@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
Updated FAQ Posted
-
There’s a new version of the FAQ up at Larry Harris’ site. It contains additions to the FAQ on the Avalon Hill site, and they are marked in red for easy identification. This new FAQ should be considered official, as these same changes will eventually be made to the FAQ at Avalon Hill, as time and resources allow.
-
There’s a new version of the FAQ up at Larry Harris’ site. It contains additions to the FAQ on the Avalon Hill site, and they are marked in red for easy identification. This new FAQ should be considered official, as these same changes will eventually be made to the FAQ at Avalon Hill, as time and resources allow.
Nice Krieghund, You should mention the nice new optional rules on interdeptors and closing the Dardenelles to Naval traffic-sweet, again great seasoning for the goose.
-
You’re right, Bluestroke. That’s big news, and I should have mentioned it. That’s why I’m not in marketing, I guess! :oops:
The new FAQ contains additional optional rules for closing the Dardanelles to naval traffic and using fighter escorts and interceptors in strategic bombing raids! These great new rules will add lots of spice to your games for an even better gaming experience!
8-)
-
Nice. I love the optional rules. This will help Russia against the German and Italian sea invasions.
The fighter escorts add a nice touch.
-
It looks to me like strategic bombing is pretty costly now if one uses the interceptor rules. Maybe it’s balanced out by the chance to shoot down enemy fighters, but the defending fighters on a 2 combined with AA fire seem to mean that the attacker is always likely to lose more than the defender.
-
True, but there’s a cost to the defender involved, too. If your fighters are at home defending your ICs, they aren’t at the front attacking the enemy and defending your troops. The map’s a bit bigger than it used to be.
-
Trying to understand the driver for the interceptor/escort rule. I understand it from a historical standpoint, but not sure about a gameplay perspective.
Figs that serve as escorts can not participate in any other battles, and stand only a 55% chance of survival (1/6 chance of being shot down by AA, then 1/3 chance of being shot by fig) if there are equal numbers of interceptors and escorts.
So unless you can afford to load up on tons of fighters to go with your bombers, you just killed SBRs with a single fighter per IC However, the one power who can probably afford to do this is the US, who can potentially overwhelm Germany with airpower instead of land troops and either wipe out token interceptors, encourage germany to leave its figs out of IC defense, allowing relatively free shots at the SBRs, or force them to amass figs in germany rather than participate in french defense, eastern front activity etc.
Basically you seem to be encouraging a heavy allied air campaign. Is that the intent? Maybe I’m looking at this too simplistically since I haven’t played this version much. I guess it allows germany a chance take out russian air if they go with a mass air raid on moscow from 2 terrritories away? How much did you gametest this optional rule?
With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?
-
How much did you gametest this optional rule?
These are the same rules used in Europe and Pacific. My group did playtest them in several games. They did discourage SBRs when Germany kept a couple of fighters at home, but only when there were no escorts available. This made an air campaign more of a committed choice rather than the occassional pot-shot. The cost of losing escorts was offset by the chance to inflict hits on the defenders and keep some of Germany’s fighters tied up.
With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?
There’s no way to open it.
-
Interesting. Thanks.
-
With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?
There’s no way to open it.
So who’s going to start the new Yahoo Group “Black Sea Sub”?
-
They did discourage SBRs when Germany kept a couple of fighters at home, but only when there were no escorts available. This made an air campaign more of a committed choice rather than the occassional pot-shot.
I love the concept of the new interceptor rules. Only, the mechanics do not seem well thought through/tested. SBRs become totally unattractive as soon as there is a defending interceptor there. It would require committing at least two fighters on offence for every one on defence and ALSO your fighters get akak hits. I’ve done the math in a range of scenarios and basically as soon as there is a defending interceptor its not economical to bother SBRing.
The cost of losing escorts was offset by the chance to inflict hits on the defenders and keep some of Germany’s fighters tied up.
This doesn’t really hold too well. If your fighters are defending they are not really tied up - they are just parking. It only really restricts their range (and I do note the point that the map is now larger). The attacker on the other hand has to spend the combat move of the bombers and double the number of fighters on a dodgy SBR with a negative pay-off and huge capital expense/opportunity cost. That fleet of planes could be doing something more useful… like taking the darn complex!! :-P
And if the defender is concerned they might lose their fighters because the escort stack would shred them - they can let the bomber(s) through to the keeper and they have wasted the opportunity of the escorts to do something better. And the fighters still suffer akak fire, for no gain. I note that the akak fire against each fighter exactly equals the damage it will do to the defending fighters (a roll of 1 against each fighter and also by each fighter).
