Port with inherent AA-fire, minefields and Coastal Guns ?

Hi,

1. what game do you suppose to play with this rule ?

2. IMHO mines should be operational even after the NB was damadged, since damadge to a NB doesnt affect mines at all.

Some interesting ideas. For coastal guns, I don’t think naval bases should automatically have coastal guns. Rather, they should be a separate unit that you could purchase and place on any coastal territory. HBG has some neat little coastal bunkers that you put together and they are also planning to make a coastal gun sculpt with their upcoming facilities set. Then once you have the pieces, it’s basically up to you as to how to use them. Since A&A doesn’t really have rules for them, you would have to make your own house rule for them. It would be up to you and your regular players on how strong and influence you want them to be.
I had an idea to make coastal guns sort of like an AA gun but for ships. Each coastal gun fires up to 3 shots and for each 1 rolled, they sink an attacking ship. However, I think battleships and cruisers would be able to fire back and destroy the coastal guns. Perhaps that could be a way for defenders to eliminate the shore bombardment. The attacking ships can either fire at the shore batteries OR support attacking troops, not both.
Perhaps they could also be like AA guns in that they can take hits when the battle starts.

As for sea mine fields, I haven’t really thought about implementing that, but it could be a good idea for certain sea zones. Just don’t make it too powerful or too time consuming.

I, too, think this has some definite potential, but may not be necessary.
I presume we are talking about 1940, due to the SBR’s. I think adding mines into 1940 is an excellent suggestion, but prefer the 1914 method. Many merchantmen were sunk (in both wars) by mines (700 million tons of japanese shipping), and a few warships as well. Perhaps every ship supporting an amphibious assault from a mined sea zone must suffer them, and also any transport passing through the sea zone. This last may be OP, however.

As for coastal guns, they were installed in many locations along the coasts; sometimes artillery on atolls would target surface vessels. I suggest allowing artillery in any coastal territory to act as coastal guns. If an amphibious assault is launched on it, the artillery and bombarding warships have a preliminary duel, with the artillery each firing at two or less, and ships also with normal attack values. Warship hits can only be applied to these coastal artillery, and coastal gun hits are determined by attacker, but bombarding craft are first. If no offshore bombardment occurs, coastal guns may (for the first turn only, afterwards participate in combat as normal) fire against the attacking ground troops in the preliminary phase, with hits removed immediatly. if no coastal guns are present, offshore bombardment proceeds as usual. I do not think this is overpowered. More similar to your idea, I suppose you could also allow an operational naval base in the territory under attack to allow these guns to defend at 3 for the first round, but I am not sure about this.

And I do think it would add to the game; more interaction between land and naval units is always good! (ever had a huge armada floating around in the simpler editions, absolutely useless against the german tank stank growing in Eurasia!) :)

@Alfalfa29:

And I do think it would add to the game; more interaction between land and naval units is always good! (ever had a huge armada floating around in the simpler editions, absolutely useless against the german tank stank growing in Eurasia!) :)

I have seen this happen to Japan on more than one occasion. Japan spreads out to take islands and doesn’t properly protect it’s transports. Then they lose those transports due to air power from India, Australia and the US fleet. Then the US catches a lucky break having transports in range when it notices Japan has forgot to leave good defense in Japan itself. So, the US attacks and takes Tokyo.
Now Japan is sitting there with a big fleet, big enough to take out the US fleet in SZ 6, but NO transports to take any men and equipment and liberate their capital. One time it was really pathetic. The US had 3 or 4 transports and just 1 damaged battleship left in SZ 6 and they won the land battle with 1 surviving tank in Japan. Japan had 2 full carriers, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 4 destroyers all within range of SZ 6, but not a single transport left. I remember that game because Italy, who managed to capture Egypt and Trans-Jordan so they could use the Suez, send 3 transports over with a cruiser and battleship through the Indian Ocean so the Japanese could put troops on them. By the time they got around to being within range of Japan, the US had a stack of men there and a fresh, new fleet on the way from San Francisco.

Just to toss an extra factor into this discussion, one should remember that (in real life) deploying a defensive minefield around a port isn’t consequence-free for the defender.  Such minefields help protect the port from penetration by enemy ships, but they also impair the port’s capacity to handle friendly ships because they have to waste time picking their way through the minefields, something which requires good minefield charts, slow speeds and careful navigation by the harbour pilots.

@CWO:

Just to toss an extra factor into this discussion, one should remember that (in real life) deploying a defensive minefield around a port isn’t consequence-free for the defender.  Such minefields help protect the port from penetration by enemy ships, but they also impair the port’s capacity to handle friendly ships because they have to waste time picking their way through the minefields, something which requires good minefield charts, slow speeds and careful navigation by the harbour pilots.

You are completely right about this, but as it is ports have no restrictions on use. A naval base could service 100 carriers as easily as a single submarine. Unless youre suggesting that friendly ships should roll for mines, I am not sure that this is practical. Perhaps the conversion of a peacetime harbor to a mine-infested, artillery-ridden military base should come with a restiction on the number of ships that can use its facilities a turn. Maybe 8? That begs the inclusion of a smaller piece (port? harbor?) that has the same capabilities of the naval base, but on a smaller scale, and with less cost.