I think the reason is to give incentive to build airbases over carriers but majority of players are just going to build carriers as you have more freedom in movement and more useful in longer plays.
Personally, I am not sure why airbases don’t have a rule where you can scramble against bombing raids.
Topic is simple, in your opinion, what do you think is the worst country to play on Turn 1?
I think a good part of us will agree Italy has to be the worse.
Plus it is ill-advise to set up units before your turn as you are basically showing your enemy what you’re going to buy and thus they can counter it up by setting up reserves. Among my friends, I seem to be the only player that leave strategic reserves in place when I launch attacks.
Sure but I refer WWII has a whole vs a single battle.
It is an interesting idea but I’d rather see other units, I am still waiting to see if we ever will get a General or Admiral piece for the game.
I am not sure the legality of buying units in stealth however I argue placing fake units on the board in the buy section shouldn’t be legal. I am sure this comes up such as the famous BS rule where people would buy units and keep them in reserve instead of placing on the board that turn.
Correct. The two possible Sea Lion hint are either an all naval build on turn 1 or large amount of infantry.
I’d say if Italy is not building a navy and neither is Germany then the best bet is to factory Egypt and just push Italy out of the region so they can’t get the med NO.
People will complain unfortunately if Minor nations had out dated equipment, which they did. In fact even some of the major powers had out dated equipment. USSR for example had only two WWI era battleships at the start of WWII.
A lot of times what usually breaks the Allies is how poor US reacts to what side of the world to fight on.
It seems every time we play there are certain things we just don’t understand. While we understand the rules sometimes they just do not seem rational.
Does anyone have house rules addressing the following?
Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.
If I move a sub or a destroyer-less navy into a convoy sea zone, forcing the enemy to submerge, why can they convoy me?
It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers.
I get that Kamikaze attacks have to choose their target. But if I bring in 3 cruisers, 2 battleships and a carrier and they choose to hit the battleships, shouldn’t the cruisers get to bombard? They can’t take part in the defense against the Kamikaze.
Convoy Disruption seems easy. There are no ill effects to the disruptor. If you can intercept when facilities are being attacked it makes sense a navy in that sea zone should be able to do the same.
I would love to hear some input on these as well as any house rules ideas.
In terms of house rules, are you looking for balance or realism?
I always argue realism before balance so.
1:No, Artillery should not be able to support infantry during sea invasion, that’s why battleships should be used.
2:I argue they should. The sea territory is vase and submarines are loved during WWII because they are a pain to track down, they are basically the naval sniper.
3: I am not sure the exact issue. Fighters and Tacts can be used offensively and scramble protects your navy. I personally think all allied aircraft should scramble regardless of what nations navy is being attack as long as the nations allows it.
4: Kamikaze wings traditionally went after Battleships and Aircraft Carriers first because taking those out would give the IJN fairness as the IJN had a lot of smaller ships. I personally think Kamikaze wings should also be allowed to target transports.
5: So what’s the issue with Convoy Raids then? It makes you force yourself to deal with an enemy navy.
One of the reasons why I also hope AnA moves to a ten sided die is because of 1: math is easier 2: it will allow units to have better odds. I never liked the idea of infantry only attacking at 1, it makes it appear on a 6 die that infantry is garbage.
@Der:
@Caesar:
I honestly wanted to add a very complex rule where certain units do better against others but it forces the attacker to actually assign attacks during combat. It will slow the game down but make it interesting. For example. Fighters do 4 against other fighters, 5 against bombers, 3 against tanks, 2 against infantry, and 1 against any naval unit.
Yeah I tried something like that once but the battle board ended up looking so complicated I was scared away from it.
Yeah, you would have to come up with a whole new battle board but that also means that attack would end up picking what gets destroyed instead of the defense doing that.
@Baron:
@Caesar:
I tell people to picture land units a battalion size, aircraft as a wing, and naval as itself meaning 1 for 1.
Nice distortion. :-)
But can it lead to misinterpretations?
I just tell them that because of logic issues like how in the hell can an infantry shoot down a bomber? You have to use some imagination with the game. Unless you do exactly what I wanted to do make units have strength and weakness because if I had my way, infantry cannot shoot at aircraft.
I tell people to picture land units a battalion size, aircraft as a wing, and naval as itself meaning 1 for 1.
The only rule I ever got wrong in my life was the rule where you can capture allied territories and claim them if their capital was under control by the enemy. My friend corrected me about this but he did so thinking that should be the rule via logic and didn’t know himself that was an actual rule.
On the other side, he once tried to argue that liberating a territory should be under his control and not return to the original owner. This came up when he once played UK and he liberated several Soviet and US territories back when China used to be US instead of itself. I told him this isn’t the 1950’s.
I honestly wanted to add a very complex rule where certain units do better against others but it forces the attacker to actually assign attacks during combat. It will slow the game down but make it interesting. For example. Fighters do 4 against other fighters, 5 against bombers, 3 against tanks, 2 against infantry, and 1 against any naval unit.
OP seems to think that any player would chicken out at the last second when trying to capture the capital and either build or play very conservative. Which doesn’t make sense as if you’re knocking on your enemies capital, the best move is to attack as odds are, your enemy is very weak. It makes sense the side that lost the initiative would play defense as Germany exactly did, it never mounted a major offensive inside Germany when the allies were taking German cities. But I don’t get why he thinks the other side would cower out unless he plays against players who do that. I play as the USSR and usually when UK and US enters France, I begin my massive invasion.
The only reason this game up as Germany as because one of his transports managed to escape destruction and he was basically taking one infantry around the world and annoying the US and UK jacking his loose territories. I play as USSR usually so this is never an issue for me.
FIC, if under united UK economy, can be useful for UK. I agree with you that it serves better for Japan but once again, it depends on what Japan attacks first.
