Delta Deck: cards for playing G40 Delta house rules

Update -

Combined UK Commonwealth Nation

Works great! Played it out and it seems to be balanced and it allows for greater viability as the Allies.

US Rules -

The 2 IPC’s taken off from buying a bomber in Western US works fine and allows for some historical accuracy

The Free French

These units now move with the Commonwealth and attack and defend along with them.

Vichy France

Now moves with Italy instead of its own turn

NO’s

The NO’s are now an optional addition and you can pick and choose which ones are played in your game

Corrections

SS/Red Guard/Rangers/Commandos should move 1 instead of 2.

Canadian Sub starts in SZ 120 not 101

The Spain rule hasn’t come into play, as the German player has not been able to roll a 6, more on that later
R&D works like a dream and creates new tactics for the powers

Lend Lease

Gives the Russian and UK Player a better chance against German and Italian Aggression - Works well

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.

@Young:

But you can use them in any battle you choose, so you can have 2 Admirals, or 2 Generals… why can’t we rewrite history like the game proposes?

Admirals and Generals are collectively known as Flag Officers, at least in some nations, so you could use that single term for both categories.

I’m sorry, 1942 is the edition I always play now and I had a brain cramp and thought they were priced at 16. It’s the price I think they should cost, but you’re absolutely right, they’re at 20 and so we never buy them!

@mattsk:

About your HR, Russia is merely strong enough to protect Moscow, not talking about some far east adventures.

I guess one way to handle this would be for the HR to say that Russia can declare war on Japan after two conditions have been met:

This is basically what happened in WWII.  Stalin had an agreement with the Americans and British that he would declare war on Japan three months after Germany’s defeat, to allow him time to shift his forces eastward.  Which he did.

What taste better, an apple or an orange?
Depends on the person.

Like Cmdr Jennifer said:
@Cmdr:

The destroyer in my mind is the submarine of old with the ability to defend itself against air attack in place of the sneak shot ability.

In my mind, the submarine is the new piece on the board.  Here’s a cheap unit you can toss out for naval attacks and it helps keep your opponent honest.

The sub is a new type of unit, which acts differently than in any other A&A games.

Sure, there are some things we miss about it - but now subs can move about without getting hit by aircraft!

This is awesome!  :-D

A side note: sub stalling is not a problem any more. (A&A Pacific)

Think of subs as a different unit, with new strategies to come up with.

Think of subs as an attackers unit.    :-)

One example, after the US fleet has moved away from sz56 (West coast), subs can be mobilized in sz56 and catch up with the main fleet with out needing AC/ftr protection from Japan’s aircraft.

@timerover51:

Hmmm, that would be a reasonable approach as well.

I was merely making an observation that each bombardment ship supporting each infantry +1 on 1-to-1 basis…is the same as rolling one bombardment die per infantry at 1 and not preemptive

like you can arrange the rules to appear as only a minimal rule change, and then people are less resistive

oh wow that will be helpful…