Delta Deck: cards for playing G40 Delta house rules

@midnight_reaper that’s a cool idea and I might have to try it. However I don’t like the idea of getting advancements for free, which is why I like some sort of facility to buy. Since the G40 R&D board seems to have the better advances on one side I’d say you have to roll a 1-4 to get the 1 column, and 5-6 to get the second. Maybe even through in an added cost to get 1-3 & 4-6. But again with that, I think countries should have to build the facilities in their capitol instead of anywhere and starting with them.

Mr. Piscolar;

the fortress idea is OK, but it seems OP when you can build them to defend key VC strongholds like Moscow.  Your point about inactivating them is interesting, but that’s not how the rules for Airbases work, you can’t disable them right before the scramble.  It is sort of interesting to imagine a fighter intercept/bomber part of that transaction, but at some point you simply need all your planes in order to overwhelm, you can’t split them off to wrack the forts first, or the defense becomes too favorable (because you have increased defensive power by +1 or reserved the planes for this task, either outcome increases the defense vs offense pretty dramatically).  When you are talking about potentially adding +1 defense to 40+ units, it becomes OP.

Actual fortresses are not realistic in WW2, as they were captured by paratroops, reduced by bombing, surrounded and besieged, or simply bypassed and ignored.

Your ANZAC idea is fun and interesting, but unless ANZAC takes the risk of moving its assets to Brazil, there wont be much coordination there.  Not sure why you would cleave off a second grey team.  Why not just clarify your original idea by making the ANZAC team better (by giving them Canada and 1-2 ships 1-2 units) at the expense of UK Atl.?  UK isn’t really a viable team at that point but neither is a 7 income independent team with split forces…

I like the special NOs from Balanced mod, but I’m not sure why you’ve added NOs that are active based on what teams already pretty much have or go for from the get-go.  NOs should draw the players into an unexpected alignment to incentivize new play, not reward them for doing what they were already going to do.

Adding German Units seems very odd since they are usually getting a bid of 20+ against them, now the required bid would be even higher.  You have offset some of the Axis advantage with other NOs, but I wouldn’t make the Germany start position even more advantageous its extremely powerful as is.

You also added several Axis NOs for just being Axis, these aren’t necessary to bolster their already dominating economic position and they aren’t dependent on what the Axis choose to do.  Giving Japan an NO for attacking allied zero $ islands or for Germany to attack Iceland are some examples of encouraging the player to do something that otherwise he would rarely or never choose to do.

the VC condition is messed up OOB, good effort on trying to change it

Tech/Cruisers/Bombers; these are similar to other suggestions, I think the tech doesn’t need new incentives to go after it, several of them are awesome and the rest are junk.  Unless you nerf the good ones and improve (all) the bad ones, making them easier to get doesn’t really balance anything.  Smart to reshuffle the Charts, but the “Land” one is packed with junk.

Crusiers are OP if they are 10 AND AAA.

Bombers are OP at 12, but if they cost 14, SB isn’t viable and buying them in bulk isn’t either.

These are just a ton of interesting extra rules, which are all fun and creative but they don’t seem to balance Axis vs Allies any better than standard rules.

Here is a rough for the victory points on my map. It may not work with OOB rules but I’m working on two sets of rules to be used with OOB and another with extra pieces. Link for the map is here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38048.0

Number axis have for allied win – historical number – number for axis to win
        Europe pacific global
Turn4 Jun 42 23-31-39 12-18-24 35-49-63
Turn5 Dec 42 24-32-40 12-18-24 36-50-64
Turn6 Jun 43 21-29-37 11-17-23 32-46-60
Turn7 Dec 43 15-23-31 9-15-21 24-38-52
Turn8 Jun 44 12-20-28 7-13-19 19-33-47
Turn9 Dec 44 3-11-19 3-9-15 6-20-34
Turn10 Aug 45 0-(3)-11 1-(7)-13 0-(7)-21
Over Time         Lose-win
Turn11 Dec 45 0-8 0-6 0-14
Turn12 Jun 46 0-8 0-6 0-14
Turn13 Dec 46 0-8 0-6 0-14
Turn14 Jun 47 0-8 0-6 0-14
Turn15 Dec 47 0-8 0-6 0-14
Optional: Japan surrenders if they have 40 or less income after turn 9 and the factory in japan is bombed to its maximum hit points.

Come to think about it, there is already an A&A Expansion named Honor and Infamy Commanders that you can buy. Just google the name, and see attached pic

pic717609_lg.jpg
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb
pic717609_lg.jpg_thumb

You’re correct CWO marc, that was more or less exactly what I was suggesting.  :-D But its just a suggestion.

