AAG: Ups and downs

Hello all,

It’s been awhile since I’ve poked around the online A&A community, and I noticed that the AH boards seem pretty dead these days.  So I decided to wander over here to where the action is.

After a few games of Guadalcanal, I must say that I love this game.  I’ve been looking forward to a naval-oriented A&A game for some time, and I am not disappointed.

I love the combat engine.  I think it hits the sweet spot by allowing screening with weaker units but giving the possibility of heavier equipment being taken out as well.  I also like the fact that units have different strengths against different types of units.  It kills some of the more unrealistic strategies present in the previous games.  For instance, no more bunching infantry or transports together en masse and counting on the numbers to save you.  Such a strategy in this game would make for some great bomber fodder.  The idea of having some units that are defenseless appeals to me as well.

I love the addition of cruisers too.  I’ve been waiting a long time for the addition of more naval units.  I feel a euphoria not unlike when they added destroyers for AAR.

I appreciate having two means to acquire victory points.  I feel this opens a wider range of strategic options not present in some of the previous A&A games.  There is something very satisfying about racking up victory points through a straightforward destruction of the enemy.

I really like having to provide supplies and move them to the area where they are needed.  (I haven’t played BotB, so forgive my fawning over this.)  I like how this increases the strategic importance of transports.

All this is not to say I don’t have my beefs with the game however.  There are four basic areas where I feel the game is not what it could be:

Victory conditions
As I mentioned above, I enjoy the fact that there are two means towards victory.  However, I feel the game is slanted a little too heavily toward the airfield method.  This also makes the game too short, in my opinion.  Every game I’ve played has been over by round 5, which doesn’t always give one the time to plan and execute a thorough strategy.  Often, one side will win based on a single dice roll in the final round (failing to damage an opponent’s airfield, or missing with that suicide sub strike aimed at sinking an enemy carrier, for instance).  That doesn’t exactly strike me as decisive victory.

Transporting using destroyers
The rules for transporting using destroyers are highly unrealistic.  WWII destroyers were not equipped to load large amounts cargo while deployed, nor did they have cargo holds to speak of, especially compared to something like a Liberty Ship.  I know Japan used their destroyers to transport infantry, but using a destroyer to transport artillery or anti-aircraft guns seems ridiculous to me.

Submarine warfare
Submarines seem impotent to me.  I like their sneak-attack ability, but it doesn’t really seem to capture the purpose of submarines fully.  In order to protect them, you have to keep them with your fleets, which runs contrary to how submarines usually operated.  There are cases when it is worth the risk doing a suicide charge to try to sink a capital ship, but those have been few and far between in the games I’ve played so far.  I’ve just wound up using subs as escorts.  Furthermore, destroyers have no effect on submarines.  One of the main purposes of WWII destroyers was to find and destroy submarines, and this is not simulated in any way.

Anti-aircraft fire
Anti-aircraft guns seem really powerful, maybe a bit too much.  Given that there is no other land unit that can attack aircraft, I might be able to live with that however.  The big problem I have is the air attack ratings of ships.  An Iowa-class battleship had around 130 AA guns, whereas a U.S. destroyer had 15-20, yet they both have the same air attack abilities in this game.  WWII carriers, especially on the Japanese side, had very large AA batteries, yet carriers have no air attack.  The result is that fleets are not really able to defend themselves against air attacks, and you have to screen your fleets with fighters if you want them to survive.  I know there is some realism to that, but the idea that a large fleet with several warships and capital ships would be unable to dish out some serious damage against an attacking squadron doesn’t seem right to me.  Consider, for example, that a fleet of 3 battleships would statistically only shoot down one aircraft.  Also, the effect of AA coverage was often not that enemy aircraft would be destroyed, but rather that they would attack from a higher altitude, particularly the bombers.  The attacker doesn’t have that option here, however.  You just have to run the gauntlet and hope you don’t get blown out of the sky.

Being a man of solutions, not of problems, I am compiling a list of potential house rules to deal with these issues.  I’ll post them soon.  Stay tuned…  :wink:

In the meantime, I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on the gripes I’ve laid out.  Are there reasons that the rules must be laid out as they are in order to preserve the balance of the game?

By the way, I know that sometimes the developers visit these boards.  If one of them would be willing to discuss the thought process that resulted in these rules, it would be greatly appreciated.

@Imperious:

your the first to make that “AAG” thing… from now on i suspect that will be its common usage around here.

