Tim, pinch hitting for Krieghund quite well!
Attacking Subs with Air Units
-
We use that rule from the european addition and impose its use for the world edition. It just makes more sense. We do that with other rules too.
-
I’m going to imply this houserule in all my games from now on :-)
thx critmonster!
-
Subs are unimportant supplements. I build one or two every once in a while in the mid-game with the US. It’s pittiful. But so is the rest of the fleet action in Axis and Allies. The real problem is not the sub rule: its Mr. Heavy, Long-range Bomber combined with a map with sea zones that allow him to dominate, obsoleting naval forces. As much as that, it is the elimination of the convoy, one of the highlights of Pacific and Europe for me. Though I am a land-lubber in the Axis and Allieis arena, I’m dissappointed with the loss of the tricky art of naval combat. Anyone else agree?
-
I agree. My naval actions in the Pacific boil down to one massive Navy battle – Japan’s giant stack versus US’s giant stack. Ironically, the Atlantic seems to have more naval action, especially if Germany builds an AC in the baltic.
A&A Pacific is a blast, not because the game is balanced. Far from it. It’s because of the naval game.
-
I would vote for more involved naval combat in this game as well but alas it just doesnt seem possible. How did they decide to do the SZs anyway. Its just random. you can get trannies from E Canada to Africa in one move. Tell me how that makes sense.
-
If you play a game with a lot of naval action, then it makes sense to build subs. Subs are a better ‘fodder build’ then trannies, since they attack/defend on 2/2 instead of the 0/1 of the tranny.
However, since very few games include any naval action what so ever - except for the sinking of the initial German fleet - no subs are built.
-
In my games Japan and US get into it alittle bit in the pacific, but its just not as much as I would like. The war in the Pacific was a naval war. If our navy had not been top notch we would not have been able to do the Island hopping that we did. But as I have said before this is a game about rewriting history, and well, this game just dosen’t have the compacity for alot of naval stuff. I was a bit suprized the first time I played it to find naval units, and that was one of the things that drew me to it. You had to be able to control the seas as well as the land to win. Well for Japan anyway.
-
all islands should be worth at least a buck, this might encourage more pacific fleet builds for usa to try and island hop. i have also thought about maybe a $5 transfer if you capture an island worth $0 (i know this is house rule). i too am dissapointed by the lack of naval action, especially after a game of pacific. next revised that i am usa i am implementing a two prong atlantic and pacific approach (i will have to discuss with my russian ally because it will be slow and he will have to really hang on with only the uk and half the usual usa assistance) wish me luck, i think we all agree that a workable KJF strat (or even a KBF/KUSAF) would be a good thing for the game
-
I think any offball strat is good for the game. I think we need to experiment more and deal with losing, but having fun doing so. I never had more fun playing than once when japan actually made landfall in north america and Russa build a BB off the coast of China. I lost that game but it was fun, and funny to see such craziness in a game. :-D
-
if you want to see a crazy fleet battle that happened in one of my games?
Suggested Topics
