G40 Delta 1st Edition

@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.

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.

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.

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.)

@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.