Delta Deck: cards for playing G40 Delta house rules

FYI- historicalboardgaming.com sells these same pieces.  Make sure you compare prices.  Combatminiatures.org sells oil derricks.

Allright- here it is.

The Japanese lost without a massive US contribution. The US built a Flying Tiger tactical bomber turn 4, and the Chinese Nationalists managed to keep the Burma Road open for a turn, so it got to Szechwan. The Russian Far East Army was in Novrosibirsik and Samara by turn 5, so the Japanese made the critical mistake of attacking Amur. This enabled the Russians to divert their tactical bomber from Moscow, and fly it to Suiyuan. The Mongolians walked into the Chinese Communist army over the next few turns, and by turn 8, the CCP had:

8 infantry, 2 of which were Mongolian
2 artillery
1 Russian tactical bomber

The Nationalists had traded Yunnan back and forth four times over the course of the game, and had lost Kwiechow, Anhwe, Hopei, and Hunan. Other than that, they were doing OK, as Szechwan was safe.

The game ended with a narrow Allied victory on turn 12. The FEC had attacked the Japanese unprovoked on turn 2, and by turn 5 had French Indo-China bulked up heavily, with

5 infantry
3 artillery
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber
mIC

Over the next three turns, they built 3 tanks a turn (they controlled Siam and Sumatra).

This forced the Japanese to build an IC in Shanghai, and built 3 tanks every turn to keep the Chinese coast safe from either the Nationalists or the FEC. This means that, out of 55 IPCs a turn, they were automatically spending 18 a turn in an arms race where the Chinese were a factor as well. Then, on turn 8, everything cracked. The CCP retook Chahar at the cost of 4 infantry, and received a Russian tank.

The Nationalist Chinese, who had been playing fairly conservatively, hit Yunnan hard with

9 infantry
6 artillery
1 fighter
1 tactical bomber.

They came out of this battle with 3 infantry dead. Finally, the FEC followed up on this with throwing everything they had at Kwangsi. This triple blow wasn’t something the Japanese could immediately counterattack. They started a new line of defence encompassing Jehol, Shantung, Manchuria, and Kiangsu. They also shipped 6 infantry to hold Hong Kong. It wasn’t enough. The Chinese Communists and Japanese wiped each other out in Jehol, while the Nationalists retook Kwiechow, Hunan, and Kiangsi without any difficulties. ANZAC was cooperative enough to eliminate the possible landing spot of Formosa.

While all of this was going on, the US was focussed chiefly in Europe, where they had done Torch and taken Rome (and were putting its IC to good use!) Normandy had been traded back and forth a few times as well. This had the effect of forcing the Germans to keep 6 infantry in Northern Italy, 2 in Albania, 4 in Yugoslavia, and 1 in Greece. They also had to keep a garrison in Paris, including a fighter to help ward of bombing. This had the effect of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, so there was no immediate danger in Europe. Therefore, the US decided that the time was right to hit the Japanese. On turn 9, they built 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 2 strat. bombers. On turn 10, this all sailed out to Hawaii, as 4 loaded transports came out of WUS. On turn 12, the Japanese (who were down to 12 IPCs a turn, thanks to the Chinese mopping up the northeast, and ANZAC clearing the DEI), succumbed to a US invasion fleet. That same turn, the British captured Paris and Northern Italy, causing Germany to surrender.

Not all of this was caused directly by a stronger China, but that did influence it. Since China could do more, the Japanese did not gain easy access to the 12 IPCs of the Chinese interior, and only ever captured 6 Chinese territories over the course of the game. And holding these territories was trickier as well, as the Chinese could hit harder. Attacking Russia was a really stupid move on Japan’s part, as it not only opened up a supply route to the Communists (Mongolia), but diverted troops away from India and China. Since Japan had more on its hands, the US could focus more on Europe, contributing to Italy’s early fall and Germany’s inability to take Moscow (although strong Russian play and die-rolls played a part in the latter). Once both Axis powers were under a lot of pressure, the US could simply take Tokyo, thanks in part to good FEC play, but also because China could reconquer the valuable coast, depriving Japan of income. And once Tokyo fell, the German player knew that there was a 0% chance of taking Moscow, Paris, Rome, and Cairo. The Allied advantage in the Pacific was due partially to good FEC play and die-rolls, and the insane decision to attack Russia, but a stronger China also played a part.

Just for the record, the players were divided up into US/Nat China/France, USSR/CCP, UK/FEC/ANZAC, Japan, and Germany/Italy.

@SouthsideCH:

It seems every time we play there are certain things we just don’t understand. While we understand the rules sometimes they just do not seem rational.

Does anyone have house rules addressing the following?

Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

If I move a sub or a destroyer-less navy into a convoy sea zone, forcing the enemy to submerge, why can they convoy me?

It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers.

I get that Kamikaze attacks have to choose their target. But if I bring in 3 cruisers, 2 battleships and a carrier and they choose to hit the battleships, shouldn’t the cruisers get to bombard? They can’t take part in the defense against the Kamikaze.

Convoy Disruption seems easy. There are no ill effects to the disruptor. If you can intercept when facilities are being attacked it makes sense a navy in that sea zone should be able to do the same.

I would love to hear some input on these as well as any house rules ideas.

In terms of house rules, are you looking for balance or realism?

I always argue realism before balance so.

1:No, Artillery should not be able to support infantry during sea invasion, that’s why battleships should be used.

2:I argue they should. The sea territory is vase and submarines are loved during WWII because they are a pain to track down, they are basically the naval sniper.

3: I am not sure the exact issue. Fighters and Tacts can be used offensively and scramble protects your navy. I personally think all allied aircraft should scramble regardless of what nations navy is being attack as long as the nations allows it.

4: Kamikaze wings traditionally went after Battleships and Aircraft Carriers first because taking those out would give the IJN fairness as the IJN had a lot of smaller ships. I personally think Kamikaze wings should also be allowed to target transports.

5: So what’s the issue with Convoy Raids then? It makes you force yourself to deal with an enemy navy.

@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.

Yes, I was talking about those, I was also thinking about their role in sea battles (against Subs):

Unlike fighters, they don´t need to end their move in a territory with friendly Inf, but they can move max 3 spaces away from a territory with friendly Inf

If there is an Airship involved in sea battle then:
Enemy submarines can not submerge and they can not surprise attack
Airships roll one dice against enemy Sub, hitting it at die roll of 2.

Bumped due to changes made to original post.

Right - but using the latest rules for straights - you can make a rule “subs cannot conduct convoy raids while inside protected straits” - so the subs would have to come out to make the raid and remain in that zone for the rest of the turn.

Naw its a small point… let it stay how it is… I guess its a balance issue vs. Historical thing and a minor one at that.