I think the answer to the question why are the allies so gimpy is the map killed shuck. Well not killed it but made the cost x2. Shuck was simple for those that don’t know. USA buys a transport, loads 2 guys, and drops them off in Europe while that transport is in Europe USA buys another transport and 2 guys. It’s basically the transports getting the guys into the fight from USA into France, Norway or North Africa in one turn. Now it’s 2 turns to get there and 2 more turns to get back meaning. To get the same results of 2 transports before you now need 4. and You transports are vulnerable to attack in two places within range of enemy aircraft so the defense fleet has to be twice the size also.
If you don’t believe me try the new transport rules on the Classic map. Hell play '42.2 rules and all on a classic map. You’ll see shuck wins the day and they Alllies aren’t gimpy.
If you don’t believe me try the new transport rules on the Classic map. Hell play '42.2 rules and all on a classic map. You’ll see shuck wins the day and they Alllies aren’t gimpy.
Well Axis bids on Classic map go up to 24 IPCs so that game is clearly considered unbalanced towards Allies. :)
If you don’t believe me try the new transport rules on the Classic map. Hell play '42.2 rules and all on a classic map. You’ll see shuck wins the day and they Alllies aren’t gimpy.
Well Axis bids on Classic map go up to 24 IPCs so that game is clearly considered unbalanced towards Allies. :)
Hey talking bad about Classic is fighting words take it back. :-D And I’m only speaking of using the Classic map + set up but '42.2 rules and units. You’ll see how much the smaller atlantic helps the Allies.
But it’s so easy to do your shuck through east Canada.
IE:
All the map did is delay the US landings by 1 turn and then everything functions exactly as usual. What’s the big deal?
It’s the two turns it takes to get there instead of one, germany can buy defensive units and get them in place before they get there. plus shucking from Canada doesn’t threaten North Africa, Shucking from EUSA doesn’t threaten Europe. To get the full shuck effect you need x2 the transports and x2 the defensive fleets. Shuck was the over powering effect the allies had in Classic and anything at all that screwed with it thus screwed with the Allies ability to even get into the fight.
US needs more starting infantry to offset the cost of having to buy so many boats.
The US really gets hamstrung by the fact that it can’t afford  7 IPC transports for every two units it has….and still afford anything more than a destroyer or two.
If the US started with maybe like 6-9 more infantry, it would allow them to afford an extra cruiser, or bomber, or something a turn and give them a little more punch.
But don’t think of this as a US bid, because the infantry technically cant do anything to anyone until the US buys the boats and transports and tanks and artillery to use them somewhere.
US needs more starting infantry to offset the cost of having to buy so many boats.
The US really gets hamstrung by the fact that it can’t afford  7 IPC transports for every two units it has….and still afford anything more than a destroyer or two.If the US started with maybe like 6-9 more infantry, it would allow them to afford an extra cruiser, or bomber, or something a turn and give them a little more punch.
But don’t think of this as a US bid, because the infantry technically cant do anything to anyone until the US buys the boats and transports and tanks and artillery to use them somewhere.
I would support that.
kinda wish this addition hit global as well then I might see something other than KJF all day.
What, if the US started with more infantry?
Its the most simple solution to the biggest problem the US has. It always feels like its 6-9 IPCs short each turn
Give them like 6-9 more infantry to buffer against that for the first few turns, so they can get some Cruisers and Bombers instead of buying 4 infantry a turn to fill their transports.
I know how you feel, but this game is based on Classic, which is loosely based on history and the US was no ready for war. US always starts with nothing and has to build.
The problem is income. I am sure in Classic(remember it was 20 years and lots of beers ago) the US always seemed so wealthy.
Now they have 1IPC more than Germany. Not enough.
Well we can offset for this by reflecting their vast manpower reserves by giving them more infantry at the start.
Or even just a simple rule that the US gets 2 free infantry every turn in the continental US.
Which basically gives them +6 IPCs (except it has to be spent on infantry)
It think the US starts with 8 total infantry on the board….which is pretty pitiful.
The problem with adding inf. is the US Army was smaller than Romanians (or however you spell it, sorry guys long day)
The US did do a draft… would make sense they had more infs.
