Shore Bombardments

[Young Grasshopper]

Shore bombardments may now be used without the support of a land attack.

[Tamer of Beasts]

I think this unbalances the game.  Unless something can shoot back, the ships will have no problem wiping out defenseless units.  It’s a neat idea though

[Young Grasshopper]

@Tamer:

I think this unbalances the game.  Unless something can shoot back, the ships will have no problem wiping out defenseless units.  It’s a neat idea though

Well, air units can still scramble to negate the bombardment, and I suppose I can rewrite it to say that bombardments may be used to support any attack, which would also go well with my paratrooper addition.

[Young Grasshopper]

Actually, it brings more value to Crusiers and battleships if shore bombardments do not require a land attack. This way it can be done on one turn to setup for a different nation to attack the weakened territory later in the same round.

[Tamer of Beasts]

I see your point, and I do like the idea of supporting any attack.  It does make more sense to me that they can bombard a bit more, it seemed almost like a talent wasted with the OOB rules.

[Tamer of Beasts]

I saw in another one of your topics that you want mor value for naval bases.  What if for up to three bombarding ships, a naval base had a 1@1 chance for a hit?

[Narvik]

IMHO shore bombardment are way too strong even with the OOB rules. In the real war shelling from warships would never inflict any significant damage on land units, they would just soften the beach defense before the landings. But in one case, shelling from a battleship outside Normandy did in fact flip a Tiger tank that was two miles in land, but this rare incident do not justify a common A&A rule to let shelling from light cruisers ruin great million men strong armies that are dug in far away from any beach. This rule is more for fun, not historical accuracy