I worked on a house rule for coastal guns almost a year ago, it went something like this…. (BTW… I’ve given up on trying to rid this global forum of house rule discussions).
COASTAL GUNS
Coastal Guns cost $9 each and can be immediately place on any territory that has a least one adjacent sea zone. When there, each coastal gun will fire a maximum 3 shots @1 to hit any enemy surface war ships attempting an amphibious assault from any sea zone adjacent to a territory with coastal guns.
-The Amphibious landing does not have to target the territory with the guns in order to be fired upon (same as scramble rules).
-The maximum 3 shots per gun only applies if there are a sufficient number of surface war ships to fire upon (same as AA gun rules).
-Nations may purchase and place as many guns per territory as they wish (same as AA gun rules)
-Costal guns may only be used when the enemy is attempting an amphibious assault, and they fire before the sea combat sequence begins.
-Costal guns may never fire upon transports or submarines (or you can also use the “last casualty rule” for transports and subs).
I like your idea Young Grasshopper. Coastal batteries as sort of a naval AA gun, or at least using AA gun rules. So basically, if 2 ships attack and there is 1 coastal gun, the coastal gun only rolls 2 dice. If 3 ships attack, the coastal gun rolls 3 dice. If 4 ships attack, the coastal gun still only rolls 3 dice. Correct?
Regarding submarines, I think coastal guns should NEVER be able to hit subs. That’s just not what they were built for.
Regarding Transports, I think coastal guns SHOULD be able to hit transports, but use the “chosen last as casualties” rule for transports. For example, say 1 cruiser and 2 transports try an amphibious assault. The coastal gun rolls 3 dice and gets a lucky 2 hits. The first hit MUST be taken on the cruiser. The second can be applied to either one of the transports, attacker’s choice.
Now we have the question of the un-hit transport. Can that transport continue with the amphibious assault? (assuming no enemy ships in that sea zone)
I think in this case, coastal guns should use the same rules as enemy submarines regarding amphibious assaults. In other words, attacking transports MUST be accompanied by at least 1 surface warship when attacking from any sea zone that is covered by a coastal gun.
So, say you have a bunch of transports loaded and ready to attack. They move into a sea zone covered by a coastal gun. In this case, the coastal gun would not fire on the transports because there is no warship to fight with. However, the transports can not unload their cargo to attack any territory adjacent to that sea zone. Just like an enemy submarine.
So what do you think? Good idea?
I like your idea Young Grasshopper. Coastal batteries as sort of a naval AA gun, or at least using AA gun rules. So basically, if 2 ships attack and there is 1 coastal gun, the coastal gun only rolls 2 dice. If 3 ships attack, the coastal gun rolls 3 dice. If 4 ships attack, the coastal gun still only rolls 3 dice. Correct?
Correct, That’s it.
Regarding submarines, I think coastal guns should NEVER be able to hit subs. That’s just not what they were built for.
Agreed.
Regarding Transports, I think coastal guns SHOULD be able to hit transports, but use the “chosen last as casualties” rule for transports. For example, say 1 cruiser and 2 transports try an amphibious assault. The coastal gun rolls 3 dice and gets a lucky 2 hits. The first hit MUST be taken on the cruiser. The second can be applied to either one of the transports, attacker’s choice.
Agreed, although for the attackers perspective, an expensive loaded transport should be the last thing removed even if it has zero defense capabilities. considering all this, if coastal guns get lucky and really hurt the amphibious operation, the attacker at this point (before sea combat) should be allowed to retreat (especially if that sea battle includes 3 scrambled fighters waiting to engage the wounded fleet).
Now we have the question of the un-hit transport. Can that transport continue with the amphibious assault? (assuming no enemy ships in that sea zone)
If the attacker chooses to do so, than I think yes.
I think in this case, coastal guns should use the same rules as enemy submarines regarding amphibious assaults. In other words, attacking transports MUST be accompanied by at least 1 surface warship when attacking from any sea zone that is covered by a coastal gun.
I can see players buying coastal guns just to avoid an assault knowing that there are no surface warships around. Also, if an attacker really needs to make a landing with 4 defenseless loaded transports and is willing to risk his opponent rolling a 1 on 3 dice… than I say let him.
So, say you have a bunch of transports loaded and ready to attack. They move into a sea zone covered by a coastal gun. In this case, the coastal gun would not fire on the transports because there is no warship to fight with. However, the transports can not unload their cargo to attack any territory adjacent to that sea zone. Just like an enemy submarine.
I don’t think a player would bring loaded transports alone into a sea zone adjacent to guns if they’re not willing to attack a territory, I mean anything else would be a non combat movement where coastal guns are useless. How about this… if you bring just loaded transports for an amphibious assault, the guns won’t fire. Call it a sneak landing maybe at night, the point is… the attacker can avoid their surface warships from getting hit by coastal guns during an amphibious assault by only using transports, but there can’t be any sea battle or scramble opportunity or else it would be suicide. In this case, the attacker would need to decide if they wish to risk a sneak landing which will not allow them any possible bombardments, or if the attacker brings surface warships which make their transports susceptible to getting hit by coastal guns (a little bit like the way kamikaze tokens work).
Good ideas?
In general Yes, I really like that your suggestions were in the spirit of the original idea. As you know, so many posters will reply to your idea with a “how about this….” and it’s nothing like you first suggested (lol). I always enjoy your comments KNP, you’re the easiest member to speak with around here and you always contribute.
Hi, Young G.,
I was looking for something else while I stumble onto this post of mine about in-built ASG (Anti-Ship Guns) and ATG (Anti-Tank Guns):
Siegfried Line, Atlantic Wall and bunkers/pillboxes
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30425.msg1100310#msg1100310
Maybe you can find an idea to put into your Coastal Guns HR.
Well said Grasshopper and knp. That’s very close to what I was proposing except for the restriction on subs and transports which I really like your idea knp.
Baron, I also like your fortification idea. I like that it limits how many units it supports defense. I think that is more fair than increasing it for all units. Also like the built in fire capability. Also glad you removed the Artillery fires first.
Been working on an Anti-Tank piece. A:2, D:2, M:2, C:5. Just like a sub but targets Tanks and SPA during the fire first phase.
One other thing I want to know, and sorry if I missed this in an earlier post, is how coastal guns will work during an invasion of the territory they are in. Since we are sort of treating them like AA guns (just against warships), do they work like that with invading troops as well?
When coastal guns are in a territory that is occupied by other land and/or air units and that territory is invaded by enemy forces, do coastal guns take hits like AA guns?
When coastal guns are in a territory that is NOT occupied by other land and/or air units and that territory is invaded by enemy forces, are the coastal guns automatically destroyed?
Have we decided on a cost for the coastal guns? I would say 5 IPCs since they work pretty much like AA guns.
Also, movement 0, but that is probably fairly obvious.
Been working on an Anti-Tank piece. A:2, D:2, M:2, C:5. Just like a sub but targets Tanks and SPA during the fire first phase.
Hi, Cyanight
Here is one of my post in which I tried to summarize as many as possible ideas which I collected on that thread and in some others, maybe you can compare what you are trying to develop with others suggestions. Of course, it is very dense (sorry, for the format). Hope, you find some new ideas.
Re: The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24554.msg1247463#msg1247463
Thanks Baron. That’s a lot of good info… Here is the house rules I have made so far. I think my AT may be a bit overpowered and my coastal guns too cheap. What do you guys think?
I think it would be interesting if A&A had Coastal Guns in Normandy that could not move but could fire like AA fire for planes but against ships conducting barrages. What do you guys think of this?
No man, not cool. A coastal gun is in a duel with a battleship, and they aim at each other. The AA gun shoot a lot of shells into the air and hope some aircrafts will hit them. Now since a coastal gun is far more lethal than the same type of gun on a ship, the coastal gun don’t sink even when hit, I figure that a coastal gun defend on 4 or less, cost 10 IPC and take two hits.
Since Normandy is mentioned, do remember that the coastal gun at Pont du Hoc was not operational, and if it where, the Rangers would have disabled it long before the landing started, so the only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII, and the other ships retreated out of range before the coastal gun could hit them too. This was one coastal gun. At Gallipoli during WWI the six French and British battleships were sunk by 141 coastal guns, in 22 batteries. So don’t make the coastal gun too strong. I would love to buy a 6 IPC unit that could sink 3 battleships each round, but it wont be good for balance.
As for your other artillery HRs, I think everything on feet move 1, and everything on wheels move 2. Just to make it elegant and smooth
Good observations Razor… I decided to scrap my Coastal gun and forts for similar reasons. Â My two latest listed above are the SPA and the Anti-Tank. Â I was thinking of making it move 2 and instead of 1. Â I am wondering if my “Surprise Strike” or “First Strike” capability of my AT is too strong.
DO you think an Anti-tank should
Blitz like a tank
Blitz if supported by a tank
not blitz at all
Thanks Baron. That’s a lot of good info… Here is the house rules I have made so far. I think my AT may be a bit overpowered and my coastal guns too cheap. What do you guys think?
What a look!!! WOW!!!
To provide some opinion, I need to know in which direction you go:
more game interaction (tactical variations over historical) or more historical basis (over wide variety of in game unit capacity)?
What do you prefer?
