@Uncrustable:
You should read the whole thing.
Ignore the first line
@Uncrustable:
If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…
Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing
And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose
It’s a double negative
And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity
The main gains are just about this:
in which way will we see a greater use of AAA and new kind of tactics?
Clearly, your thinking about AAA as regular unit is kind of changing “paradigm” as with TT’s rule change.
I’m not quite sure giving a little “punch on offense” to AAA is OP.
(Like some other give it in converting AAgun in “antitank gun after first round. Or as antitank gun when there is no attacking plane”).
Maybe, it just open some new possibilities which need patience, skills and strategies to be used effectively on offense.
You said earlier: “It has way too many implications, changes too much from OOB.”
Maybe those implications are not that unbalancing at all.
What I know for sure, is give some players the chance to try it, they will try to develop a strategy to maximized it. It will be easier to judge.
For now, we are stuck on abstract and principles thinking with few examples.
Think about the first time Larry have introduce the idea of a “taken last” transport inside his group of play-tester and before playing sea battles that way.
They were probably divided about it as the other tread reveals.