• Do any of you use a “House Rule” that states something along these lines….

    “Offshore Bombardment casualties do NOT get to return fire in conduct combat phase.”

    In “real life” Naval Batteries would fire from MILES off the coast.  How the hell is an Infantry or tank going to reach.  It should be a “Surprise Strike” in my opinion.  This would also make worth while to have more naval action in the Atlantic and Pacific.

    Granted this is all in case of no Naval Combat first.

    Let me know what you think…


  • I think tank divisions and the bulk of the army would be farther in land and out of reach of naval guns. Same for air force bases.

    Once the ennemy is on the beach, the defending army would move in to destroy them. Unless naval guns are ready to fire on their own troops as well once the battle starts, their efficiency is very debatable.

    In short, this ability is way more effective in game than it was in the real war. Allies success in D-day was mostly because of disinformation, surprise, landing in the weakest area and above all, total air supremacy. Had Romel divisions been in the right place and had  the Luftwafe somewhat been still active, it would have been over quick for the allies.

    All this to say it is perfectly ok that defenders gets to fire back. If it was for me, inland air forces should be able to engage the ennemy fleet and transports before they land. AA guns should be usable to represent coastal batteries. etc…

  • Official Q&A

    The entire philosophy of offshore bombardment was revisited and reworked in AA50.  The philosophy of shore bombardment in Revised was that ships literally fired at targets on the shore before the amphibious troops hit the beach, thus casualties didn’t fire back.  This is really a little too tactical for a game on a global strategic level.  It simply doesn’t work on a global scale, where all of France is one game space.  It implies that naval gunfire can wipe out entire divisions, even troops in Paris, before the troops wade ashore in Normandy.  The new philosophy is that the casualties of offshore bombardment are only a part of the casualties inflicted by a campaign that begins with an amphibious assault.  This is what led to the current rules.

    From a practical viewpoint, the addition of cruisers makes “opening fire” offshore bombardment way too effective, especially against sparsely-defended islands in the Pacific.

  • @Corbeau:

    AA guns should be usable to represent coastal batteries. etc…

    I like this idea.

    What do you think of a House Rule of something like this……

    Offshore Bombardment (Cruisers on 2 and Battleships on 3) and piece is removed.  AA gun maybe used as “Shore Battery” or “Anti Aircraft” in this Combat round.  It cannot be used as both.  If used as a Shore Battery, it hits on a 1 and a Naval Vessel of defenders choice is removed.  This could be a transport fully loaded.

    Just a thought…


  • Or perhaps if shore fortifications were introduced, “sudden strike” bombardment could be reintroduced to keep the balance from shifting too far to defense for amphibious assaults…

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 29
  • 2
  • 9
  • 2
  • 24
  • 6
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys