@clamoxyl Welcome to the forum.
Have you looked at https://boardgamegeek.com/ ?
Good luck.
Actual AA pacific 1940 map pictures
-
Aircrafts carrier and Battleship have 2 hit point. But when damaged, I heard that fighters can’t leave or land on them. For the BB, I think they don’t “recover” their damage until they go to a friendly port (like in traditional AA). Their attack/defense might be lower too, I don’t know
Robert
-
Those sound like good rules to me.
-
@Brain:
Those sound like good rules to me.
Yep, me too. I hope you’ll be able to build ports and airports as well, whereever you’d like to build them in your controlled territories. Ports must be in territories with a coast of course.
I really look forward to see these possibilities/mechanics in the game. With all the extra seazones you’ll really have to think longer ahead now, and perhaps not use just one superstack of ships. Controlling islands with airfields and ports will be very vital for sucsess in the pacific I guess.
-
The extra sea zones could definitely have an effect on tne naval superstacks., as I believe this is necessary because ships could be spreas out across the Pacific and in one move could all come together to wipe out stray ships.
-
Looks like China might finally be big enough to prevent a Japanese invasion into Moscow….
You’ll need to buy the AA50 Europe Version for that, son. For only another $50! Plus the AA50 Europe/Pacific Global Theater Expansion, which combines the two giant board sets into one asstarded monstrosity that you’ll be lucky to fit into your living room, much less store it in your garage. Wait for the AA50 variant, “Mother****ing everything but Kitchen Sink Galactic Milky Way Universal” Edition coming out in the next 3 years! You can be the first person on your block to possess a board game that requires its own zip code and a forklift to operate!
-
SgtBlitz you have just been promoted to Lieutenant.
-
Ships getting a bonus move out of port sounds pretty good. You’ll need it because there are many more sea zones. It will help with getting your new ships into you fleets at sea quicker. Sounds like through play testing with more sea zones they found that something had to be done. Its what they left on the cutting room floor that I would be interested in. Maybe fast AC & CR getting 3 moves. With ships getting +1 from port, fast ships (+1) won’t even make it as a tech. Because that would give them a 4 movement out of port.
I do like the +1 out of port and it will have strategic value as we figure out ways to use it. I was just wondering what was given up in its place. -
PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.
-
@WILD:
PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.
Why ? A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port
-
@WILD:
PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.
Why ? A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port
You get AA gun protection with classical AA gun rules. I think it’s fair enough.
NB! I don’t think or hope the +1 movement from ports means you can move one more square then in the original games, but rather simulate a game without the port rule. The +1 is counting with the first sea sone from the port. This means you can move a fleet from California to the Hawaii sea zone, but not from California to the Midway sea zone in one turn.
People have to remember that sea transport needs to take longer now when land movement takes longer as well (more provinces). This game will have quite another time scale then previous games and making the pacific larger is good for this game.
One example: The US will have to place it’s fleet in Hawaii if she wants some fast action when she enters the war. A fleet in San Diego instead will cost you valuable turns.
-
Andy Dandy, I indeed took it as ships move 3 sz if that 1st sz has a port. Maybe Kreig could clear this up.
Aldertag, From what I’ve read at Oran the land batteries had a British DD running for its life. It was great seamanship and a bit of luck that it and others didn’t get hit. That and the fact that most of the French fleets big guns faced the shore not the sea, is why it was so lopsided. The fleets in the battle were close to the same size.
I have seen post (not sure maybe it was you) showing the Norway coast with large guns to defend the Baltic and ports in that area, so your saying they had no effect? -
A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port
Does anybody remember Pearl Harbor.
-
@WILD:
Andy Dandy, I indeed took it as ships move 3 sz if that 1st sz has a port. Maybe Kreig could clear this up.
Yup, that’s right.
-
That rule just doesn’t make sense.
-
@Brain:
That rule just doesn’t make sense.
it makes ports strategic locations and reprsenents that when a ship has a dedicated base for fueling, idleling, and security that it has greater operational range.
In a perfect world A&A rules would allow ships to move infinitly, with the only restriction being that enemy ships can intercept them if they move within 1 or two sea zone, but A&A isnt realistic so this is the next best thing.
-
@WILD:
Andy Dandy, I indeed took it as ships move 3 sz if that 1st sz has a port. Maybe Kreig could clear this up.
Yup, that’s right.
So when a fleet stands at sea in a seazone next to a coast with a port, it is at port? I don’t like this rule if it means you can move from California to Midway in one turn on this map. One might wonder what the point is with the extra sea zones.
-
@WILD:
PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.
Why ? A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port
I TOTALLY agree with you!
I think that ships in port should NOT be able to be attacked by other ships. BUT you can attack with only AIR units. If you do attack with only air units, your air units should be shooting at +1, or alternatively, the enemy navy should be shooting at -1. And I also do not think that any aircraft on carriers in port should be allowed to participate in the first round, and that BB and Carriers should each have only 1 hitpoint while in port, and that any aircraft at a defending air base should not be able to participate for the first round either.
-
@WILD:
PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.
Why ? A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port
I TOTALLY agree with you!
I think that ships in port should NOT be able to be attacked by other ships. BUT you can attack with only AIR units. If you do attack with only air units, your air units should be shooting at +1, or alternatively, the enemy navy should be shooting at -1. And I also do not think that any aircraft on carriers in port should be allowed to participate in the first round, and that BB and Carriers should each have only 1 hitpoint while in port, and that any aircraft at a defending air base should not be able to participate for the first round either.
while there were specail surprise attacks on ports that were possible given certain situations throughout the war, and i do agree aircraft should be able to attack ships in port, aircraft were just as effective if not far more destructive when fighting on the open sea. Battles like the Coral sea, Midway,and Leyte Gulf all show this.
-
@WILD:
it makes ports strategic locations and reprsenents that when a ship has a dedicated base for fueling, idleling, and security that it has greater operational range.
Thats how I look at ports. Its also why I think a port should offer protection to your fleet. I didn’t see any Jap surface ships in “Port Harbour” Those big guns at any port (or straight for that mater) deterred surface ships or they would pay the price! If your port is land based and the enemy takes control of that tt then your ships should become dislodged. Maybe you don’t get any protection (or very little) against an air & sub attack that I would agree with.
I dare say that a large part of the reason there were no surface ships attacking “Pearl Harbor” was that they were too busy covering the rest of our Jap landings at Tarawa, Makin, Guam, Luzon, Camiguin, Wake, Philippines, Sarawak, Brunei, and other places in Borneo within 10 days of Pearl, and didn’t need to send surface ships to sink American surface ships, just needed that third wave to finish things off a bit more. Japan cemented air-power as the key to naval power that day. That, and woke up a really big giant with a really big hammer…
Though to the thought in general of attacking ships in port with other ships, I think no, don’t allow it. The logistics of moving ships around in port and firing is just too messy. Something sinks and it throws off your whole movement, and being that the point is to sink things, the odds of something going sideways is better than fair.
But if the territory the port is in is taken, your ships in port are dislodged into the SZ. I don’t think that you should have to take the port in order to get the territory and think of ports as a blockhouse. Cherbourg was taken after DDay, not as the starting point. -
Blockhouse: attack 0, defend on 4 or less, move 0, cost 6 IPC
Hey didn’t I say that somewhere?
Blockhouses need their own topic.
Suggested Topics
