Oh, ok. I didn’t realize that they went out of play immediately. Thank you panther!
Worst rule ever…
-
There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA. The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed…
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.
Sorry Octopus, but the huge difference is that infantry has a chance of killing a panzer. AA just gets captured. It doesn’t even provide air cover for Moscow since it doesn’t fire on moving AC.
IMHO this does not appear to be a solid Russian strategy.
Besides, if you make a House Rule saying the AA doesn’t block a blitz then the Russian would produce the same cheap road block - actually a 2 IPC cheaper one - that also fights back by placing a single infantry in the non-stacked space. At least that way they get a 1:3 chance of killing a panzer rather than leaving my thrust untouched. -
There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA. The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed…
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.
Sorry Octopus, but the huge difference is that infantry has a chance of killing a panzer. AA just gets captured. It doesn’t even provide air cover for Moscow since it doesn’t fire on moving AC.
IMHO this does not appear to be a solid Russian strategy.
Besides, if you make a House Rule saying the AA doesn’t block a blitz then the Russian would produce the same cheap road block - actually a 2 IPC cheaper one - that also fights back by placing a single infantry in the non-stacked space. At least that way they get a 1:3 chance of killing a panzer rather than leaving my thrust untouched.Really in Anniversary AAGun cost 6 IPC, then it is possible to buy two infantries that cost the same adn have 2/3 chance of killing an enemy unit.
-
Really in Anniversary AAGun cost 6 IPC, then it is possible to buy two infantries that cost the same adn have 2/3 chance of killing an enemy unit.
:| Sir, I stand corrected. I must have been having a MB moment.
-
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 hear what your saying. In real life subs did have an anti-aircraft gun mounted on its deck for this very reason to protect against planes, but they were only of limited effect. This is probably why the A&A designers decided to allow subs to be hit from planes only if a friendly destroyer is present and to not allow subs to hit planes. Becasue a sub would normally submerge away from planes and planes could fly out of subs range easily. Think about it this way: if you were a fighter pilot engaging a fleet you would target the more visible and valuable surface warships anyway. I know it is supposed to be the defenders choice to remove calsulties, but it does clearly state subs cannot hit planes in the rules. Planes are an expensive piece and subs are not, so I suppose they are trying to “equalize” the pieces being removed. Therefore your fleet should always be comprised of lesser value destroyer pieces to protect the capital pieces from planes and subs, because A&A have eliminated “canon fodder” naval pieces by not being allowed to select a transport as a hit anymore. I believe this is why they added cruisers and made destroyers cheaper to buy. They are the battleship and aircraft carrier protectors.
Even in the original game rules subs could not attack planes, but planes could attack subs without a destroyer (they did not have them in the game yet), so a sub sitting alone in a sea zone was almost toast if a plane could reach it, it had to wait to see if the plane missed then it could submerge. Now a sub can submerge right away before being hit by any piece if there is not a destroyer present. I guess you have to take the good with the bad.
I also think changing the rules so that subs and transport do not control the seazone has changed the way everyone plays, because that was an old trick and it used to bug me how that could be use to slow down your fleet at every turn. :-D -
The tanks have to stop to capture the AA Gun, interrogate the AA Gunners, and wait for the lazy MPs to show up and collect the prisoners before they can continue on. That’s why the gun (and IC) stop blitzing.
-
ha ha interesting theory you got there jen
-
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?
second one sucks most
-
@Frontovik:
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?
second one sucks most
Actually as I said previously, subs CAN stay in a surface battle with other enemy surface warships if the enemy has no destroyers, or it can submerge on its turn, BUT it has to stay and cannot submerge if an enemy destroyer is present.
Subs have no zone of control therefore they are ignored by ALL enemy ships except destroyers, which have to stop if entering a sea zone with an enemy sub, and combat occurs.
Hope this helps clarify. :-) -
Destroyers don’t have to stop when they enter a sea zone with an enemy sub. It’s the other way around.
-
Ref the subs not stopping transports…. yeah that’s not sitting right eh?
I’m thinking Transports passing thru the sub zone can (at sub owner’s discretion) be subject to a single strike before going on their way…
Transports stopping in the sub zone should be snuff-able (again at the sub owner’s discretion) like any other warship.
Transports disembarking amphib assault in a sub zone… maybe the single strike after which all cargo is considered safely ashore.
hmmmm…
-
Destroyers don’t have to stop when they enter a sea zone with an enemy sub. It’s the other way around.
