Good to know.
British Empire Posted
-
The new artillery rule is very exiting :-)
Its very similar to the Blockhouse rule from A&A D-day where the blockhouses fired a pre-emptive strike against the amphibious assaulting land units. Me like. This rule could be used in the other A&A editons too, maybe as a house rule ?
-
Has anyone picked up on repairing BBs yet?
Can they repair anywhere, in any friendly Naval Base, or in just home NBs?
How much does it cost?
Still no word on how Portuguese/Belgian/Spanish colonies work.
Is there a Naval Battle Board?
From The British report, LH states:
“… ships can only be built in SZs that are adjacent to controlled tts that have a naval base”.
Does this then include captured NBs, or should Larry have specified original home NBs?
If the former, does the control of mines change with ownership of the tt?
Elsewhere in the report, Larry states that
“if a SZ has enemy subs or transports the invader can choose to ignore them and go straight to the land combat”.
Does that mean that subs cannot contest an amphibious assault, even if the transports concerned have no escort ships?
I assume planes cannot take part in naval combat as there is no provision for them to move to a land tt afterwards; so no Kamikazes in this game…
-
Going back to wove100’s post about the British moving into Belgium (which is contested having both French and German units in it). I believe that because the territory is already contested, when the UK moves units into Belgium one of two things could happen.
-
The Brits move in to reinforce the French position (as Larry did), and there isn’t a battle.
-
The Brits make an attack on the German units that are there. If that is the case then the German artillery would get its pre-empt shot.
Is that how you see it wove100 ?
-
-
Yes, but only the Brits could be taken as casualties.
-
Yes, but only the Brits could be taken as casualties.
Right because friends don’t attack together, only def together.
-
Yes, but only invaders from the sea are subject to PES; even UK units already there would be immune.
-
We don’t know the complete Commonwealth rules yet, but I’m already thinking of house ruling that:
Only infantry can be placed in Bombay, no Commonwealth country had a significant aircraft building industry, certainly not India.
Limit the build to 3 IPCs per turn, i.e. 1 infantry
However, the limit can be saved for 2 turns to build a transport, placed in SZ 29, representing Australian ship building capacity.
I’m also thinking the same rules should apply to Canada, which I’m guessing has an income of 2; again this capacity can be pooled over several turns to produce:
2 turns 4 IPC = infantry or artillery
3 turns 6 IPC = transport, sub or 2 infantryYou may ask why would the UK want to build units in Canada rather than London; well its a shorter route to the Middle East for one thing; also Canadian transports could help ship Doughboys over the water (about half American troops sent to Europe in the war were carried by RN ships).
Although did I read somewhere that ships aren’t allowed to carry allied units in this version?
-
@WILD:
Going back to wove100’s post about the British moving into Belgium (which is contested having both French and German units in it). I believe that because the territory is already contested, when the UK moves units into Belgium one of two things could happen.
-
The Brits move in to reinforce the French position (as Larry did), and there isn’t a battle.
-
The Brits make an attack on the German units that are there. If that is the case then the German artillery would get its pre-empt shot.
Is that how you see it wove100 ?
Possibly. Although, since a contested territory implies well entrenched defenses, it may be that even if the British attack, the Germans get no pre-emptive artillery shots. No pre-emptive shots in contested territories could be Larry’s way of simulating that the British units would land at allied controlled ports, move into the front lines, and then launch their attack.
So, my instinct is that #1 is true whether or not the British attack, but I’ve been oh so wrong before.
Edit: Since the above sentence makes no sense when I reread it, I’ll be clearer: I think there would be no pre-emptive artillery shots if the British launched an attack in Belgium because Belgium was already contested when the British arrived.
-
-
The British seem quite powerful. If most IPCs are spent in India, the Ottoman Empire will be unable to cope with the threat, especially if the Russians move as well. With an activation of Arabia and an invasion Persia plus Trans-Jordan, the British manage to create a single three-territory front too strong to be repulsed for many initial rounds. Furthermore, once the few German units in Africa have been destroyed, all remaining on that continent will head towards the English-Ottoman frontline, regardless of nationality. It seems, then, that the OE is Italy of the CPs.
The way I see it, the French don’t really need a lot more help than what they get from the Americans unless both the French and the Russians are bad. We all know that time is what wins the game for the Allies, so if the (initially) powerful advances of the CPs can be stalled, the game is practically up.
-
The suggested Persian strategy really makes me hope that the Allies are not permitted to invade neutrals.
The British could then simply march Commonwealth units straight through Persia into Sevastopol and essentially that’s the UK joining Russia on the Eastern Front.
If the Allies are allowed to invade neutrals, and the UK can place more than the odd piece in India, then we’re heading towards a game that is little more than a production race with no real room for strategy.
At least if the giant “Sevastopol” tt were divided east/west then the Turks might stand a chance of heading them off in the Caucasus; I suspect this may become a common map amendment.
Suggested Topics
