Mike & Larry - Advanced Rules: Topic by DY

Apparently The Axis & Allies site over at Avalon Hill is going to be phased out soon. A new one will replace it. If you have something over there that you don’t want to be evaporated into thin air then cut and paste it, and bring it over here so that it is not lost forever.
User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Mike & Larry - Advanced Rules: Topic by DY

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:46 pm

03-11-2004, 11:46 PM #1
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike and Larry,

Firstly, congratulations on what is, on the whole, an excellent edition to the AA family.

Larry has suggested that he is very happy to embrace the web and to think about rule revisions in the future.

I suggest that you consider providing an advanced ruleset for expert players in about six months.

This could be a downloadable .pdf file on the AH Website (which would keep the costs of providing this service AH's customers minimal) and need never take on "physical" form like a rules insert, similar to the one currently provided with the MB edition (which would cost money).

You could consider the opinions of the AH board community (and probably Don Rae's forums), which you both are obviously tracking quite intently.

You could either provide a blanket ruleset, which means players either adopt all of the new rules, or none of them (sticking with the, arguably, flawed current rules).

Alternatively you could list some "Official Optional Advanced Rules" (as opposed to the existing National Advantages) and let players add which ever optional rules they choose to suit their preferences.

I only ask this because I, like many others, prefer not to play "house rules," even if I think the official rules are lacking.

For example, my group always played with restricted attack for the USSR (in the MB edition), but would not have adopted this rule had it not been an "official" optionsal rule.

Any comments from Mike or Larry would be appreciated.

This could also become a thread where the community to post their wishlist for changes that they seriously think will benefit the game.

I say seriously, because Im not talking about cool little house rules like paratroopers or whatever, I'm talking about big issues that would balance the game, like:

Making Australia a VC
Changing the relationship between Subs and DDs
Fighter escorts and intercepts on SBR (mainly to balance Superfortresses)
Any major imbalances with the starting setup (not sure if there are any though)


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:00 AM #2
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my sincere hope that AH will see this market for an advanced booklet/expansion and when they do, perhaps all of our questions/desires will be granted.

I know I have several ideas for what that could be. I just hope it will happen and if so we will be able to assist in generating ideas and playtest reports for it.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:11 AM #3
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should also remind you that playing to 9 VCs is becoming a popular option.

Many have suggested either changing the UK VC of India to Australia to give the Allies a greater chance in an 8 VC game or making Australia into an additional UK VC and playing to 9 VCs for the "minor victory" option.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:39 AM #4
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still looking forward to my first game, but I already will vote for changing 2-hit battleship rules in any advanced rule set.

I would get rid of the concept entirely. Just lower the cost of battleships to like 18 IPC and leave it at that.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:43 AM #5
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next on my list, get rid of artillery and destroyers.

Yep, guess I'm just an old-game purist.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 01:08 AM #6
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're looking for advanced rules for the revised A&A, not a reprint of 2nd ed. A&A.

[ March 12, 2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Talonz ]


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 02:02 AM #7
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Talonz:
We're looking for advanced rules for the revised A&A, not a reprint of 2nd ed. A&A.

Nice call Talonz

Seriously though, I quite like 2-hit Battleships, if for no other reason than they let Germany keep its Med fleet (avoiding the sacrificial UK/USA Bomber as so often seen in MB's AA).

I agree that the price needs to drop to 18 IPCs if they removed this 2-hit ability, as 20 IPCs is just too much IMHO. In fact, even at 18 IPCs, I'd still take a DD. No, I like 2-hit BBs, always have, always will.

But we'll let the community decide that one...

And as for getting rid of artillery and DDs, I did ask for serious suggestions Einstein


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 02:51 AM #8
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my opinion of the Battleship

Two-Hit Battleship:
a. No repairs. Leave BB on their side to indicate that they have suffered 1 hit.
b. OR …. Battleships are repaired if they only take 1 hit in combat for 6 IPCs
i. at the begining of a country's round
ii. OR ... begining of a country's round & non-combat of that country's round

no random dice rolls for repair as it takes away from the ability to plan.
no need to be next to an IC. lame and against the game flow

[ March 12, 2004, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: PAGAN ]
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 02:58 AM #9
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strategic Bombing Raids...

an IC should only be able to sustain an amount of damage equal to its territory value.

PLUS the most damage able to be sustained in a whole TURN for any IC should be its territory value.

NOT each country
NOT each bomber (as in the rules)
-if EACH bomber could hit up to a maximum of an IC territory value then how in the hell does this keep Heavy Bombers in check? the big killer with HBs is/was not the 3 attacking dice (2 are better) but the fact that they can make a country never have any starting IPCs.

[ March 12, 2004, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: PAGAN ]
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:09 AM #10
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US IPC:
round 1 - 20 IPCs
round 2 - 30 IPCs
round 3 --> IPC territory values

this is to help incorporate the USA build-up PLUS it may give the Axis just enough of an edge to balance out the play. But speaking of balance very well may be premature.
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:46 pm

03-12-2004, 03:11 AM #11
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KAmikazee & Kaiton torpedo:

give em something to make them useful for the loss of a piece which you can't even use as a hit on defending return fire...

increase their attack by 1 each (Fighters @ 4, Subs @ 3) AND allow them to hit SPECIFIC targets. Otherwise they are LAME optional rules
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:19 AM #12
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUBS:

Destroyers need to be present in an attacking group for anything to attack a sub. (AAE & AAP)

Destroyers remove a subs First-Strike attack capability ... BUT only 1 for 1

Subs should still be able to submerge with a DD present... OR make it 1 for 1

this keeps any country away from having a single DD in their naval group just so they can negate EVERY SINGLE enemy sub. The DD & Subs rule as it stands is lame, and affords the DD too much power.

[ March 12, 2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: PAGAN ]
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:20 AM #13
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My problem with 2-hit BB is basically the same as my problem with AA guns---and a few other rules I could mention---their super-special abilities are just hard to imagine in what is supposed to be a game based (however loosely) on historical reality, and these super-abilities take us into the land of magic and fantasy.

I have heard the arguments in favor of 2-hit BB and they are all based on "Ooooh gee that is really cool and justifies the price." Well to me 2-hit BB is just a design cheat, a quick-fix for a broken piece. If the unit is too expensive don't give it "magical healing powers" or the ability to absorb more hits than any other unit in the game---just lower the price!

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:25 AM #14
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E43, given that a DD is a 3/3 for 12 IPCs, can't you see that a 1-hit 4/4 BB (even with shore bombard) is still bad value even as low as 18 IPCs?


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:35 AM #15
friendlyfox1
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really excited about the new game, fellas.

I'd like to make some suggestions, as unfortunately late as they may be, regarding naval action in the game and submarines. I was a fan of the second addition rules "silent service" expansion, but it was too complicated. I believe the answer to be:

SUBS have no zone of control. Enemy surface vessels can move freely through a zone occupied by lone enemy subs, including transports.

SUBS cannot attack other subs.

