@B.:
The thing is that Germany would NOT have his fighters in France as said before due to that, but in Germant or Gibraltar
@B.:
Any time UK fleet will be in reach of Germany fighters in France he will attack if the odds strongly favor his force!
However, IF the fighters are in Germany, Then UK doesn’t even bother landing in France I just take Germany when I am ready and build up a landing so that you can’t move all units built out of the capital in the meantime, which helps Russia immensely.
If the fighters are are in France, Then UK can a land a ground force there. -edit and destroy the planes-
The navy can land before the fighters get to attack, so they will be fighting land units and cost effective armor and infantry.
@Afrika:
However, IF the fighters are in Germany, Then UK doesn’t even bother landing in France I just take Germany when I am ready and build up a landing so that you can’t move all units built out of the capital in the meantime, which helps Russia immensely.
Nice try! UK invade Germany , hmmm…. That will only happen late in the game, turn 5 or 6, when anything might have happened. Like Russia have fallen or UK are so crippled by lost territories (IPCs), that Germany could counter that attackwith a stack of inf and fighters. Hard to see the future is…and you are so full of bull! :-P
i didnt read the whole thread cause im new here and that would take fucking forever……but i always pair my BBs with loaded carriers…now i have a tendency to end up with lots of carriers and BBs…now who in thier right mind would attack three fours and a three…or got forbid battle groups meet up and then i would have 6 fours and two threes? for japan its very easy to control the pacific with that navy set up. only price is you may lose the mainland. pay back would be putting the US on edge post-poning any invasion they would like to try.
i didnt read the whole thread cause im new here and that would take fucking forever……
this is the terminology i was refering to mo. i’m no prude and it doesn’t particularly offend me but when typing it is a conscious effort to insert profanity unlike talking where it might slip. i just don’t want someone with a different spin on strategy thrown off because they are wanting to express themselves
as far as the thread itself, i like the bb if i have the cash, i never buy two dd instead unless they are going two different places. free hit and 4/4. it is unrealistic to compare 20 dd to 10 bb because that is a situation that won’t arise (i would think). also the application of the two vessels is different. i am with mofo in always trying to pair bb with cv. i use dd as protection for trannie convoys from air raids. and of course you always need one in your deep water fleets for sub protection.
What i miss is battleships that roll dice in an opening fire step, both in combat and shore bombard. Lets face it, Battleships had long range big guns that looped its barrage on the smaller ships before they was in range to fire back. :mrgreen:
Hey eagle… goto house rules and join our group… we are redoing revised! BTW why don’t you post that often here?
What i miss is battleships that roll dice in an opening fire step, both in combat and shore bombard. Lets face it, Battleships had long range big guns that looped its barrage on the smaller ships before they was in range to fire back. :mrgreen:
I partly agree, but what about planes attacking a BB? Should the BB have a opening fire at planes as well and do you find it realistic? I have two suggestions:
1. Each BB roles two dice instead of one die, but the combat capability go down to 3/3.
2. Each BB attack in the opening fire step of combat, for the first combat cycle only.
Which of these rules do you like most? :?
The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.
Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.
Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.
Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.
Hey you! are you gonna help us? (re: house section…me and Duke)
@Imperious:
Hey you! are you gonna help us? (re: house section…me and Duke)
I do, but please read all in this topic before you change any values for BBs or DDs!
I would say battleship are an underrated buy. Sure destroyers win in that ONE big battle that happens once in about 3 games. However, for me battleships are getting used practically every round. They bombard, and in small engagements you don’t have to replace them.
ME too,
I can be devastating when it comes on using BB’s :-P
the only way I use DD is to make sure subs can’t use their special abilities…
@Axel:
ME too,
I can be devastating when it comes on using BB’s :-P
the only way I use DD is to make sure subs can’t use their special abilities…
What if DDs were able to shore bombard on a 2?
@B.:
[What if DDs were able to shore bombard on a 2?
[/quote]you mean like in a tech, a national advantage or is it a house rule?
We never play with techs, national advantages or house rules, so this is a question that is irrelevant for me.
but I think DD would be of more interest then :-)There are so many ways you can upgrade the one or the other:
I can state it the other way around:
what if a BB can defend on a 5?:-P
If you get Consolidated Bombard, then multiple DST’s might be worthwhile. DSTs are also valuable as a cheap way to defend TRN fleets against AF.
But one in an average fleet is enough (stops sub abilities). And a DST navy makes sense IF you have enemy navy to kill or if you can;t afford BB’s.
But… the BB is worth the cost if you have the $24 to spend… the free hit, the 4 attack and defense, the bombard…
As someone said, in most battle,s the BB lives to fight again even after being hit, DSTs do not. And, except for that Big Gulp move in the Pacific… that means more than additional units (and even then, if you have enough fodder, the BB is still the better buy)
If ever I am going to buy a battleship, I plan ahead. I’ll save $12 on the round before I want to produce the BB, then buy the BB on the following round.
Using this method, you are able to keep a relatively steady flow of units coming out on both turns. This is especially helpful as USA if you already have a shuck in place and don’t want to lose momentum.
I just wonder what is wrong with the shore bombarment capability on a 2 or less for DDs, that worked out so fine in A&A:E and A&A:P! It would make DDs a better buy for sure and in my opinion make DDs a better balanced piece compared to BBs. I think it is fair and balanced as well as historical correct to give DDs a shore bombardment capability. The reason that this special ability was not included as standard in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):
" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."
How ever the solution to such a problem is just to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not excluding DDs from doing it. My suggestion is to allow DDs make a shore bombardment on 2 and change the rule for shore bombarment as follow:
Shore Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, battleships and destroyers may make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 4 and a 2 respectively. For each support shot one must put ashore one land unit, apply to both battleships and destroyers. Battleships and destroyers that conduct shore bombardment fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A battleship or a destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.
LHTR 1.4 anyone???
@ncscswitch:
LHTR 1.4 anyone???
What do you mean? Never heard of LHTR v 1.4!!! However my revised rule for shore bombardment that includes DDs is perfected :-D, it solves the true problem! Combine this rule of shore bombardment with air supremacy and you got an even better game 8-)
I repeat:
The reason that destroyers were not given the special ability to shore bombard as a standard rule in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):
" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."
If one thinks that a piece only should have one main ability, than the two hits to destroy should be enough for battleships as well. The shore bombardment should than be an optional rule for the more advanced players or one should include it as standrad and accept a little more complicated rules. As the rules are now they are simply not consistent!Â
If battleships are allowed to shore bombard, one can still hit Saskatchewan! Consistently if battleships are allowed to shore bombard destroyers shoulb be able to do too. If it will be too powerful one should consider to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not to act inconsistently. The Combined Bombardment is not a true weapon development, but simply an emergancy solution. There are many errors in Mr Selinkers argumentation in the design of A&A Revised, it does not take a genius to find out! Another one was tol not include Heavy Artillery as a weapons development, also due to wrong reasons. If you want to take a look at the articles named Axis & Allies Countdown that Mr Selinker wrote before the release of A&A:R go to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20031205a
