Thanks for the quick clarification!
I guess we just had a lot of lucky rolling for these attacks in our first game. I don’t think we ever lost a plane, which made me question whether this was allowed. But I can see that the probabillity makes it a risky strategy in the long term.
The Air Gap
-
Ideally the set up should have “killing zone” in mid ocean beyond allied air cover. The allied ships can get across in two turns through this, or three by a roundabout route via Iceland.
But this would be a game on a different scale, so consider a direct one-turn route which always runs through the same central sea zone; can the Germans realistically use this to sink the convoys, or are the subs always going to be blasted out of the water, especially if the Allies use carriers?
When considering the time factor; yes, it takes less than a “game turn” to cross the sea, but it also takes the enemy less time than this to react and hunt the convoys (which traditional A&A doesn’t allow), hence an artificially wide ocean is needed for a historical playout.
-
I’m not sure there will convoy boxes in the mid or south Atlantic (maybe there should be). I would think they would be say off the coast of Brazil or Morocco. Honestly I’m not sure if Germany would even get the opportunity to stray that far in this game so it might not be a benefit to them. Japan might find itself in the South Atlantic though if the allies try some version of KGF. It would be great however to see some kinda fighting going on down there, convoy’s would be one way to attract it.
Although it will probably be a 1 turn shuck across for the US to get to Africa, I hope axis air power and subs will force some detours. I’m also glad to see (through Larry’s above mention post) that US to UK will be 2 turns at least by air or sea…
-
The Atlantic will never be as large as the pacific on the game board, and that’s a shame. Id like to see a lot more early war naval clashes, like Bismark vs Hood sort of clashes.
-
This is 1940 so Germany should get 1 BB to represent its capital ships at the time. It should also get at least one cruiser a DD or two and a bunch of subs. I wonder if any of the islands in the Danish straights or the Baltic sea will be in the game. Would be pretty cool to have an air base there so the Luftwaffe could protect your fleet, as by rule an AB can’t scramble unless its on an island. Maybe there will be a tech to address this.
-
Denmark will probably have its own territory but it be too powerful and unrelaistic for their to be a Baltic island like Gotland on board which could protect the Kriegsmarine
-
We have not yet seen the Europe map, so this is a quite premature issue to start discussing. Who know, WOTC may even get bankrupt before summer 2010, and then we will never even see this map. So what I try to say is, do you want cheese with your whine ?
Considering that all the copies of AA50 SOLD OUT, and WOTC STILL doesn’t realize how much of a gold mine the Axis and Allies franchise is, WOTC going bankrupt is definitely a plausible scenario. Watch them hang onto the copyrights until the bitter end.
-
Denmark is interesting. Is it a single land/sea/island territory, or a mainland peninsular plus an island group? Is there a Kiel canal allowing sea movement from North sea to Baltic? Can enemy ships sail “through” hostile Denmark, or is it treated as having a canal similar to Panama or Egypt?
-
In my house rules i have always treated denmark, the dardinelles, and gibraltar as “straights”
Similar to canals, except you only need to control one territory to control naval acess to the crossing of the adjacent sea zone line (Northwestern Europe, Turkey, and Gibralter respectively in AA50"
In europe i bet it will be one singular territory, however Id like to see a rule such as the one I just outlined, that land control of denmark exerts control over the sea around it
-
Yes, I expect it’ll be the same as in AAE, with the “Denmark Sea” territory completely distinct from the land area.
Denmark really should be one land/island/sea territory, but how do you handle ships parked in the zone; or do they sail straight through from NS to Baltic?
-
NS to Baltic, just put the dividing line for the sea zones running through Denmark, only the side with control of Denmark may cross that line.
And have a multiple sea zone Baltic Sea.
-
well they will certainly find a way to figure out the right amount of spaces but allready mentioned that hopefully the european sea map will encourage some attractive seaskirmishes and navy built…I would love to see that…I agree that Ftr should take at least 2 turns to cross over as well as ships! (US to UK)…Imagine German subs close to Australia and ANZAC DD’s and Trannies on the way to the coast of Italy in the mid of the game…tight!! :-P
-
Naval battles are definitely lacking in the European theatre of the games I have played.
-
@Brain:
Naval battles are definitely lacking in the European theatre of the games I have played.
It should not be that way, because both UK, Italy and Germany start with a lot of ships.
I suggest, that when it is your turn, dont use your planes to sink ships, but send in your fleet.
Now that should do it. -
Typically that’s what happens, the navies are destroyed in the early rounds and never replaced.
-
@Brain:
Typically that’s what happens, the navies are destroyed in the early rounds and never replaced.
That is basically because you play it the wrong way, man. Next time, buy a carrier as Germany and the Baltic Fleet will survive a long time. When UK, buy a carrier and lots of destroyers. If Italy, buy some destroyers. If USA, make Germany buy some subs and you must buy a lot of ships just to survive. Also if you are UK/US, just stop buying tons of fighters that you move to Moscow.
Now Razor fixed your game, man
-
The missing navies is a consequence of the lack of safe harbours. Most warships spent most of the war in harbour, largely safe from naval attacks (but not from sneak air raids!).
Allow ships to remain in harbour (i.e. in a coastal land area) and the whole dynamic of naval warfare changes. Subs can raid convoys without becoming sitting ducks for aircraft, and even lumbering battleships can hide out in harbour unless a large air attack is organised to take them out, something which can be fended off by ground forces.
Otherwise ships will simply be wiped out early by cheaper aircraft, the only exception being large fleets protected by carrier based fighters. It is one of about a dozen fundamental game dynamics that have to change if you want Axis and Allies to play out anything much like the real war.
-
Oh flashman, Ports you say? Im going to try and find a way to get this into a 1940 House rule packet….i need to play more OOB first to see if its neccesary. This is from my AA 50 house rule packet. It changes the game COMPLETELY
House Rule 6 – Ports
Friendly Territories with a Factory, Victory City, or AA Gun are considered to have a port.
1.To move into port, treat the unit as if it was moving into an imaginary territory between the territory and the sea zone, expending one movement point to do so. These peices remain in the original sea zone, mark them with Natonal Control Markers beneath to denote they are in port.
2.While in port, these vessels are not to be included in normal naval combat. They may only be attacked by air or submarine. These units are protected by an AA gun if present; however while in port their defense value is reduced by 1.
3.When attacking a territory with ships in port, the attacker must enter the sea zone with the units in port, then expend a movement point to enter port OR ALTERNATIVELY reach the land territory containing the port then expend a movement point to enter port to attack.
4.When leaving port, (including after an attack) a movement point does not need to be expended to return to the original adjacent sea zone or territory, units must return there automatically after combat.
If a territory is captured while ships are in port, they are immediately ejected from port, conduct combat as necessary, both fleets fight using their attack values. No fleet may retreat from this combat
Transports may not load or offload to any territory other than the respective port territory while in port.
Amphibious invasions may not be launched against territories by unescorted transports if there are enemy combat ships in port.
Submarines may not submerge when in port. Attacking subs may not stay in an enemy port after combat. -
Definitely a broader Atlantic with mid-Atlantic convoys would rock.
Should the IPC reduction always count against the UK?
If France is somehow still in play should the Allies decide who takes one for the team?Could we possibly (not probably) see in those same seazones Allied subs sinking German convoys bringing loot back from the New World… a conquered Brazil perhaps?
It seems to drag us into the AAE configuration of player-specific convoy boxes / zones, no?
-
The missing navies is a consequence of the lack of safe harbours. Most warships spent most of the war in harbour, largely safe from naval attacks (but not from sneak air raids!).
Allow ships to remain in harbour (i.e. in a coastal land area) and the whole dynamic of naval warfare changes. Subs can raid convoys without becoming sitting ducks for aircraft, and even lumbering battleships can hide out in harbour unless a large air attack is organised to take them out, something which can be fended off by ground forces.
Otherwise ships will simply be wiped out early by cheaper aircraft, the only exception being large fleets protected by carrier based fighters. It is one of about a dozen fundamental game dynamics that have to change if you want Axis and Allies to play out anything much like the real war.
I know what you saying about ports and the overpowerness of air vs naval, but in AAP40 their are a lot of places for the navies to hide from aircraft, it accauly feals kinda like the real war.
-
whats this talk of WOTC going bankrupt?
Suggested Topics
