Hey Commander Brado,
Thanks for taking the time to dissect these house rules for me, your comments are greatly appreciated.
“I know everyone plays TripleA now but obviously this is impossible to play out via TripleA or at the very least very difficult” - Actually I only play table top A&A, so I’m unfamiliar with the challenges of translating these rules for online gaming, even if that were my goal, I would have to agree with your term “impossible”.
Airborne Assault Troops
I see most countries selecting this option, very powerful for Germany and Japan. Italy has some nice possibilities with this option as well, along w/Anzac and possibly Britain. - Agreed… 1 for the Axis.
or
War Time Production
I see Britain being the only real benefactor of this option vs. Airborne assault. Maybe Anzac. And maybe Russia. But Anzac has a really good opportunity w/Airborne assault to put an AB in Java. From Java you can reach Shan State, Siam, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes. - 15$ for a cash strapped ANZAC in a hostile area seems risky, I may still take it for ANZAC considering all the friendly airbases in the Pacific, but ANZAC always wants to place more units when the money starts to roll in… tough choice for them.
Enigma
Possible option - Add if Germany selects this option, their subs do at least 1 IPC of convoy damage, regardless of dice rolls? Very frustrating when TripleA doesn’t get at least 1 IPC of damage during convoy disruption. If Germany has Enigma, they should do at least 1 IPC of damage. - This pairing seems pretty balanced especially now that I’ve made the Blitzkrieg modification. Gonna wait for some play test results to see if a change is needed here.
or
Blitzkrieg
Very powerful! I see most German players selecting this option, especially if they’re going after Russia. Question : Can the transported artillery attack during the combat phase or is it only transported during the non-combat phase? I’d be curious to find out how much this option affects the game. This may tip the scales even more in the Axis favor. - Good question, I’m gonna limit it for non-combat movement only. 1 for the Axis
War Bonds Campaign
Possible option - Give the US at least 4 IPC’s w/this option, if they roll below 4. Otherwise, I see the other option being the better option. - I would like to keep it as is for now, this is one of the more intriguing pairs, because players will have to fight between their own greed, or logic. Pick War bonds betting for boxcars every round, and you may get burnt with snake eyes. I assume my group players will place their 3 infantry and roll 2 dice just to see what they would have got if they picked war bonds. However, I know one player who will gamble every time.
Commonwealth Aid
I see this being the better of the two Brit options. Especially powerful if you build a minor IC in Egypt, Iraq or Persia. Depends on what the Germans do though. - Yes, I sense some head games where if Germany takes Enigma, it could mean sealion, or a sealion fake. However, if they take Blitzkrieg, the smart choice would be Commonwealth Aid. Play testing will tell me to keep it as is, or limit it to Canada and South Africa.
Boeing Fortresses
I see this as maybe being too powerful. Maybe take out the last sentence.
or
Essex Class Carriers
Again, I see this as maybe being too powerful. Question : Does this apply to carriers already on the board? - Having 2 powerful advantages to choose from is perfect, because you’re only allowed one going forward, and after all… this is USA (the awakened giant). Of course if play testing proves the boeing fortresses SA always getting the vote, than your suggestion is very reasonable. However, if Essex Class Carriers are overwhelmingly popular, than I would suggest dropping the @2 attack to @1, and yes it applies to all carriers on the board. 1 for the Allies.
V-Rockets
I see this as possibly being too powerful. Germany could launch attacks from Greece and Caucasus into Egypt, Persia, Iraq or India, where the Brits would most likely have their minor IC’s. Maybe make the Germans roll 1 die, instead of getting an automatic 6 points of damage. Rocket attacks from those territories will require a $15 AB purchase, and we have to remember that this advantage is up against Jet Fighters which get +1 attack, and +1 movement. I believe that 1 dice to damage just won’t cut it 1 for the Axis
Trans-Siberian Railway
If Russia is still in the game at this point, this option seems like it spells doom for the Axis.
VS.
Blitzkrieg
Very powerful! I see most German players selecting this option, especially if they’re going after Russia.
The Middle East
Is this 5 IPC’s per territory or does Italy have to control all three to get the bonus? - correct
North Africa
I would maybe take Egypt off of this. Egypt can be very difficult to take, along w/controlling the rest of N. Africa. - Done
Military Morale
This may be too powerful. - I know that my group players want to have this option and not only when holding the road, we’ll have to see how others feel with your opinion already counted, 1 for the Allies.
