Naval Production

Good. Please do. There are always people with time to listen and share thoughts.

thanks :)

It’s in the errata/FAQ.

Thanks for answering, Kreighund! These rules are a big departure from the other A&A games.

@WILD:

So I was thinking, instead of mandating naval battles only go one round, why not just give both parties a retreat option (TBD). In many cases this would self restrict naval battles to one round.

Yes, but when you retreat, the other is not allowed to chase you. In real naval battles it is common to chase each other, but in a game that kind of behavior violates the turn order.

I think time is an issue. A game turn is considered to be like 6 months, while a real life naval battle usually took less than a day. On top of that, our ships seems to be stuck in their little seazone. In the real world a ship could easily sail around the world in 6 months, as is the length of a game turn. Now imagine that in a game, a ship with unlimited movement.

I think in order to make a game that behave as close to the real world as possible, we must analyze every naval battles from 1904 to 1945, and then we will see that WiF is the game that come close, and that Axis and Allies has a long way to go.

protevangelium makes some great points about how lopsided the sea’s were, and sub warfare being the best option for the CP in the war. Subs are a bit lacking in this edition as well as others IMO (nearly impossible to raid convoys, or inflict econ damage). The Austrians, and Turks were very limited in their abilities. The Germans did have a more modern surface fleet (tried to enter a naval arms race before the war), but failed in comparison to the Brits. In this game the Germans can get temporary control of the North Sea early though and add to their fleet. Once the rest of French Fleet comes up the UK still doesn’t need to build much to protect allied transports OOB (two French BB’s is a nice way to start for the allies rebuild). If the allies want to knock the German fleet out, then it could get expensive, but do they need to, or just set-up a multi national defense that the Germans can’t touch to keep allied transports afloat. Then there is always the 1-2 punch if the allies want to go aggressive. I still believe the problem lies with the French fleet (and the abilities of the sub to a point).

When we play we always reduce the Atlantic French Fleet to just a cruiser (swap BB for cruiser and remove the transport). We have done this even before Larry introduced it in the Tourney rules. It does help for game play, and better reflects what the French had in the Atlantic. The French Atlantic fleet was more of a support to the Brits (not nearly equal). Before the war the French naval focus was in the Med not knowing the intentions of the Italians (fearing an Italian attack which the game doesn’t reflect).

It would have been nice for the sub to have a larger roll in this edition having more raiding ability or sz’s to attack econ. Should destroyers be introduced so subs have a better survival rate? Maybe the naval set-up cost should be tweaked. BB’s at 12 IPCs is too cost effective IMO (should they be 15 IPCs?), no one buys cruisers. Just thinking out load……don’t read to much into it. WB

@Jocher:

@Frontovik:

@Jocher:

Don’t consider an invasion of the British Isles…not going to work.��  Too many territories in the home island that the Brits can keep building upon in no time.��  Plus you have mines to face.��  The strategy doesn’t work.��  My advice, having played Germany a bunch now, is to destroy the Russian battleship and use YOUR waters as opposed to Britain’s waters.��  You can’t keep ferrying over troops to the western front with transports.��  you’ll keep facing mine dice.��  Better off using your navy (protected by 2 TT’s of mines) to ferry troops to the Russian front to make the Russies go down easier.�� 
Also, destroying the British home fleet isn’t such a bad thing.��  You’re right, it sort of leverages the Brits to building up India, becoming a pain for the Ottomans.��  However, as I discussed in my post at the top of the forums, the Ottomans are more than a match for a 100% British blitz in the middle east.��  Just keep retreating slowly, all the while piling up your forces.��  Better to have one huge clash 7 rounds in to the game, rather than have 7 smaller skirmishes that the Ottomans can’t keep up with.��  Fight in Constantinople…you will have accomplished taking the Brits out of the game almost completely, as they’re spending too much time chasing the Ottomans and not enough time where it matters…Europe and the Eastern front.

sounds like hitler luring the russians to berlin before beating them back to moscow and so winning world war 2…

not gonna happen; you can have your clash even later; but by round 9-10 constantinopel is in allied hands (unless the brits force that army up to sebastopol, which can be done if russia retreats from moscow to prevent RR)

Luring the Russians to Berlin?  This is a game bud.  Not real life.  So yes, the Germans could do what you are suggesting above and be successful sometimes and not successful other times, because we are playing a game.  Don’t confuse the two.  It’s silly that you are comparing a strategy in Axis and Allies to real history.

And yes, it is going to happen…I’ve already done it.  I might try another 10x only to fail 9x (or succeed), but the fact remains it is a viable strategy.  The money the Ottomans earn for their territories does not warrant a ‘stand your ground’…all that means is losing a lot of smaller skirmishes and having the territory taken from you anyhow.  I am not suggesting an immediate retreat.  I am suggesting that 4-5 turns in, when the Brits amass a large enough force to start taking Ottoman territory, that be the point where I suggest the Ottomans pull back some.  A Brit strategy to go all out in India means a good chance at conquering the Ottomans.  My suggestion is to pull back if the attacks are overwhelming and make your stand with a very large piled up Ottoman army in a territory closer to Constantinople.  Hopefully by then, Germany and Austria would have expanded because they haven’t had to fight the brits in Europe…only the weakened Russia ns and and the mighty French.  Austrians could, of course help the Ottomans if possible with reinforcements.

ok, now i understand; thanks. i use same strategy. but i’d add a tank to the force, for the small skirmishes that can’t be counterattacked. i think it saves a lot in a longer game. but face it, the ottomans will be overwhelmed and then the brits will start coming in the balkans.

and fun fact; india is as far away from vienna as berlin is from paris :p

Welcome, blindingblizzard!

@blindingblizzard:

The rules state that U.S. ships cannot move into contested sea zones.Â

There is no such thing as a contested sea zone.  The rule states that the US may not move units into a contested territory.  (For clarifications on this, see the FAQ thread.)

In your example, Germany may choose to either include the US ships in its attack, bringing the US into the war, or ignore them.