single UK income or Commonwealth nation, and I was hoping for more balanced results in KNPs first game. Now we must remember that in all our play test games, not all group players are going to implement the strategies we (as rule designers) think they should. With all that being said, I think the data gathered with the Axis powers winning in our games should be scrapped, and a new phase of play testing should begin with the insertion of the single income and Commonwealth. Looking at KNPs game, I would like to know what circumstances were involved that allowed Germany to pull off a successful sealion. Was the UK income poorly spent? Was the German strategy to precise? Were the dice gods unfair?. I can see how London falling would seriously hurt India and the Pacific side, but knp’s Radar adjustment as well as $38 to defend England should have been enough to scare off Germany (especially when I hear that the Commonwealth was spending the majority of their money in Europe). I had many of the same problems playing Delta in our group, it’s almost as if they play careless because the whole experience feels so experimental.

I think it’s time to go back to the drawing board and get some things right. Obviously I designed the card deck in artscow to soon and I have since taken down the link. For those that bought their’s like KNP, its good to have it if you are willing to help me revise the rules with more play testing. Here was the problem… knp mentioned house ruling a Commonwealth into Delta, and I really wanted those ideas in Delta officially. Of course this development came after the cards were made, and before Halifax Rules got fleshed out. I really didn’t want to pass up something like a Commonwealth because it would have made Delta a dinosaur before it even hit the ground. Therefore we must go back to the drawing board, put Delta under construction, merge Halifax in properly, and redesign the effected cards. I don’t want to call this 2nd edition Delta, so I’m calling this endeavor Delta +1.5

So what are the issues?.. 1. The UK Strategic Avantages need to be edited or redesigned, knp had mentioned something in his game where they automatically gave the UK Radar… not sure how that works, but we should look into it (I had changed the SA order and put the UK in the third round, so they could pick Radar before a possible sealion attempt). Also, we need to figure out what to do about the SA Commonwealth Aid, do we reword it, or replace it altogether? and with the new production units, what should be done with the War Time Production advantage? The Strategic Objectives for the UK and ANZAC need to be revamped in order to consider the new UK economy, and the new Commonwealth nation. Not sure what other rules if any are effected in Delta by including the Halifax rules.

Anyways, I’m gonna be creating some sheets that players can use to help design the changes. Basically a chart that would make it easy for someone to record valuable information throughout a Delta play test game. Like what strategic advantages were chosen by each nation, when did nations gain their strategic objectives, and when did they lose them. hopefully we can find some trends that are making the Axis win so much, weather it be game mechanics or human error… nevertheless, I find some players uninterested in the win when playing Delta, not sure if that’s fixable though. Right now I’ve got a full plate over the next couple of weeks, I’m going to the FMGC on the 5th, 6th, and 7th so I’m playing 3 games in 3 days… I have decided not to play Delta that weekend because I don’t want my club members to pay $40 to go there and play a house rule set that is flawed. Instead I will be playing Halifax Rules all weekend, with the determination to come back to Delta and fix it through the 1.5 project. This is a massive project, but I honestly think that it’s worth designing properly so that other may enjoy it in the future.

Cheers.

[knp7765]

Regarding Delta G40 and Halifax Rules:
It did occur to me when we started this game that Delta and Halifax were not really compatible. The main thing is the Round 3 UK choice for Delta. If you are using Halifax rules, then there is no real choice for the UK on round 3. You have to give them Radar. “Commonwealth Aid” in a game where you have the Commonwealth as a separate playable power makes no sense for the UK. So, the result is no real choice for the UK on round 3.
One possible idea is to let the UK produce non-infantry units in Commonwealth factories for 1 IPC cheaper. Then the UK would have to worry about getting those units to the front, but that could be a workable plan.
With this in mind, Was the G40 Delta intended for use with a separated UK economy (UK London, UK Pacific)? OR with a combined UK economy, in which case UK would be making 45 IPCs per round. While most people don’t seem to mind eliminating the UK Pacific, they also don’t care to make the UK quite so powerful.
Young Grasshopper – we need your input on this. Single or split UK economy.

I think if you want to make G40 Delta available to both Global 40 OOB play and Halifax Rules play, you are going to have to design two different sets of Strategic Advantages (SA), Strategic Objectives (SO) and Progressive Advantages (PO).
One set would be like you already have for OOB play for the UK economy (split or combined, I think either will work) and ANZAC by themselves.
The second set would be for Halifax Rules play with special SAs, SOs and POs for the CW and new ones for the UK.
As near as I can tell, all the other nations SAs, SOs, and POs should be okay with either set, so no changes should be necessary there.

One thing I wanted to note for the Italian Progressive Advantage: Self-Propelled Artillery.
I think this one is simply named wrong. The Advantage states that each Italian artillery unit may now support 2 infantry and/or mechanized infantry units. This is basically the “Advanced Artillery” tech development.
The term “Self-Propelled Artillery” infers a movement advantage which is not included in the advantage. I think you should make one of the following changes for the future 2nd edition:
ONE = Change the name to “Advanced Artillery” and leave the advantage results as is.
TWO = Change the advantage results to allow Italian Artillery units to move 2 spaces. This could be in place of or in addition to the existing advantage. It just depends on how powerful you want to make this advantage.

[Imperious Leader]

I got these cards today and all can say this is a totally high quality product. The cards are formatted perfectly.

Only issue i have is the roundels are not perfectly round– more oval shaped. The pictures and colors are fantastic.

I hope Hopper makes a second set.

Containing OOB tech cards, neutral cards, more special cards, etc.