Worst rule ever…

[Octopus]

What do you guys think of an AA blocking a tank blitz?

I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport). It becomes a nearly permanent road block. The rule seems to only aid Russia since there are no other places where armor is a factor where AA exists.

Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.

Most unfortunate.

Oh, I think having to own the Suez Canal prior to moving through it is also a sham. Yes, that only hurts the Axis.

[critmonster]

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

[Octopus]

aye, that is terribly hokey.

the defending submarine should have the ability to decide if it wishes to participate in combat or not (naturally unless a destroyer is present).

why would a unit be forced to not partake in combat when it has the ability to?

i can only assume the designers do not like submarines much (or worse, don’t want anyone else to like them either).

so let me see if I get this straight……

a submarine cannot stop a defenseless transport, but an AA gun can stop a tank blitz.

wtf?

i am complaining because i can see how this breaks gameplay.

[jemo81]

i would agree with you on the aa gun stopping blizting is stupid, and should be corrected. However, you can of course always create a houserule disregarding the current rules on the area. But as an improvement in the next version you second your suggestion

[Octopus]

yes, house rules are always up for consideration.

I have this wierd habit of finding (what I consider) imperfections in games that break the play. In this case, the best Russian defense might be to possess a large stack in either Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine. What ever territory the stack is not in, put 1 or 2 infantry with the AA gun and the defense of Moscow is impervious to armored blitz.

The industrial complex stopping a blitz I understand. It is most often the target of an attack and complexes don’t move so you can count on going around them.

I would love to know the thought process behind the AA gun stopping a blitz (what led to the decision of making that rule).

[Romulus]

Mmm… I am not sure that is such a broken rule. Also a single infantry inhibit the blitz and cost only 3 IPC while a AA gun cost 6 and, moreover, beiing indestructible is captured togheter with the territory. Yes the tanks have to stop but they have also the additional defense of the AA gun. So if you want to counter attack in such territory your aircraft may be shoot down by your ex AA gun…

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz. The problem maybe is why the AA gun are indestructible?

[Krieghund]

@Romulus:

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz.

Bingo.

[Romulus]

@Krieghund:

@Romulus:

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz.

Bingo.

Even if is only my opinion it is right because simplicity avoid complication and misinterpretation!

[Veqryn]

I would only be ok with your idea if all russian territories that had an AA also got an additional infantry too to make up for the new rule change.

[Panzer Leader]

@critmonster:

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

I am not sure where you reading this from but I check the rules again for AA50 under submarine page 16 of 16, and the only thing it mentions in reference to defending submarines is that -if there is a attacking destroyer present they have to roll a defense roll and cannot use the submerge option instead. If there is no attacking destroyer then they can submerge instead of defending.
This is from the rule book: “If there is at least one attacking destroyer on the battle board, defending submarines will participate in combat during the defending units fire step of the General Combat sequence. Otherwise, each defending submarine may submerge or fire. Remove each submerging submarine from the battle board and place it on the gameboard in the contested sea zone. Roll one die for each remaining defending submarine.”
So I interpelate this as been subs can stay in a battle if they want, but they must stay if there is an enemy destroyer attacking. If you attack a sub without a destroyer then your ships must withstand a free sneak attack and remove any casulties before they get to fire. If they miss then the sub can now sneak attack again or submerge. Also remember planes canoot attack subs without a destroy to help and subs cannot attack planes so they hit only boats.

Because subs do not control a seazone, a transport can legally move in and unload ignoring the sub into an enemy territory using amphibious assault. On the subs turn it now can attack the transport. I know it seems to not make sense that the transport can move past the sub, but the transport actually does not see the sub, therfore it ignores it.

Hope this helps a little. 8-) 8-)

[allboxcars]

@Octopus:

I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport)…. It becomes a nearly permanent road block.
Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.

Permanent road block??? Mmmm blocks a blitz but not movement.
So you move into the space and - boom there goes the dynamite baby - congratulations you’re the proud owner of some AA.
Done.

My question is who falls back and sacrifices AA when it’s only useful in the actual target of an air attack / SBR?

