But that’s the point of the BB vs Carrier with 2 fighters. The carrier force should be better in some situations and in the game most people buy the Carriers because they already know they can use the planes they have and make this a better buy. But in some situations like small islands such as Malta and Gibraltar you need something like this. Japan made a living at taking islands and turning them into hollowed out mountains of places to hide. These Blockhouses represent all the various fortifications that may or may not be viable depending on the situation. Also, the game is supposed to model things like Maginot and since this will be totally ignored these games will have Germans pour right across the border like nothing existed with no provision to make it somewhat realistic. I don’t even use the term “blockhouse” except as a convenience. To me it represents field fortifications ( trenches, pill box, gun emplacements, walls, fortified zone, defensive zone, whatever). I think the game deserves something to represent these types of defenses, just like the AA gun is represented. Both are viable. If the game has no provision for anything of this type, its lacking in major characteristic of this warfare.
IL You are right, however I dont think they should be able to be BUILT. Just destroyed. It took the japanese a long time and a lot of people to hollow out mountains, and turn them into fortresses. Compared to the amount of time it takes to destroy them. The maginoit line took years to build up, and it took a signifigant amount of the french military to uphold it. I agree there should be natural defenses, but I think it would complicate gameplay, and it wouldnt make much sense, the amount of time it takes to train infantry is much shorter (and cheaper) than it takes to build a fortress. (but I can be wrong I have been wrong before). I think it should be natural defenses, not something you can just build in a turn. For a relatively low amount of IPC. Remember IPC isnt “money” per se, its man hours spent on whatever is being built. If they can be “built” (blockhouses) I think it should cost 15 IPC for three turns. To discourage players from doing something that in reality….wouldnt have ben done.
so at roughly 6 months per turn, the Japanese need only hold an island for 1 turn, then they can build a blockhouse and place it on the next turn. Territories owned at the beginning of the game can purchase blockhouses Turn 2 and place them on Turn 3. That can cover the time aspect.
ok thats fine, but 15 bucks for getting a 2 or less for free is too much. The AA gun does a 1 for 6 IPC and they can hit planes, so a two should be 12 IPC.
IL You are right, however I dont think they should be able to be BUILT. Just destroyed. It took the japanese a long time and a lot of people to hollow out mountains, and turn them into fortresses. Compared to the amount of time it takes to destroy them. The maginoit line took years to build up, and it took a signifigant amount of the french military to uphold it. I agree there should be natural defenses, but I think it would complicate gameplay, and it wouldnt make much sense, the amount of time it takes to train infantry is much shorter (and cheaper) than it takes to build a fortress. (but I can be wrong I have been wrong before). I think it should be natural defenses, not something you can just build in a turn. For a relatively low amount of IPC. Remember IPC isnt “money” per se, its man hours spent on whatever is being built. If they can be “built” (blockhouses) I think it should cost 15 IPC for three turns. To discourage players from doing something that in reality….wouldnt have ben done.
It takes a long time to build production factories as well, but I guess that you have no problem with the rules for these.
how bout keep it at 12 ipc
first turn pay 4 IPC, get Blockhouse next turn but it only gives a free 2 or less for defending artillery
Pay another 4 IPC wait next turn get both Art and Inf a free 2 or less in opening phase
4 turns to get total benefit.
that sounds fair.
I still think for gameplay’s sake to make it a one turn build. And just have it as a bonus for defending infantry and artillery, like +1 defense for up to two units per blockhouse. Heck even call the unit entrenchment, and possibly to make it even more risky is if a unit becomes entrenched it cannot move any more. Or it takes a move for the unit to “un-entrench” first, then be able to move and attack. To make it easy, just add in a colored chip to put under units that are entrenched, make the cost like 5 IPC’s for two units and if they move they would have to rebuy the entrenchment bonus again if they wanted to entrench. It makes it to where we won’t see entrenchment spammers who think that an entrenched army can just jump up and move the next day like it is nothing. Just look at WWI, armies moved at a crawl because it is so hard to advance and retreat once you have dug in, it destroys morale and destroys the environment too. Dirt and rain don’t mix too well for trucks and men.
Cool idea as well. When the game comes out I suspect there are going to be a plethera of awesome house rules.
Okay how about this, Blockhouses raise the defense for all infantry and artillery +1 for the first round of combat only. I believe this is realistic because after initial round of combat the defensive positions are given away and thus targeted in the following rounds giving up any advatage they may have provided initially.
I think a per unit basis, just like pairing your artillery with infantry on the attack, you should just be able to entrench units but have the penalty of not being able to move immediately.
I dont see why movement should be limited, it might take artillery a little bit of time to be moved from a blockhouse but we are talking approximately 3 month turns. As far as how many pieces receive benefit from the blockhouses I would guess that would depend upon the cost of the blockhouses.
I think it should at least be barred from attacking, maybe allow it to move non-combat. I would say that merely for gameplay purposes, so people don’t spam entrenchments left and right. You can’t have cake and eat it too. This would make defense better but would that not just perpetuate dead zones for either side if an invader then decides to entrench? We would have WWI and that would not be actually accurate because bombers and artillery improved drastically, not to mention tanks. It made it suicide to just hole up and wait, (example: Japanese on any island invasion by marines). I can understand it for when you really need to use it as a last resort, thus limiting your options if you do entrench, remember you are in essence de-mobilizing your force to gain a defense advantage, does it make sense to be able to mount an offensive right after? It takes a little time to regroup, and I think the least for movement penalty should be no combat movement, but you can non-combat move.
Here are the actual reprinted rules from AA D-Day. Use this and come up with something based on the designers intent.
Blockhouses
Only the Axis has block houses.
Block houses do not move. They fire
in combat against land units in their
zone just as other land units do,
attacking on a 3 and defending on a 1.
Blockhouses also can make a special
targeted attack out to sea, directed
by order card 9. Each blockhouse
may fire once at an Allies land unit
in a beachhead box within its firing
arc. For example, the two
blockhouses in the zone containing
Bayeux can each fire on land units in
the Gold Beach box. (Not all blockhouses
are in a zone with an adjacent
beach head box.) A roll of 3 or less is
a hit. Each block house can fire on a
different target.
Naval Bombardment
The Allies can conduct a naval
bombardment when an order card so
directs. Naval bombardment targets
only blockhouses. Roll six dice, one
at a time : A roll of 2 or less destroys
the blockhouse.
The Allies choose a block house as
the target of each die roll; the same
block house can be chosen more than
once.
Okay along those lines: Attack = 3, Defense = 1, Movement = 0, Cost = 2. With no movement capability I am assuming that attack = 3 is for when it fires at ships. So in regular Axis and Allies you would have to limit this ability to ships that are supporting an amphibious assault. I am sure there are other ideas out there that follow along the guidelines that IL has indicated, but hey it’s a starting point.
Hello everyone, :-)
How about this:
The Blockhouse unit can make a ‘first strike attack’ once per combat round on a 3 (even though it is defending) and cannot be chosen as a casualty until there are no other eligible defending units. So, all defending units must be destroyed first, before the Blockhouse can be taken as a casualty.
It can only hit enemy land units that have attacked via amphibiuous assault (not those from overland) and cannot hit enemy ships or aircraft. The attacker chooses the unit to be taken as a casualty.
It cannot attack at all on the owner’s combat move. Only one Blockhouse per territory.
Thank you for reading, and please improve upon this. It’s just an idea - I haven’t tried it out yet as I’m at work at the moment! :-)
Lozmoid
hey welcome to the forum! + 1 to you! do you mean block houses attack first on a 3? similar to subs first strike rule?
So do you mean first strike as in the same type that an attacking sub has, where there is no casualty roll?
Hello everyone, :-)
How about this:
The Blockhouse unit can make a ‘first strike attack’ once per combat round on a 3 (even though it is defending) and cannot be chosen as a casualty until there are no other eligible defending units. So, all defending units must be destroyed first, before the Blockhouse can be taken as a casualty.
It can only hit enemy land units that have attacked via amphibiuous assault (not those from overland) and cannot hit enemy ships or aircraft. The attacker chooses the unit to be taken as a casualty.
It cannot attack at all on the owner’s combat move. Only one Blockhouse per territory.
Thank you for reading, and please improve upon this. It’s just an idea - I haven’t tried it out yet as I’m at work at the moment! :-)
Lozmoid
The blockhouse owner should be able to decide when to take it as a casulty.
I am not for the limit of one.
Blockhouses should also be able to defend against ground assaults.
Other than that I like your idea.
Hi guys,
Thanks very much for the welcome and for your cool feedback! :-)
Yes, the Blockhouse gets a ‘first-strike attack’ - exactly the same as submarines, i.e. it fires once in the opening fire step, and on a roll of 1-3, a casualty is selected among the attacking force and eliminated before it gets to roll its attack. Then the attacker rolls for all attacking units, and the defender rolls for all defending units (but not for the BH as it has already fired). And the BH can do this every combat round!
Okay - I now agree that the BH should also be able to fire upon land units coming from overland (not sure why I was just thinking of beach defences.) However, as much as I love the idea that the defending BH can pick its target casualty, I just feel that this could be too powerful… I don’t know. I think that’s why I suggested just the limit of 1 BH per territory. It will remain a major threat as long as there are still some surviving land units in the defending tt, as it is chosen last - just like a Transport.
I might add that the BH can be hit by attacking enemy land or air units, and cannot be hit by sea units at all. It may not even be selected as a casualty as the result of Shore Bombardment. However - and get this - as the BH cannot hit air units, it can be easily destroyed by enemy air units if left undefended. Just like when attacking a TT, there is no need for the BH to roll a die - just remove it from play! :-D
That’s all for now. Thanks again :-)
