G40 Delta 1st Edition

@Eric-Poppleton well I tried it by myself some and it sorta worked. My goal was to get my buddies into the game and try it with them but we’re still in the learning phase-figured it’s only a valid test if they have developed strategies in the normal game

@Ozymandiac:

@Caesar:

Mine expands it farther, you can scramble aircraft to any territory it can legally reach .

And move back again to the original airbase? (2 steps to contested zone and 2 steps to move back)

Basically yes but I thought about doing a rule where it can scramble to another airbase.

Hi Tolstoj,

I’ve never played 1st Ed., so I have no insight upon the differences between the two editions. But in one of our games ‘Seelöwe’ was successful on G2 due to the errors of the British player in UK1.

There are several players who opt for a attack by Japan on J1. The sinking of the British BB is one argument. Personally I like to attack on J2 or J3 after my invasion forces are in position, so I’m able to capture the ‘treasure islands’ and Malaya in one single turn. (And in most cases one or two British and/or ANZAC transports can be sunk in addition.)

As Germany I prefer to launch ‘Barbarossa’ on my second turn. On G1 capture France, sink as many British ships as possible and weaken Yugoslavia by attacking it for one round of combat and then retreat to Romania (so Italy can finish her off).

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

@Razor:

Maybe the inherent Carrier defense value should be boosted, to compensate for the weaker fighter. Let say you can land 2 planes on the Carrier, but the Carrier itself has a little fighter force just to close combat self defense, making the carrier defend on D3 ?

Very good idea: it is a can opener. It gives much room to compensate.
Maybe you can even give it the classic A1D3, if necessary for balance.
Or even going that far: A2D3, so almost all of the OOB A3D4 Fg + A0D2 Cv= A3D6, will be converted: Fg A1D2 + CV A2D3 = A3D5.

Just suppose that there is a bunch of escorting ship/fighters wich can not be separated from the Carrier unit.

It can probably solve a lot of balance problem.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.

@Young:

@Vance:

Not certain, but it might have been me.  I voted for emergency conscripts soon after the poll was posted.

Than maybe he didn’t, but I’m not going to run a 3 day poll for 2 weeks or who knows how long, it was his fault for getting booted, that’s my opinion.

fair enough.

I recently went back to my older games and incorporated the newer pieces into them.  I only went as far back as Revised.  At first I thought it would simply be a matter of altering the setup some but found a few more problems:
1 - In the older games, Destroyers were 3-3-2-12, same as Cruisers are now.  Also, Aircraft Carriers had an attack of 1, now they have no attack value.  So basically, you have to bring the costs back to the older games and you have to use the 1940 battle boards.
2 - You can’t use air or naval bases in the older games.  Especially in Revised because there are a lot less sea zones.  For example, with a naval base, Japan and W USA are one move away from each other.
3 - ICs and build limits also present a problem.  In the older games, you simply have ICs and their build limit is based on the IPC value of the territory they are on.  I don’t know how to incorporate Major and Minor ICs into the older games.  I simply used the new unit values with the old IC rules.

Well, I hope this helps you.  If you would like my setup changes, let me know and I can post them for you.