Enola Gay
I would maybe think about having the territory go from zero IPC’s after the bombing to gaining 1 IPC per turn after the bombing, until it reaches it’s original IPC value. - Done, I’m just happy to have an atomic bomb rule that hasn’t gotten ripped to shreds yet… LOL.
Kamikaze Tokens
I would implement this after a certain turn or after certain situations are met. Historically, the Japanese only implemented this strategy after they were losing the war and didn’t have sufficient good pilots to fight off the US. I know that this rule is begging to happen for history’s sake, but I take the oob rule to mean that if American warships are in kamikaze sea zones, than they’re close enough to trigger desperation from Japan. I’d like to hear more opinions on this… anyone?
French Resistance
Too powerful. - No problem, I’ll reduce it from 5 to 3.
Political Sovereignty
Talking about a swing of 6 IPC’s. This may be too powerful. - My groups have been playing with this rule for 2 years now and no American player has bothered to fight in the South American jungles with valuable infantry to eventually score $6 a turn. It seems America has other responsibilities,but I’m still gonna give 1 for the Allies.
Can’t say how much I appreciate your contribution Commando Brado, this is exactly the kind of feedback this project needs if it’s ever gonna become useful. Just a quick comment about the overpowering elements, to me thats where the fun lies, of course Delta will never be taken seriously among purist or tournament players… it’s meant to turn Global on it’s head for 1 out of 10 games, just to feel the elements of history a little better. I agree that nations have become more powerful using Delta rules, but I think that can be tremendous fun as long as it’s fair.
By the way, among the rules that you felt were to powerfull… there were 3 for the Axis, and 4 for the Allies… perfect! no bid necessary (lol… just teasing :-P)
Thanks again,
YG.
YG,
First I want to ask about the Uncle Sam Campaign. Why did you lower the infantry from 3 to 4? Also, why is one of the infantry placed in Central America? Is it supposed to be Central United States?
Your original idea of 4 infantry, 2 placed in Eastern US and 2 in Western US was better. You should put it back.
Also, I have an opinion on Kamikaze tokens. I think if you decide to place any type of condition on use of the Kamikaze tokens, like a certain round number, a certain IPC income, etc. then Japan should be able to use the Kamikaze tokens in ANY sea zone. There shouldn’t have to be a Kamikaze symbol in the sea zone for Japan to use their Kamikaze.
Otherwise, I think the current restrictions are fine. The Sea Zone must have the Kamikaze symbol and it can only happen during the combat move into such a sea zone OR an Allied attack from such a sea zone.
YG,
First I want to ask about the Uncle Sam Campaign. Why did you lower the infantry from 3 to 4? Also, why is one of the infantry placed in Central America? Is it supposed to be Central United States?
Your original idea of 4 infantry, 2 placed in Eastern US and 2 in Western US was better. You should put it back.
Imperious Leader felt that it was way too powerful, and brought into the game 20 free American infantry in 5 rounds. I am personally indifferent at this time, but I suppose I’m slightly more curious the way it was, so I’ll change it back (I like your gumption). Only play testing can tell the real story (questionnaires among players will also work), and if War Bonds proves to be too weak… I can always go back to 3 (with one on Central USA :|).
{this is the bus}
{and this is IL}
Otherwise, I think the current restrictions are fine. The Sea Zone must have the Kamikaze symbol and it can only happen during the combat move into such a sea zone OR an Allied attack from such a sea zone.
I agree, and I prefer the little symbols on my map to mean something, so I like that we enhanced the use of the tokens, but that’s all… no big deal.
Cheers.
@Young:
Military Morale
China may purchase as many artillery units as they like, whenever they like, as long as they still posses the American fighter plane.Enola Gay
During the SBR step in the combat phase of America’s 12th turn, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
It’s possible that I just never noticed these before, but these look like new additions to me; either way, I have a couple of comments.
Regarding the China one, I’m having trouble understanding how “military morale” allows China to purchase new artillery, since morale in and of itself doesn’t create industrial capacity where little or none exists (which was China’s case in WWII). I also don’t understand how the presence or absence of a fighter on the board affects inductrial capacity. I sense that in both cases there’s a missing link that remains unstated. Perhaps “Military Morale” could be replaced by a phrase that explains more clearly the rationale for this artillery boost.
Regarding the Enola Gay, do I understand that the A-bomb is treated as an addition to the the US arsenal that happens automatically in the American 12th turn, without it having to be researched and developed as a tech?
@CWO:
@Young:
Military Morale
China may purchase as many artillery units as they like, whenever they like, as long as they still posses the American fighter plane.Enola Gay
During the SBR step in the combat phase of America’s 12th turn, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.It’s possible that I just never noticed these before, but these look like new additions to me; either way, I have a couple of comments.