I would like them to be close to historical as possible without breaking the game. :)
DO you think an Anti-tank should
Blitz like a tank
Blitz if supported by a tank
not blitz at all
No Blitz for the AT, if you want to keep some historical correct touch with the real war.
The true tank was designed as an anti-infantry weapon that would break through the dug-in infantry line as a shock wave, and cut the enemy supply line, forcing the dug-in infantry to surrender. Attached is a pic to understate what I talk about.
The AT-tank was a specialized artillery unit that was designed to target tanks, and as we know artillery don’t blitz. If it should move 1 or 2 depends if it have wheels or not.
About your self propelled artillery unit, I think it should be stronger than the OOB field artillery, because it had bigger guns and more fire power, and because of the greater mobility and maneuverability , it will cover a larger range of action than the field artillery which is stuck at one place and horse depended. So lets give the King of the Battlefield Self propelled artillery an A3 D3 at a cost of 7 or 8. Boost infantry only. Tanks should only be boosted by Tacticals.
I don’t love the sequenced fire phase with preemptive fire, since this is a duel and all actions are supposed to happen simultaneous. The AT were cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack, but very strong in defend. So I figure A1 D3 and target tanks, at a cost of 5 IPC.
.jpg)
BTW, those pics are profiles I blackened for the pieces that HBG sells.
SPA
From Left to Right. Type 4 Ho Ro, Russian Katyusha, Hummel, M7 Priest (USA, UK, ANZAC and France)
Anti-Tanks
From Left to Right. Stug III (German/Italy), Type 3 Ho Ni III, Russian SU-76, Hellcat(USA, UK, ANZAC and France)
I paint all my pieces and decided to paint the AT guns with red tips to identify them as AT and not tanks.
I would like them to be close to historical as possible without breaking the game. :)
The AT-tank was a specialized artillery unit that was designed to target tanks, and as we know artillery don’t blitz. If it should move 1 or 2 depends if it have wheels or not
Is their any room for a fixed Anti-Tank gun? Like a Flak 88 adapted to fire horizontally.
It would be different from the guns mounted on a tank frame, like Stug III, which was built upon a Panzer III frame.
So, you can still get a preemptive anti-tank gun moving like an AAA.
Here I would say:
A0D1NCM1C3, 1 hit, 1 preemptive against 1 Armored vehicule (SPA-ATG-Tank). After first round, act like a regular unit at D@1.
And a Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun, which can move at 2.
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that some Stugs III were following the same pace than regular Panzer, and able to give them a good hand on offence (during Russian campaign), even if it wasn’t the “real” Blietzkrieg on France (which do not have such weapon then).
So, for my part, I think it should be played as a MechInf, which need a Tank to be able to blitz.
They were very popular, even more were built than Tank, so I also think it should cost 5 IPCs.
DO you think an Anti-tank should
Blitz like a tank
Blitz if supported by a tank
not blitz at all
No Blitz for the AT, if you want to keep some historical correct touch with the real war.
I don’t love the sequenced fire phase with preemptive fire, since this is a duel and all actions are supposed to happen simultaneous. The AT were cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack, but very strong in defend. So I figure A1 D3 and target tanks, at a cost of 5 IPC.
I agree about the preemptive fire and the way of seeing action, I would not allow it to a mobile unit.
I agree also with :
cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack
However, I would not go below A2 or D2 for AT unit. (For game balance, I see that an offensive first strike must be low such as @1)
AT unit A2D3M2 seems ok with the principle and without the preemptive vs Tank.
At most, a regular attack with a targeting capacity on offence and defence, but then rise the problem about game mechanics, which was resolve by the preemptive strike.
In Axis and Allies: D-Day they have the very piece you speak of.
It says the following:
Blockhouses (Axis only)
Attack:3
Defense: 1
Move: -
Special Abilities
Fire to Sea: Blockhouses can make a special targeted attack against the beachheads, when so directed by an order car. Each blockhouse may fire once at an Alllies land unit in a beachhead box within its firing arc, indicated by an arrow (See Special Combats on page 13 for more information.
~Bull Halsey
Had a rule similar to the one proposed by the Opening Poster in Axis and Allies Revised - Enhanced. Germany could take a shot or two each round at ships parked in the English Channel - it was not against ships specifically bombarding, but Germany could take its pick of targets. I think it was 2 shots, but given how many ships there are now, the amount of money on the board, and there being two types of ships that take two hits to sink instead of one, I would say that should be 3 or 4 shots each round during the same part of the round you resolve rockets and sbr attacks.
You would probably have to adjust the allied/axis bids accordingly and/or give the other major powers similar benefits to balance things out again. (Major Powers in my mind are: The British Empire (except ANZAC), The United States, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany and Japan.)
#houserules
