• I think new rules say that any land units hit in a naval bombardment ARE allowed to fire back during the land combat phase.  Out of curiosity, what would be the purpose for this rule change?  The inclusion of cruisers?  Our group played this wrong last week and now want to make a house rule.  Of course I drew Germany for next weeks game, so I’m not too keen on ignoring the new rule.

    Im sure it was implemented for a reason?  I guess that could make a huge difference on the amount of land units needed to transport, to ensure the capture of a territory/island?

    Thoughts?  What is everyone else doing?

  • Official Q&A

    Cruisers were a big factor in the change.  We found in playtesting that nearly all of the island battles in the Pacific were being decided by naval gunfire.  The defenders never even had a chance.  At least this way they have a chance to go down fighting.


  • I think it is to prevent the abuse of offshore bombardment. In AAR, you need research to enable destroyer’s offshore bombardment. Whereas in AA50, cruiser has this ability in default. Some limitation has to be attached to prevent unbalance. Having said that, initially I thought hitted land units would be removed after bombardment. Only when I went back to check rulebook, did I realise that bombardment is merely a supporting fire to shorten the amphibious attack. Adequate land force is still needed, at least for the first round of land combat.


  • Yup, makes sense to me.

    Thanks!

    ……now that I have it in writing form the “Answer Guy,”  Ill get no complaints from my gaming group!  :-D


  • also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
    a question i’m still wondering about
    perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts


  • I’m confused by what you mean.

    But even if the attacker is on the shore or the defender is on the shore is not important in terms of how a battleship does a bombardment. The guns on a battleship are huge and they blow the crap out of the area. They can also shoot at long ranges.

    In guadalcanal you don’t even need to have an amphibous assault to fire on land units. Ignoring game balance this makes sense because those ships can park offshore and just rain down destruction on anything within range.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Krieghund:

    Cruisers were a big factor in the change.  We found in playtesting that nearly all of the island battles in the Pacific were being decided by naval gunfire.  The defenders never even had a chance.  At least this way they have a chance to go down fighting.

    I can see the rationale, I just don’t like going back to the way we did it in classic.  Especially since, unlike in classic, you have to have a unit conducting an amphibious assault to even fire a shore bombardment.  That means you cannot pile up 40 cruisers and land one infantry to wipe out stacks of defenders.  Now you’d have to land 40 ground units for all 40 of those cruisers to fire.

    I think the change to 1 amphibiously attacking unit per shore bombardment would have been enough.  Now things are unbalanced in the opposite direction.

    Just my opinion though.


  • @Frontovik:

    also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
    a question i’m still wondering about
    perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

    They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

    LT


  • @LT04:

    @Frontovik:

    also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
    a question i’m still wondering about
    perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

    They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

    LT

    African

    A king has to know these things

    Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w&feature=related


  • @Cmdr:

    @Krieghund:

    Cruisers were a big factor in the change.  We found in playtesting that nearly all of the island battles in the Pacific were being decided by naval gunfire.  The defenders never even had a chance.  At least this way they have a chance to go down fighting.

    I can see the rationale, I just don’t like going back to the way we did it in classic.  Especially since, unlike in classic, you have to have a unit conducting an amphibious assault to even fire a shore bombardment.  That means you cannot pile up 40 cruisers and land one infantry to wipe out stacks of defenders.  Now you’d have to land 40 ground units for all 40 of those cruisers to fire.

    I think the change to 1 amphibiously attacking unit per shore bombardment would have been enough.  Now things are unbalanced in the opposite direction.

    Just my opinion though.

    I have to disagree… anyone using an amphibious assault the way they are intended will be fine… making an amphibious assault with more naval units than land units makes no sense.  The issue comes up… why even defend pacific islands, when they will be blown apart by cannons, then enemies just walk right in.  Right now, amphibious assault support is support, not a battle breaker… the way it should be IMO.


  • @LT04:

    @Frontovik:

    also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
    a question i’m still wondering about
    perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

    They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

    LT

    I Don’t know that    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

44

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts