G40 Delta 1st Edition

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)

@Young:

What about modernized shipyards? There would be no $ to build cheaper ships.

or

9B - Trans-Siberian Railway (void with loss of capital city)
Any number of Russian infantry, artillery, and/or AA artillery units may now move from Russia to Novosibirsk, Timguska, Yenisey, or Yakut S.S.R (if under Russian control) within a single non-combat movement. There may only be one destination per turn, and all such movements must originate from Russia.

The TSR’s terminus is in Moscow, so yes, that would have been an effect on the western end of the line…but a railway which is nearly 3,000 kilometers long wouldn’t get knocked completely out of commission just because a city at one end of it is under enemy control.

As for the shipyards, some were naval yards but many of them were operated by private industry rather than the government.  Washington DC coordinates many financial matters — the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are situated there – but most of the US gross domestic product gets generated elsewhere.  The US would have continued to create plenty of wealth if Washington had been occupied, so there wouldn’t have been any lack of money in the GDP sense.  The US government would of necessity have relocated itself elsewhere in the country as the capital fell to the Nazis, and it would eventually have reconstituted the basic administrative infrastructure of the financial system…certainly not at peak efficiency, but enough to pay the government’s bills.

By the way, I’ll be away between now and Wednesday morning, so this will be my last post until then.  Looking forward to catching up on the discussion when I return.

Without looking at anyone else’s comments:

2B - Blitzkrieg
Each German mechanized infantry can now blitz alone, and transport an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during their non-combat phase.

Eh…not really impressed.  Better would be you can pair 1 artillery with each tank in place of 1 mechanized infantry when blitzing.  That gives them an OPTION of Artillery or Mechanized Infantry (for realists, just imagine they are hitching those howitzers to hitches mounted on the back of the tanks, that gets them there, they drop, spin and fire to bring them to battle.  Kay?)

Or better:

German Long Range Artillery: 
Fire 1 shot at 4 for each Anti-Aircraft Gun in a territory a land assault originates from, in opening fire (ie as if it was a submarine.)  Helps move those AA Guns out of the capitols, also encourages people to purchase some…not a big encouragement, but encouragement!

Afrika Korps:
3 German units in Africa???  Maybe make it Alexandria, Egypt and/or Sudan only.  Gives them a bit more ability to get the objective while not hamstringing the British into HAVING to defend every coast of Africa!

Home Land for Russia:
Adjust, all original territories West of Yenisey (that includes the one directly south of Yenisey that is adjacent to China as well.)  I think that allows Russia to pull back and just slow the Japanese advance - if it comes - without too much penalty, and really, would the Russian people give a flying you know what if they lost frozen, unusable, tundra?

Love the China Capitulation one for Japan.  At least it rewards them for caring about getting all the Chinese territories.

I would enjoy a rule that says that the allies cannot, under any circumstance, take a French territory.  They can liberate it only.  This way the Axis don’t have to worry about taking the territories from France after the capitol falls.  Maybe it’s just me though.  I hesitate to move through North Africa with the Italians because I know I’m just feeding more money to America later.

Now, these are just my thoughts and only my thoughts.  I have no desire to dictate how I think it should be done.  I am only giving opinion because I was asked to do so.  :P

YG,
I just want to say that another reason I like this idea is that all countries can not get all the same techs. A little while back, we tried out a game giving every nation free tech rolls so we could get some tech into the game. What ended up happening was almost everyone had almost all the techs. Then it ends up becoming pretty much a regular game of G40. Even the great techs like heavy bombers or jet fighters didn’t give anyone an edge.
This way, you can see a little bit of which advantage might end up being better than another. Or, if one type of advantage can be sort of voided out by another nations different advantage.

Looking forward to seeing if this gets finally completed (if it can ever be said to be complete).

@Cmdr:

German Long Range Artillery: 
Fire 1 shot at 4 for each Anti-Aircraft Gun in a territory a land assault originates from, in opening fire (ie as if it was a submarine.)  Helps move those AA Guns out of the capitols, also encourages people to purchase some…not a big encouragement, but encouragement!

For about 5 whole minutes I read this and thought it was talking about artillery pieces and got very excited. Reminded me immediately of A&A D-Day.

