G40 Delta 1st Edition

Propaganda should be named “Fifth Column” which is exactly the practice that Germany employed to sway neutrals. look it up.

@Young:

@toblerone77:

@Young:

Here’s an old Strategic Advantage that got dropped in favor of something else, but I’ve found a fun way to include it into the Alternative Rules (also gives the axis more weight when balancing the ARs).

Propaganda
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Germany may roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to influence a Strict Neutral territory of their choice into joining the Nazi cause. They may decide to make an attempt during a turn, or pass and save it for a later round. If / when successful, Germany will immediately take control of the standing army on the chosen strict neutral territory without the need of occupying it first, and without provoking the remaining strict neutral territories into joining the allies. There may only be one successful propaganda attempt per game (this rule is void if all strict neutrals turn pro-axis).

I actually like this one better than the old one. I could see a lot of fun scenarios with this.

Yep, don’t know if you’ve seen the changes to “Russian Winter” and “The Manhattan Project” but these and “Propaganda” are all similar in the sense that you have to earn them.

I think those are all great. I like how you did the Manhattan Project especially, because It’s not a “set” thing that US will succeed.

I am thinking about modifying the R2 pairing to either…
1. weaken both, or
2. strengthen Enigma.
…
Enigma
German submarines now attack at 3 or less, and now receive 3 dice each when conducting convoy disruptions.

1. Remove the 3rd die for convoy disruptions
2. give a +1 to all successful convoy disruptions and a 3rd die
2. give a +2 to all successful convoy disruptions and remove the 3rd die

or

Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during their non-combat phase.Also, German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones).

1. Remove the following. German tactical bombers now attack @4 or less without needing the support of fighters or tanks (not applicable in sea zones)

things i agree are in Navy colour,

German tacs will attack @ 4 99% of time since they are almost always attacking w some tanks or at least FTRs,

this should be balanced enough, btw I am going to play test today

Hi, unfortunenatly i didn’t have time yesterday so I’ll play test today,

I read your results and this is what i think:

Russian winter
Really should be changed, so that dice rolling will start first time Russia is at war w Germany and will be repeated each round until 6 is rolled. Btw a chance that russian winter will happen before Round3 which is a German DOW standard is 42,13% which is rather high.

Uncle Sam
Agree.

Commonwealth aid
Actually it depends on German strategy and UK strategy. If germany sends several bombers to SBR  London each round than it’s better to go for Radar. However, if they are sending those bombers after Russia than UK should go for CA and send units to North Africa from South Africa easier. I often build 1 TNK and 2 Mech in SA for 14 IPC total and this leaves me 19 IPCs (playing with original NOs and keeping all my original tts in Europe). However if this would cost me only 11 IPCs it would leave me 22 IPCs for much greater variability of possible builds.

Tokyo express and Banzai attack
Both of them seem unbalanced so why not try to switch them?

So, I am playtesting right now and this happened:
Germany chose paratroopers, attacked RN in SZ110 with 2 transports loaded w 4 infantry to amph attack London. Also it moved 2 paras from WGermany and moved the whole luftwaffe in (except for 2SBRs which participated in the sea attack and 1 tac that attacked Egypt)
Now, this is what happened: Germany lost the naval battle losing both transports. But paras took London w 1Inf remaining for germany and altough losing a lot planes they now have some 114 IPCs to spend for Barbarossa. I look forward how this will turn out, hovewer I don’t see it very realistic that 2 paratrooper units can take out the whole country.

@Young:

Advantages are chosen at the start of each game round (before Germany’s turn), and become effective immediately. Also, nations must be in control of their capital city in order to choose a strategic advantage, and once a nation’s capital city has been captured, they must forfeit all previously held strategic advantages permanently.

I have two questions and one comment about this.

The questions: Does this means that, for example, if a player loses his capital in round 5 (thereby losing all of the strategic advantages he has gained thus far) and regains it during round 7, he becomes eligible to pick up the strategic advantages that appear in the chart from round 8 onward?  And is this intended to give players a strong incentive to defend their capitals?

The comment: This is just to point out that, realistically, the fall of a capital could well affect certain advantages but that it would have no effect on various others, notably on weapons that have been deployed operationally.  For example, I can see why some American citizens might think twice about buying war bonds if they see Washington D.C. come under Nazi occupation, but the paratroops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions in Europe wouldn’t suddenly forget how to do parachute jumps because the American capital had fallen.

@Young:

You make an excellent point, thanks for the feed back… what advantages do you consider void, or operational without a capital?

Be sure to review the changes made today, therefore to your point, a nation should not be able to make its progress roll while their Capital is captured.

I’ll review the advantages to see which ones I think would (and would not) be voided by the loss of a capital and I’ll put my results in a post later today.

My first question wasn’t actually about whether a country can make a progress roll when its capital is occupied, it was about whether the advantages it gains after recapturing its capital are retroactive (going back to round 1), or whether they apply from the recapture round onward, or whether they apply from the first complete round after the recapture onward.

Sorry I missed this thread YG… otherwise I would have chimed in earlier. Thanks for letting me know about it.

Let me provide some preliminary statements before I critique anything:

I have been playing A&A for 10+ years now (starting with Revised and Original Europe and progressing through everything since, even dabbling with the Original once). I play semi-regularly with two very different groups of people. Group 1 is a family unit which I first began playing A&A with, they are definitely the more experienced and strategically competent group. Group 1 plays Global 40 exclusively nowadays; go big or go home. Group 2 is some friends that I occasionally play with, though they are on the whole a little less advanced. I introduced them to Anniversary and the Global 40 version, which they thoroughly enjoyed. However, they tend to revert to playing Spring '42/Revised… mostly due to time constraints and their own comfort with that rule set. That said, Group 1 would be the one most open and able to playtesting new rules.

In terms of playtesting, I would say it is unlikely that I will be able to do so mainly due to the low frequency which I actually play. While I love considering new House Rules to make the game more dynamic and fun, while retaining playability, I am more of a theoretical tactics jockey than a playtester. Just wanted to throw that out as a disclaimer before I continue.

Now, to my thoughts:

• My impression is that this system will do away with Tech Research…? If that is true, I am conflicted. It could be a good move, because on a whole, Research is an underutilized (fun) element of gameplay. However, I do not like that this system essentially scripts gameplay and, to a degree, removes the ability to choose.

• At first glance this system also seems more complicated than necessary. I am not saying that I have an immediate solution for that (considering I speedily read through the proposition about 10 minutes ago), it is just an observation. Some of that may be just the newness of the system, because I am sure with one game of play the format becomes pretty easy to follow. Having a series of Strategic Advantages that activate at predetermined times is not a totally foreign concept, as other A&A games have used that and the Advantages themselves are mostly re-purposed from Tech Research or old NAs.

  The real issue is dealing with another added Turn phase (consisting of 2 elements - one of which is a brand new concept) and memorizing all that is involved. This would definitely be for veteran players and not for rookies.

• It is both good and bad that the Strategic Objectives (NOs) have been streamlined. Standardization is good, but it also makes them seem less unique to each Power; a uniqueness which I personally like in gameplay. On that note, I think the names of many could be refined to give a little more individual character. I do not think these ‘Strategic Objectives’ are very different from existing NOs, which is good, but why not just keep them as ‘National Objectives’ rather than change their name? Also, I do not believe they focus a Power’s efforts any more than existing NOs do… after all, most of them are the same.

  The only new addition is Enemy City bonus, which I do not believe will change decision making all that much. Besides it is almost exclusively an Axis SO because all the listed cities are Allied except one (Warsaw) … Which brings up a question, why not Shanghai? I know that it is in a Chinese territory, but Japan begins with it in gameplay… this would mean that Japan begins the game with an automatic SO, which seems to take away from the intent.

  Also, the Enemy City SO is effectively a downgrade for Germany since the last time I checked, Germany got 5 IPCs/turn for taking Stalingrad or Leningrad. Having an everyone gets 2 IPCs bonus is a real hit to German income stream and willingness to take these cities (being 2 out of the 3 that Germany is likely to fight for in the game - the other being Cairo). Having Paris worth 5 IPCs per turn in exchange is, I think, maybe a fair trade but may offset the balance of the game in ways we cannot yet foresee. Germany will certainly have Paris (+5 IPCs Capital Bonus) from Turn 1. Generally it will take until at least Turn 3 or 4 for Germany to take Leningrad. Stalingrad even longer. All the while Germany will be collecting 5 sure IPCs per turn from Paris though. That is 15-20 extra IPCs that Germany will collect before they even have the chance to take Stalingrad or Leningrad. Don’t know how I feel about that. I can see the Allies complaining though.

• I don’t really like that only Germany can get Jet Fighters or that only the UK can get Radar. I know that this was true in the Revised NAs, but I think it is more fun to allow all Powers a chance at these universal tech upgrades… a reason I like the Research route versus a National Advantage for tech upgrades as opposed to a National (tactical) Advantage like “Wolfpacks” or “Kamikazes” or “Russian Winter”.

• Also, was the timeline for introduction of Strategic Advantages and Progressive Advantages arbitrarily decided upon or was there some level of rationale to the decision? I ask because some of them happen late or very late in the game and may end up being of little to no use in gameplay. We do not usually keep definite track, but I believe many of my Group 1’s Global 40 games are finished or projectable by Turn 6 or 7… well before some of the SAs or PAs in this format would come into play. I am not sure of the last game I played that went beyond Turn 7 or 8. The concern here is that the Advantages may come too late to be of use or never come at all. We may never see some of these in gameplay. One suggestion I do have here is that you double up some of the Advantage disbursement cycles: e.g. Turn 2 has Germany and the US, Turn 3 has Britain and Japan, etc…  Another negative here is that most Powers will have 2 Advantages (for a long time) before Russia even gets 1 (discounting everyone’s Turn 1 freebie). Not very fair to the Russian player. That said, I would not put Russia’s Tankograd Advantage very early in the game as that is a huge Advantage over Germany and could throw the game. However, placing it all the way back at Turn 9 might mean that the game will be decided, one way or another, before it can be of use.