I’d rather just make use of the St. Lawrence Seaway for the US (like it was in WWII). Â This would totally bone Germany though unless they started with another sub I think (one for the Med maybe?), but wouldn’t this give incentive for a more balanced attack for the US and not have to rely on “hope and change” (as in Germany baffles/blows it opening attacks) in the Atlantic and KJF in the Pacific.
I’m not saying that the Allies can’t win, I just would like more flex in ways to play.
the allies have become really restrictive lately, I think granting usa a bunch of inf could go a long way in opening up options.
i think if anyone gets more inf. it should be russia. Give them a chance to hold out longer till the US and UK are ready to take over the game.
@Cow.
Yep I agree. Transports did have some defense hence the 1 defense.
Submarines also had AA as means of defense against aircraft though it was weak and usually forced a dive. Historically bombers and fighters were essential in anti-sub warfare just ask any German submariner. Ask him about about armed frieghters too.
Here’s what I did to add some realism and fun to my games.
1. I gave transports thier defensive roll again.
2. I enabled subs to “commerce raid” coastal waters adjacent to territories with an IC similar to SBR.
Off Topic:
I allow for Classic Ed or Revised Tech devolpment.
As far as 3D6 Heavy Bombers I allow them, with the caveat that they must battle with defending fighters at an attack of 1 for bombers and escort fighters attacking at 3. The kicker is that fighters defending a territory defend at 4/5 depending on whether or not they are jet powered.
There are plenty of cool HRs you can come up with, but as an A&A veteran player I have been really disappointed with the new transport, bomber/SBR, and sub rules. I’ve found subs to be pretty useless, having to build way too many transports to be sacrificed or worse yet building massive armadas to protect a relatively small landing force.
I liked the fact that there was always that lone transport’s fighting chance to make it, or that bit of caution caused by a few submarines out patrolling the seas.
As far as SBRs go, the new rules suck too. It was at great peril the UK/USA did them. It also caused major damage to both the German and Japanese war effort. By allowing full aerial battles during an SBR it keeps the risks versus reward to play out better than some lame (IMO) rules of the newer editions to play out.
AS for Commerce Raiding I think most of the “official” solutions/rules in the latest editions have not been refelctive of the struggles reflected historically in the Pacific and Atlantic.
Don’t know if this helps anyone but they’re just ideas I’ve kicked around or used.
@Cow.
Yep I agree. Transports did have some defense hence the 1 defense.
Submarines also had AA as means of defense against aircraft though it was weak and usually forced a dive. Historically bombers and fighters were essential in anti-sub warfare just ask any German submariner. Ask him about about armed frieghters too.Here’s what I did to add some realism and fun to my games.
1. I gave transports thier defensive roll again.
2. I enabled subs to “commerce raid” coastal waters adjacent to territories with an IC similar to SBR.Off Topic:
I allow for Classic Ed or Revised Tech devolpment.
As far as 3D6 Heavy Bombers I allow them, with the caveat that they must battle with defending fighters at an attack of 1 for bombers and escort fighters attacking at 3. The kicker is that fighters defending a territory defend at 4/5 depending on whether or not they are jet powered.There are plenty of cool HRs you can come up with, but as an A&A veteran player I have been really disappointed with the new transport, bomber/SBR, and sub rules. I’ve found subs to be pretty useless, having to build way too many transports to be sacrificed or worse yet building massive armadas to protect a relatively small landing force.
I liked the fact that there was always that lone transport’s fighting chance to make it, or that bit of caution caused by a few submarines out patrolling the seas.
As far as SBRs go, the new rules suck too. It was at great peril the UK/USA did them. It also caused major damage to both the German and Japanese war effort. By allowing full aerial battles during an SBR it keeps the risks versus reward to play out better than some lame (IMO) rules of the newer editions to play out.
AS for Commerce Raiding I think most of the “official” solutions/rules in the latest editions have not been refelctive of the struggles reflected historically in the Pacific and Atlantic.
Don’t know if this helps anyone but they’re just ideas I’ve kicked around or used.
is that when strategic bombing, or in any attack containing fighters?
I allow heavy bombers for SBR and combat. The interception HR is just for pre-SBR combat. T bomber attacks at 1 to reflect it’s defensive armament during that round. Either side may retreat after the first round or until all defending interceptors are destroyed. Then the SBR begins with an AA roll of 1 round then the SBR roll.
I am starting to think that america just needs more inf.