SUBS in a convoy of surface ships can be attacked and used for hits defending more valuable surface ships.

SUBS alone in a seazone have the first choice to attack an invading surface convoy. If there is a destroyer in the convoy, the sub commander still has the first choice, but then the option goes to the convoy commander whether to attack subs or continue movement or participation in bombardment.

SUBS cannot be attacked by a wing of enemy fighters unless they are enticed by a surface vessel entering the sea zone. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! It's realistic in that air support finds and destroys submarines while surfaced, and the presence of a surface vessel would allow that sub commander the choice to engage and take the wrath of protecting fighters. The presence of a destroyer would allow that sub commander's decision to be overruled, again as an option.
Let's say there is a fleet of three German subs alone in a seazone.
SCENARIOS -
UK battleship or aircraft carrier enters the seazone with an air wing escort. SUB commander can choose whether to engage or not.
UK loaded frieghter with an air wing escort enters the seazone. Again SUB commander has the option.
UK Destroyer, in the company of surface ships and planes, or not, has the choice after the SUB commander's, to find and attack the subs.

So the power goes to the Destroyer to unveil any subs, otherwise the choice is in the submersable's hands.

Of course whether subs are attacking or defending they should have a sneak attack first round, I like that.

I'd love to get some feedback on how this could not work. Just to let you know I think air squadrons swooping down and without consequence wiping out a fleet of subs is a ridiculous detriment to the game, it always has been. SUBS can't fight planes, i agree, but they should be able to take something back, like a surface vessel that they'd risk revealing themselves to in the first place. It makes sense, right??

Steven Bishop


friendlyfox1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by friendlyfox1
Add friendlyfox1 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:45 AM #16
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by PAGAN:
Strategic Bombing Raids...

an IC should only be able to sustain an amount of damage equal to its territory value.

PLUS the most damage able to be sustained in a whole TURN for any IC should be its territory value.

NOT each country
NOT each bomber (as in the rules)
-if EACH bomber could hit up to a maximum of an IC territory value then how in the hell does this keep Heavy Bombers in check? the big killer with HBs is/was not the 3 attacking dice (2 are better) but the fact that they can make a country never have any starting IPCs.

Exactly. We have had that house rule for 10 years...


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:56 AM #17
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-hit Battleship

As for just dropping the price on a BB, This is my quick consideration of it:

subs = 8 @ 2/2 + movement + 1st-Strike & Submerge
DD = 12 @ 2/3 + anti-subs
BB = 15 @ 4/4 + bombard

--I'm viewing the BB as a kind of watercraft Bomber

--of course, current subs rules need to be changed
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 03:57 AM #18
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Talonz:
We're looking for advanced rules for the revised A&A, not a reprint of 2nd ed. A&A.

First of all, I love the way you use the word "we" to mean yourself and those that agree with you while excluding anyone and everyone else.

"We" might include a bigger group than just you and your buddies. It might include the concept of people who have different ideas, even people who disagree with some of the changes in the AH game.

"We" wanted the MB game fixed, and had definite ideas about how to do it. "We" are not happy that instead of fixing the old game they decided to add lots of bells and whistles and shiny new pieces that just cover up the fact that they missed so many chances.

"We" were very happy to hear Larry say (or at least imply) that now that the game is out there, the "real" playtesting can begin.

"We" were happy to see a thread labelled "Advanced Rules" that promised to be about fixing the problems with the new game. Little did "we" know that "we" would not be welcome to voice unpopular truths (like how weak 2-hit BB is in terms of game design, or how DD and Artillery should not be separate units in a "historical" game of this scale).

Enough for now. I'll come back when I'm in a better mood.

Einstein

[ March 12, 2004, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Einstein43 ]


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 04:06 AM #19
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
E43, given that a DD is a 3/3 for 12 IPCs, can't you see that a 1-hit 4/4 BB (even with shore bombard) is still bad value even as low as 18 IPCs?

Yes I do, which is why I don't think DD should be in the game. The BB piece should represent a battleship group, including destroyers, escorts, patrol boats, everything that was part of a battleship task force.

Same with artillery. On the scale of this game, even units like the massive Soviet Artillery Corps should be "organic" to infantry and armor pieces.

People treat this like a tactical level game when it is at least in theory supposed to be a grand strategic level game. That "sub" isn't a single u-boat, it is 50 or 60 uboats working together over a huge area of ocean.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 04:21 AM #20
friendlyfox1
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 3-3 Destroyer is one heck of a bargain at twelve IPC. But let's not discredit it, it represents some awesome "small convoy" naval action in a game that really stacks up these huge naval ball busters. I kind of like it. And what about the 2hit battleships, keep it, i think make 2hit carriers too. Just limit the amount of carriers and battleships each nation can have on the board.

And what's the deal with these hovering fleeing planes that wait for some contracted ally carrier to pick up later in the round. Come on, you guys are being paid to come up with ideas like that? What happens if the enemy nation can't reach to attack the carrier, what if fighter planes or ships are deployed into that seazone, is there now an Airzone??? with these hanging fighters??
let them flee to an adjacent friendly or crash. If you want to make a 2hit carrier, that's cool.
Just call it a 2hit Capital Warship like they do in some independent expansion I read once. Just say you can only have three battleships on the board at one time, and two aircraft carriers if they are that strong.

Steven Bishop

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 pm

03-12-2004, 04:24 AM #21
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another way to make the game easier and more realistic while cutting out a bunch of special rules: don't allow mixed nationalities on carriers or transports. Period. This eliminates the Allied advantage of moving a UK carrier loaded with US ftrs in the UK turn, bringing the US ftrs within range of a target they could not have reached without that "UK boost." This type of move is specifically prohibited in the rules; one country is not allowed to move its carrier 2 spaces, then launch ftrs from the new position. Only by "piggybacking" your movement with mixed ftrs and carriers is it possible.

While I'm talking about carriers, try this one for an advanced rule: ftrs on carriers only have a movement of 1 away from the carrier, but the carrier can move 1 or 2 before the ftrs launch. Once ftrs launch, the carriers move is ended. Eliminates the fantasy move of ftrs flying off 3 spaces in one direction to do battle, then AFTER they are lost in combat, the carrier is allowed to sail off 2 spaces in the opposite direction [in noncombat movement].

If you like these, I have plenty more. Even if you don't like these, I have plenty more.

Einstein

[ March 12, 2004, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Einstein43 ]


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 04:39 AM #22
friendlyfox1
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like your style EINSTIEN, but keep the multinational transport. There's some cool strategy and drama. And about your carrier idea, it kind of limits the attack capability of fighters in a land battle unless the carrier is directly off shore. There are many times when it's good to have that fighter's range, especially if you have the power and not the island. Let the carriers do their job.

About that carrier moving in the opposite direction of it's fighters. That is an illegal move. Any combat move with fighters from a carrier, the carrier assists, and must travel along. I believe that's in the rules. Now as far as noncombat, you could do that, and that's cool because you can support a territory with fighters and then flee the carrier out of range from a counter attack.

a carrier should be as versitile as it can be. Naval strategy is an awesome part of this game.