Here are some things I like initially:

• Accessibility of Advantages/former Research items:   as I said above, Tech Research is great because it adds diversity to an otherwise scripted game, allows you to choose how to allocate resources, makes up for some of the random chance of war and can be a useful strategic element. However, all that said, in my experience there are relatively few Powers that have the financial surplus or tactical consideration to use it. Generally this precious balance tends to fall to the USA (obviously) followed by Germany, then Japan/Britain. Russia, Italy and certainly ANZAC are typically left out of the technology race because even 5 IPCs is very valuable to their stretched economies. In the end, it will end up mattering nothing to France since they will never be able to utilize it anyway.

Having a research/national advantage track essentially laid out allows even the smaller guys to get in on the action, which can be good, though it may be artificial in the overall picture. For example, the R-1A Strategic Advantage: Airborne Assault Troops. To my knowledge only the USA, Britain and Germany - maybe Italy - had significant success with airborne units, due partially to their decision to train such elite units and having a military model to support them. Simply giving this ability to Powers like ANZAC, France, Japan and Russia would be 1) ahistorical and 2) a freebie which essentially will give everyone the same capability. The only Powers I can see that would choose the 1B (War Production) option would be Britain and maybe Japan or Germany… because they need every frontline unit they can get. This would forever remove the ability of UK/Germany to have a tactical element that was a major part of their war experience. Perhaps that would just be a choice they have to make, but it does not seem equitable.

• I like the idea of a “Fortunes of War” phase or element to the game, much like the optional card set you can play with in A&A D-Day. While the version here and that in D-Day is a little different, I do like the element of chance and uniqueness it brings to the game.

• More money is better:   Adding any amount of IPCs to the table via bonuses is nice to see only because there is always something else to spend it on. This would be good for Research purposes if it still existed.

While it may seem that I am predominantly critical so far, I do like the line of thinking here, especially as it pertains to Strategic/Progressive Advantages as they hearken back to the National Advantages of Revised. I was always a fan of those, but many people on the forums tend to dismiss them as being too powerful or one-sided. I will say that it may be hard to find the right balance with them, but I bet it can be done.

The way my Group 1 used to play with them in Revised was that we would roll two dice for our Power and those were the two NAs we got (since they were numbered from 1-6). No choosing the most powerful and no getting all six. I thought that it made the game great fun when I was Germany to roll a 1 and a 4 to get “U-Boat Interdiction” and “Wolf Packs” which I seemed to do with incredible frequency.

I could get very detailed here, but this post is already long enough. I have picked out a couple Advantages off the bat that could use some tweaking in my estimation, but I will get to those at some other point.

I’ve checked the list of advantages, and in my opinion most of them would be unaffected by a player’s loss of his capital.  I think that, realistically, such a loss would only void an advantage under one of these conditions:

• If the advantage represents a weapon or other device which is manufactured in the capital and nowhere else.

• If the advantage depends for its existence on a high degree of centralized political control or centralized military authority or centralized financial support.  (Your previously mentioned Fifth Column / Nazi Propaganda advantage would fall here, but it seems to have been removed from the list).

• If the fall of a nation’s capital into enemy hands is considered so disastrous to that nation’s population and its allies (or so impressive to the enemy, to the enemy’s allies, and to uncommited neutrals) that it would have a major impact on the morale of one or both sides.  Even then, it could be argued that the domestic effect might go both ways: French morale collapsed when Germany invaded France in 1940, but Russian determination to stop the invaders gradually stifferened (after a period of initial confusion and disarray) as the Germans advanced deeper into the USSR.  As a hypothetical example: assuming that wartime Washington D.C. fell to an invading Nazi army, would the probable result be an increase or a decrease in the number of Americans across the country responding to the Uncle Sam appeal to enlist in the fight against fascism?  An increase or a decrease in the output of the war factories in the unoccupied parts of the USA?  Would the Nazi conquest of Washington have demoralized Americans or galvanized them?  (I kinda think it would be the latter, considering how they reacted to Pearl Harbor.)

On the basis of the three criteria I used, I’ve identified just six advantage that might be affected by the loss of a capital.  Intriguingly (because I didn’t set out to make the list come out any particular way), only one of these advantage affects everyone, and the remaining five ones are all Allied advantages (and of those, three are American ones).  So for whatever it’s worth, here’s the list:

1B - War Time Production (Germany / UK / Russia / Japan / USA / Italy / ANZAC / France )

3A - War Bonds Campaign (United States)

3B - Uncle Sam Campaign (United States)

4B - Commonwealth Aid (United Kingdom)

R6 - The Manhattan Project (United States)

R6 - French Resistance (France)