Of course, you as the attacker have the choice of which battles you want to roll first and what order you want to resolve all the battles. So while it may not help you in a mid-battle situation, you can decide if you have one battle that maybe kind of hinges on the outcome of another battle to do the other battle first and see the results.
What I usually like to do is resolve all sea battles first, from the smallest to the largest, then all small land battles and then the larger land battles.
For example: If I am Germany, a typical first round combat move would be to go after the Royal Navy in sea zones 91, 109, 110 and 111. On land I go after Normandy, France, Southern France and Yugoslavia. Sometimes I will also send a couple of planes after the French ships in SZ 93. That last one depends on how confident I am whether or not our UK player will scramble into SZ 110 and how confident I feel about the forces attacking Paris.
In order, I resolve the sea combats first: 2 subs vs. cruiser in SZ 91 – 2 subs vs. DD and Transport in SZ 106 – 1 sub, 1 BB, 1 ftr, 1 tac and 1 bomb vs. 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD and maybe 1 ftr (from Scotland) in SZ 111 – then I will resolve SZ 110 which will usually be the biggest sea battle.
If I don’t think UK will scramble, then I send 2 ftr, 2 tacs and 1 bomber against 1 BB and 2 CA. That is when I might send 1 ftr and 1 tac against the French CA and DD in SZ 93.
If I do think UK will scramble, then I leave the French ships alone in SZ 93 and send 3 ftr, 3 tacs and 1 bomber against 1 BB, 2 CA and 3 ftr. Of course, if UK decides to save his fighters for later, then it is kind of a waste of planes for me totally overpowering the ships and not getting to attack somewhere else. Then again, if I don’t send those extra 2 planes and UK does scramble, I could end up getting slaughtered.
After that, I move on to the land battles. First Normandy, then S France, then the big France battle and finally Yugoslavia. I do Yugoslavia last even though it is smaller than the France battle because it has no effect at all on any of the French battles and it is a neutral.
Also, I use the FMG Combat Dice so I like to resolve battles with one nation before switching to different dice for another nation.
Well, it looks like I just talked your ear off to make a simple point: small sea battles to large sea battles, small land battles to large land battles.
Bombing is back, Baby!
-
@mantlefan:
Let’s please stop the absurd argument that since raids were done, raids were effective.
I’m not arguing weather or not bombing was effective, I’m saying that the old escort and interseptor rules made the act of bombing go against common sense, there for taking bombing out of our games. Even if a German or British bomber had nothing to do but bomb, the risk vs reward of your $12 bomber crashing in exchange for the possibility of only damaging for $1 was not worth attempting. When I discuss rules, I will always side with game play over historical accuracy with the hope that there is a solution that addresses both. However, the old SBR rule addressed neither, and at least now, bombs will fall like they did historically, If you say bombing in the game is too effective to be historically accurate, you may be right. I’m just glad that the risk vs reward of raiding (as far as game play is concerned) has become more balanced.
-
I agree and disagree with the arguments presented. While I do like re-introduction of the escort-interceptor rules and allowing tatical bombers to take shots at air and naval bases, I disagree with these bases and ICs only needing one hit be done to them to knock them out. This dose over power it a bit and the older system, where you needed to do 3 hits on minors and 10 hits on major complexes to knock them out was much better and I will continue to use it.
-
I think Larry retreated on the bombing damage rules after many people objected. I know the rules for damage to ICs are back to they way they were. I think the reason he did that was to keep people from getting 3 hits on an air/naval base then only repairing 1 IPC of damage and getting full function again. As for the ICs, I’m not sure what his intention was there. I do think it is kind of silly for a Major IC to get 1 bomb hit and be totally useless. Plus, I agree with you on air/naval bases. They ought to be able to have some damage and still be operational.
-
@Young:
Everything now defends and attacks @1 during a SBR, and bombers get +2 to their damage rolls. I’m loving this modification, who agrees?
Agreed!