Then I realized that it says Anti-Aircraft Gun… This would incentivize AA gun purchase, and maybe it is better to use AA guns than artillery pieces, but it does not make a lot of sense when you read it. Anti-Aircraft guns become long range artillery… and the real artillery pieces are still just that? Just a matter of words… nothing more.

One thing that is important to me, is to find or create a rule set which allows for the use of the many different unit types being made by HBG (being that I paint them). This way, if you had a long range artillery rule, you could just use these units:

This Delta system won’t accommodate the HBG pieces in the way I would like, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see myself playing with it.

@Young:

Yes, I had forgot to mention in the intro that the new Fortunes of War phase now replaces the Research & Development phase, that has now been noted in the first post. The meat and potatoes of this new Delta set is based on a complete over haul of the old R&D system, while frankenstein-ing in some Revised National advantages, and some new creative ideas. So, if anyone liked these previous game mechanics as they are, than Delta is not a variant rule they would enjoy.

I do have an affinity for the game mechanics and elements of G40 as they officially stand, but am not averse to trying something to improve them. While the existing rules are very good, they certainly are not perfect. We can get back to the Tech Research part in a minute…

@Young:

I agree it looks overwhelming, however, as ideas become integrated from the feedback of others, the system becomes more and more refined. The document edited as of today is much less complicated than earlier versions, and it’s safe to say that Delta will continue to get chiseled down a little bit more. Yes, the concept is not brand new, and that’s great when the application of it, and the advantages themselves come from the A&A bloodline.

Sometimes I have the propensity to treat concepts like this as having been already fully thought out by their creator and that I am seeing the “final version”. Obviously this is not true, and like the game itself these rules are a work in progress. I apologize for that inclination in advance.

@Young:

Yes, the fortunes of war phase is brand new, however, it aids in the simplicity of all the advantages because it provides the packaging needed for everything to happen. During the FOW phase, the strategic advantages are chosen, and the progress rolls are made. After the FOW phase is over, its business as usual and a whole game round proceeds, once a round ends after France, everything that’s new is done in the new phase. This way players don’t have to remember to do new things during their turn, someone else’s turn, or during a particular phase. Players won’t forget to do something unless the whole FOW phase is forgotten, and how can you forget something like that? �

I understand the “packaging” concept. All of the workings of Delta take place in this phase, which is essentially not new, just replacing the old R&D. That makes the concept simpler.

One thing that may or may not be of concern is Strategic and Progressive Advantages being decided before the Turn (or Round) effectively begins. maybe this will not be a big deal, but it allows Powers earlier in the Turn order to make moves accounting for what new abilities they know their opponent will have.

For example, Germany knows that Russia will likely reach their Progressive advantage (Winter) before the next Turn Cycle begins. Knowing this Germany pulls back all their infantry units from Russian territories before Russia will be able to use this. This was the only real example I could think of, and it may not actually be possible for Germany to make this preemptive move if they are farther into Russian territories… but it might be something to consider.

Although another may be that it is Turn 5 and Japan sees a couple American Carriers within range. Based on how the game is going they know that the US will get to choose between bombers and the carrier advantage in Turn 6, so they decide to attack the American carriers now before they are “magically” converted to Essex class carriers in the middle of the ocean (side point there). Again, this is a bit of a weird example, but perfectly plausible. You may say that it is Japan’s choice to risk this, but it is also something that could hurt the American player inadvertently (it wasn’t because of any choice of their own that this happened). My overall point is that there is something to be said for surprise in getting Tech/SO in the game. The Delta system takes most of that (chance for) surprise out and replaces it with certainty of a known decision. I suppose those two formats are up to personal taste.

@Young:

The SOs were not created to change decision making, they were created to reward nations for the decisions they were already making. Yes, Shanghai will give Japan an automatic $2 SO to begin the game, not unlike the 50th AE scenario 1941 where Germany began the game with control markers on Russian territories.

I thought I read that they were intended to channel resources and tactics more towards certain objectives… I must have been seeing things.

