G40 Delta questions, strategies, stories, and rule clarifications

@arreghas

Thank you for responding!

In regards to your comments:

Adjusting Ship Costs: You’re probably right, but each piece in Axis And Allies never equals one division-in Global 1940, Germany probably had over a hundred divisions, and yet there is nowhere near that many infantry and tank units represented on the board at the start. I have a feeling that one tank equals one division, and one infantry equals one corps. Likewise, Germany had over a hundred divisions at the in 1914, which the game doesn’t represent. Each corps had two divisions, so an infantry unit probably represents a corps. So you should think about how you should tackle this problem.

I’m surprised you were able to get extra pieces from Historical Board Gaming-everything from 1914 is almost always out of stock, especially the German ones (I really want the Ottoman ones, though, because that is the only power that doesn’t have World War 2 pieces corresponding to the colour of the country, but those are always out of stock). Still, a few months ago I found a lot of transports for several countries including Germany, and some naval units. Land and air units are the hardest to find, and I could only find ones for the US.

Submarine Rules: Cruisers are more simple, so maybe we can think of them as cruisers and destroyers together (the lack of any destroyer units is puzzling, as there were many destroyers in 1914).

Restricted And Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: Great that you agree!

Defensive Dive: I’m happy that you find my idea interesting!

Aircraft Combat: Despite what you said, I think your current rule doesn’t solve this. Perhaps a better rule would be that the side in an air battle that has less aircraft can retreat, which ends the air battle and hand either air superiority (half of the opponent’s artillery is upgraded) or air supremacy (all of the artillery is upgraded)-it’s your choice.

I have nothing to say about Artillery Neutralisation.

Interesting truck pieces! For some reason, I have a feeling I’ve seen those from another topic.

As for my game, whilst the Central Powers won the sea, Germany would capitulated before that happened had the Allies not made many mistakes. So I think your assessment is accurate, although the Central Powers in my game got some bad luck in naval battles, which contributed to investing even more in ships-due to naval superiority, Germany was able to invade Scotland. Still, even without the bad luck, the Allies could have taken Berlin without making the mistakes they did.

@Topmat

AxA has often been called a “beer and pretzels” wargame, I suppose because it is fairly simplistic and available—FOR a wargame. That’s not because AxA is elementary or easily mastered, its because other wargames tend to be even more rules-heavy and detailed, which makes some of them famously and notoriously unplayable. They may have an attractive theme or rules, but the “chit” game era (60s-80s) built up to a crescendo before it burst. PC Computer gaming was a major catalyst for this; the ASL/Avalon Hill/SSI style games BEGGED for a computer to handle some of the more complex calculations, setup, rules etc.

I think AxA has the general appeal and longevity it does precisely because it appeared after this “First Golden Age”, and is not married to overcomplex or overly realistic considerations, its a truly “abstract” wargame, where each step (building, conquering, purchasing, combat, movement) is fairly simple, but all together, they are complex enough to satisfy long-time players while only barely overwhelming the new ones.

And, the fact that AxA doesn’t try to simulate or do everything a wargame possibly COULD do is the very reason why there is enough room left in the game to add more, but that’s not necessarily desirable. If the game was already highly complex, rich and random, it would already have many of the things that people are trying to add to it—but its likely no-one would play it. I think most of the more complex house rules systems for AxA fall into this trap, by pushing the complexity/time investment level out of the Goldilocks zone.

I bought a “political” Avalon Hill chit game in 1992, Republic of Rome (4/4 difficulty rating). When I read the instruction manual, I was blown away-- I understood nothing of what i’d read… until I read it for nearly 2 years. We only played it in college 4 times, and the Republic consistently lost as a group. Its a great game, but its also an example of a highly complex simulation game with a narrow audience from the first era–very few people still play these games because they lack any general following or appeal in the internet age, and have been replaced by computer-style games, like the Total War and Europa Universalis series.

We played Global 40 today (6 player game) with the following turn order.

Russia non com far east forces
All Axis go except Italy)
All allies go except France
All Axis go
All Allies go
Then switch off from then on. 
All the normal rules applies as to who can can-opener for whom and order of non com etc.

On the plus side, we found that it did not change the game play or balance which we wanted to avoid.  It was also fun from the standpoint of the whole team being “on” together and “off” together.   
On the down side, however, it also did not speed up play much.  Of course, we had a couple of new players, and I think it would might have saved significant time with more experienced player.  So, it is something we might do again, but not because it saved all that much time.

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.

Now it sounds so good I will try this next time.

Thanks YG.  Please keep the ideas coming.  I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.

@Lelouch_21:

2- On the rules I found this one “You do not collect any IPC during setup.” so on the first turn no one can buy right? It seems impossible, we try to play a game in this way but there weren’t anough troops on the board for conduct any combat… probably I don’t get the rule, someone can explain it to me?

3- On the URRS special turn the Russian can collect ipc, buy units, develop weapons and diplomacy or they can only move troops and attcka?

Hi Lelouch I just stumbled across these rules today, and I believe in the first turn only Russia moves, and does not collect any income and builds no units. Then, every successive round all nations collect income at the beginning of their turn* and so every nation also builds units starting from that turn.