Subs of any nationality can go through the Strait of Gibralter no matter who controls Gibralter. Does the same hold true for the Danish
Straits no matter who controls Denmark? I would think so.
Also, a Soviet transport does an amphib. assault on Norway off the north coast. Can the Soviet cruiser off the south coast participate in the amphib. assault by doing an off shore bombardment even though it’s not in the same sea zone as the transport? I say no.
I’m Axis, my bro is allies. I stupidly left Norway and Finland vulnerable while pursuing an all out rampage down south through Ukraine to Stalingrad. My bro has a transport in the Arctic Sea. He also still has his cruiser and sub off the Leningrad coast in Baltic Sea.
USSR turn: the Arctic transport does an amphib assault on Norway’s north coast while he brings his lone cruiser off Norway’s south coast. He wants the cruiser to get an off shore bombardment shot. I say no, it has to be in the same sea zone as the transport (which I think is more in the spirit of how to play whether or not it’s “legal”; but I still think it’s not legal). Who’s correct?
Question #2: If any nationality sub can go thru the Straits of Gibralter (it’s in the rules, I checked), why can’t any nationality sub go thru the Danish Straits?
My bro want to move the above mentioned Soviet sub off Leningrad into the North Atlantic
thru the Danish Straits and even though I agree it should be allowed (with or without my permission) it seems that the rules say no. (And I do know that if it was a Soviet surface war
ship the Allies would have to be in control of Denmark but they’re not).
Once while playing the original A/A in a desperate move I sent a British transport with 2 infantry
from the western Med. into the Black Sea and attacked Ukraine that had 4 German fighters.
I rolled 2 ones, he missed on all four and then I rolled snake eyes again. Unforgetable and hilarious. What a rush!
I’m new to this forum and we don’t know each other but I wanted to express my sympathy.
You and your family are in my prayers.
The real reasons the Italians lost was because the gunnery sergeant ordered rigatoni instead of shells.
Well, as for the Japanese, I didn’t really know what to call those units. The U.S. had marines, of course, (which A&A version tried to introduce them? Was it the first A&A Pacific?). The Japanese defending at 3 is supposed to symbolize there fanatical resistance and the attacking at 2 their suicidal desparate attacks near the end. The (Japanese)piece really doesn’t represent an official rank as much as it does the spirit of their attitude.
I agree that in spite of the best intentions island hopping warfare so prevalent in the Pacific doesn’t seem to organically be built into the rules. Have mulled about making houserules to adjust this for quite awhile.
Another house rule my brother and I have put into play based on the
“marines” concept (I think it was from the first A/A Pacific)is this:
In the Pacific Theater only, the U.S. can pay 5 each for marines that attack at 3 and defend at 2. The Japanese counterparts attack at 2 and defend at 3 costing the same 5 ipc’s each.
They can only be used on islands or coastal territories or they revert to ordinary infantry if fighting inland.
We felt this reflected the theme of the Pacific more. Where tanks and
mech. inf. weren’t as common or effective. Also, with the Japanese we felt it reflected their intense nationalism, and code of honor sometimes to the point of fanaticism with their suicide attacks (on land, I don’t mean the Kamikazi’s here). The American marines we feel
show the courage and sacrifice of those elite troops when taking all those islands.
We use the red Japanese inf. and the dark green American inf. from
an earlier version of A/A for the marines.
Thanks everyone for the warm welcome to this forum :-) ! I’ve been following the posts
as a guest for a while and finally got around to registering last night. I live near Syracuse
NY and we have quite a few gamers within our radius with a strong center at a hometown comic/boardgame store. Of course “real” life limits time I can spend on my hobby which is
one reason why it took me so long to register; but you have to keep a healthy balance.
I have probably over 50 games of various kinds in my collection but A&A 1940, War of the
Ring and the various Catan scenarios are my favorites.
When playing either Global or Europe 1940 does any one know why Alpah 3 deleted the British European N.O. for keeping the map clear of German
U-Boats.
I’ve been playing a houserule where (playing Europe 1940 only) if
there are no German U’s in the Atlantic or small part of the Pacific showing the Brits get 3 IPC’s, if there are no AXIS U’s in the Med. they get 2 more and finally if there are no German U’s in the Indian Ocean they get 1 more for a maximum bonus of 6 IPC’s.
……and while we’re on house rules strategic bombers now cost only 10
and attack (on land or sea) at only 2 and defend at 0 but alpha 3 rules for SBR’s stay the same.
Battleships now attack either at one die @5 or less or two dice at 3 or less (but one die of 4 or less for amph. assaults) with the owner making the choice in each battle and they defend at the same #'s with the same choice.
Finally, here are our new “bargain” prices we play with:
SB’s: 10
TB’s: 9
Fighters: 8
Subs and Transports: 6
Destroyers: 8
Cruisers: 10
Carriers: 14
Battleships: 16
All land units stay the same.
We’ve played several Globals and one Europe with all the above houserules and not only were the games balanced but the lower prices made for the intoduction of a lot more pieces and more battles which made things a lot more interesting and exciting.
Any feed back? Try the above and let me know how it goes.
Posted Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:45 pm
Add a Roll
Choose your Dice d4 d6 d8 d10 d12 d20 d100 Help Roll Comment (Optional) QuickReply QuickQuote Reply Quote Edit Delete