Really?  Sweet… So this is what it feels like to be a trend-setter.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Anti-aircraft fire- AA fire does seem overpowered and why does the Carriers do not have AA die? Maybe also when you roll AA a 2 makes the fighter return to base and a 1 destroys them. It just seems like you go through fighters like you go through infantry in AAR.

Interesting idea, but then you’d have to roll AA guns separately from aircraft, which would change the dynamic of combat.  For instance, if you had one AA gun and one fighter in a territory, there is no way you could shoot down a bomber during that combat.  And if you limited aircraft to the same rule, you would be able to amass huge air forces in no time.  You do go through fighters quickly, which is boosted by the fact that they are so cheap, and if they were destroyed only half as quickly, you’d be able to get unstoppable air forces.  I almost wonder if aircraft aren’t a little too cheap anyway, even under the original rules.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Destroyers as Transports- This is something that maybe the game could do without. It’s cool but, sometimes I find myself buying Destroyers instead of transports.

Exactly.  Having destroyers able to transport reduces the strategic importance of transports.  If either side had lost their entire transport fleet during Guadalcanal, they’d have been hosed.  In the game, destroyers can “pinch-hit”.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Submarine warfare- Definitely in need of a destroyer rule that detects subs. Maybe roll a die for each destroyer and a 1 or a 2 detects 1 sub.

I don’t think that it should be impossible to take out a submarine without a destroyer.  There are numerous instances where aircraft surprised a surfaced submarine and knocked it out, or a submarine was forced to surface and was nailed by warships.  I do think, however, that it should be much more difficult to take out a submarine without a destroyer.

@frimmel:

Disagree on the Victory Conditions. I like that the game is quick.

I have mixed feelings, actually.  It’s nice to able to invite a friend over after work and actually be able to finish a game in an evening.  As a long-time A&A player, I guess I’ve just gotten used to the games taking hours and hours, so I guess it just feels weird.  Of course, the nice thing about a victory point system is that it’s easy to slide the scale based on how long you want the game to go.

@frimmel:

Destroyers as transports from a historical sense I think you are correct but in game terms it works. Also I don’t think they wanted to complicate things by one sides Destroyers having an ability the other sides did not. Sometimes these games are sold to non-historians and allowances are necessary. I think we forget sometimes that for the uninitiated these games are seriously complicated and rules the hard core amongst us might like to see will add complexity and scare the rookies away from this style game altogether.

I don’t advocate giving different abilities to the two sides.  I think any change you make to the rules would have to made to both sides to keep the game balanced.  For instance, I wouldn’t have too much of a problem allowing U.S. destroyers to carry infantry, even though there is no historical precedent for that on the U.S. side (as far as I know).  I agree that the rules can be a little overwhelming for new players, and that’s actually one of the things I like about AAG.  The rules are simple but elegant, providing a pretty realistic simulation without being overwhelming.  As you’ll see when I post my proposed rules, I’m not advocating any major overhauls, just some tweaks.

@frimmel:

Submarines Frankly I wish they’d just leave them out of all the games.

We’ll have to agree to disagree there.  I love submarines.

@frimmel:

AA Fire I don’t know that they are too much. But that the Destroyers have an over historical AA and ACs don’t suggests that they wanted Destroyers to screen for Carriers and they came up with this stick/carrot combo to encourage it. Carriers without escort seems more unrealistic to me than no AA value.

That you need Fighter cover gives the game interest. That is always the big question when planning a move so far–where do I want the fighters to end up to keep it even or tip it to my favor.

I think why the entire theatre games can get static feeling is that there isn’t as much oppurtunity for an unexpected move to take you out of your plan or force the other guy out of his. I think G’canal has a bit more of that especially because of the way you go through fighters.

There is a tendency not to risk aircraft which is a hold over from the entire theatre games. All the Fighters at start of the GCNL are probably 1 FTR for each side in a Revised scale game. Be careful not to look at GCNL thru a Revised tinted lens.  :-)

I don’t think the game should be adjusted so much that fleets don’t have to rely on fighters at all, but I think it’s slanted a little too heavily the other way right now.  Even if you provided carriers with some AA ability, it would still be pretty foolish to leave them without escorts, as they would make nice targets for cruisers or submarines.  I agree that this game offers more opportunities to blind-side your opponent, especially when using the hidden movement rules.  That’s one of the reasons I like it so much.

I’m almost done with my proposed house rules.  I’ll see if I can get it up within the next day or two.