Again, the idea is good but it doesn’t work in its current form. I think I remember Jenn making a comment somewhere about how interceptors/escorts could work, that seemed fun. Why not have the defenders at 4, the fighters at 3 and the bombers at 1 + SBR. Now that would be an exciting air raid for both sides! As it is, there is no point in SBR unless you get a lucky opportunity to take a potshot at a fighter-less IC.
Oh, and the akak fire should definitely go after the interceptor fire. This makes better logical sense and makes for better game balance.
The rule seems designed to tone down SBR, but it basically disables SBR unless your enemy is silly enough to leave her IC unguarded. Kreig, I think the concept is awesome but it might deserve rethinking before it goes into the offical FAQ. Hope you can work some magic to save it!
PS. first post! I love this forum and decided to finally contribute :-) Long time player of AA, been reading here (in detail) since AA50 came out and sporadically before that.
-
All this chatter about this and that and no one mentioned to Krieg some form of congradulations for getting props from the man, Larry, himself?
Wow.
Cruel heartless world we live in, Krieg! Anyway, congrates on getting props from the man!
Hostile zones include naval zones in regards for Paratroopers I am guessing? (obviously that would be a surface WARSHIP, not a pissant little submarine or transport.)
-
What do you mean? Props for what?
-
Welcome to the discussion, Telamon!
I think you’re being a bit too hard on this rule. Escort fighters bring more to the party than their firepower. Their ability to take a hit from an interceptor and save a bomber saves 2 IPCs for the attacker plus the bomber still gets to SBR, so you don’t really have to bring twice as many fighters as the defender has in order to gain a benefit.
I also don’t think that leaving defending fighters idle is a good use for them just because the attacker has escorts. Germany is a long way from the front in this game, and the German player needs to make sure that each piece is contributing to the war effort every turn.
As far as the expense of an SBR campaign goes, the use of bombers for SBRs has always been less efficient than using them in normal combat. Many people use them only when normal combat isn’t an option at the time.
I don’t think that this rule “disables” SBRs. It just makes “casual” SBRs a less attractive option. Strategic bombing will need to be more deliberate and committed with this optional rule in place.
@Cmdr:
All this chatter about this and that and no one mentioned to Krieg some form of congradulations for getting props from the man, Larry, himself?
Wow.
Cruel heartless world we live in, Krieg! Anyway, congrates on getting props from the man!
Thanks, Jennifer!
@Cmdr:
Hostile zones include naval zones in regards for Paratroopers I am guessing? (obviously that would be a surface WARSHIP, not a pissant little submarine or transport.)
No, sea zones aren’t included, just territories.
-
Okay, so if the entire Royal Navy is sitting in the Baltic/North Seas (SZ 5), and we’re talking 40 aircraft carriers, 80 fighters, 100 battleships/cruisers a few dozen destroyers and a submarine (just to “represent”) Germany can still take her bomber and one infantry over SZ 5 and drop them on England taking out the undefended land there?
-
And if the defender is concerned they might lose their fighters because the escort stack would shred them - they can let the bomber(s) through to the keeper and they have wasted the opportunity of the escorts to do something better. And the fighters still suffer akak fire, for no gain.
Wow, I completely missed this part the first time I read it. Yuck! You can’t even use your escorts to try to overwhelm a token interceptor? They can just sit safely on the ground if you send enough figs? Goodness. That takes away the incentive for sending a major airstrike.
-
I don’t like the new SBR rules. Allies need the power of their starting bombers to try balance their starting massive disadvantage in 1941. I would buy one bomber to replace loses, but not fighters for escorting SBRs (better used in Pacific theater or as defense in atlantic ACs). I would not risk a soviet fighter to defend from SBR, by the way :-P
The Black Sea … not sure. It means Caucasus will be safe from sneaky italians, but it will focus Italy in Africa, a thing I don’t like playing UK. :|
Make a fixed setup and/or make China a full power. This is much more needed. But I said that before :wink:
-
@Cmdr:
Okay, so if the entire Royal Navy is sitting in the Baltic/North Seas (SZ 5), and we’re talking 40 aircraft carriers, 80 fighters, 100 battleships/cruisers a few dozen destroyers and a submarine (just to “represent”) Germany can still take her bomber and one infantry over SZ 5 and drop them on England taking out the undefended land there?
Yup.
-
if you close the black sea, you might as well forbid Amphibious Assaults on norway from sz 3 and 6… :roll:
-
The FAQ has been updated with several new questions and clarifications. The new information is in bright red.
Suggested Topics
