How does one get a post to be a sticky?

I know.  It’s hard to fix it without completely nerfing it.

Maybe if you made Atlantik Wall counter shore bombardments like Jets counter SBRs and Rockets?  All defending infantry roll first, any one’s counter a destroyer’s bombardment?

It would force Germany to take the national advantage, which is a cost but one they can mitigate by just watching what the allies do and taking it later in the game (you don’t need to take your second NA on turn two) and it would provide protection.  But it would not be over powering protection.  Sure, 42 infantry would negate most 7 bombardments from destroyers, but it would still cost 126 IPC to build them.

Meanwhile, no impact would be made to Battleships.  This gives some security to the bombardment practice still.

at the avalon hills board it was argued that Radar is a counter to almost everything Germany goes for
not that fun is it

Radar, IMHO, stops England from being obliterated right out of the door.  However, it’s MORE useful in that it allows Combined Arms to be purchased on the cheap (8 IPC, instead of 16-24 IPC).

As for the Atlantik Wall thing, I was thinking that Atlantik Wall represents all those fortifications the Germans built in Northern France, correct?  Well they would provide SOME protection from shelling, hence why D-Day was not a stroll along the beach, but a bitter fight resulting in thousands dead before the first feet landed on the beach.

So why not have a national advantage impact a technology?  Radar already impacts Jets by allowing them to be hit by AA Fire instead of being immune.  So the precedent is already set on that score.  And, to be honest, Atlantik Wall is a pretty good NA to have anyway.  Free infantry a round in W. Europe and bonus on defensive dice from amphibious assaults AND a shot per round at your naval target of choice.  (Even better when coupled with 88s.)

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I really like the idea.  It’s not over powering.  It would still take 6 infantry on the average to block one destroyer bombardment and it would have no impact on battleship bombardments. (12 inch guns vs 16 inch guns, I believe.) It’s pretty accurate in history since the area was fortified to high heaven.  And, to top it all off, it does not require Germany to abandon W. Europe to stop the allies from, in essense, SBRing them to death with Destroyer/Battleship fire.

Meanwhile, it does cost the Germans for this protection, so it’s not like you are nerfing something the allies have.  Germany is free NOT to take the NA (I’d maybe even recommend making it choice two and only after the allies have sunk a lot of money into Combined Arms and Destroyers.  Just the threat of the NA could keep the allies honest.)

Well, it depends what we are trying to stop.
Jen’s solution reduces the free ride damage of destroyer bombardment.
Your solution reduces the chance of sucessful landing from the free ride.

I’m thinking of more along the lines of least impact on the game.  Negating the opening fire from bombardments is a violation of Revised, LHTR 1.3 and LHTR 2.0.  Which is fine, since this is AARe not AAR, but it is something to consider.

The idea I posted, which is growing on me more and more, fixes abuse of destroyer bombards at a cost, and only for the one nation that’s most abused by destroyer bombardments.  It also does not kill their utility, it just allows the defender to dig in, absorb the hits in the landscape and fortifications, and then return to their posts to fire on the landing crews.

next thing someone uses the uber destroyer strat against Japan… :wink:

and then we bring back dug-in defenders and let have it like the proposed Altantic Wall

It won’t work as well against Japan.

In order to get to the point you are bombarding large stacks against Japan, you are assaulting Japan itself and if you are at that point, I submit the game is already over.

Most islands, IF you have to attack, will be against 1, maybe 2 infantry.  You can normally handle that without DDs getting unbalanced since you are also only using America.

In Europe you can see 14 British Destroyers and 14 American Destroyers easily.  That’s 14 hits on average that cannot be responded too.

Not as bad as you think, really.

Remember, during that time Germany’s still suffering a large pounding, and if you have Lend-Lease + Russian Rail they have no hope of getting either Karelia or Caucasus for at least 6 or 7 rounds, plenty of time to get those destroyers running.

Also, with the approrpriate NAs the costs are a lot lower then expected for the allies.  126 IPC each, not 140.  And the allies only need to put 18 IPC worth of gear on the map a round, for ground units.  (12 IPC to be converted to Russias, 3 IPC each to land in W. Europe/Norway/Germany/E. Europe to get the bomberdments.)

@axis_roll:

@ncscswitch:

I see several sub-topic discussion on AARe, but no overall rules topic.  Which thread do you need stickied?

Can you sticky this post?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11203.0

Thank You!

Done!  :-)

BTW,

I’d like to see a few more VCs.

Germany should have one in Warsaw and Kiev. (That would be E. Europe and Ukraine, I believe.)
England should have one in Cairo (That would be Egypt, I believe) and Toronto (E. Canada)
Japan should probably have one in the E. Indies; it was a MAJOR target in their campaign after all.

That should even out the VCs so that each side would need 12. (instead of 11/10.)

I’d even suggest moving the American VC from Hawaii to Midway.  For some ungodly reason, no one ever makes Midway important, and yet, it was THE turning point in the real war!  At least with a VC there, it may be contested for once.

As for Hawaii, I just don’t see the strategic importance in history of making it a VC.  Even the Japanese never bothered invading it.  They landed in Attu Island and attacked Midway. (BTW, Attu for those who do not know, are the Alutian Islands which are part of Alaska.)

Be intestesting to allow a limited land bridge between North America and Russia along those islands too.  If you own Buryatia, SFE and Alaska you may move 2 infantry or 1 armor from/to Alaska to SFE without needing a transport to do it.  Might entice America to focus more on Japan and keep Russia from just abandoning the worthless states in the east for the lucrative states in the west as well. (Besides, it’s not easy to keep all three of those states!)