I explained that kinda wrong. You are correct if a sub enters a seazone that contains and enemy destroyer they MUST stop there. However, if a destroyer enters a seazone with an enemy sub they MAY stop there if they want to conduct combat, or they can choose to ignore the sub and continue past it. That is the correct explanation. :- :mrgreen:
-
panzer: my point was that I cannot take hits from air to my subs unless you bring a destroyer so if you attack my fleet without a destroyer it is actually to your advantage because all your hits must be taken on my airforce and capitol ships rather than taking them on my subs. I know that my subs get a “deadly” first shot (@1) without your DD but I hardly find that equitable, you sink my fleet (except subs) then move your DD over in non combat to neutralize them on my turn. I feel that as the controlling nation I should get to decide if they submerge. I am with Octo on this, I play the rules as stated and avoid house rules (excpet perhaps bids).
Perhaps I have not played enough games to see the air/sub balance.
I also find it odd that the U-Boat commander sits and watches transports unload troops onto his homeland rather than firing a torpedo at them
-
And there, critmonster, is why I have long said (well, long as the game’s been out anyway) that submarines are the poor man’s naval unit. The destroyer is now what the submarine was then. It can stop movement, it attacks at a 2, it defends at a 2 and it costs 8. The only difference really is that destroyers dont get to sneak attack like submarines used too.
It would be better if you (the plural meaning all of you, not just critmonster) viewed the submarine as a completely new unit never before introduced into the game. I think your entire outlook on it will change from one of scorn and confusion to one of understanding and strategy. Submarines are not a tactical unit anymore, they are strategic.
-
@Cmdr:
Submarines are not a tactical unit anymore, they are strategic.
Which seems to me to be entirely appropriate… I know a game’s a collection of mechanics and probabilities but still, subs serving a cannon fodder just makes one cringe, no?
-
jen: does this mean you have done an about face on subs? as I recall you roundly blasted them a short while ago.
I don’t mean to sound snippy but I am not confused as to how to use subs in this incarnation, I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the changes, which is what this thread is about :-P -
After playing several more games with these new sub rules, I find it actually a lot harder to kill subs now as you have to chase them around with your destroyers. You now have to have at least one destroyer to attack a sub because your other surface ships suffer a first stirke or the sub submerges and gets away. Also planes cannot attack it either without that destroyer. So what happens is you either have to move just one destroyer with some planes to attack the sub and then the destroyer is left alone for counter strike, or you have to commit to moving your fleet to protect the destroyer. It plays out a lot more in the Pacific then the Atlantic.
My new trick is to have my subs (specially as Japan or USA) moving all over by themselves to create havoc. It really does work. I always consider submerging first if allowed just to be a pain in the butt and frustrate the opposition.
If Germany started with a few more U-boats in the Atlantic 8-), it would be a lot more like the real history when they were very effective at stoping Allied transports and supplies. -
As for blitzes being stopped by antiaircraft guns. Don’t think of the tanks as pausing to deal with the “threat.” They are pausing to secure the gun and allow their supply lines to catch up so their forces can use it.
-
The AA gun thing doesn’t bother me, it is a unit and if they want to give it to me as I stomp Moscow so be it. I can see how it could do more then delay in some rare cases. Like your ally not being able to clear a tt with air only for you, but that’s a good strat on there side.
Subs not soaking up air hits w/o enemy DD took a while to get used to. This situation normally comes up early in the game when UK attacks Germany in sz 5. Unless you add to that fleet your going to loose it any way. With your sub(s) not being in the battle at least you get to keep it(them). Try adding a sub or two in your 1st turn (Germany) then you may have a counter attack with your air & subs at some point. Germany can’t normally build fleet with UK but subs/air are a cheep way to harass the British and keep them honest. By not being able to throw your subs away early, may help you later.
I do have issues with transports floating through hostel waters containing subs only. The whole point of the defenseless transport rule was to force you to protect them. This is the exact opposite. We have house ruled this in our group also. At the sub(s) option we allow the subs 1 roll each (attack roll) on the surface fleet as it passes over. The fleet also gets a roll at the subs (a defensive roll). This doesn’t stop movement and only last 1 cycle. The subs wouldn’t normally take this option against a larger fleet but they should be able to attack a weekly defended fleet w/transports in my book. Keep the enemy honest. We also use a sub detection rule so one DD doesn’t see all subs. Sorry kinda got off topic.
-
I do see why they didn’t want to complicate the sub rules w/exceptions and what not, sub rules are tough enough. It would have been easy to add transports must be escorted with surface war ships through enemy sub infested waters or they are lost however. This would have pacified some of us.
Suggested Topics