[Corbeau Blanc]

I know subs cannot block sea units but what about a lone transport?
Does a transport can stop enemy movement?

Also, I’ve been told a factory IC also prevented blitz like an aa gun… that’s true?

[Romulus]

Subs and transports do not block sea movements and do not prevent amphibious operations.

It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.

IC block blitz, and I see no reason for which they should not.

[allboxcars]

@Romulus:

IC block blitz, and I see no reason for which they should not.

Definitely. Nobody runs thru a Built-Up Area.

[Lynxes]

It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.

Not really, only if transport and merchant ships were escorted could they escape subs with any sort of odds. Transports alone shouldn’t be able to ignore subs, the only way I can explain this is that they thought it’s a rare occurence and they didn’t want to complicate the game. I’ve seen it happen in games and it’s a frustrating sight!

[Octopus]

There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA.  The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed.

Case: Japanese air power wishes to clear a path for the German advance. Sorry, don’t even bother, because an AA stands in the way and will block a blitz and cannot be destroyed. The AA’s intended purpose of shooting aircraft is NOT used because there is no purpose in attacking the space, so the combat never takes place. Second, the unintended use of the AA IS used to block the path of blitzing tanks and Russia loses no units and pays nothing for this strategy.

This is called gaming the system; when unintended uses of the game are employed for purposes other than the intended.

Someone mentioned the idea of capturing the gun….except a solid Russian strategy is to not bother defending both zones that protect Russia (Belorussia and Eastern Ukraine). A single mass of units exist in one zone (along with an AA), while only the AA exists in the other. If the Germans try to capture the gun, they will be taken by the mass in the other zone.

The use of the AA to block the blitz allows the Russians to protect both zones effectively while only occupying 1 zone and risking no units.

[Romulus]

Excuse me, but according to you the only way to conquer Moscow for the German is by mean of a massive blitz of panzer? One have to use a “can opener” move to win? It is not possible to conquer Moscow in other way?

Then use Italian forces: attack the territory during Italian turn, conquer the territory, conquer the AA and then blitz all the panzers across the territory.

AA is a unit. No matter if it roll dices or not it requires a battle for being captured, this is acceptable for me. Also defenceless transports require a battle to be destroyed even if there is no one die rolled. Also this is acceptable to me. Moreover it is simple to be explained and it is easy to be remembered.

Gaming the system? No I believe it is called “keep it simple strategy” (KISS). Making a rule and then introducing several exceptions is the way to create a complex ruleset that may cause problems to new players and quarrels between experienced player when one of them did not remember Exception 1.3 “Blitzing through ostile territory with only an AA Gun present and no other ground unit” to Rule 4.17/A “Moving tanks of two spaces during Combat Move”.  Moreover, the more are the rules, the greater is the possibility of errors, misprints, and other problems in the rulebook that have to be corrected, with FAQ, Errata etc.

Considering your solid russian strategy, I have some doubt.

Consider a stack of russian unit in Belorussia and an AA Gun in Eastern Ukraine. Consider a German Stack in Poland.

If German is strong enough to move its stack in Eastern Poland and Russian Army is not strong enough to destroy it or at least strafe it, then your strategy is in problem. Because now the Russian army is in a dead zone created by the German stack present in Eastern Poland. Next turn Russia have to make a choice: stay and die or run to live. If they select to stay, next turn German player will attack Belorussia, killing the Russian Army and preparing to invade Moscow, while other panzers and/or fighters in NCM move to Eastern Poland. Panzer will blitz across Belorussia next turn.
Otherwise German army may move in Eastern Ukraine, capture the AA Gun, using it to cover its advanced army.

In your scenario, moreover it is possible also to do the move that you would like to do. If Germans attack Eastern Ukraine and capture the AA Gun then the Russians have to counter during russian turn. Problem: AA Gun, being involved in combat, even if they do not roll dice, may not be moved. So the Russian have the problem to cover the territory where the attack come from: Belorussia. AA Gun cannot be moved to Belorussia, being involved in combat. If Russians leave only an inf there… then the can opener move may be performed: using Japanese airpower to clear the blitz path for the panzers.