I find that a collaborative approach is generally stronger, than trying to strike off and develop a bunch of independent competing systems that are trying to achieve similar goals. House rules likewise are more fun when you get a couple houses trying the same thing to see how it plays out.  Forums communication is slow sometimes, since we have lives outside of A&A, but I’d trust YG to pull in the reigns, or excise the extraneous, if I’ve gone too far left field.

The main reason I think it’s cool to try and attach values to the standard deck, is that it’s very easy to tweak and test the advantages this way. So from a development standpoint, it is possible to test things right away before we plug in values and set the deck. Rather than drafting rules first and sending it out to the printers in China, only to find a week or two later, that it would be awesome to add something or tweak some aspect of it.

@Young:

Sorry for my absence here, I’m working on many different things at once.

My plan is to create a deck with 54 cards…

2 of each nation specific strategic advantage cards = 32 3 of each community specific strategic advantage cards = 15 1 of each nation specific progressive advantage cards = 7

If all this can be easily translated into a generic playing card deck, than all is good… However, my custom cards look much better than a regular deck.

Thanks for all the comments and interest in this idea, I will address all your post’s in detail soon.

Cheers.

Oh cool there’s the man! So with a 54 card deck planned that matches exactly a full deck including jokers! I expect also that the printers print with those numbers in mind for their boxing. This is a strong start because it means you’d have the same number of total fortunes cards as you have in a normal deck.

So picture this, to achieve a specific 1:1 card to card ratio, all you’d have to do is flag the joker… (You mark it with a felt pen on the face side.) Now you have 54 distinct cards, and you could match every card in your fortunes deck to a card in the flagged standard deck (both jokers in play.)

Now consider that all you would need at that point, to make the fortunes deck a standard deck (a deck that could function just like a real deck as well as a fortunes deck), is to include one small graphic in just one corner of the card!

It could be very small, and doesn’t need to be mirrored (not on two sides,  head and foot, just at one or the other.) Tiny as you like.

Envision a small K inside a Heart, or an A inside a spade, a 10 inside a diamond,  or a 2 inside a club. All small and tucked off to the lower right hand corner of the card.

These symbols would look badass anyway, like tiny war code designations!  :-D The sort of thing one might paint on the side of a bomber, or draft up in a patch. It could look cool and unassuming, but provide addition functionality, while retaining the overall aesthetic cohesiveness of a WW2 era Fortunes Deck. It could even provide a shorthand reference for the individual cards.

Manhattan Project = Suicide King, K inside the Diamond
Or things of that sort. For each card

You know like code hehe

It wouldn’t dominate the card aesthetically, it only needs to be large enough that it can be read by the player holding the card. This doesn’t seem like too tall an order, considering that this one minor addition of suit/number info, would expand the potential use of the deck considerably.

Think of all the things you could do with a standard deck of cards, one that had cool art and cool R&D bonus rules. It just seems fairly easy, so I thought I would make the case. Not only could you use it for R&D, but you could do R&D and anything else you can create with a full deck of playing cards. It just seems like an easy win on all counts.

And it would make testing the fortunes pretty easy.

There are only two conditions you need to meet for this to hold up in translation.

First: Uniform backs
If the backs of the cards in the fortune deck are not uniform,  then the fortunes deck could not function as a normal deck (even if they all have suits/numbers). However, a normal deck could still have the fortunes values translated onto it in that case. Going one direction fortunes translates to standard (but not the other way round unless the backs are uniform.)

Second: Each card is distinct.
No two cards in the fortunes deck are exactly alike. (Unless you want just 2, in which case you could use unflagged jokers.) This would make translation pretty simple. We could start playing with it tonight if wanted :)
Again you could translate one direction, but not the other unless all cards are distinct.

Anyhow, these are just suggestions, but I think it could be cool. I like the first edition Delta deck a lot. I’d play black jack with it or crazy 8s or poker, if I could!

Every since A&A 1914 came out, everyone complained about how:

-Historically inaccurate it was (Italy is at war before Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, ON THE ALLIED SIDE?)
-Lack of railway movement
-How bad Unrestricted Sub warfare was
-How unbalanced it was
-The problem with India
-No colonial fights
-The Cps seemed like a pushover after their initial forces are gone, unlike the epic struggle Germany would put up in other A&As
-Clearly not play tested a lot
-Rules felt icky (Mostly due to being changed from what we all know and love. in particular Russian revo, Air combat, Infantry for every army)

So i was just Curious about what you guys had to ‘fix’ (or add) these.

I agree that it helps the Allies.

And there could be a malicious surrender: UKE surrenders, giving the African territories to Germany, and before Italy can react US starts blitzing through the south, ADDING ABOUT 15 IPC’S TO THEIR VALUE. Same could be done with France.

It really helps the Allies and screws the game balance.

Well, the reason why I would like it a little bit better than decent is so that tech tree 1 is actually worth using. It takes a lot to convince people away from heavy bombers, jet fighters and LRA.