Speaking from personal experience as Japan, I find the US fighter at guam irritating, and will sometimes wait for it to leave before taking the island. The threat of US counterattack against a damaged j@p battleship at guam is real.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone position like that.
Man I hear that a lot! I think that’s a good thing……
Now with Kid’s comment, I wonder if he was the one I devastated with a counterstrike at Guam US3 - I think he was…
Done some digging in the code, my suggestion of removing bombardment support from marines isn’t possible without change. Unless there’s a huge call for it, it probably isn’t going to happen.
Done some digging in the code, my suggestion of removing bombardment support from marines isn’t possible without change. Unless there’s a huge call for it, it probably isn’t going to happen.
Why would we remove bombardment support from marines? It’s not like they are too strong.
I think the bombardment is overly strong. I may be the only one who thinks that.
Bombardment is severely underpowered in G40. A lot stops it, and its effects are minimal.
When I was first playing classic we didn’t know the rules and played that if you didn’t use the BB in the sea combat it could still bombard. Is it really that underpowered? 1inf+1art with 2BBs will on average kill 2 units in the first round. Kind of weird that artillery is used and gets the combined arms bonus in an amphibious assault. As if a howitzer was going to fire from a landing ship’s deck! I guess Kid is going to tell me that it did happen now.
My only gripe with bombardment is that hit units get to fire back at your landing troops! Kinda defeats the purpose of bombarding. It’s a house rule for my group.
My only gripe with bombardment is that hit units get to fire back at your landing troops! Kinda defeats the purpose of bombarding. It’s a house rule for my group.
Agreed with that, casualties from bombardment shouldn’t be able to defend. Also I think a damaged bb shouldn’t be able to bombard until repaired.
Excellent point! I like it. Total game redesign needed! :wink:
The rules have gone both ways in past iterations of A&A. I think in the original, bombardment did blow units off the map and they couldn’t return fire. But battleships cost 24 and you didn’t have cruisers, so apples and oranges
I think many times in WWII even heavy naval bombardment was not very effective. I’m sure you could find instances where it was devastating and instances where it was almost completely ineffective. Adam totally right that bombardment gets stopped by any combat in the zone, scrambles, and kamikazes.
I think it’s fine the way it is. The fact that you can bombard with inf/art/cruiser/battleship (11 attack power) and most likely eliminate 2 units (but up to 4) is powerful.
Keep in mind sometimes the casualty is an AAA gun anyway, or it’s some defending 2’s so often has little effect. No difference if you’re (am I the only one that does this?) suiciding a couple of units into a huge stack, say on Normandy (which normally does not have any defense against bombardment)
So there are very different situations -
Imagine attacking Iraq with the UK early in the game with a BB and cruiser. If those both hit, 2 of the 3 infantry would be eliminated and not be able to fight. What, your battleships in WWII can fire from the Persian gulf all the way inland to Baghdad and annihilate 2/3 of the army?
Or you have a situation where you’re suiciding 1 ground unit into a big stack, with battleship support. In this case it doesn’t matter if the bombardment casualties can fire back or not, because there is a virtually 0% chance that the attacker will fire twice.
With scrambles, kamikazes, combat in zones (to clear a transport, sub, or destroyer, or whatever), there isn’t much bombardment in the game anyway, so changing the rule wouldn’t make much difference, but could give you extreme situations which may be undesirable, like the Iraq example
Good points. I’m not lobbying for a rule change. I’ve learned to live with the bitter taste in my mouth. Could have an effect in the pacific with all the island grabs that take place. I’ve seen some bad beats on island takes that a killing bombardment could’ve prevented, but its probably a moot point since my bombards never hit anyway.
Yeah it’s a lot better to have a plane or a tank present that gets to fire on a 3 or a 4 round after round
If you have a marine already loaded on a battleship, the battleship fights then can the marine get off the battleship in NCM? I would guess not. I hate some of these rules.
No, it can’t because battleships and cruisers act like transports (as it relates to marines)
A transport can’t be involved in combat and then unload in NCM, so a battleship can’t either
No, it can’t because battleships and cruisers act like transports (as it relates to marines)
A transport can’t be involved in combat and then unload in NCM, so a battleship can’t either
ding ding!
Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0
He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.
I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.
It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix
comments?
Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0
He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.
I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.
It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix
comments?
It’s not new, I think it was actually like that in the first version of the game.
I don’t see how it’s an improvement, and BM doesn’t require this anyway. Not to mention putting a factory in Romania will become standard.
