Gotcha, so it’s just a matter of whether or not you wanna lose such an expensive item.
ANZAC planes on US carriers
-
-
@barnee is anything changed there or are they just the Anzac images reproduced?
-
@simon33 no nothing changed. They just face the other way now
-
@barnee oops forgot trprt
-
Right. But that represents Axis, so that change should not be made.
-
@martin said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
@barnee Well that’s cool - thanks a lot! Although this website doesn’t work anymore. But I guess Photoshop will do the job as well.
I think @barnee referred to https://getpaint.net/ , the homepage of the free software “paint .net”.
-
@barnee I think I will have ANZAC only build BBs from now on just to enjoy the image.
-
@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best -
That is a fair point. I would love to see the colors of each nation’s units be significantly different. Oversight mistakes are just awful.
I would not go so far though as to limit the reach of planes on allied aircraft carriers. This possibility is giving an advantage to the Allies, as it will hardly be applied by the Axis, but as it was stated before, this is kind f evening out the advantage of the Italian can opener.
-
@shkoboo said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best- Does this scenario make the game more complicated - yes.
- Does it provide greater options for attack - yes.
- Does it require a Player to determine where an Allied plane might be able to go - yes.
- Does that break the game - no.
Adding complexity to the game while keeping the game mechanics simple is one of the beauties of Global. The more nuances a game has the more likely the higher skilled Player is going to win. Keeping a game “simple” means the luck factor is going to be an ever greater determining factor.
There are a myriad of items that create complexity and nuance in the game.
- Italy being a can opener for Germany.
- USA being a can opener for UK and ANZAC.
- UK and ANZAC planes on USA carriers.
- UK troops on US transports.
- Being able to land fighters and tacticals on newly built carriers.
- Being able to declare war on the Neutrals.
- Being able to attack from multiple areas and retreat to one area.
All of these are capabilities that can be taken advantage of by a superior player. That does not make them game-breakers, that makes them strategy scenarios that everyone should try and learn, comprehend and master to become a better Player.
-
Its more a problem with Tripple AAA than anything else, and not even really that.
The issue with ANZAC on USA is that the USA is less flexible as long as the spots are taken up, and they are along for the ride a lot of the time which means they are not in a position to attack or defend other things. You want extra carriers but that doesnt come until later, as a plan it doesnt come together until japan attacks.
-
Well, usually it will happen that you will have those fighters on US carriers, even without wanting to use it in this way. If Australia can earn around 15 - and usually that is what they can get until Japan is taking care of islands, India, China, Russia - they will buy a fighter every round or two. In order to be able to invest both in Europe and Asia, US can save some money by buying a fighter less. Effectively, if they buy a carrier and wait for two rounds, they are getting excellent defending power for 16 IPC.
With those ANZAC fighters sitting on the US carriers, it is then opportunism - let them sit back near Australia coast and if an opportunity arises, go kill those transports.
-
@nikola1975 word
-
@andrewaagamer yes, but, Axis & Allies is a strategy World War 2 board game. Any nuance and complexity should exist within the framework of historical reality.
The fact of the matter is that most of the game’s design decisions represent a trade-off between two mutually exclusive extremes. On the one hand, we have absolute historical fidelity (guess who wins) and on the other we have pure game design in which any change to improve play can be made.
While I agree with you that there is nothing game breaking about other nation’s fighters taking up carrier spaces, it is still a jarring disconnect from an historical fidelity standpoint. If the ANZAC fighters have been assigned to a US carrier why aren’t they taking orders from the US Admiralty and participating in US maneuvers? Why is Soviet Russia’s penalty for having 8 British fighters sitting on Moscow from turn 4 onward only the loss of a $5 bonus?
Certainly this is not the place for specific House Rules discussions, but it is important we remain conscious of the reality that thousands of people play this game, and that many of them disagree with us on everything, other than how awesome this game is.
-
Carrier Fighter Groups are elite units with specialist aircraft trained specifically for operations from aircraft carriers. Those aircraft have structural improvements but also weaknesses of range and load based on the short runway and tolerances of operations at sea.
Therefore, its quite unrealistic to treat land-based fighter groups as even capable of operating from carriers, and sea based fighters should be a separate, more expensive, range-limited unit that is allowed to operate from carriers. Some famous units like black sheep and marines did operate from land bases, but having the cross-capability of doing so is a luxury and requires extensive training and support and extra well-prepared bases.
Besides the US and UK and the IJN, no nation had any practical idea how to actually operate an integrated, fully supported and non-seaplane aircraft unit from a ship and any attempt to do so without decades of preparation and planning would be a disaster.
To follow your logic,
carrier planes should be a separate unit
normal fighters cannot land on carriers
germany and italy can buy carriers but it costs them 15+ for sea stukas and they fight at -1/-1/-1
The usa and uk go on to win the technology and operational war as they did in real life after they didn’t sink the nonexistent western axis CVs -
Which ruins my hopes for an Axis victory, making the entire game useless.
The Captain has half of what you’re looking for.
His carrier based fighters are cheaper, but fly less range, cannot use land bases, and have the same attack value.
Normal fighters (with a reduced cost) still can use carriers and land bases.
No rules regarding German and Italian carriers, which is good since Germany and Italy could have built carriers anyway.
-
And I believe Japan took aircraft and pilots off carriers and sent them to land bases in the South Pacific (destroyed by US overwhelming numbers).
-
@taamvan you didn’t follow my logic at all, as your proposal completely ignores the game design tradeoffs that have continued to emphasize generally generic units to keep the game at very much an entry level, and simultaneously ignores my statements regarding units on carriers still being completely independent, in favor of a point I never raised regarding the specialization of CAGs.
-
Perhpas we have it that foreign units are placed under the command of a bigger power, with a limit on the amount put under control (so some British units can be under US command in Europe, like happened historically).
-
You’re arguing for a commander in chief rule
The rest of what i said was a response to your point about historicity.
as the others point out GW and the Captain’s Mod have many different treatments for planes, sea planes, torpedo bombers, air transports etc etc
My point was their treatment in AxA oob is a good tradeoff of all these ideas
You rock
Taamvan
Suggested Topics