Steven


friendlyfox1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by friendlyfox1
Add friendlyfox1 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 04:53 AM #23
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by friendlyfox1:

About that carrier moving in the opposite direction of it's fighters. That is an illegal move. Any combat move with fighters from a carrier, the carrier assists, and must travel along. I believe that's in the rules. Now as far as noncombat, you could do that, and that's cool because you can support a territory with fighters and then flee the carrier out of range from a counter attack.

Steven

I don't think that is right. The ftrs could leave the carrier to go to one battle, the carrier could go to another battle or stay put and move in noncom. It is the noncom move where the carrier sails away in the opposite direction from which it sent ftrs that the carrier WOULD HAVE HAD TO RETRIEVE IF THEY HAD LIVED that is screwy.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 05:02 AM #24
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by friendlyfox1:
I like your style EINSTIEN, but keep the multinational transport.

Troops load in one player turn. Transport moves in another player turn. Troops unload in the following turn. EVEN WHEN BRIDGING? Get real. Either make the rule work smoothly or get rid of it. I mean, if we are going to say no neutral country can be invaded, why can't we say that transports should only carry their own nation's troops?

(Now if there was some kind of Dunkirk rule that allowed defenders to retreat onto treansports, that would be different. But defending troops can never retreat),

Transports, by the way, should be cheaper (4, 5, maybe 6 IPC at most) but only carry ONE unit each. Eliminates all those questions about "splitting" your troops in amphibious assaults and noncoms between two territories. Gone. Poof. No longer an issue.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 05:19 AM #25
friendlyfox1
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude Right on!!
Let's take over this site! These guys think they make the rules? This is war, man!

Why aren't paratroopers allowed? Just apply a one time charge before combat movement, 2 IPC per man, and range 3. You have marines, and kamikazee attacks but no paratroopers? What gives?

Let's not get too out of hand, but come on? Paratroopers are a great alternative to transports, and they're completely necessary!!


friendlyfox1
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by friendlyfox1
Add friendlyfox1 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 05:30 AM #26
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E43 I welcome your comments, although I am not obliged to agree with you, just as you aren't required to agree with me.

I agree insofar as DDs need to be removed if 1-hit BBs are reintroduced. Personally I like 2-Hit BBs, although I think they need to be 20 IPCs, because I never build them for 24.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 05:35 AM #27
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by friendlyfox1:
Dude Right on!!
Let's take over this site! These guys think they make the rules? This is war, man!

Why aren't paratroopers allowed? Just apply a one time charge before combat movement, 2 IPC per man, and range 3. You have marines, and kamikazee attacks but no paratroopers? What gives?

Let's not get too out of hand, but come on?

Paratroopers are a great alternative to transports, and they're completely necessary!!

I knew I'd get in trouble for suggesting paratroopers would not be a serious advanced rule option.

What I meant was rules that you think would be accepted by the community (deep down you know the ones I'm talking about)as well as Larry and Mike.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 06:04 AM #28
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,218

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know I'm going to get blasted for saying this - but here goes. Paratroopers have no place in a game on the scale of A&A. I was very happy that they were not included.

Kamikazes probably don't either, for that matter. Their impact is too small to make a difference on this scale.
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


Krieghund
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Krieghund
Send email to Krieghund
Find More Posts by Krieghund
Add Krieghund to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 06:17 AM #29
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 616

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein is right when he writes how people want tactical considerations included in the abilities of units in the grand strategic game.

The typical example is battleships vs destroyers. In real life, battleships could destroy submarines only by ramming them. Yet, in A&A they can both attack and defend from submarines with or without destroyers.

In real life, it was destroyers whose task was to fight it out with submarines whether they escorted capital ships or convoys.

In this light, a separate destroyer piece is completely unnecessary. Instead of them, battleships should have cost 12 IPCs, attack and defend at 3 and their number doubled compared to the original game. Voila! Problem solved. Players get a piece they would build, use, lose again build and so on.

I am uncomfortable with separate fighters aboard carriers for long time. My idea is to consider carrier based aircraft as organic part of the carrier unit. New carrier would be expensive (15 to 18), but would attack and defend at 4 and could pick its targets. Does anyone ever ask himself what defense strentgh of 3 actually represents?

A&A treatment of carrier battle is odd since it allows for attacking carrier to remain untouched throughout the battle.

Anyway, naval units are still too expensive for game to have interesting naval combat. in its present form it looks more like nuclear stand off where either one side has complete domination or two sides dance across the ocean challenging the other to make mistake and lose the naval war.

Drax


Drax Kramer
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Drax Kramer
Send email to Drax Kramer
Find More Posts by Drax Kramer
Add Drax Kramer to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 08:29 AM #30
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes there is no justification for a CV defending on a 3, while attacking on a 1.

You could maybe consider defensive armaments such as Ack-Ack, but I'm pretty sure it was really the smaller vessels in the fleet that provided the air-cover.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 pm

03-12-2004, 08:36 AM #31
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I noticed Mike was on the boards this morning, but didn't bother replying to this thread.

Hrm, I hope he at least confirms that he and Larry may consider doing an advanced rules set. I mean Larry did talk the talk, let's hope he'll walk the walk


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 09:36 AM #32
Mike Selinker
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 726

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am reading it, and I'm fascinated by it. But as you know, I never discuss potential future products.

Mike


Mike Selinker
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mike Selinker
Find More Posts by Mike Selinker
Add Mike Selinker to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 09:39 AM #33
Red Shirt Ensign
Senior Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 191

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that means you won't be replying to teh question of future A&A games in my other thread...

Maybe it will lead you to some new idea or confirmation of existing projects [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's teh problem with the world today.... to many secrets not enough SHARING

Mike did you not share well as a child ??


Red Shirt Ensign
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Red Shirt Ensign
Add Red Shirt Ensign to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 10:03 AM #34
Mike Selinker
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 726

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Mike did you not share well as a child ??

I was an only child. I didn't even share my parents.

Now, please, let's get back to the debate about what should be in an advanced supplement, should it ever exist.

Mike


Mike Selinker
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mike Selinker
Find More Posts by Mike Selinker
Add Mike Selinker to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 10:27 AM #35
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,218

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding SBRs - I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

The damage should be limited to one die per IPC point of the territory. This limits the damage exposure, but not too restrictively. We've been using this house rule for 15 years.
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


Krieghund
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Krieghund
Send email to Krieghund
Find More Posts by Krieghund
Add Krieghund to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 10:41 AM #36
Larry Harris



Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Shore - Boston
Posts: 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DY
Thanks for your Congratulations. Also thanks for originating this post. Reading it was interesting. It quickly turned into a back and forth shouting match. I understand your need for an “Official” rules place. To be “Official” it needs the recognition of Avalon Hill. This then would require some discussions with the powers to be at Avalon Hill. This is after all their web site. I would love to be involved in this and I suspect Mike would be as well.