Regarding the China one, I’m having trouble understanding how “military morale” allows China to purchase new artillery, since morale in and of itself doesn’t create industrial capacity where little or none exists (which was China’s case in WWII). I also don’t understand how the presence or absence of a fighter on the board affects inductrial capacity. I sense that in both cases there’s a missing link that remains unstated. Perhaps “Military Morale” could be replaced by a phrase that explains more clearly the rationale for this artillery boost.
Regarding the Enola Gay, do I understand that the A-bomb is treated as an addition to the the US arsenal that happens automatically in the American 12th turn, without it having to be researched and developed as a tech?
I really want China to build artillery without needing the road, so I was kinda reaching. Is there any acceptable explanation that we could realistically and historically frame this rule around CWO Marc?
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”
Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
@Young:
I really want China to build artillery without needing the road, so I was kinda reaching. Is there any acceptable explanation that we could realistically and historically frame this rule around CWO Marc?
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
I’d propose changing the current China rule into the following pair of rules (for which I’ve left some values as blanks for you to fill in, depending on which numbers you think would work best).
The Hump
Beginning with the entry of the United States into the war, China can purchase x artillery units per turn, provided that India and Szechwan are both under the control of an Allied power. Â This option is available to China regardless of whether or not the Burma Road is open for use by the Allies.
Ledo Road
Beginning on turn [y, corresponding roughly to 1944], China can purchase z artillery units per turn, provided that India and Yunnan are both under the control of an Allied power. Â This rule only applies when Burma is controlled by an Axis power, and it does not require Szechwan to be under Allied control. Â When India, Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan are all under Allied control, the normal Burma Road rules apply.
The rationale for the first rule is that the Americans were able to fly some supplies to China over the Himalayas. Â The upside was that this method did not require the Burma Road to be operational; the downside was that its capacity was limited by the great difficulties involved in flying this route – hence the need to put an x imit on how much artillery can be purchased by China in this way. Â As compensation, the Flying Tiger requirement in your original rule has been dropped.
The rationale for the second rule is that the Allies were able to bypass the Japanese-controlled southern sections of the Burma Road by building a road connecting northern India to a northern section of the Burma Road. Â By the way, the z number in this rule should be smaller than the x number of the previous rule because the Ledo Road only ended up delivering between one-sixth and one-tenth of the tonnage that was flown in over the Hump air-route (which remained in operation until the end of the war).
@Young:
Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”
Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
Yes, this works better. A tweak I’d recommend would be a title change because, if I understand correctly, the US could use this rule to drop an A-bomb in Europe as well as in the Pacific, whereas the name Enola Gay is specifically associated with the Hiroshima mission alone: the Nagasaki bomber was called Bock’s Car, I think, and no bomber was used for the very first nuclear explosion of all, the test at Alamogordo. Alternate titles would include “Manhattan Project” (which would fit your successive progress-role model), “Atomic Weapons” (or Atomic Bomb, or Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Bomb), and “Fat Man and Little Boy” (which was also used as a movie title).
@CWO:
@Young:
Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”
Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.Yes, this works better. A tweak I’d recommend would be a title change because, if I understand correctly, the US could use this rule to drop an A-bomb in Europe as well as in the Pacific, whereas the name Enola Gay is specifically associated with the Hiroshima mission alone: the Nagasaki bomber was called Bock’s Car, I think, and no bomber was used for the very first nuclear explosion of all, the test at Alamogordo. Alternate titles would include “Manhattan Project” (which would fit your successive progress-role model), “Atomic Weapons” (or Atomic Bomb, or Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Bomb), and “Fat Man and Little Boy” (which was also used as a movie title).
Manhattan Project
The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die, and then adding that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.
The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, and if shot down… America may choose a different bomber, and attempt a new mission during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.
The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.
