Delta Deck: cards for playing G40 Delta house rules

IMO, it’s not great UI to hide it down there. :wink:

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.

Thanks I will check it out.

For any game with tech research in it, I like the tech being more likely to be discovered the more money you put into it. Instead of needing to roll a 6 on one die to discover the tech, you roll two dice and need to roll a 12, but for each previous roll, you get +1 to your current roll. So on the second roll you would succeed on an 11, on the third roll on a 10, etc. The average number of rolls needed to get the tech is about the same, but the variation is much lower. You’re much less likely to get it on your first attempt, but also much less likely to need 10+ attempts. To keep track of how many rolls you’ve made, place a die (or an airplane movement marker from Revised) on the tech chart where the control marker would go.

its another house rule that I had dug up in another forum that allows artillery to “shell” or bombard an adjacent territory for 1 ipc per shot

@Cmdr:

I understand I’ve been out of it for anout 8 or 9 months, so maybe things are different than I remember, but don’t the AA Guns shoot at each target individualy and what is hit is hit?  Or are things different for the escorts now? (Keep in mind, I have the ORIGINAL variant of the rules and a lot of things have been changed with errata adn “hot patches”)

They take casualties not from AA but from defending ftr interceptors

@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

I dont like regular subrules. Isay the blinded way is better(you write down where you moved your sub on each turn) this is better because you are undetected until a destroyer moves into your same seazone or you surface for air or battle. :)