• We use 8 IPC classic transports, attack @0, def @1, range 2, with AA40 carry capacity. We have found they don’t get spammed or misused as in the past now that destroyers and 2-hit BBs are in the game.

  • Customizer

    @Der:

    We use 8 IPC classic transports, attack @0, def @1, range 2, with AA40 carry capacity. We have found they don’t get spammed or misused as in the past now that destroyers and 2-hit BBs are in the game.  Â

    Yes YG. I know it probably doesn’t fit in your group’s or many other player’s HRs, however there are a few of us who customize/mod our games with defense 1D6/12 @1 APs. I’ve refined my HRs a bit in regards to this, but I’m a big supporter of DK’s house rule on this as well as some of his other rules.

    It’s not for some, but DK has play-tested this for quite a while and it by all reports it has worked well.

    As for Kamikazes I wasn’t sure if you were still refining it and was crunching some ideas in my head. Minus my own HRs involving an AP defense and after reading your ideas on Kamikazes; I thought one addition might be to allow them to target transports as well as your ideas about letting them be allowed in both offensive and defensive combat. I personally don’t see why Kamikazes should be restricted to just warships. To me it seems watered down compared to the historical threat of Kamikazes as well in-games mechanics and strategy.

  • Sponsor

    @toblerone77:

    @Der:

    We use 8 IPC classic transports, attack @0, def @1, range 2, with AA40 carry capacity. We have found they don’t get spammed or misused as in the past now that destroyers and 2-hit BBs are in the game.

    Yes YG. I know it probably doesn’t fit in your group’s or many other player’s HRs, however there are a few of us who customize/mod our games with defense 1D6/12 @1 APs. I’ve refined my HRs a bit in regards to this, but I’m a big supporter of DK’s house rule on this as well as some of his other rules.

    It’s not for some, but DK has play-tested this for quite a while and it by all reports it has worked well.

    As for Kamikazes I wasn’t sure if you were still refining it and was crunching some ideas in my head. Minus my own HRs involving an AP defense and after reading your ideas on Kamikazes; I thought one addition might be to allow them to target transports as well as your ideas about letting them be allowed in both offensive and defensive combat. I personally don’t see why Kamikazes should be restricted to just warships. To me it seems watered down compared to the historical threat of Kamikazes as well in-games mechanics and strategy.

    Yes, I am well aware of DK’s work and I’m a huge fan… in our groups the defenseless transports have never been a frustrating problem for us. Therefore, I have to pick my battles when it comes to introducing house rules, because I only want to change the things I’m passionate about changing, or else my groups will think I’m inventing the game just for the hell of it. With that being said, it is incredibly healthy for all of us to understand that there are many styles of house rules, and many types of game mechanics involved in creating them. My craft is unique, as is many others in this forum, and we should all remember that there is no right or wrong with any given house rule. There are styles that attract some, but not others, we all wield our creative skills differently from each other, and that’s what I love about this house rules forum.

    By the way, Kamikazes hitting transports is just plain silly, and you should burn the paper that house rule was written on!

    :evil:

  • Customizer

    Well either way YG I liked the idea of using Kamikaze tokens for offense rather than just defense. I wasn’t sure if you had summed up the rules regarding Kamikaze tokens for your G40 project yet. So far it seems that the project is pretty solid and personally I hope you use them for the FMGC “pre-game” at the Cliffside Bunker with an after-action report  :-D.

  • Sponsor

    @toblerone77:

    Well either way YG I liked the idea of using Kamikaze tokens for offense rather than just defense. I wasn’t sure if you had summed up the rules regarding Kamikaze tokens for your G40 project yet. So far it seems that the project is pretty solid and personally I hope you use them for the FMGC “pre-game” at the Cliffside Bunker with an after-action report :-D.

    LOL… I was kidding about burning it, but you knew that. Of course all games played at the Cliffside Bunker will be using Delta… especially Larry if he wants to play on my table.

  • Customizer

    @Young:

    @toblerone77:

    Well either way YG I liked the idea of using Kamikaze tokens for offense rather than just defense. I wasn’t sure if you had summed up the rules regarding Kamikaze tokens for your G40 project yet. So far it seems that the project is pretty solid and personally I hope you use them for the FMGC “pre-game” at the Cliffside Bunker with an after-action report :-D.

    LOL… I was kidding about burning it, but you knew that. Of course all games played at the Cliffside Bunker will be using Delta… especially Larry if he wants to play on my table.

    Well we all know when it comes to the big event in Oshuwa (hope I spelled that correctly) the “pre-game” plays a close second to the convention.

  • Sponsor

    You were close, it’s Oshawa… and I’m sure our group at the bunker will have plenty of time before September to test these Delta rules.

  • Customizer

    @toblerone77:

    As for Kamikazes I wasn’t sure if you were still refining it and was crunching some ideas in my head. Minus my own HRs involving an AP defense and after reading your ideas on Kamikazes; I thought one addition might be to allow them to target transports as well as your ideas about letting them be allowed in both offensive and defensive combat. I personally don’t see why Kamikazes should be restricted to just warships. To me it seems watered down compared to the historical threat of Kamikazes as well in-games mechanics and strategy.

    Larry Harris might have been using a little historical basis for his Kamikaze rules. Back during the war, the Kamikazes actually preferred to target warships and I don’t think they ever went after troop ships, transports, etc. It had something to do with the “Warrior code” in Japan. While it may have made more tactical sense to go after the ships with the troops on them, they simply had no interest in doing so. It meant something more for them to go after a real warship that could fight back.
    Their submarines had the same kind of thinking. They would rarely go after “defenseless” merchant ships but preferred to go after enemy warships. We, on the other hand, had no such qualms which is why we practically starved out Japanese industry toward the end.

  • Customizer

    I knew about subs being used for heavier warships. I believe the US and Germany were the primary commerce raiders in WWII even to the extent that during Nuremberg US submariners testified for German submariners defending thier tactics.

    Otoh I had no idea about the kamikazes not attacking troop ships. Thanks KNP.


  • Not attacking transports as a philosophy and not having the ability to attack transports are two different things. I prefer the option of using as few artificial rules as possible, in order to give commanders the most freedom with the game. The Japanese also practiced suicidal “bonzai” attacks against impossible odds, but there are no rules in the game requiring the Japanese player to do that. There is no rule that all Japanese infantry must go fall on a grenade when they realize they are losing. The Japanese had the ability to attack loaded transports and unarmed ships during WWII - they just chose not to most of the time. I favor leaving that choice in there for players to decide.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 4
  • 2
  • 3
  • 34
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

112

Online

17.5k

Users

40.1k

Topics

1.7m

Posts