Posts made by B.AnderssonGameMaster

@88:

I’ve recently been thinking that a more realistic approach to shore bombardment would be reduced effectiveness of the units which were bombarded…

I have played around with the idea before but ended up in a problem. The problem is that people are used to think of shore bombardment as a true attack like heavy artillery that softening up the defense before the invasion and hence an attack value in the opening fire step of combat. More over I think the rule makes it more intressting/powerful  and easier (playability) to have it that way rather than reducing defense values. How ever I like the idea, but it is too far from the original rules in A&A. It is definitely a try to think outside the box rules!  :-)

@ncscswitch:

…As far as bombarding with DST’s… that would make them Cruisers, not Destroyers.  DST’s are small, fast, sub hunting escort ships with a relatively small number of small weapons.  The Tech roll ups them to Cruisers if you get Consolidated Bombard.

Otherwise they are (and should remain) small, fast, escort ships for defending convoys and killing SUBs.

Well, you have not made your homework! In World War II, destroyers were truly all-purpose ships, ready to fight off attacks from the air, the surface and under the surface. They handled a variety of duties such as picket ship, escorting larger ships and convoys, shore bombardment, rescuing pilots who were forced down at sea and even acting as mailman for the fleet. You are talking about destroyer escorts, strictly used for convoy duties. I am talking about the bigger and more general destroyer (reflected by a 3 attack and 3 defense capability), used for fleet and coastal protection duties. These destroyers were frequently used for shore bombardment in all theaters. It is a fact! Cruisers are in my opinion not needed since a destroyer unit reflects a squadron of destroyers or some destroyers and some crusiers if you like!

@Axis4life:

I would go with 1 Battleship.  The shore bombard capabilities of the battleship make it a terrific offensive weapon when deploying troops into hostile territory.  Also unless it is a massive naval battle or the BB is left alone to be attacked it will generally survive the fight.  If your navy has plenty of fodder i.e. subs and TRAN then your rolling a 4 every round.  I play by the rule book so I guess I just don’t understand the DES argument of changing its capabilities.  Any piece in the came can become invaluable if you change its function.  If  you play strictly by the rule than the BB is superior IMO.

Well, you seems to be a newbie here. If anyone can tell about the impact of changed values for a certain kind of unit, it is me! This rule actually makes shore bombardment more reasonable, cannot you see the problem or are youone of those who buys everything Mr Selinker or Larry feeds you with. These guys are humans not gods! They are not even genius IMHO! I like Larry a lot but he is too stucked with all those guys who want a too advanced game. Make it simple and not too many units! Artillery and destroyers was a nice add, but AA-guns are superfluous! Air power is still not perfectly balanced and many other rules are contradictory like the shore bombardment. I try to keep it simple here.

Just read Mr Selinkers arguments for not giving DDs the shore bombardment ability. The areas are too big, so it would be unrealistic and too effective (a game braker) to let DDs shore bombard the inner part of Canada with no true coastline. That is true for both BBs and DDs in my opinion, don’t you agree!? I believe that this is the biggest problem with shore bombardment. If one has a few BBs then one can put a shore one infantry and blow away a stack of infantry with shorebombardment without suffering a casualty. If DDs were allowed as well to perform shore bombardment this unrealistic problem will become even more obvious. So the true problem lies in the shore bombardment rule as it is designed today, if allowed at all it needs to be restricted some how.

The second argument is that each unit should only have one additional special ability like shore bombardment. Once again BBs do have the 2 hit ability and shore bombardment, why not allow this shore bombardment to DDs as well??? It does not make sense!!! So this is something that has to be solved for the next edition to A&A Revised. My suggestion for a new shore bombardment rule could be added as an optional for the more advanced player. Other players do best in not allow shore bombardment at all for BBs or DDs!

The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.

Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.

I repeat:

The reason that destroyers were not given the special ability to shore bombard as a standard rule in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):

" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."

If one thinks that a piece only should have one main ability, than the two hits to destroy should be enough for battleships as well. The shore bombardment should than be an optional rule for the more advanced players or one should include it as standrad and accept a little more complicated rules. As the rules are now they are simply not consistent!Â

If battleships are allowed to shore bombard, one can still hit Saskatchewan! Consistently if battleships are allowed to shore bombard destroyers shoulb be able to do too. If it will be too powerful one should consider to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not to act inconsistently. The Combined Bombardment is not a true weapon development, but simply an emergancy solution. There are many errors in Mr Selinkers argumentation in the design of A&A Revised, it does not take a genius to find out! Another one was tol not include Heavy Artillery as a weapons development, also due to wrong reasons. If you want to take a look at the articles named Axis & Allies Countdown that Mr Selinker wrote before the release of A&A:R go to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20031205a

@ncscswitch:

LHTR 1.4 anyone???