Getting Avalon Hill to sanction this idea and fully get behind it will take some time. There are perhaps many reasons why Avalon Hill would not want to do this. One that comes to mind immediately is the potential for legal problems.

During the time it will take to discuss and possibly implement this site we should busy ourselves collecting the issues and putting them all under one roof. DY, I like your list. They seem to be worthy of this discussion:
Making Australia a VC –Should be examined
I like the relationship between Subs and DD’s but I’d entertain some discussion on this.
Fighter escorts and interceptors – should be examined
Start up positions – could always be improved on.
I would also make the (AA gun) Rocket rules more clear.

I guess the first thing to do is compose a list of additional items (issues) to consider.

By the way, this site we are discussing would not be a free for all and would not encourage debate. Debate and discussion would certainly go on but not at this site. That would have to happen somewhere else. No this site, for the sake of clearness and efficiency would not be a debate forum. Think of it as temple on a hill or library that collects the final word and publishes it. One thing is becoming clear to me… this would not be a democratic process. It would have to be lead by either a dictator or small governing committee. I would hope this dictator or committee would have the wisdom and talents to recognize good ideas and implement them accordingly. I would hope this person or people would be able to differentiate between topics that deserve our time and those that deserve no consideration at all. The discussion on double hit battleships comes to mind.

At this point there has been no discussion between Mike and I and no discussions with Avalon Hill either. I will be away most of next week so if you don’t hear from me it’s because I’m at the GAMA show in Las Vegas. I hope to discuss this matter directly with Avalon Hill while I'm there.

Regards

[ March 12, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Larry Harris ]


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris
Add Larry Harris to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 10:43 AM #37
Red Shirt Ensign
Senior Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 191

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Mike did you not share well as a child ??

I was an only child. I didn't even share my parents.

Now, please, let's get back to the debate about what should be in an advanced supplement, should it ever exist.

Mike</font>[/quote]Just a joke...
Judging from the last couple of days with my comments being blown way out of proportion... there is no room for levity on this forum particularly when it concerns the 2 most powerful people on this board ...no not you elbow master.... oops look at that I did it again... shan't happen again


Red Shirt Ensign
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Red Shirt Ensign
Add Red Shirt Ensign to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 11:15 AM #38
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry,
When you talk to AH/Wizards people could you do me a favor if you think of it? I need a contact email for someone in sales and promotion in GenCon to discuss a "promotional" idea for AAMC. If elected President soon (election at end of the month) I am trying to take steps to help us get some DB's in place to help promote the new game in whatever direction the PBEM world decided to go with it, ans link sales promotion or other steps 'might' be a necesssity for a while to fund such.

If you needed some sort of "contractual" thing attached to a site to post a closed topic area (concerning the rule changes being discussed here and decided upon by yourself, and your team) I could provide it at AAMC and legally sign it at that point. Would give a base on the MB's to work from. I imagine Atti would likely make the same offer at Flames-of-Europe knowing him, so it's just some food for thought This is assuming AH wouldn't like such a thing on 'there' official site or feel legally threatened if so".

Thanks for any assistance.
Chris C
Carico67@hotmail.com

[ March 12, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:37 PM #39
Larry Harris



Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Shore - Boston
Posts: 123

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I emailed AH for contact information concerning your request.


Larry Harris
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Larry Harris
Add Larry Harris to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 12:52 PM #40
UsmcIceman
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 30

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look up the Post called Rockets are King. Mike Wrote that the rule is going to state what he wrote in the sneak peek.

1 rocket per factory max. Range 3.

Example Germany fires 1 rocket at GB 1 at Moscow and 1 at the 2nd Factory in Russia for a max of the IPC value were the Factory is.

You cannot fire multiple rockets into the same factory. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The Power of Rockets

If Heavy Bombers had to come down in power, Rockets had to go up ... and down, just like a rocket. The previous rulebook allowed one of your antiaircraft guns to make a free strike against an enemy industrial complex within 3 spaces. By comparison to the original Heavy Bombers, this was too weak. Even alongside the new, toned-down Heavy Bombers, it paled.

The new rules allow you to make a rocket strike with each of your antiaircraft guns, as long as each gun attacks a different industrial complex. That means if you have two guns and each is within three spaces of different industrial complexes, they can hit both of the complexes with one shot each. If you have six antiaircraft guns ... well, no one's going to let you have six guns near six different complexes. Besides, you've probably not bought anything but AA guns after investing 60 or 70 IPCs in this plan, so your enemies will just capture the weakly-defended guns and turn them against you.

With all this blasting away at industrial complexes, we also imposed a severe, new limit on both rocket strikes and strategic bombing. No single bomber or rocket can inflict more IPC loss on an industrial complex than the income value of the territory that the complex sits on. In other words, a complex can't lose more than it makes to a single bomber or rocket strike. This should demolish the execrable "poison pill" tactic. This tactic had you build a complex on a low-value territory, then intentionally lose it in combat so that you could blast the enemy's economy with rocket strikes and bombers directed against what used to be your territory. Now, if you build an industrial complex in a 1-IPC territory, you'll only be able to take away 1 IPC per bomber or rocket.


__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.... It smells like..... Victory.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:48 pm

03-12-2004, 01:17 PM #41
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Krieghund:
IParatroopers have no place in a game on the scale of A&A. I was very happy that they were not included.

Kamikazes probably don't either, for that matter. Their impact is too small to make a difference on this scale.

Same for DD and Artillery, as well as kaiten torpedoes and banzai attacks.,,probably some others, too.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 01:23 PM #42
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
Yes there is no justification for a CV defending on a 3, while attacking on a 1.

You could maybe consider defensive armaments such as Ack-Ack, but I'm pretty sure it was really the smaller vessels in the fleet that provided the air-cover.

We all fall into this mental trap---a carrier piece does not represent one (or even several) aircraft carrier(s)---it represents that PLUS many more support vessels, including destroyers and other ships that might provide additional antiaircraft cover.

Agree with Drax that carriers with "organic" ftrs would be the realistic ideal---but realistically believeing that will never happen, I came up with the "carrier-based ftr" rule that gives ftrs reduced movement but allows the carrier to move before launching ftrs.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 02:36 PM #43
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Larry:

I don't think this thread has become a "shouting match" but obviously some of us do have strong feelings about the game. (You already know that, of course). I agree with the previous poster who said we all have the right to post our opinions and we all have the right to disagree with each others ideas. I responded somewhat sarcastically to a remark about some of my suggestions---and I apologize for the sarcasm but not for the point behind it. Players like me who suggest a return to some of the MB rules don't simply want a reprint of the 2nd edition. I really like the new map and some of the new rules. Some of the other rules, particularly those that addressed shortcomings in the MB version, were resolved in exactly the opposite direction I would have chosen. It is so consistent it is almost funny. (Like further retrictions on transport unloading, and always on AA guns---I would have loosened the transport restrictions and restricted the AA guns! Just two examples).

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 04:06 PM #44
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 616

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first (when A&A:E came up), artillery units gave me a trouble. I saw no need for them. In fact, A&A would have been as good as it is even without it.

