G40 Delta 1st Edition

@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.

@Ben_D:

• 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.

Out of curiosity, what sculpts do you use for Canada?  One approach (if you own the first edition of Global) is to use the first edition’s butternut-grey British-pattern ANZAC pieces for Canada, and to use the second edition’s  butternut-grey ANZAC-pattern pieces for ANZAC.  The only adjustment that needs to be made is to assign a few of the second edition’s ANZAC AAA pieces to Canada, since the first edition had no such sculpts.

CWO Marc,

That’s exactly what I do.  AA guns are pulled out from anniversary edition for Canada.  Works pretty good :) .

@Ben_D:

That’s exactly what I do.  AA guns are pulled out from anniversary edition for Canada.  Works pretty good.

Excellent.  That’s the nice thing about so many A&A games having been published over the years: they provide a whole bunch of sculpts that are handy for filling in these kinds of gaps.

Hi, I am not very familiar with programmes like this so don’t know how easy or hard is to change something, but I would definitely add activation rounds to cards. Also, the Tankograd font seems a bit odd to me, even though it should imitate russian alphabet.

@Young:

United States - Boeing Fortresses

I don’t know if you want to consider this before sending to printers, but maybe this SA and card should be changed to:

Boeing Superfortresses    or    American Superfortresses

or maybe “Heavy Bombers” if Superfortress takes up too much space.

Since no other American bomber really merits the 2 dice, 2 defense values. The B-17 Flying Fortress (pictured) is much different from the B-29 Superfortress.

Historical stuff.

I really like the cards though… they look sharp!

@Young:

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the Fortresses name pertaining mostly to the particular theatre that each type participated in, so we came up with a name that encompasses both “Flying” (Europe) and “Super” (Pacific) fortresses. As for changing the name solely because of flying fortresses defensive capabilities Vs interceptors (which are pretty dam good) doesn’t seem necessary. Besides, Boeing fortresses is one of my favourite advantage titles, however, if CWO Marc (project historian) says that the title misrepresents the rule, and they are as you say “very different” from each other… then I will likely change it.

Understood. It isn’t a huge deal… more about historical accuracy than anything else. It is your rules version, so you can have it say whatever you want.

I believe I speak for Marc when I list off the following items which might change your mind:

The B-29 Superfortress was the ultimate bomber aircraft in the war. It could fly higher, farther and drop more bombs than any previous aircraft. It was also superbly armed for self defense with remote controlled turrets.

Not only this but it was a true wartime Advancement. The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was developed and existed before the war even started, while the B-29 did not enter service until late 1944. From Wikipedia:

“In wartime, the B-29 was capable of flight at altitudes up to 31,850 feet (9,710 m), at speeds of up to 350 mph (560 km/h) (true airspeed). This was its best defense, because Japanese fighters could barely reach that altitude, and few could catch the B-29 even if they did attain that altitude. Only the heaviest of anti-aircraft weapons could reach it, and since the Axis forces did not have proximity fuzes, hitting or damaging the aircraft from the ground in combat proved difficult.”

This cannot be said of the B-17 (which you have pictured on the card). Even though the B-29 flew almost exclusively in the Pacific theater, there is no reason that it could not be also used in Europe. The reason, I believe, they were not used against Germany was because the war was winding down in Europe (or over by 1944 and 1945) and the distances were not as long.

All of this fits both the timeline and capabilities that you describe in the advantage much better than the rather vague “Fortresses” term. For this reason I vote “Superfortresses”!

@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.