The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used immediately upon becoming operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
@Young:
@CWO:
@Young:
Here is the modification I’ve made to “Enola Gay”
Enola Gay
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30. Once reached, they may use 1 American strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. If the strategic bomber passes all air defenses (using same rules as SBRs) than that bomber will have successfully dropped it’s payload with the following damage: All facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero. Original facilities of that territory may be repaired and used later, and the territory recovers 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.Yes, this works better. Â A tweak I’d recommend would be a title change because, if I understand correctly, the US could use this rule to drop an A-bomb in Europe as well as in the Pacific, whereas the name Enola Gay is specifically associated with the Hiroshima mission alone: the Nagasaki bomber was called Bock’s Car, I think, and no bomber was used for the very first nuclear explosion of all, the test at Alamogordo. Â Alternate titles would include “Manhattan Project” (which would fit your successive progress-role model), “Atomic Weapons” (or Atomic Bomb, or Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear Bomb), and “Fat Man and Little Boy” (which was also used as a movie title). Â
Manhattan Project
The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die and add that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, if shot down… America must choose a different bomber during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used once operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer? The US didn’t have the atomic bomb until very late in the war. Also, if the bomber gets shot down should the US get another atomic bomb? Historically, the US only had two bombs. Maybe you limit it to two bombs? This would give the Axis player a heads up of the atomic technology so they can possibly defend against it, depending on where the US bombers are. Call it espionage on the Axis’s part. Just a thought.
Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.
@Young:
Manhattan Project
The Research:
During their purchase new units phase of each turn, America may make a progress roll using 1 die, and then adding that amount to all previous progress rolls in order to reach a total of 30.
The Mission:
Once research is complete, America may use 1 strategic bomber (including a Boeing Fortress) to drop an atomic bomb on 1 enemy territory within range of the chosen air unit. Any American strategic bomber can be used during the SBR step of the combat movement phase of any turn. However, the air unit must pass all air defenses using regular SBR rules, if shot down… America must choose a different bomber during a future turn. There may be only 1 successful drop per game.
The Damage:
If an American strategic bomber successfully delivers its payload, all facilities on the targeted enemy territory immediately sustain maximum damage, and the IPC value of the territory has now been reduced to zero.
The Aftermath:
Original facilities on the destroyed territory may be repaired and used once operational, and the territory will recover 1 IPC each round after being destroyed, up to its original value.
Yup, looks nice. A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn. Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning? I raise this point because producing fissile material was very difficult at the time: by war’s end, the US had only managed to produce enough U235 and plutonium for three bombs, all of which were expended in July and early August.
@Young:
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage. I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.
“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”
I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities. I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.
“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”
I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.” The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.
“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”
I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…” It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing. (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)
“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”
“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual. (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.) Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”. Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.
@CWO:
@Young:
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage. I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.
“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”
I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities. I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.
It only effects the damage it causes during SBRs, mission briefings, maximum payload, fueling etc…
“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”
I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.” The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.
Understood, but the roll is meant to represent a chance of a severe winter rather than controling the weather, plus it adds excitement from round to round for the Russian player.
“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”
I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…” It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing. (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)
Done
“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”
“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual. (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.) Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”. Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.
Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.
A question: your original phrasing seemed to suggest that the US received one bomb per game, while the new phrasing suggests that it’s one bomb per turn. Maybe I read the original phrasing incorrectly, but which is the intended meaning?
It’s one bomb per game, I’ll make sure the wording is clear.
The more I look at this, maybe it should be after a certain turn, maybe turn 12 that the US gets Enola Gay, as a game changer if the game is even at that point. What happens if the US player rolls thirty in 3 rounds and this becomes an early game changer?
It’s impossible to roll 30 in 3 rounds, the most that can be achieved in 3 rounds is 18. plus making progress rolls adds excitement from round to round for the American player.
@Young:
Also, the Chinese artillery option seems a little bit lopsided for the Allies to me, IMHO.
Perhaps you’re right, I’ll have to revaluate.
The alternate “Hump” and “Ledo Road” suggestions I made (which by the way don’t need to be both implemented; if I had to pick just one, I’d pick The Hump) might help in this regard because, unlike the original proposal, they put a limit on how much artillery China can buy.
@Young:
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”. Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.
@CWO:
@Young:
Understood, however, I still like the way mutual allies rolls off the tongue, do you have anything better than Regional Allies?
Well, I’m not sure how well it would fit your concept but a phrase that I think sounds nice (and which I’ve heard applied to both the Soviet/Anglo-American pairing) is “Improbable Allies”. Other adjectives along those lines (such as unlikely) could also be substituted.
“Logistical Allies”?
@Young:
“Logistical Allies”?
I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf. The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning. Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?
@CWO:
@Young:
“Logistical Allies”?
I think this lacks a certain inspirational oompf. The wartime partnership between the Allied nations wasn’t just a matter of shipping stuff to each other (as vital as logistics were in WWII), it was also very much a comrades-in-arms combat relationship, with large additional quantities of politics, economics, R&D, and strategic planning. Hmm…there’s a thought: how about Comrades in Arms?
Maybe, but “comrades” sounds a little Russian