Well, the Anniversary 1942? scenario was essentially a different game on the same map. In a completely ideal world, a second map would have been included in which the Russian territories would have been represented as German ones for that scenario. My point is that it is all a bunch of technicalities here, but it still remains that the Enemy City SO is essentially only for the Axis. Unless, as you suggest later on here, the Allies also get these bonuses for re-taking or liberating Allied cities. To me, that does not make much sense… From below: “The other thing to remember is that once the Axis take a city, they give the Allies an opportunity to profit from liberation.” Example, Cairo is taken by Italy. Italy gains the 2 IPC City Bonus for Cairo. If they retain control for the next Turn, do they get 2 IPCs again (like other Bonuses)? Now let us imagine that Britain retakes Cairo on the following Turn… Britain now gets a 2 IPC per Turn bonus for having their own city? Seems like they should let the Axis take Cairo at the beginning of the game and then re-take it so they can forever collect the 2/Turn bonus.

This same scenario could apply to any city on the map. Other cities that change hands quite a bit are Leningrad and Warsaw. Does rule mean that after they change hands once, the territories are effectively worth 2 extra IPCs per Turn from that point on?

@Young:

**I’m having trouble following your math so I’ll just go a few rounds with Germany… In G40 on G1, Germany would collect $10 ($5 for the strait and $5 peace with Russia) / in Delta on G1, Germany would collect $10 ($5 for Paris and $5 for all original territories). however, lets say Germany attacks Russia G2, in G40 Germany collects $5 for the strait, but in Delta, Germany still collects $10 for Paris and original territories. When they reach Lenningrad, in G40 Germany will be collecting $10 for the strait and the city, in Delta Germany will be collecting $12 for Paris, original territories, and $2 for the city. I suppose when and if Germany reaches Stalingrad, they’ll be out $3 per round, but how many rounds did they gain $5 from the time they invaded Russia to the time they took Lenningrad? Either way, I don’t see the big economic swings that you’re suggesting, but we will definitely see the true effects when play test reports come in. SOs like Africa corps to me are better because it prevents getting 1 unit in Egypt as nothing but a money grab, but 3 units is more like a force and will take a minimum of 2 landings to get them there.

I did not take into consideration that the normal G40 Bonuses/SOs will not exist in Delta. This does alter the calculus slightly. All in all, it is likely that Germany will mostly get 10 IPC bonus (regularly) from Home Land and Enemy Capital and Russia will get 10 IPC bonus (regularly) from Lend Lease and National Pride. This should even out the Strategic Objectives between the two.

One more question… does Russia get bonuses, specifically Homeland and Lend Lease, but also National Pride, when not yet at war with Germany? If so, this is a huge advantage for Russia (10 or 15 extra IPCs/Turn) as long as Germany decides not to attack. (In G40, all USSR bonuses are specified to be effective when they are at War in Europe.) I think this would make the game very unbalanced in that Russia would be extremely hard to fight.

@Young:

I do however love the fact that someone finally asked me about the Strategic Objectives and not just the Strategic Advantages… thanks LHoffman, maybe that’s a sign of their unpopular nature. At a glance, they all seem very generic and unnecessary (and perhaps they are), but if you look at them through a different lens like the one I described for Germany, one will see that there is a tremendous dance involved between the two concepts and economic balance is key. As for the objectives themselves, both UK India and China profit from a open Burma road, and ANZAC, USA, AND jAPAN will all benefit from the same group of Islands in the south Pacific. So the targets and strategies haven’t changed, however, the strategic objectives make for more fierce fighting. The other thing to remember is that once the Axis take a city, they give the Allies an opportunity to profit from liberation. � �

�

Like the NAs, I also like the NOs or in this case SOs. More than anything else, money/IPCs have the ability to direct strategy in the game which closely mirrors historical motivations. Bonuses are a great way to enhance that even more. It makes the game a little more complicated than just going for the jugular of the enemy’s capital. It is a long road to victory and you need money to fight the war.

@Young:

I believe it’s been well documented in these forums that the R&D phase of G40 is extremely flawed from the system in which you receive tech, to the techs themselves… and lets not forget getting stuck with Mr. useless after all that investing. Russia with improved shipyards, America with Rockets, or the UK with improved Mech infantry. One thing I will say for sure, Delta is not for those who prefer the R&D phase over Advantages.

While I have admitted that there are certain inherent flaws in the R&D structure (e.g. not everyone has the money to make use of it and the system is therefore under-utilized), I have not been convinced that either the system or the technology is “extremely flawed”. In some respects, I think it actually models history decently in that only the larger nations have the resources to R&D new/advanced weapons. However, advanced weapons are quite different from from elite units like paratroopers or a bond drive.

Not being able to choose the tech is both good and bad. It makes investing in Research a gamble itself, but it also does not allow wealthy Powers to invest heavily and be rewarded with choosing a potentially game-changing weapon at the beginning with which to fight the entire war. If I was Germany or the US under a choose-your-tech breakthrough system, I would be picking Jet Fighters every time. This would be ludicrous. I think it far better for the game to leave it to chance and have the US seemingly always need to get Radar (which never fails to happen) before they get something useful.

I am not wedded to the R&D system as it stands, but I like the idea of it and believe that it can easily be improved upon. For example, a time-delay issuing of certain tech, much like your Strategic Advantages system. The window to develop a particular tech may be around for a couple rounds but after that it is gone, or a certain tech will not be available for research until Turn 5, or it is available only to certain Powers (like Jet Fighters only for Germany, US, UK and Japan). Sounds a bit complicated maybe, but you put it all on a physical chart in front of you and it would be easy to get used to.

@Young:

The timeline for advantages has 3 goals… 1. give all nations a choice between to minor advantages right away to start the game, that should make things really fun and interesting right from the get go. 2. Introduce certain advantages at certain times that had historical relevance to both aspects. And finally… 3. do so in a way that is as balanced and fair as possible. Obviously the project is still raw with tweaks coming, this is an inedibility as play testing continues and I request that nobody consider this project complete until suggested. With all that said, the Russian SAs could move up in the pecking order, but as far as balance is concerned, we need to always look at the big picture. During the FOW phase of the first round, The SA choice between Airborne Assault Troops, or War Time Production benefits Russia the most out of all the nations choosing between them. �

Understood. However, I will reiterate that many of the games I play are very well developed by Turn 6 and don’t last much longer than Turn 7 or 8. This will prevent many SAs from ever seeing the light of day. Might want to look at doubling them up or moving certain ones up or down. For example, I think Atlantic Wall is coming a little late by Turn 7. It is likely that the Allies have already invaded or have been doing so repeatedly. Also, would this be a repeatable Advantage? Say Germany has the Advantage and the Allies take Normandy. But Germany takes it back and the Allies invade again next Turn… does Atlantic Wall go into effect again?

@Young:

@LHoffman:

• � 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.

It is because I disagree with the above statement so avidly, that I set out to create Strategic Advantages and the Fortunes of War phase, but I explained a little bit why earlier. I offer SAs as an even greater diversity to an otherwise scripted game, 4 rounds in a Delta game, and it will seem unlike any G40 script that could be imagined.

I think that is a slight bit of hyperbole, but I do not disagree that Delta games will differ somewhat from G40 games because of this new Strategic Advantage introduction.

@Young:

ANZAC getting paratroopers was also a possibility in G40 R&D, the fact that a nation does it well in history has less relevance than if they had the ability (even without success). V-Rockets in theory seemed like a great secret weapon back then, but it didn’t go so well for the Germans, and Jet fighters could have been to little to late, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the Germans who were the first to build jet engines just like America was the first to build a nuclear weapon.

Yes, ANZAC paratroopers is a possibility in the G40 R&D system, but it was not guaranteed and more than that it was highly unlikely… that is my point. Having a Strategic Advantage or Tech Research means that it is always 100% successful in gameplay. All three of your paratroopers will always hit their drop zones and live to see combat. Simply giving a small Power an ability that it did not historically have or sacrifice for in game play is not the best method in my opinion. Maybe whatever this implies on a macro-historical level is too deep to get into right now, so I should probably just drop it.

But I think, by your inclusion of Strategic and Progressive Advantages that history obviously has a good deal relevance. Otherwise why would you only have Jet Fighters for Germany and Heavy Carriers for the US, Radar for Britain and Nukes for the US? Those choices are all based on averages of historical fact. Meaning, that those items are typically associated with those countries for one reason or another, although multiple countries had said technology or capability… Or might have if the war had continued past 1945. (I will except Atomic Bombs from this argument, even if the possibility exists)

@Young:

I agree, and I would also like to add to that by saying “more powerful units are fun”.

Yes! (In moderation.) Which is a reason that different unit sculpts (HBG) can be useful in gameplay. Both to represent different unit types (Jets vs Prop aircraft) or to allow for caps on certain numbers of units (only 2 heavy battleships on the board at any one time). Etc… But this is not really where your Delta is headed. I digress.

