G40 Delta 1st Edition

I like this. Very simple. Very elegant. I’m going to have to borrow this for our next game. I’m going to make 8 Blue Allied Victory Tokens, 8 red Axis Victory Tokens and 1 Gold Victory Token.

@barnee I updated the rule to include the limit of Infantry production, as per your suggestion.

We played Global 40 today (6 player game) with the following turn order.

Russia non com far east forces
All Axis go except Italy)
All allies go except France
All Axis go
All Allies go
Then switch off from then on. 
All the normal rules applies as to who can can-opener for whom and order of non com etc.

On the plus side, we found that it did not change the game play or balance which we wanted to avoid.  It was also fun from the standpoint of the whole team being “on” together and “off” together.   
On the down side, however, it also did not speed up play much.  Of course, we had a couple of new players, and I think it would might have saved significant time with more experienced player.  So, it is something we might do again, but not because it saved all that much time.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

@Young:

Thanks for the reply KNP, while I was reading your post I got the idea that the combined 18 IPCs for strict neutrals can be taken for strategic purposes, and for collecting income, however, IPCs from strict neutral territories will not be added to your sides total when calculating for an economic victory. Thanks for the brain food.

Interesting idea YG. Only problem I would see was having to keep track of 2 incomes, one without the strict neutral income and one with.

@Baron:

Hope UK Pacific new turn order will help smooth the game flow.
Do you intend to merge it with ANZAC when you have less players around the table?

I don’t think so, the group loves the speed of the game with the separate UK nations… but they want something a little closer to oob rules. Also, it’s believed that the new victory objectives help balance the game the way a combined UK Pacific and ANZAC combo once did. It still needs a few tweeks to the NOs.

@Baron:

Do you think this last HR makes Carriers too much vulnerable against Subs if they put 1 Fg and 1 TcB on board?

Does this cutting in half the defensive power of Carriers against Subs should be balance by a no restriction against Subs for Tactical Bombers?

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 can hit Subs anytime by themselves. No need of Destroyers.

But StB units (any number) can only hit submarine units when paired to at least 1 destroyer unit.

Who knows? Some ideas to judge this situation?

Don’t you think it could help simplify the Rules on the subs vs aircrafts?

Because, there is only StBs needing DDs on offence which can be part of any naval combat with Subs ?

Actually, this line of thinking pushed me further away.

Once fighters can no more hit any Subs, I thought why not simply allows both TcB and StB to hit subs without the need of destroyers.
But, at the same time, keeping all the actual stuff on DD and subs.
That would meant that any type of bombers attacking subs only in a given SZ should not be able to do any harm to them since subs keep their Surprise phase and can submerge prior to the regular combat phase. In other terms, DDs will still be needed on many circumstances to get a chance to hit subs.

So with Fg unable to hit them and the Subs submerge still very efficient, giving Bombers the ability to hit subs will not doom them.

That’s how I see things, am I under a false impression?
Do you think it is playable?
Because, it could be much simpler to play subs vs planes than the actual OOB.
Hope you can leave a comment.
Thanks.

@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.