If Germans are not able to deadzone the territory in wich Russian army is placed then they do not deserve to conquer Moscow.

What I am trying to say is that A&A is a game that requires sounding strategies. Tricks and expedients may work in few games against some players but there is no solid strategies based only on “gaming the system” approach.

Said this, you may use and propose a House Rule in which AA Gun are not able to stop the blitz, every one is in his right to play the game in the way he enjoys more. So if you feel that the rule is wrong ignore it or make an exception to it. Everyone that likes that HR may use it.
However, there is no need to try to change the OOB rules, because other player, like me, may enjoy to play the game with the rule as they are.

[critmonster]

@Panzer:

@critmonster:

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

I am not sure where you reading this from but I check the rules again for AA50 under submarine page 16 of 16, and the only thing it mentions in reference to defending submarines is that -if there is a attacking destroyer present they have to roll a defense roll and cannot use the submerge option instead. If there is no attacking destroyer then they can submerge instead of defending.
This is from the rule book: “If there is at least one attacking destroyer on the battle board, defending submarines will participate in combat during the defending units fire step of the General Combat sequence. Otherwise, each defending submarine may submerge or fire. Remove each submerging submarine from the battle board and place it on the gameboard in the contested sea zone. Roll one die for each remaining defending submarine.”
So I interpelate this as been subs can stay in a battle if they want, but they must stay if there is an enemy destroyer attacking. If you attack a sub without a destroyer then your ships must withstand a free sneak attack and remove any casulties before they get to fire. If they miss then the sub can now sneak attack again or submerge. Also remember planes canoot attack subs without a destroy to help and subs cannot attack planes so they hit only boats.

If you attack my fleet with your air and you do not have a destroyer then my subs cannot soak any hits from your planes, my capital ships have to take it in the shorts. I disagree with this because if I order my subs to stay engaged on the surface and not submerge then they should be eligible for casualties from the planes.

[jemo81]

@critmonster:

@Panzer:

@critmonster:

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

I am not sure where you reading this from but I check the rules again for AA50 under submarine page 16 of 16, and the only thing it mentions in reference to defending submarines is that -if there is a attacking destroyer present they have to roll a defense roll and cannot use the submerge option instead. If there is no attacking destroyer then they can submerge instead of defending.
This is from the rule book: “If there is at least one attacking destroyer on the battle board, defending submarines will participate in combat during the defending units fire step of the General Combat sequence. Otherwise, each defending submarine may submerge or fire. Remove each submerging submarine from the battle board and place it on the gameboard in the contested sea zone. Roll one die for each remaining defending submarine.”
So I interpelate this as been subs can stay in a battle if they want, but they must stay if there is an enemy destroyer attacking. If you attack a sub without a destroyer then your ships must withstand a free sneak attack and remove any casulties before they get to fire. If they miss then the sub can now sneak attack again or submerge. Also remember planes canoot attack subs without a destroy to help and subs cannot attack planes so they hit only boats.

If you attack my fleet with your air and you do not have a destroyer then my subs cannot soak any hits from your planes, my capital ships have to take it in the shorts. I disagree with this because if I order my subs to stay engaged on the surface and not submerge then they should be eligible for casualties from the planes.

i guess the take on this situation is that sub have very poor or none surface firepower compared to the other ships to justify that enemy planes would even consider shooting at them

[Octopus]

@Romulus:

Excuse me, but according to you the only way to conquer Moscow for the German is by mean of a massive blitz of panzer? One have to use a “can opener” move to win? It is not possible to conquer Moscow in other way?

Unfortunately, in my current case, I am dealing with a competent player who offers only the slimmest of margins to perform a move such as this. And the massive panzer blitz only needed to be 7 or 8 tanks in this case (I used 17 for dramatic effect).  Yes, I am breaking Russia another way yet each turn the scene grows more harrowing. (my opponent is barking about the fighter/sub no fire rule so toss out the KISS concept).

I personally do not like the rule (much like taxes) but I follow it (as I do taxes) and have not suggested an errata be submitted for a change nor am I a big fan of house rules.

I should have made a second dumb rule post for subs.  Sorry guys, that’s my fault  :-P