@Young:

Thank you, and I hope the advantage parings in Delta become balanced and well thought out enough for your group 1 to give them a try… I will even mail you a deck of cards for easier play (I still got the address).

I would love that! You know where I live.  :wink:

@Young:

@LHoffman:

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.

Our group has tried many different ways to bring tech into the game, but every thing seems to turn out “less than fun”, I hope this attempt has better results. �

In this instance I was talking about National Advantages from Revised… not R&D tech as it pertains to Global 40. I always thought rolling for a couple of National Advantages made games a little more unique while not utterly throwing them. Though we would always sigh and throw the dice when we saw the US get Superfortresses.  :roll:**

@Young:

LHoffman,

Those are good questions and I will address them in the very near future, thank you for your contribution, you have alerted me to a few minor loopholes that will need correcting.

Cheers

That is what I am here for. I apologize that it is so much to read and that I am so longwinded in it. But I feel that I have explained my points sufficiently.

@CWO:

@Young:

What about modernized shipyards? There would be no $ to build cheaper ships.

or

9B - Trans-Siberian Railway (void with loss of capital city)
Any number of Russian infantry, artillery, and/or AA artillery units may now move from Russia to Novosibirsk, Timguska, Yenisey, or Yakut S.S.R (if under Russian control) within a single non-combat movement. There may only be one destination per turn, and all such movements must originate from Russia.

The TSR’s terminus is in Moscow, so yes, that would have been an effect on the western end of the line…but a railway which is nearly 3,000 kilometers long wouldn’t get knocked completely out of commission just because a city at one end of it is under enemy control.

As for the shipyards, some were naval yards but many of them were operated by private industry rather than the government.  Washington DC coordinates many financial matters — the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are situated there – but most of the US gross domestic product gets generated elsewhere.  The US would have continued to create plenty of wealth if Washington had been occupied, so there wouldn’t have been any lack of money in the GDP sense.  The US government would of necessity have relocated itself elsewhere in the country as the capital fell to the Nazis, and it would eventually have reconstituted the basic administrative infrastructure of the financial system…certainly not at peak efficiency, but enough to pay the government’s bills.

By the way, I’ll be away between now and Wednesday morning, so this will be my last post until then.  Looking forward to catching up on the discussion when I return.

For game purposes “Eastern US” includes the Brooklyn and Norfolk Navy shipyards (among others) as well as the huge population and production centers of the Northeast, so it makes sense to void advantages for the US if the territory is in enemy hands. It’s too bad the territory isn’t split into Northeast (above the Mason-Dixon Line for arguments sake) and Southeast (to include DC) territories at 14-6 values, respectively.

I guess it would be interesting for the US to have a reorganized capital in Chicago, so if it can’t have benefits at least it wont lose its treasury.

@Young:

This will be a relatively raw response to your post as I’m currently on my iPhone.

That sucks. Please do not rush on my account.

@Young:

It would be difficult for Germany to really know when Russian winter will happen unless the Russians only needed 1 more progress point. Even then (like you said) a full retreat of German infantry is to much of an anti strategy and logistic undertaking. Besides, what if Germany goes through all that trouble, and then Russia rolls snake eyes?

Well, if Russia needs 4 or fewer points to achieve their Progress advantage… they have an 67% chance of getting it. Good enough for Germany to take the gamble or at least know that it is likely coming. Feasibility of pulling back infantry is another issue, but outcomes of the next Turn Progress roll can be assumed. And snake eyes? I thought PA rolls were done with 1 die? Did I miss a revision?

@Young:

Your second example of this loop hole is a better one, but very difficult to fix. Besides, if Japan is capable of attacking the fleet with odds and the possibility of ECC is next turn, than maybe that’s the push they need in order to attack. However, if they make a suicide run just cause America is gonna get ECC, than I personally would wait and see what happens, besides, Japan has a nice PA in kamikaze honor that would defend nicely against ECCs, it’s just a matter of who gets there first. Another way of looking at it is, if you take out the carriers before hand, aren’t you basically handing him the other SO?

