Making battleships more "worth it"



  • I remember reading an opinion that battleships are not worth the high price … even if they take two hits. So I was thinking, for the non-revised A&A edition (which doesn’t have DDs), what if they were given some of the destroyer’s abilities? …

    ie:

    a sub would lose its first strike ability if attacking a BB

    subs wouldn’t be able to “blitz underneath” a navy if a BB was present. (Yes I know the rules in the 2nd ed don’t allow subs to blitz underneath anyway, but I was thinking of making that a house rule as well.)

    or, maybe the presence of a BB would disallow subs from submerging or withdrawing?

    I’m unsure about the rule that requires a friendly DD (or BB in this case) for an aerial attack on a sub. But, I also don’t know about the basis in reality, or which is better for playability (DD required vs not necessary) …

    Let me know what you think - help me flesh out this house rule.



  • I like them like they are…maybe 20 ipcs would be a better price though…



  • On one House Rule I read on this site a guy had the idea that if you did navel bombardment whenever you wanted no mater if you were carrying out an amphibius assault or not, it would make the battle ships worth there salt.



  • @Desert-fox:

    On one House Rule I read on this site a guy had the idea that if you did navel bombardment whenever you wanted no mater if you were carrying out an amphibius assault or not, it would make the battle ships worth there salt.

    we did that in one game. it was fun until my friend’s wife (who was playing with us) asked “what do you think - that these soldiers are going to rush out to say “hi” to the pretty boats?”.
    it was funny at the time.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    BB’s are worth it as two hit ships. However, the real benefit to BBs is their intimidation factor. No one’s afraid of DDs or Subs, but you put 2 BBs with your AC and 2 fighters and no one’s going to WANT to attack it.



  • cystic crypt wrote

    we did that in one game. it was fun until my friend’s wife (who was playing with us) asked “what do you think - that these soldiers are going to rush out to say “hi” to the pretty boats?”.
    it was funny at the time.

    Does that mean that you think the men should be able to fire back at the battleships? Or was you just telling a funny story?

    Just curious.



  • He was probably saying that battleships attacking land without there being a land attack via transports is silly. I have to agree.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I think return fire from units destroyed by off-shore bombardment is equally silly.

    You don’t land troops DURING an off shore bombardment, you land them afterwards. The purpose of an offshore bombardment isn’t even to kill troops, it’s to soften the target and destroy machinery.



  • Hey, I just wasn’t sure what he ment thats all. 🙂


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 3
  • 42
  • 8
  • 19
  • 11
  • 24
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

87
Online

14.5k
Users

35.1k
Topics

1.4m
Posts