However, in time, I started to visualise artillery as a unit of the same type as infantry, only with higher level HQ attached.

So, if an infantry unit represents a corps, artillery unit also represents a corps but with an army HQ attached which enhances command and control and thus increases the combat value of several corps in the attack.

Unfortunately, A&A mechanics with no force pools, no stack limits and initial deployment that isn't based on historical, reduces artillery unit to just a plastic miniature with a little more chance to score a hit in the combat.

Drax


Drax Kramer
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Drax Kramer
Send email to Drax Kramer
Find More Posts by Drax Kramer
Add Drax Kramer to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 07:33 PM #45
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Mike and Larry.

Firstly, I want to thank you both for your intrest in this thread. I particularly found Larry's post very helpful in gaining further insight into how this process may develop.

I have decided that if, at the end of the day, AH is not prepared to back this idea (due to legal reasons, or whatever), then people like me who hate house rules and crave official optional rules, might be satsfied with unofficial optional rules put forward by the game developer(s).

This could, for example, be presented on Don Rae's site and be filled with all sorts of disclaimers to prevent any legal complications.

As long as I feel the optional rule has been suggested by a benevolent dictator (ie a Dev ), then I personally would feel more than comfortable adopting it into my game play.
And as I said, I suspect there may others that feel the same way.

[ March 12, 2004, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-12-2004, 07:35 PM #46
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ack, can't figure out how to delete the post.

[ March 12, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 12:31 AM #47
Dr_Shades
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm happy this topic has been brought up.

THE TWO POTENTIAL ADVANCED RULES I FEEL MOST PASSIONATE about:

1. Have all nations on a side take their turns at the same time. Similar to how India and Australia both moved in synch in A&A:P, all three Allies should take their turns together, and both Axis powers should take their turns together as well.

In 5 player games, this would ensure that all players would have a turn every other turn, and not every fifth turn as in the current rules. In addition, this would completely eliminate any rules on Multi-National Forces, Joint Strikes, loading a transport on your turn while having the cargo move on another, etc. If you think such a rule would unduly favor the United Kingdom and the United States, then add a simple rule stating that no transport or aircraft carrier may carry cargo belonging another nation.

2. Add a rule so that the Axis powers can both lose the war but still win the game. I know it sounds like heresy right now, but this game as it stands is overwhelmingly a game of offense for the Axis and defense for the Allies. If both Axis powers find themselves on the defensive, then the game is over for all intents and purposes.

The game should be an exercise in both offense and defense for both the Allies and the Axis. The game should still be fun for the Axis player(s) even if he/she/they are technically "losing." A timeline could be established, saying that if one or both Axis powers are unconquered by round X, then the game ends in an Axis victory. Perhaps players could bid numbers for X, with the lowest-bidding player(s) playing the Allies.

In my Global Crisis A&A expansion rules, I state that the goal of all Axis & Allies players should be to do better than their historical counterparts did. I.e., Germany should win the game if she surrenders after Spring 1945, and likewise Japan should win if she surrenders after Fall 1945. In this way, Axis nations conquering territory, taking capitals, etc. would be a tool for ensuring their own survival, and would therefore still be well worth practicing a good "offense" in the early game. Likewise, the Allies would be extremely poorly served by merely stacking infantry, because they, too, would need to incorporate a sound offensive strategy much sooner than later.

THE POTENTIAL ADVANCED RULE I STRONGLY FAVOR:

1. Similar to how artillery enhances infantry, all units should enhance all other units. In World War II, victory usually went to the force which made the best use of coordinated combined arms. Take Germany for example: Her revolutionary blitzkrieg tactics earned her a stunning victory against the numerically-superior French thanks to effective coordination of both infantry, air, and armored units.

So, for our purposes, perhaps every unit--whether attacking or defending--should hit on a "1." For each supporting unit of a type other than its own, it would hit on an additional "1." So if an infantry was matched with an artillery, a tank, a fighter, and a bomber, the infantry would hit on a "5" (1+1+1+1+1=5). Likewise, all the aforementioned units would similarly hit on a "5," since the artillery would simultaneously find itself supported by the infantry, the tank, the fighter, and the bomber; the tank would likewise find itself supported by the other 4 units, etc.

This way, a varied mix of units would be encouraged as never before. Goodbye forever, Infantry Push Mechanic.

THE ADVANCED RULE I AM NOT PASSIONATE ABOUT, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IMPLEMENTED:

1. Allow transports to carry IPCs from one nation to another to simulate lend-lease. Allowing a transport to carry, say, 5 IPCs or so from one of the donating power's territories to one of the recipient power's territories--and then adding them to the recipient's income--would more accurately simulate lend-lease, in my opinion. There would be a greater reason for the purchase of submarines, as was the case historically, especially for Germany.

[ March 13, 2004, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Shades ]
__________________
<a>Global Crisis--the most comprehensive Axis & Allies expansion on the Internet!</a>


Dr_Shades
View Public Profile
Visit Dr_Shades's homepage!
Find More Posts by Dr_Shades
Add Dr_Shades to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 12:49 AM #48
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point taken on the flaming Greg.

I am interested in the ideas posted by Dr. Shades also. I don't like the idea of each side moiving simultaneously, but I do like his ideas on win conditions such as Axis survival until turn X.

Unsure about his rules on combined arms, but perhaps something closer to the Fortress America rules could be adopted.

For example if you attack with at least one infantry type unit, one mechanised unit and one air unit, then all units receive +1 to the dice roll. The sheer number of units used in AA compared with FA could be a problem here, but it's worth considering for an advanced ruleset.

The lend-lease option sounds very interesting. Perhaps it could be a choice of 4 IPCs or 2 IPCs to the other nation, in addition to dropping off a land unit in non-combat movement.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 12:52 AM #49
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
First of all, I love the way you use the word "we" to mean yourself and those that agree with you while excluding anyone and everyone else.

No, "we" meant simply those that are interested in discussion of advanced rules and not flippant comments like 'I dont like unit X, we should go back to the old rules'. You include or exclude yourself from this discussion as you like.


Quote:
Little did "we" know that "we" would not be welcome to voice unpopular truths (like how weak 2-hit BB is in terms of game design, or how DD and Artillery should not be separate units in a "historical" game of this scale).

You gave no rationale in your original post. Your 'truth's were voiced as unsupported opinion, nothing more, and were treated as such.

Now that you've illustrated some reasoning behind those opinions, I'd be happy to engage you in discussion;

I agree 2 hit BBs are still weak, and the auto-heal rule is somewhat silly. But rather than returning to the old rules or cheapening them in price, why not seek alternative solutions? Considering that there are now proper destroyer flotillas, why not give the BB opening fire as it surely deserves? Considering the range and firepower of the BB guns and the cost paid, BB opening fire against surface targets surely can't be unreasonable? That would improve the unit and be in keeping with what their intended role was, to engage and destroy enemy shipping from afar.