These are all things that would need to factor into decisions on either side. I was more just making the point that everyone knows that a given Strategic Advantage is coming and they will or might make moves based on that knowledge. I don’t see anything positive coming from this. It is an outside and uncontrollable force having influence on what happens in the game. If the Strategic Advantage system is something that proves to be workable or most people do not mind it, then I suppose my concerns do not matter.

@Young:

I totally understand what your saying about the allies abandoning cities in order to retake for $2 which would be a major problem if it became a consistent gambit. However, that is an anti strategy completely dependent on the enemy taking the bait, so this actually promotes strategies that not only take the city, but also hold the city (which ain’t a bad thing).

My comment about abandoning and re-taking was more me playing devil’s advocate than anything else. However, whether intentional or not, this will end up happening to virtually all cities in main battle areas. (IF… even retaking your own city will earn you the bonus - which is currently stated on Page 1)

If Leningrad is taken by Germany even once in the game, the Novgorod territory is worth 4 IPCs for everyone from that point on. Somebody will always be collecting that bonus… whether it be Germany, Russia from retaking it or some other Power. Same goes for Cairo, Warsaw, Stalingrad or any other city in the game. Heck, if the Japanese take Manila and the US retakes it, they will forever get 4 IPCs for having the Philippines (not to mention the 5 IPC bonus they get for having it too. That is a lot of money.)

Some method will need to be devised for showing which cities are now “active bonus cities”, where someone is collecting money from them. I suppose it could just be based on memory of who has attacked who, but seems like something to denote who has the bonus would be appropriate.

This brings up a question: Who retains the City Bonus when Britain liberates Leningrad (or an equivalent scenario)? Does Britain get it for actually taking the city? Does Russia get it because it is now a Russian territory again?

@Young:

Russia only gathers SOs when at war, and I will make the proper notes in post #1, also… in our games the rounds in which Russia gains an NO for lend lease is very limited, that’s why I split it so that there was a chance they get $5 every round for no allied units (especially now that I took the Iraq gambit away from them).

Why is it limited? In my experience the Lend Lease is not very difficult for USSR to achieve for at least 3 whole Turns. (Particularly if you separate the Allied Units rule, but even with it combined). And do you mean that Russia gets the bonus if there are no enemy warships in SZ 125 or 127? Right now your rules say if SZ 120 (which is Hudson Bay) is free of warships… don’t think that is correct.

Assuming you mean either SZ 125 or 127… Turns 1 and 2 Germany usually has subs or other ships in, or in range of, these zones. However, Russia is not typically at war yet anyway so can’t collect the bonus. By Turn 3, the Royal Navy or Air Force is generally rebuilt enough to not allow German ships to sit in those zones. Also, it typically takes Germany a minimum of 3 Turns (from the time they attack Russia) to reach Archangel. Even by Turn 4 or 5 I do not normally see Allied units in Russia… USA can barely get there yet and has other worries and Britain has her hands very full and going into Novgorod is usually out of the way. This way Russia would get 10 bonus IPCs per turn as opposed to 5. I cannot argue with your own experience, but the above has generally been mine.

All of this makes me think that there may be too many bonuses for Russia, hearkening back to the comment in my previous post.

@Young:

As far as your opinions about the R&D phase, I also like some things about it and I’ve tried my best to incorporate those ellements. I had a rule that gave 1 free dice when spending to R&D and many players attempted way more than before, but the last 5 games not one 6 got rolled and players lost a lot of money over that period of games.

That is a nice incentive. But you really need some new dice or something. Somebody put the Voodoo on those. FIVE whole games with freebie research dice for those interested (meaning at least two dice per try?), with an average of 7 Turns per game… and NOT ONE six was rolled!  Man those are some great dice for actual gameplay, but not so much on Research.  :-o

@Young:

I agree with you in the sense that our games as well are very developed by round 7 and end there or very soon after. However, some players here will play all through the night (as I did before I got married) and I wouldn’t want to deny them the excitement of late round strategies and stories. Besides, it’s much to late to make a change like doubling up on rounds.

Oh, I remember the days of playing all through the night. Still happens on occasion, but not as much because we are generally very efficient. Two people going at once… Otherwise everyone else is just twiddling their thumbs waiting for strategy to be thought out. Global games take F-O-R-E-V-E-R if you do not overlap individual turns.

But why is it too late to change to doubling up Strategic Advantage? Seems like a simple change of wording and you have done it. I thought this was a work in progress?  :wink: