@ShadowHAwk:
If you think of the battle as the first few hours then yes it would make sense.
But you should think in terms of months of combat, in that perspective naval bombardment would not count that heavy, sure you destroy some units but not completely and to counter that shore batteries also attack your landing forces while they cannot shoot back.
But after the first few days basicaly it is a normal combat in ever way except that there is no real retreat option for the attacker so no point in changing it.
It also affects the game and makes it more difficult for players to understand. There are still a lot of questions here about basic rules no point making the game more complex.
Naval bombardment never really has a big impact anyway. Buying more battleships or cruisers than you start with is not recommended, so at most there would be a few extra hits for the attacker. Shore batteries, wonderful, but then I want units for that…. add that to the capability of an AA gun perhaps? That could make three unpopular units a bit better and more interesting.
And of course, A&A is generally just a poor simulation of what actually happened in WWII or what would happen in any variant of that war. But the way I see it, even if a whole turn would simulate a time frame of a few months, that doesn’t imply that each actual round of combat mimics a proportional period of continuous fighting. It’s more like a pitched battle that may last a few days, plus a longer time of maneuvering and stable front lines.
@Maddog77:
Nope––just wounded & shooting from a prone position. :-D
Yes, I can see that… shooting back after being “wounded” by a shell from a 16" gun. :-)
@Maddog77:
I am always amazed at the folks who assume that casualties (“victims”…hee-hee) from a navel bombardment do not return fire. I’ve been in a heated debate before, even after reading the rule book to him AND it would benefit him as he was the defender that could return fire! That particular exchange ended with “OK FINE! But I just don’t think it should be a rule!” to which I replied “OK then, never mind…don’t fire back.” He fired back. :wink:
Don’t people read the rule book before playing? I guess I know that answer to that question as I’m not sure I know all the rules by heart.
Victims, yes! Poor little plastic guys being ruthlessly shoved around by armchair generals. Retirement for them means, being dumped into a big cardboard box until duty calls again……
LOL… I like that story about your opponent. All too human.
The way I see it, is that when an amphibious landing has not actually happened yet but is about to, battleships and cruisers start shelling the shore. They do quite some damage (if not, why spend all that ammo?), which in this game translates into killing a few enemy units. Not that many unless someone spent a ridiculous amount of IPC’s on buying more of those ships, in which case they should indeed finally reap some reward from an otherwise poor investment.
And that constitutes “round zero” of the entire operation.
Then, round one starts, and I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who says that realistically, there should now be a major handicap for the attacker. Maybe by not having artillery support, maybe by making it harder to kill defenders (say that their inf defends at 3), and I can think of a few other ideas (what about allowing artillery, tanks and mechs to land only on round 2 of the fight because they need more time to disembark?).
But my main problem with any such change is that it makes life more difficult for the Allies imho, in a game that already favors the Axis. Gama balance would have to be reassessed when implementing such a rule.