What do you mean? Never heard of LHTR v 1.4!!! However my revised rule for shore bombardment that includes DDs is perfected  :-D, it solves the true problem! Combine this rule of shore bombardment with air supremacy and you got an even better game  8-)

I just wonder what is wrong with the shore bombarment capability on a 2 or less for DDs, that worked out so fine in A&A:E and A&A:P! It would make DDs a better buy for sure and in my opinion make DDs a better balanced piece compared to BBs. I think it is fair and balanced as well as historical correct to give DDs a shore bombardment capability. The reason that this special ability was not included as standard in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):

" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."

How ever the solution to such a  problem is just to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not excluding DDs from doing it. My suggestion is to allow DDs make a shore bombardment on 2 and change the rule for shore bombarment as follow:

Shore Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, battleships and destroyers may make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 4 and a 2 respectively. For each support shot one must put ashore one land unit, apply to both battleships and destroyers. Battleships and destroyers that conduct shore bombardment fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A battleship or a destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

@Axel:

ME too,

I can be devastating when it comes on using BB’s :-P

the only way I use DD is to make sure subs can’t use their special abilities…

What if DDs were able to shore bombard on a 2?

@Imperious:

OK then if we go with those you have to add your tank destroyer NA and NA’s for Japan, China, Italy… plus we need about 10 each… no hurry take your time… but we need the finished product yesterday!

Why 10 per nation?

@Imperious:

Ok  I am back from my exile at elba… It will take me some time to sort thru these posts… but i have one prelininary question to Andersson… how are those NA’s coming? are you finished yet?

NAs!? Yes and No, for Itally I have no time for the moment, need to do some research first! Your Nas for Itally sucs and definitely need a make-up! Go for the ones posted at www.axisandallies.org and stick to them. I mean if one go for all of the NAs I have been playing with to fish out the best, you most likely will end up with the same list. Its better to use the newest list and look for any NAs that need to be replaced or revised!

@theduke:

historically rockets weren’t that good. too many of them missed their target  for one reason or another. this is why rockets should be just a minor advantage and therefore a ‘cheap’ tech. IMO it should be 1) rockets 2) nuclear missile (not actually made during wwii, but possible)

remember that playtesting for revised came back with the conclusion that heavy rtl was ‘too good’ (meaning too powerful). why have a powerful tech as a ‘cheap’ stage 1 tech? mech inf might be weak enough to just switch them.

super dreads are too weak to be a stage 2 tech. rolling 2 dice is real good, but no one will ever have more than 3 of them on the board at 1 time, let alone using all 3 in battle every time.

IMO these techs need some work. :-D

They surely do need some work! What about the tech system? By the way the reasons for not having the Heavy RTL are so bad that they stinks!

The main reason is that one can not have a piece that give a better attack ratio than a INFs defense ratio - a Heavy RTL attack on 3 (+1 per matching INF) and cost 4IPCs were as an INF defends on a 2 and cost 3 IPCs!

Attack ratio for Heavy RTL is 3/4 IPCs > defense ratio INF is 2/3 IPCs

However one need to spend some 30 IPCs to get it! consider that and the ratio looks much different! In how many games do one buy more than 10 RTL? Noone! So If we consider one to buy 10 RTL and then develop Heavy RTL to the “risky” cost of 30 IPCs, then these RTL cost 5 IPCs each! The game designers missed these basics! An attack ratio of 3/5 is not as good as the defense ratio for an INF of 2/3. So it is a brilliant tech that all the playtesters to A&A:R did like, but got spoiled for wrong reasons. And the best of all it is a balanced tech, much more than many other of the techs in A&A:R!

1st Jet Power Your FTRs defend on a 5 and are immune to AAGun fire.
2nd Rockets

1st Heavy Bombers
2nd Atomic Bomb

1st Heavy Artillery
2nd Mechanized Infantry Your ARM give one matching INF one additional movement allowance and an increased attack capability of 2 or less. Even if supported by RTL, their attack remains 2. The ARM and the INF unit must leave from the same territory.

1st Long Range Aircraft
2nd ???

1st Radar Technology Your AAGun defends on a 2 and your FTRs gain the ability to “intercept” incoming BMBRs on SBR missions.
2nd ???

1st Super Submarines
2nd Super Dreadnoughts Your BBs rolls 2 dice in attack and defense.

@triforce:

Remeber that the reason that no Jap military units were distroyed in history was that we hit civilian targets.  Gotta love american terrorism.

Then you like my variant! ;-)

Once you get Heavy Bombers one can develop that tech to e second level. I think that this would be nice for all techs. This would represent a better system for minor and major techs!

1st level Heavy Bombers: Your bombers get one extra die per attack
2nd level Atomic Bomb: Your bombers reduce the income value (IPC level) of the territory containing the IC to 1 IPC permanently In a SBR.

Well, well, here we go. In my opinion a fully loaded AC is always the best buy, but it need to be complemented due to the enemies. If your enemy goes for navy, then buy subs, if your enemy goes for air then buy another fully loaded AC. The fighters on board the AC can replace the shore bombardment of BBs, more or less IMHO. If the enemy buy subs then I buy one DD, but just one. The reason for this is simply that a fully loaded AC is the best buy for defens, and subs is the best buy for attack. The shore bombardment is good, but two fighters would be almost as good for amphibious assaults. The hit and run engagements for BBs, were damaged BBs retreat and self repair, is good when one play against a bad opponent. A good player who buy according to my suggestions and stack the fleet to one sea zone, will have the odds to win big time! The best thing happens when the enemy goes for navy and you have bought a lot of subs and your opponent are pleased with his odds against your fleet. The very next thing you will do is go for Supersubmarines (ca 30 IPCs of investment) or just another 4-5 subs!

No frankly, the BBs and DDs need some extra spice to make them desirable IMHO. I don’t know how to counter this problem, but I do have suggestions. Like those mentioned before. A 2/2/2 DD (8IPCs) would be dominant and brake them game, since it would be the best buy for both defens and attack. Why would someone buy a SS (submarine) when one can buy a DD for the same price, but the DD can defend against air. If your enemy buys a DD the opening fire for your SS would be lost, hence no benefit for buying any SS.  Another thing is that 3 DD (2/2/2) would be a much better buy then a BB, so the price for the BB need to go down, 20 IPCs (for reasons not disclosed right now).

Well, there is still one Q to answer and a problem to solve. The problem is how the subs could be more desirable My first thought is to take a look att the rules for subs in A&A:E were subs were not susceptible to air attacks without destroyer presens. Another feature from A&A:E is the interdiction ability of subs. Since there are no convoy centers, my suggestion is a rule that would do (see “Convoy Raids” below). So now that we have found a possible solution to the problem, that would make the subs desirable irrespective of the improved DD and its submarine disruption ability. Ok great, but what about the Q; Will BBs and DDs be desirable at all? Well, they are still very much the same type of units but improved. It is now a tough choice between a DD in defens or fully loaded AC, and between BBs or DDs in attack se below:

DD ( 360 IPCs)

Att: 245 = 90
Def: 245 = 90
Hits: 45

AC + 2 Ftr (360 IPCs)

Att: 101+203 = 70
Def: 103+204 = 110
Hits: 30

BB / 20 IPCs (360 IPCs)

Att: 184 =72
Def: 184 =72
Hits: 36

If DDs are not allowed for shore bombardment the BB will probably be the best choice as long as no subs are around.  An extra spice to the BBs would be an opening fire ability in conjunction with an inability to hit subs, meaning subs can never be hit by BBs. That is goody goody and the 24 IPC price for a BB would be acceptable. Well, it was just a thought! In defens ACs would still be the choice along with some cannon fodder, now not only SSs but DDs as well. But in defens, I would buy mostly DDs. DDs are simply the best balanced allround piece to buy and will therefore most likely be the mainstay in the fleets. More over, subs will now be important for special reasons like the transporters or more likely bombers, to “sink” IPCs from your enemies like bombers in SBRs! Ok, I think that’s it! The bottom line is no cruiser unit is needed. Belive it or not, the fewer pieces the better it gets, since the game is pretty messy as is ;-)

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

@Imperious:

Hey you! are you gonna help us? (re: house section…me and Duke)

I do, but please read all in this topic before you change any values for BBs or DDs!

Anyone who has not voted yet? :?

I would say that the effect of an atomic bomb would be that the income value of that territory get reduced to 0 IPCs, hence it becomes worthless! How ever that tech should be a hard / special tech! Lets say may make one roll per turn and you must get 40 points (each die added) that will take some 11-12 turns to get. One simply need to spend 5 IPCs each turn, a total of 55-60 IPCs on average! the A-bomd must be dropped by a bomber in a SBR! Jets (my variant) will be very important! One might also consider to make a combo of A-bomb and Rockets to get around the possibility of defense!

@tekkyy:

Oooh game theory.
Are we talking about the technical/theoretical term or the everyday term?

The academic term!

@tekkyy:

Yep Katyuskas is already in the pre-draft baseline list thingo.

Were can I read about this pre-draft basline list thingo???

@Imperious:

did you get my Napoleon Wars ruleset?

Yes, but have not red them yet! I will!