As for the 2hit BB rule. I like it. Well, in so far as they take 2 hits. After that we have to get into complicated repair rules that for 1 unit, doesn't seem worth the effort on this scale. Thus the 'auto-heal' rule. Its a compromise between whats 'real' and whats needed for gameplay. I can live with that, I'm not sure why its such a problem for you.

And finally DDs and artillery. I agree its unlikely to find artillery in a battle without the units they are supposed to support, but the detail, depth, and choice is what is interesting here. We could have simply 3 types of units in the game really, Army, Navy, and Airforce but what fun would there be in that? DDs and Artillery are not unreasonable imo and asking for them to be removed now is a bit unreasonable. However if you wish to draft an optional rule that covers this, feel free. I just don't think that is worth the effort imo.

[ March 13, 2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Talonz ]


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 12:59 AM #50
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
1. Have all nations on a side take their turns at the same time.

That would make combat moves/combat/noncombat moves very messy.

I would recomend instead having all nations do tech/purchase units and mobolize new units/collect income at the same time, but all movement and combat seperately. This is similar to the Shogun/Samurai swords sequence of play.

This should still speed up the game while removing little oddities like having 3 nations take income for the same territory in the same round by trading it back and forth (common in places like western europe for instance).

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:49 pm

03-13-2004, 01:02 AM #51
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 24 IPC 2-hit BB with opening fire suddenly becomes worth consideration IMHO. Suddenly, when also factoring in shore bombardment, BBs may be worth 2 DDs.

Nice idea!


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 01:49 AM #52
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
In real life, battleships could destroy submarines only by ramming them. In real life, it was destroyers whose task was to fight it out with submarines whether they escorted capital ships or convoys.

In this light, a separate destroyer piece is completely unnecessary.

Odd, I would've arrived at the exact opposite based on your own summary above. I find it odd that A&A restricts subs to hitting naval targets only yet doesnt do the same with other units. I'd like to see targetting restrictions/choices across the board where appropriate.

DDs being the only naval unit to be able to hit subs for instance.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 02:11 AM #53
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I developed battleship first strike (same as "opening fire") in 1999. Also developed an artillery rule, basically using AA guns as both AA and artillery (making a separate artillery piece redundant). All artillery (including BB) had "opening fire" every round of combat. Also allowed opening fire units that rolled a 1 to pick their targets. Also about another 40 pages of SIMPLE modifications to the basic MB game that made the game both more "realistic" and easier to play while making the playouts more varied.


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 04:47 AM #54
Krieghund
A&A Boardgame Answer Guy




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,218

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, Einstein. That seems similar to the rules changes I've been working on lately for A&A Europe and Pacific (still tweaking them). We seem to see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues!
__________________
"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


Krieghund
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Krieghund
Send email to Krieghund
Find More Posts by Krieghund
Add Krieghund to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 07:11 AM #55
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 616

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by solitaire77:

There are explainations why CVs should defend at 3 and attack at 1. A third of a carrier's fighters were generally assigned to combat air patrol (CAP).

Which would make carrier sinking battleships with these CAP fighters defending at 3 rather odd. Actually, Larry had it right the first time. In Nova version, carriers defended at 1.



Quote:
Furthermore, carrier units should be considered carrier task forces, which includes picket ships on defense against subs and such.

So when one such carrier task force stumbles upon the other, the latter had three times as much chance to hit than the former?

The whole idea of "attacker" and "defender" in naval campaigns fighting in the course of several months on the areas encompassing thousands of square miles is ridiculous.

All naval units should have equal attack and defend strength because they fought equally regardless of who sailed into the Coral or Philippine Seas first.

Drax


Drax Kramer
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Drax Kramer
Send email to Drax Kramer
Find More Posts by Drax Kramer
Add Drax Kramer to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 07:35 AM #56
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drax is correct. Why have differing attack and defense values for CVs?

Transports, as they are, kinda make sense in terms of game mechanics (we probably don't want merchant ships having an attack value, but we need to add the fact that defenders can't retreat, making lone transports guaranteed to die to aircraft, subs etc).

However, CVs should be like subs, DDs and BBs which attack and defend on the same roll.

[ March 13, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 09:03 AM #57
solitaire77
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
Yes there is no justification for a CV defending on a 3, while attacking on a 1.

You could maybe consider defensive armaments such as Ack-Ack, but I'm pretty sure it was really the smaller vessels in the fleet that provided the air-cover.

There are explainations why CVs should defend at 3 and attack at 1. A third of a carrier's fighters were generally assigned to combat air patrol (CAP).

Yup. This means that a defending carrier would have 50% again more airpower in the battle.

Furthermore, aircraft carriers DID have pretty impressive anti-aircraft gun numbers... expecially the US fleet carriers which were built during the war. For example, by the end of the war, the CV Enterprise was refit to have 8x 5" guns (with proximity fuses and radar-controlled central air defense), 60x 40mm, and 32x 20mm guns.

Considering that the BB's of the same era had similar numbers of AA guns in many cases, it isn't too shabby. Both CVs and BBs increased in AA during the war.

Furthermore, carrier units should be considered carrier task forces, which includes picket ships on defense against subs and such.
__________________
-Greg


solitaire77
View Public Profile
Send a private message to solitaire77
Find More Posts by solitaire77
Add solitaire77 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 09:13 AM #58
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I fell into the trap of thinking of a carrier unit in A&A as simply a handful of carriers, without the support vessels encompassed by the piece.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 09:16 AM #59
solitaire77
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
Little did "we" know that "we" would not be welcome to voice unpopular truths (like how weak 2-hit BB is in terms of game design, or how DD and Artillery should not be separate units in a "historical" game of this scale).

Seems strange to be talking about making BB's cheaper, and then calling for historical accuracy. I believe that BBs must be 24 IPC for historical accuracy.

Quick! Fact check. How many battleships did Japan launch from 1941 to 1945?

Well, if you answered zero, you're right.

Infact, even if we go back to 1937 (well before A&A begins), we still only find Japan launching two BBs during the period.

The majority of the BBs on the board in Axis and Allies should be those that begin the war.

After the war started, the powers could have built BBs, but it just wasn't worth the investment. So, it ends up that BBs actually are well simulated in some ways in Axis and Allies.

You can call it "truth", but it's an opinion just like mine.

My opinion is that BBs are much improved, and artillery, while historically strange on this scale, so is every other unit.

Oh well. Both editions are more fun than doing laundry.

It seems really premature to be talking about advanced rules.
__________________
-Greg


solitaire77
View Public Profile
Send a private message to solitaire77
Find More Posts by solitaire77
Add solitaire77 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 09:28 AM #60
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you prefer we wait 18 years before talking about advanced rules?

Larry and mike don't seem to mind.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:49 pm

03-13-2004, 09:34 AM #61
solitaire77
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
Would you prefer we wait 18 years before talking about advanced rules?

Larry and mike don't seem to mind.

Nope. Discussion is never bad (well, non-flame-war discusssion isn't bad), but I am a big believer in playtesting.

No matter how well a game is designed, if players aren't satisfied at the end of the game, then it isn't working.

