:+1:
Naval retreat, unload troops?
-
Actually you know what? They all became part of UK’s largest Fish and Chip Franchise and situated on every street corner of London with the newspaper wrapped Fish for 1 pound, 6 pence. 338,000 were never used in the British Army again and were totally unemployable. The Miracle of Dunkirk was about saving the Cod and Chips for future generations. Thanks for the History lesson!
-
Interesting. All make good points.
AA Andrew has it right based on rule, but if you can amph. land troops from a transport after naval battle then why is it if you retreat your transport to another sea zone why can’t you land ground units there. Its like you pay a penalty if you lose naval battle.IL has a point to but is it based on time frame for his rule ? House rule. You amph. 1 tank and 3 Inf.
You are going to lose the ground battle and you want to retreat back to transports.
If you want to retreat with 1 tank and 1 Inf. Do you lose tank based on it can’t drive back on transport ? I think your saying the guys that drive the tanks are what you are converting to inf. For each tank retreating = 1 Inf (drivers/crews). -
Imperious much? Know you better than that.
Rather than changing into anything, they should just risk being destroyed as military units. The units at Dieppe landed, and were annihilated. They were destroyed as military units, even if some individuals survived. The units at Dunkirk weren’t part of an amphibious invasion at all, they were “noncommed” out before/during battle, so in that way AxA is less real than real life too (they left the heavy equipment behind). An even bigger extension of your concept then would be having units be able to use nearby transports to retreat from land battles. Realistic and gamey, probably so, but the defender can’t retreat in AxA.
We can probably, as a group, find another serious of overstretched nerdy analogies for what happens but if you’re proposing a rule or outcome it has to be consistent and make sense, or its not a good rule
-
Well to benefit the defender, the defending artillery should be able to get a preemptive fire in the opening round only, right after SB’s and only infantry can participate as attackers for the first round.
1> SB, remove defenders
2>Defending Artillery fire, remove attackers
3> Attacking Infantry and Air can attack only-Defending units fire-Both sides remove loses
4>Combat continues as normal
5>Also some areas should be off limits to invasion due to tides and inhospitable terrain, etc.Again this is a level of realism, but may be unrealistic for some admittedly.
-
Well I appreciate the attempt to make it into a more complex and nuanced game mechanic, but I’ll just fall back on my old argument that AxA is goldilocks as it is and that adding more complexity and nuance to a game with this scale takes it to the “unplayable long and riddled with exceptions and details” level.
Some of the sub- games (Guadalcanal, D-Day, WW1) do have mechanics sort of like what you propose. TONS of other games with overwatch and highly detailed combat rounds definitely do. But injecting those into the core AxA games risks upsetting the balance of “not-too-complex or conditional” and “just complex enough to be fully grasped by most players”
-
Well the ideas i speak of are not new. AARHE was created back in 2004-5 and had almost verbatim these ideas and the document was created by about 50 people on this site. It eventually won something runner up to “internet wargame of the year” Don’t really care about that, but it was play-tested to death based on 2004 Revised and it works. Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition is the full name. Its on this site somewhere. I don’t believe for a second that AA is some totally abstract game. G40 has alot of realism built into it. Its alot more complicated than “Guadalcanal”
-
-
-
Its a good balance of realism and gameplay. Larry Harris addresses this in his new interview with Gary Blevins/Board Game Nation.
That’s what i’d try to avoid messing up. I really like Conflict of Heroes but there are dynamics in it like VC, command cards, facing, terrain that are too much for this game. I think GW/WaW look interesting but they also seem like a giant collectible, a mess of complex rules, and way to much detail for a game that people are actually intended to play.
I’m in an avalon hill (old school) group and they’re all like “why doesn’t anyone play with me” and its because the games are too complex, ugly, boring, imbalanced, and riddled with eratta and problems–only 30,000 people in the entire country acutally want to sit down and play them rather than get nostalgic about how great (awful) most of them are.
Suggested Topics
