The absence of the opening fire step do affects the shore bombardment and the AA gun fire? These attacks are handled with special rules or with units abilities?
I did like the opening fire step introduction in Revised it is a pity opening fire step has been removed from Anniversary.
dang, my two favorite rules (opening fire subs and no defensive retaliation after bombard) are gone… with no rational. How exactly are those soldiers smashed by battleship bombardments prior to the landing of infantry able to shoot at… the infantry? Now if the battleships were able to continue bombarding past the first round, it might make sense… but then you might hit your own men…
bad change regardless.
Anyway, if there is no Opening Fire phase, when do AA-guns fire ?
During Surprise Strike ?
The absence of the opening fire step do affects the shore bombardment and the AA gun fire? These attacks are handled with special rules or with units abilities?
AA fire and shore bombardment are now pre-combat steps. AA fire casualties are removed before combat begins. Shore bombardment casualties begin combat behind the casualty line.
dang, my two favorite rules (opening fire subs and no defensive retaliation after bombard) are gone… with no rational. How exactly are those soldiers smashed by battleship bombardments prior to the landing of infantry able to shoot at… the infantry? Now if the battleships were able to continue bombarding past the first round, it might make sense… but then you might hit your own men…
bad change regardless.
Larry didn’t like the way that Pacific islands with single infantry defenders were wiped off the map most of the time without even getting a chance to fire. This problem was compounded by adding cruisers’ fire to the proceedings. Amphibious assaults shouldn’t be a cake-walk.
Larry didn’t like the way that Pacific islands with single infantry defenders were wiped off the map most of the time without even getting a chance to fire. This problem was compounded by adding cruisers’ fire to the proceedings. Amphibious assaults shouldn’t be a cake-walk.
I do not doubt that this may be a good reason and I agree with Mr Harris, introducing the cruiser would have increased the problem. So I agree with the objective.
However, the beauty of the opening fire step rule in Revised is the clearness and the ease in handling the pre-combat abilities.
It was introduced purposely for handling sub and off shore bombing, if I can recall correctly. Now it seems we are going back the pre-combat step or abilities instead of having one single opening fire step phase.
@Imperious:
Change we can believe in.
Or change you can be taxed from at a higher rate.
certainly, higher taxes for the wealthy is a nightmare much more frightening then allowing the fleecing of America, the ever widening gap in classes, and the utter disregard for the welfare of the environment and human kind in general, in order to maximize profits. AS long as the masta doesnt hold that carrot too far from our faces, we will still believe in the American Dream eh?
My opponents are making too much money, I think they need to be taxed at a higher rate!
It is also unfair that my opponents get more infantry and armor than I do as Russia, therefore, I think the wealth needs to be redistributed. Gimme some of those guys and tanks! WTF, I have no tanks man! Well, not compared to you all!
Jenny:
I have HOPE that he will leave me with CHANGE when he is done with me!
This ad is not political, has been funded by no political party nor by any 529-c3 organizations. This is a non-partisan ad for the betterment of the Greater Russian Hegemony.
Long live the Czarina!
Larry didn’t like the way that Pacific islands with single infantry defenders were wiped off the map most of the time without even getting a chance to fire. This problem was compounded by adding cruisers’ fire to the proceedings. Amphibious assaults shouldn’t be a cake-walk.
That is a good point, applying to the difficulty America had clearing the Japanese islands. Of course, it doesnt apply as well to something like the battle of normandy, where off shore bombardments were indeed able to “soften” up the beaches prior to landings.
Maybe a special Japanese National ADvantage (Japanese infantry on Islands defend at 3 and are not removed in the opening phase after bombards.)
Of course, I have never purposefully left Japansese infantry on islands, instead shuttling them to Asia. Of course, most Americans in AAR dont even both with the islands choosing KGF, and when they do bother, they typically have 1-2 battleships with so more reason not to defend the islands…
time to rethink strategy with the anniversary addition… which is a good thing
However, the beauty of the opening fire step rule in Revised is the clearness and the ease in handling the pre-combat abilities.
It was introduced purposely for handling sub and off shore bombing, if I can recall correctly. Now it seems we are going back the pre-combat step or abilities instead of having one single opening fire step phase.
True, but Opening Fire also involved moving AA guns and battleships to the battle board and then moving them back after the first round of combat. Having a pre-combat step eliminates this, along with adding the flexibility that all pre-combat steps don’t have to work in the same way. Six of one and half a dozen of the other, IMO.
Larry didn’t like the way that Pacific islands with single infantry defenders were wiped off the map most of the time without even getting a chance to fire. This problem was compounded by adding cruisers’ fire to the proceedings. Amphibious assaults shouldn’t be a cake-walk.
That is a good point, applying to the difficulty America had clearing the Japanese islands. Of course, it doesnt apply as well to something like the battle of normandy, where off shore bombardments were indeed able to “soften” up the beaches prior to landings.
Also a good point, but one infantry piece represents a lot of men. Conceptually, it may be better to think of shore bombardment as helping the invading troops to eliminate those units, rather than completely obliterating them on its own. Under that assumption, return fire makes sense, and it can be argued that denying it makes bombardment overly powerful. Two infantry attacking one with a battleship backup still gives the attacker a significant advantage.
In fact I agree with the changing of the rule for amphibious assault. What I am considering is the removing of the opening fire step. Maybe it is better with the new rules and the pre-combat abilities ruling. We shall see.
Quite funny that two of my post are removed from this thread, yet the original post I responded to, or the posts that have quoted mine are still in here. A moderator on his toes for sure. :-D
:-D