Now if I could convince Larry that Strategic Bombers should get +2 from Airbases instead of just +1 we’d really have something! (Why? So that America can engage in the historic bombing campaigns over Japan from some of the more distant islands. You can GET there but seem to always end up being 1 movement point short getting back.)
-
I haven’t tried this (yet), but has anyone thought of stacking USSR’s 2 AA & 18 infantry in Siberia and using it as a place to land American bombers from Midway, Wake or Guam? What do you think of having a US carrier fleet parked in z5 to provide escorts and protection for those bombers?
-
Why not have the US fleet in SZ 6 so they can convoy raid Japan and provide bomber escorts?
-
Why not have the US fleet in SZ 6 so they can convoy raid Japan and provide bomber escorts?
I generally do at some point. At the very least, American control of Korea with a naval base prevents Japan from putting any units on transports in SZ 6 (assuming you build a destroyer each round.) That can be quite worth it depending on how your opponent plays!
-
Plus I think it would be better to put your US bombers on Korea once you’ve taken it so you don’t have to land them in Soviet territory. Don’t trust those commies with my bombers.
With UK and Chinese forces pounding Japanese forces on the mainland, ANZAC navy could be convoy raiding any Japanese held islands or perhaps even taking them back from Japan and US bombers SBRing Japan into the stone age, poor Japan isn’t going to be building any destroyers, or transports or much of anything from then on. Japan will be pretty much in check.
Off to Europe to deal with the Germans. -
Iwo Jima, with an airbase, seems to be quite adept at housing my American bombers. WEG Guam might be better for sake of where you can hit things, but you can’t SBR Tokyo from Guam even with the Airbase there. (If you play tech and have LRA then yea you can and in such a case, I would say Guam is the hands down best possible location for American bombers, if they can be defended.)
-
agree with matlefan. Bombers are overpowered now for america. I wonder if anyone will try sending 2 bombers a turn vs germany with america. As these rules read america can hurt germany enough just by bombing. the problem with america is how far she is from the war. Bombers can be brought from eastern to UK in 1 turn and begin bombing next turn. While tranny’s are less powerful as america now because of how far away america is from the actual battlefield. So the strategy employed with tech in revised of going 100% for heavy bombers with america, can in a sense be reached from the start now… Other countries can’t afford to build bombers, so this only really benefits America and overall the allies. I’d like to see bombing not be +2 and that would make it more fair.
-
Eh? How is 12 IPC over priced for the United States?
Transports are 1 jump from Spain. Might be a better option for you. Load in SZ 101, land in Spain, and send transports from the Gibraltar Naval Base back to Washington. It’s the same as in any other game of Axis and Allies…except you have to invade a True Neutral to do it now.
-
I don’t see how invading a true nuetra could ever be a good idea… The axis would get a ton of free units and free money if US takes spain. I just think bombers are now possibly a viable strategy to winning. In my oppinion this doesn’t make sense because if all these historians are reading the same books as I am doesn’t it say that the allies had a HUGE majority in air power. Multiple thousand bomber raids! These thousand bomber raids didn’t end the war or even hurt Germany as much as non historians might think. A B-17 takes over twice as many materials and 12 times as much man power as a fighter. How then can a bomber be worth 12 and a fighter be worth 10? I am fine with this if bombers don’t get the +2 on bombing runs. 1-2 bombers a turn from America could mean Germany is spending 20-40 dollars a turn repairing its major industries.
-
The axis wouldnt get very many units at all, really.
One generally hits Spain and Turkey simultaniously and generally at a time when there is no transports or Germans in or near Sweeden. That means the best chance is for Japan to get Afghanistan and generally, that’s not really a possibility either.
So essentially, Germany attacks Spain America gets a TON of infantry from S. America. America attacks Spain, Germany gets nothing, but the Allies get a one stop depot of Infantry drop offs from E. USA to Europe.
-
I don’t know how japan doesn’t get afghanistan. Also Japan would get those 6 troops in mongolia. Everything Else I see what you are saying. Are allies winning by so much in your games that they can afford to give 10 free infantry to Japan at the minimum and 2 extra dollars?
Suggested Topics
