Question about "Locked in Combat"

Axis & Allies D-Day begins as Operation Overlord, the invasion of German-held Normandy, is underway -- 130,000 soldiers of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States are poised to assault Fortress Europe. You and your fellow world powers control their fates.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Caldwell, Idaho

Post by todd7912 » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:30 pm

I've had some questions about locked in combat myself. If the german player stacks his units in and around a city (say St. Lo) then he can feed one inf unit per turn into the teeth of the allied assualt stopping it completely and reinforcing himself from behind.

When we play in our group with the option 3 rule "attack or not" then we eliminate the turn counter. In our games we have kept fighting for 5-10 turns after reinforcements ran out. (BTW we stopped using the option 2 but might try it again with the "roll 1 attacker picks" rule).

One question I have always had when playing with option 3 is Fortune cards 11 & 13. As I understand it under the normal rules if bad fortune is rolled (you can only attack in 2 zones for germany or 1 each for allies) then in all other zones where units are locked in combat only the defending units fire. This is because the attacker would normally have to attack but because of bad fortune he couldn't and his guy's were sitting ducks. However, if you do not have to attack (as per option 3) then would the defenders fire in the other locked in combat zones?

Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:57 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Post by conao » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:48 am

Todd7912, why did you stop with option rule 2? Do you think it was too much of an advantage? What was your experience? I like the "roll 1 attacker picks" thing...

Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Caldwell, Idaho

Post by todd7912 » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:15 pm

We stopped option because the targeted artillery was working really well for the Germans but was somewhat less effective for the allies. This could be due to the allied players experience. I haven't had the opportunity yet to play as the allies with those rules. When we played we didn't know about "attacker picks on a 1" rule. That would make it a little better.

I just had a thought. You ever play Fortress America? There is an order of Casualties chart. For example: if infantry attacks and hits then the casualties are chosen in order of the chart (inf first then mechanized then air) if there isn't anything in the first category to choose from then move up the line. When mech. units kill they can choose inf or mech. before air. Air units can pick any. Would this complicate things too much? In Fortress America I think the attacker picks all casualities for the defender and the defender picks the attackers casualities.

Oh well, that wasn't much of a brain storm, more of a sprinkle with light winds.

Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

Post by WanderingHead » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:03 am

One idea I've toyed with (for any of the AA games) but never played is that the player who is rolling attack/defend dice may _declare_ that some units are doing a targeted shot. For units doing targeted firing, they roll at -1 (a disadvantage) but get to select the casualty if they roll a '1' (an advantage); so it is a tradeoff.

So, e.g. a targeted attack by infantry would be impossible (since 1 is the start value, and 1-1=0). A targeted attack by artillery would select the casualty on a '1', no kill for 2-6. A targeted attack by armor the attacker would select a casualty on '1', the defender would select on '2', and no kill on 3-6 (due to the -1 penalty deducted from the normal 3). Etc.

This targeting option could be restricted to only artillery units per the discussion here, meaning that artillery could choose to fire on 2 allowing the side suffering the loss to pick casualties, or choose to fire on 1 allowing the firing side to pick casualties.

It kind of loosely (and very simply) models either firing at targets of opportunity or selectively and deliberately targeting specific units.

User avatar
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"

Post by elbowmaster » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:26 pm

the artillery rule actually works nicely...for us, we needed to try it a few created for us at 1st as described, axis pounded the allies, but then, after practice, we realized it was about momentum change, or initative change, and once the initiative switched, it was the allies that pounded the axis...doesnt happen everytime, but when it does, its exciting...

we use the 1 attacker picks, 2 the defender...very nice enhancement...

we suggest trying it for about 8 games until you actually see the shift...


Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

Post by CanucKev » Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:18 pm

I have the same question about "attacker can only attack in two zones" (fortune cards 11 & 13). Getting "bad luck" (by rolling a 6) on these cards seems to be an advantage, if the defender doesn't get to return fire in the no-attack zones. That's the way we played last time, and by getting that "misfortune" the German player didn't attack in St Lo, so he didn't suffer casualties in St Lo, and so he won the game.
I would think that regardless of fortune, defenders ALWAYS get to defend, even if they haven't been attacked. Any confirmation of this (Larry)?

User avatar
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:47 pm

CanucKev – The best I can suggest is that you may feel free to incorporate this as a house rule if you have strong feelings about it. This subject was debated extensively during the games development. The debate was: does a unit have to defend or does it even have to attack. The printed rules demonstrate the final decision – but that does not mean it’s perfect or even correct for that matter.

Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

Post by CanucKev » Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:50 pm

Hey Larry,

We have decided to use it as a house rule, next time we play. Not getting to attack, and hence facing no defence, is an advantage in my mind ... I'm curious why it was decided otherwise?
In any case, if you don't get to attack in that zone, it's because your rifles stopped working and you became sitting ducks. :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest