Coach I would go with the scale you use for tactical bombers. Even though there is no intention to use them with WWII era aircraft, sizing them in the tactical bomber scale provides a more consistent line-up between products. In other words there are many who use HBG pieces for many uses and would like the consistency of scale that HBG provides with your other product’s. IMO it keeps the product line more linear.
Historical Accuracy: British Bombers and Ukranie IC in Alpha2+
-
Cheers,
I know this is a game and playability is important (probably more important than historical accuracy), having say that:Shoudn’t UK have at least a Strategic Bomber? (RAF had them in 1940, actually had more and better bombers than the Luftwaffe, which had no real strategic bombers)
What is the goal of the new USSR IC in Ukraine? Helping the Germans (it’s prety obvious that Ukraine will fall to the Reich as soon as the Werchmatch attacks the USSR)? I agree the USSR did have factories in Ukraine, but they moved far east during the war. Woudn’t be a good cool idea for the Soviets to be able to do something of sorts? Maybe allowing the USSR to move just one of her minor IC to the Urals to represent Tankograd?
-
If your going on about impossible to implement about ideas how about: “Yamato Class” 3 hit battleships then, as well.
-
Well I must say this is something you there Idi wanted. To implement these stupid rules into the game. No I’m afraid these rules won’t be brought in EVER as this game if not a WWII simulation rather a strategy game that takes place in WWII. But one thing I like is NAs (national advantages for the newer players out there). They had them for Revised but didn’t make any for newer games. There obviouly optional though. Look them up on this forum as there are alot. I like Ozeta’s he makes some good ones.
-
@Gallo:
Cheers,
I know this is a game and playability is important (probably more important than historical accuracy), having say that:Shoudn’t UK have at least a Strategic Bomber? (RAF had them in 1940, actually had more and better bombers than the Luftwaffe, which had no real strategic bombers)
I’m fairly confidant that the reason there are no British bombers at setup is due to balance. There has been a bomber placed in a version of Alpha, very very briefly. The problems are thus:
If the bomber replaces a fighter, UK defense is substantially nerfed, either making sealion and German naval offenses easier due to fewer scrambling UK fighters (problem 1), or worse yet, keeping the fighter (which leads to problem 2).
Due to the airbase movement bonuses, bombers have such a massive range that they are able to get from the UK on rd1 and help annihilate the italian fleet UK1 (problem 2) AND still have range to land safely in protected areas, serving far more useful purposes than UK bases bombing missions, thereby leaving the UK no reason to keep the SBs in the UK. And if the fighter count is maintained and a bomber is added, the Taranto raid is ridonkulously destructive and knocks Italy out of the game far too early.
Your very reasonable request (believe me, I wish it were so) for historic setup accuracy is then rendered moot as game mechanics and balance supersede actual unit capability or historic playout (UK based bombers sure as heck didn’t help with Taranto). Game pieces are used to their full game potential, not historic potential (SBs were rarely effective in naval battles).
The setup we have therefore loosely emulates history without introducing too many positional imbalances of historic setups and their conflicts with established game mechanics.
In my dream world, the italian naval setup would have more subs and fewer destroyers with the BB to encourage primarily air attacks (historic even if the italian naval unit disposition isn’t) rather than the joint UK attack we see instead. But what we have is what we have and there are reasons for every unit, even if my personal hope would have been that aircraft/sub interactions could help drive different options of configuring a Taranto attack.
-
Good point kcdzim. You gotta remember Gallo Rojo that Axis and Allies is not a WWII simulator (buy Hearts of Iron 3 if thats what you want, great game). If the game were totally historically accurate there would be no point in playing, the Allies would win every time. The designers have to find that balance between historical accuracy and re playability, so that any game can go either way. Otherwise you’d have to pay people to play as the Axis while you beat up on them. That being said, check out Oztea’s 1941 set-up. It’s more historically accurate in my opinion. Or check out the 1939 map and setup on historicalboardgaming.com.
Suggested Topics