I find problems with outcome to be more signifiant than problem with process. Just an opinion.

By no means did I mean to impune the value of idle chatter.
__________________
-Greg


solitaire77
View Public Profile
Send a private message to solitaire77
Find More Posts by solitaire77
Add solitaire77 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 11:57 AM #62
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well transports are not merchant vessels. They are a mixed force (like all the other pieces). I have used a house rule that allowed unloaded transports to attack on a 1.

Drax's idea that all naval units should attack and defend at the same strength is a good point. Transports should be 1/1, subs already are 2/2, destroyers already are 3/3, battleships already are 4/4. Carriers should probably be 1/1 as well, and depend on ftrs for added defense.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 08:42 PM #63
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, I guess unloaded transports can be 1/1 Einstein.

What is the justification for loaded transports not firing at 1 in attack?

I assume weight considerations meant that they would remove some of the normal armaments.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 08:44 PM #64
solitaire77
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
Which would make carrier sinking battleships with these CAP fighters defending at 3 rather odd.

A CV sinking a BB on defense has to do with the somewhat strange fact that a hit is a hit (except by a sub), and can be allocated to any unit. This is not necessarily relevant to a CV sinking a BB, which is just as strange on a defensive 3 as it is when it occurs on a 1.

It is certainly no stranger than a sub hitting another sub.


Quote:
Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
So when one such carrier task force stumbles upon the other, the latter had three times as much chance to hit than the former?

Not a fair representation of my position here either. A carrier task force attacks at 2x 3- and 1x 1-, and defends at 2x 4- and 1x 3-. It is a large difference, but not 3x.


Quote:
Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
The whole idea of "attacker" and "defender" in naval campaigns fighting in the course of several months on the areas encompassing thousands of square miles is ridiculous.

The presence of land based airpower often made the difference between attacking and defending relevant, which A&A does not represent well otherwise.
__________________
-Greg


solitaire77
View Public Profile
Send a private message to solitaire77
Find More Posts by solitaire77
Add solitaire77 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 08:58 PM #65
solitaire77
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 111

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Shades:
1. Have all nations on a side take their turns at the same time

I like the idea. More games should be simultaneous (Diplomacy and Samurai swords spring to mind), but I can't say that I am thrilled with your method of accomplishing simultaneaity.


Quote:
2. Add a rule so that the Axis powers can both lose the war but still win the game.

We've always found these "technical" victories unhistoric and unappealing. Everybody seems to want to slog through to the bitter end to a greater degree. I think the 9 victory city level might just be a good enough compromise.


Quote:
1. Similar to how artillery enhances infantry, all units should enhance all other units.

A&A already does reward combined arms (moreso than it ever did). A force of armor and infantry is better than a force of either exclusively. I'm going to have to play more games before I decide if the current rules are an adequate incentive for combined arms without a specific special rule.


Quote:
Her revolutionary blitzkrieg tactics earned her a stunning victory against the numerically-superior French thanks to effective coordination of both infantry, air, and armored units.

Well, I think this point is tough. The mistakes of the French were on the tactical level, which is not well represented in A&A. The french had more armor than the Germans...they just didn't concentrate them the same way, nor were French tanks the same speed as the German armor.


Quote:
1. Allow transports to carry IPCs from one nation to another to simulate lend-lease.

Changing subs into strategic weapons would be nice to see. I am not sure about your choice of gameplay mechanic, but I like the direction. I am a bit bigger fan of allowing subs to perform a strategic raiding attack from any square adjacent to a IC or the like.
__________________
-Greg


solitaire77
View Public Profile
Send a private message to solitaire77
Find More Posts by solitaire77
Add solitaire77 to Your Buddy List

03-13-2004, 11:03 PM #66
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the optional rule on U-boat interdiction already accomplishes this, to some extent, Greg.

[ March 14, 2004, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 12:29 AM #67
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
Well transports are not merchant vessels. They are a mixed force

That's a huge assumption to make. Transports generally WERE merchant vessels/passage liners converted to military transport service, and their armament was woefully inadequate. Because either they were not expected to be exposed to combat, or they would be assigned actual escorts, ie: destroyers and the like.

I personally hate how transports defend on a 1. They shouldn't have a defence value at all. Subs and air units *Should* have a field day with undefended merchant navies.

But of course, the no-retreat rule for defenders (I will never understand that one either) makes giving them a defence value almost necesary.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 12:38 AM #68
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
I think the optional rule on U-boat interdiction already accomplishes this, to some extent, Greg.

Its poorly thought out imo. 1 ipc per boat? No actual assignment to strategic raiding, no way to defend against it other than hunting them down like you would do anyways?

I would rather see subs given the same SBR option that bombers have, with changes to a naval perspective of course. Nominate several seazones between north america and the UK (the same will have to be done in the east for Japan). Each seazone can be subject to commerce raiding by subs, who each do 1d3 ipc damage to the enemy country's treasury. Destroyers or carriers on station in that seazone can defend against the sub attack once.

Which leads me to another pet peeve; why would bombers be shot down before resolving their sbr? On the scale of this game, we are talking about a series of bombing raids over a month or more, and thus the bombers should roll their SBR roll simultaneouslly with the AA roll(s). That way you are sure of getting something out of the raid even if the bomber is lost. Just like you would in combat if you lost a unit to all but opening fire, you could still hit back.

Now if we had interceptors, I could kind of see bombers being shot down before making it, but again on this scale that's the tactical creeping into the grand strategic again.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 01:31 AM #69
pagan
MOONINITE




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,357


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U-Boats optional rules is not as bad as it sounds

its 1 IPC per sub, HOWEVER the damage occurs during BOTH the UK & USA rounds. (that's quite a bit of damage in sum) ; If you add the fact that it takes rounds for USA & UK to actually build up an 'attack' force along their ampnib fleets AND that Germany is able to build quite a naval force in the baltic sea.... well you should see that it is not all too bad.

Gentlemen, the AXIS is much better placed than you would think. I've played 4 games now, and the games are always close up to the end. However I am playing 9 VC points as well.

This is not an 'Allies' game. I do realize that this is from a position of being 'new' to the game as much as any claim that this game is broke.
__________________
AARe : Axis & Allies Enhanced global warfare, where the leaders of nations will decide the destiny of the world. Do you have what it takes?


pagan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pagan
Visit pagan's homepage!
Find More Posts by pagan
Add pagan to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 03:20 AM #70
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume all pieces represent mixed forces. Transports defend at one because the piece includes destroyer escorts, at the very least. Likewise, battleship pieces represent battleships, cruisers, destroyers, patrol boats, everything that went into a naval task force. (That is one reason why I think separate destroyer pieces are not needed.)

If everyone insists they need a cheaper naval unit than the battleship piece, the solution was simple: Allow these most expensive and most powerful naval units to split into smaller units. I've had a house rule for years that allowed BB to split up into two, three or even four units, each with reduced combat power. New battleships could likewise be built up in 6 IPC increments, each having attack and defense of 1.

So when you start the game, place 3 chips under each battleship and have each chip + the piece represent 1 combat strength valued at 6 IPC each. (Hey guess what, I just invented 4-hit battleships!)

Keep each BB "stack" at no more than 3 chips + topping off piece and you have the same 4 strength unit as the regular battleship, with each hit costing it 1 chip and 1 combat strength.

Advanced players can even choose to roll each BB "chip" with a separate die, hitting on a 1. Think of the possibility of your boring old 4/4 single roll battleship with the ability to choose to roll 4 dice for 1's, or 2 dice for 2's, or 2 dice at 1 + 1 die at 2, or a 1 and a 3...definite tactical decisions to be made both on attack and defense.

I would have preferred something like that to adding a new piece that makes the BB obsolete.

I think I have made reasonable assumptions of the "true" make-up of these little bits of plastic in terms of the history the game is based upon. Any one who doesn't agree is most welcome to their opinion.

Back to transports: No good reason why loaded transports should not get an attack value as well as unloaded transports. Let them all attack at 1, I say.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:50 pm

03-14-2004, 03:43 PM #71
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon boys and girls, let's keep up the flow of ideas...


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 05:55 PM #72
DocD
Spectreman




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,244


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]Originally posted by Talonz:

Quote:
Originally posted by DY:
[qb]Which leads me to another pet peeve; why would bombers be shot down before resolving their sbr? On the scale of this game, we are talking about a series of bombing raids over a month or more, and thus the bombers should roll their SBR roll simultaneouslly with the AA roll(s). That way you are sure of getting something out of the raid even if the bomber is lost. Just like you would in combat if you lost a unit to all but opening fire, you could still hit back.

Now if we had interceptors, I could kind of see bombers being shot down before making it, but again on this scale that's the tactical creeping into the grand strategic again.

I think the game allows Bombers to get shot down without being able to do anything on SBR to simulate the fact that every bombing raid didn't accomplish it's mission regardless of how massive the raid was. Even weeks or months of bombing might have little effect on enemy production. If your bomber gets shot down in the game it nicely reflects losses of planes over several weeks or months that needed to be replace. Your U-Boat interdiction sounds like a promising new optional rule though.
__________________
A Spooky Spectre!


DocD
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DocD
Send email to DocD
Visit DocD's homepage!
Find More Posts by DocD
Add DocD to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 06:49 PM #73
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Now if we had interceptors, I could kind of see bombers being shot down before making it, but again on this scale that's the tactical creeping into the grand strategic again.

Yes and no on the tactical side. It does "feel" tactical but if it is only 1 round of interception then just like the AA gun vs SBR it represents units (ftr interceptors) assigned to a strategic mission (defense against intruding bmrs).

I would say the ability of a player to respond to an SBR campaign by offering ftr interceptors helps balance the game (since a big, game-ending SBR campaign is usually launched by the side with the upper hand anyway) while offering players more options.

Balancing a game flaw + offering more options sounds like a good thing to have. I vote to allow ftr interceptions of SBR.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-14-2004, 11:55 PM #74
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by PAGAN:
U-Boats optional rules is not as bad as it sounds

Although it is good to point out that this is during both UK and US economic rounds, the fact remains that from a design perspective, no dice rolling, no choice of military/ecomonic attacks, and no defence other than pre-emptive offence is a poor design.

Like SBRs, I want to see fleshed out commerce raiding as an option, not just a tack on.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:00 AM #75
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
I assume all pieces represent mixed forces. Transports defend at one because the piece includes destroyer escorts, at the very least. Likewise, battleship pieces represent battleships, cruisers, destroyers, patrol boats, everything that went into a naval task force. (That is one reason why I think separate destroyer pieces are not needed.)


With the addition of DDs comes more choice, depth of play, and historical representation. I wish the Tran and BB were revised to reflect this force subdivision.


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:11 AM #76
onslaught
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OC, Ca.
Posts: 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about this one: Have U-Boat interdiction with these rules- For each German U-Boat adjacent to a UK or USA territory the nation that owns that territory collects 2 less IPCs in thier respective collect income phases, UP TO A MAXIMUM LOSS EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF THE ADJACENT TERRITORIES. Example: The Germans have 5 U-Boats adjacent to the UK in various sea zones during the UK collect income phase. That would mean that the UK would earn 2 less IPCs per U-Boat, but up to a maximum of 8, the value of the UK. The same situation during the USA collect income phase would have no effect on the USA, since the U-Boats are patrolling off the coast of the UK, not a territory that the USA would typically get its "resources" from to help with its production. This rule would also force U-Boats to find new "hunting grounds", they couldnt bottle themselves up in the Baltic sea zone, as with the optinal rule currently used, and some how justify both the USA and UK losing 1 IPC in thier collecting phases. Well, you get the point. The other part of it is that if the Germans had 5 U-Boats off the coast of Egypt in the Med. they could only do a maximum of 3 IPCs worth of interdiction, 2 for Egypt and 1 for Trans-Jordan, and only if the UK still owned them, if the Axis owned them the U-Boats couldnt hurt the UK since there would be nothing to interdict. These rules would force the U-Boats to interdict in more realistic sea zones, but also reward thier efforts with a bigger "punch".(ie. 2 IPCs worth of interdiction rather than just 1) The rule that the IPC loss is directed at the owner of the adjacent territory would also give it a feel of a campaign vs. a certain nations income, ie. you would have your U-Boats off the coast of Brazil if you wanted to hurt the USAs merchant fleet and income, not the UKs.

[ March 15, 2004, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: onslaught ]
__________________
"Sleep is for lazy people"


onslaught
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by onslaught
Add onslaught to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:18 AM #77
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see onslaught, the problem with your plan is that subs are fighter-fodder with the current rules, and can't possibly hope to survive on the open seas.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:26 AM #78
onslaught
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OC, Ca.
Posts: 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if they have the destroyer-plane rule it would work better. I still like the U-Boat interdiction idea I posted better than the current one. Its simple and yet more realistic than what we have right now. BTW, the destroyer-fighter rule to attack subs is a must addition to the game, IMO. = )
__________________
"Sleep is for lazy people"


onslaught
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by onslaught
Add onslaught to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:29 AM #79
onslaught
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OC, Ca.
Posts: 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, if the Germans had 10 subs in the Black Sea they would cripple the Allied economies with the present Interdiction rules..LOL
__________________
"Sleep is for lazy people"


onslaught
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by onslaught
Add onslaught to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:37 AM #80
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by onslaught:
Well, if they have the destroyer-plane rule it would work better. I still like the U-Boat interdiction idea I posted better than the current one. Its simple and yet more realistic than what we have right now. BTW, the destroyer-fighter rule to attack subs is a must addition to the game, IMO. = )

The two rules I've been pushing for all along are the AAE & AAP DD/sub/aircraft interaction and the fighter escorts/intercepts on SBR.

I personally thought those were the rules that made AAE and AAP infinitely superior to MB AA, yet Larry and Mike scrapped them, because 12 year olds wouldn't be able to cope

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests