Very well thoughtout, i might be jumping the gun by expressing my dissappiontment with the initial Malta setup. if Brits start moving fighters from England and off the carrier, is it taking too much need muscle to soon from these other areas? i am gonna have to wait to actually play a few games to see how this plays out. but thanks for some great analyisis on how this might play out
Very well thoughtout, i might be jumping the gun by expressing my dissappiontment with the initial Malta setup. if Brits start moving fighters from England and off the carrier, is it taking too much need muscle to soon from these other areas? i am gonna have to wait to actually play a few games to see how this plays out. but thanks for some great analyisis on how this might play out
Thank you. Way back with the original AAE, I remember that there was a plane on Malta, which was awesome :-D, and it always died on G1, which was sad :cry:. If Malta started with say two planes, two infantry, and an airbase (which was what I was expecting given Larry’s comments about “Fortress Malta”), I think it would have made the Italian fleet too vulnerable to air strike and resulted in the Med getting swept clean before the game even really started.
In general, two of my biggest complaints about A&A games have been first turn scripted openings and first turn naval annihilation. It looks like both of them may finally be addressed here. Best guess, only about half of UK’s fleet will be destroyed on G1, and both UK and Germany are going to have to make some significant decisions about how they want to prosecute the war. For example, I’ll bet that a common first turn UK choice will be “Do I use my fighters to sink the Bismark or to set up fortress Malta”
Here’s hoping I’m right about all that.
Unfortunately, Malta is a waste of time and IPC’s for UK. I think Malta should have begun with a sub in its seazone, 1 INF, and 1 FTR. If UK is doing all that, then its not building a fleet, or assisting USSR, or defending Africa. Malta can be made harder to take, but it will be taken…so all those assets will be eliminated.
two of my biggest complaints about A&A games have been first turn scripted openings and first turn naval annihilation.
This is the problem i see with Revised and MB AA as well…
They should have had a ONE sea zone rule for carrier based planes and a TWO sea zone rule for land based planes.
Fighters can move from UK, sink Italian navy and land in Gibraltar. They don’t have range for that.
Likewise planes taking off in Pacific, sinking some warship at wake Island and flying to Manchuria is really ridiculous.
I remember alot of games where US had a bomber in Alaska and it bombed ships off Japan and landed in Russia. That could never happen.
Malta should have some special rules along with Gibraltar to control the Italian navy functions. Naval ports should be protecting ships from harassment too.
Unfortunately, Malta is a waste of time and IPC’s for UK. I think Malta should have begun with a sub in its seazone, 1 INF, and 1 FTR. If UK is doing all that, then its not building a fleet, or assisting USSR, or defending Africa. Malta can be made harder to take, but it will be taken…so all those assets will be eliminated.
I am inclined to agree with MiamiBeach. I have not seen the real-life importance that many island bases had in the real war to be that vital in Axis and Allies… for example, Guadalcanal, Midway, Okinawa, even Hawaii…
I am not sure why Malta will be all that different. I am not disagreeing with the Baron totally; I recognize the potential, and since I haven’t played the game I cannot asses Malta’s value. However, if it is such a big commitment in time and IPCs, I do think that it is probably a waste of Britain’s time… when they could be building fleets and harassing the Germans prior to real invasion. Otherwise they are screwing around in the Med, playing a war of attrition for no substantial gain. Sure Malta was key in history… I just read about it, but I am skeptical of its place in the game until someone can prove it to me in practice.
And in the War, it was the Germans who mainly attacked Malta… nearly bombing it out of existence from the air. Somehow I also don’t see Germany having the time to level her guns on Malta either.
IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?
miami beach, you got it! 1 inf., 1 ftr and sub on Malta to start. if Brits have to go and get it, its too much of an effort. the way i see it thou, if Brits start with something on it,they can really exploit it. it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of MED.
IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?
Well this is not house rules, but from Carriers planes should be able to only fly to adjacent sea zone in combat. ON Land make that 2 sea zones. In NCM they can move 4 as this represents a redeployment.
On land i am in favor of all land units moving double if they move only in NCM. Naval could perhaps be the same except i have not playtested that idea.
it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of MED.
Sort of… except that it still takes one move to get on or off the island… A fact that may or may not be negated by having an Airbase. But even that you have to buy to make it viable.
ive played games where i was hold Malta with inf. and ftrs. eventually i got 2 bombers on Malta and it really helped slow down the German influx of hardware into N. Africa. sank alot of transports to the point the Axis had to deal with it. at that point it distracted them from N africa and gave the Brits a chance to regroup.
Based on what we’ve heard from Djenson, it sounds like Italy could be a real contender in this game, so I think it might be necessary for the UK to devote some resources to beef up Malta. I could see Baron’s idea working pretty well to slow down the Italians from reinforcing North Africa. If Britain can gain control of the Med before Italy becomes too powerful in Africa, there’s no way Italy will be able to put up a fight later on (with only 10 IPCs a turn…) I’m not sure yet as I have not played the game, but I think that reinforcing Malta might be a worthwile endeavor.
Based on what we’ve heard from Djenson, it sounds like Italy could be a real contender in this game, so I think it might be necessary for the UK to devote some resources to beef up Malta. I could see Baron’s idea working pretty well to slow down the Italians from reinforcing North Africa. If Britain can gain control of the Med before Italy becomes too powerful in Africa, there’s no way Italy will be able to put up a fight later on (with only 10 IPCs a turn…) I’m not sure yet as I have not played the game, but I think that reinforcing Malta might be a worthwile endeavor.
HELLO,
LNMAJOR, been talking about this since pics posted SAT. nite by DJENSEN.and yes you are right on target.MALTA is important.
@Imperious:
IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?
Well this is not house rules, but from Carriers planes should be able to only fly to adjacent sea zone in combat. ON Land make that 2 sea zones. In NCM they can move 4 as this represents a redeployment.
On land i am in favor of all land units moving double if they move only in NCM. Naval could perhaps be the same except i have not playtested that idea.
I agree with you completely, I have always thought the aircraft movement was a little out of hand for this game considering the vast distances they cover in a single turn. If you cut their movements by one you really change their effect on the game and then make airfields very important.
i agree about the air combat movment rule. more realistic. good call IL :-)
Yeah, a little realism would be 3 for fighters and 5 for bombers. But I don’t think 4 and 6 is a game breaker though.
Giving them a odd numbered movement is also problematic. I would remove that rule.
I posted the full concept in house rules where it belongs.
It seems to me that Italy is going to be very hard for the allied to wrestle out of the med. If Italy can quickly build up it’s IPC value and secure Malta then the italian fleet is going to take a committed allied effort to kill all of those ships and planes that italy will station there.
It seems to me that Italy is going to be very hard for the allied to wrestle out of the med. If Italy can quickly build up it’s IPC value and secure Malta then the italian fleet is going to take a committed allied effort to kill all of those ships and planes that italy will station there.
I definitely agree. Their 2 cruisers and battleship were/are problematic enough in Anniversary… they are just hard to get to, at least if you want to use ships, which is necessary if you don’t want to lose a number of planes. Even so, Britain would be the one having to take care of Italy… and the Brits resources are already stretched. Allocating planes/ships to fight Italy will be a precarious spending of resources.
After Egypt is taken by Italy(turn 2-3?), then Italy takes Malta(turn 3-4?). I’m not sure what the UK can get into the Med by then? I think the first concern for UK in the Med is hanging on to Egypt rather than worrying about Malta…any FTR’s UK has available might go to Egypt for defense.
What kind of fleet will the UK have in Europe?..Germany will try to seek and destroy any UK fleet as soon as possible using subs as soak-off with its FTR’s/bombers doing most of the sinking. By turn 2-3 the Germans have Spain and then Gibraltar…so its unlikely a UK fleet of any size will make it into the Med. The Med should be closed by the Axis and Malta take with no effort. If the UK does venture into the Med, Germany can destroy it or render it useless, and trap it if Gibraltar is in German hands for a follow up Italian fleet/air attack.
I as UK would leave Malta empty, try to defend Egypt as best as possible, build an IC in S. Africa, keep the UK fleet intact and build it up.
The UK starts with a minor IC in south africa.
