Would a "Flanking" bonus be appropriate? Does it fit the global scale of A&A?



  • Do you think that on the global scale of Axis & Allies, it would make any difference if you’re invading a territory from MULTIPLE adjacent zones as opposed to just one?

    I would imagine that surrounding and then converging upon an enemy territory would be more effective than a frontal assault in a lot of cases, but perhaps that’s “below” the scope of the game. What are your thoughts on the subject? Would a “Flanking” (or whatever you might call it) bonus be too much?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    It would not make sense due to the scale of the map. Perhaps if an area was totally surrounded, there might be room to add some combat modifier.



  • Being totally surrounded is so rare though that I’d assume thats why Larry never added a rule like that.

    Though, it would be cool if you added BOTH a victory city defense rule (units at a VC defend with a slight bonus) and a surrounded rule (surrounded units defend with a penalty)

    Would be cool to see Leningrad hold a bit longer because of this rule, but be in peril if it were totally surrounded.



  • How about if completely surrounded ICs can’t mobilize units (e.g. Leningrad surrounded by Germans in Vyborg, Karelia, Baltic states, Belarus, Archangel, plus axis warships in z127 and z115).  Historically accurate seige.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Thats better, but it is so uncommon that is makes little value except for the Soviets.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Please see

    Gargantua’s Encirclement Rules

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24906.0

    For some light on a practical concept.



  • Gee what a good idea!


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @AlphaKappa:

    I would imagine that surrounding and then converging upon an enemy territory would be more effective than a frontal assault in a lot of cases, but perhaps that’s “below” the scope of the game. What are your thoughts on the subject? Would a “Flanking” (or whatever you might call it) bonus be too much?

    On the strategic scale, I think the concept would only be valid if you had a deep salient in the front line (one or more territories in size) and if it was clear that the armies in the salient were being supplied and supported by the territories behind them.  In such a case, cutting off the salient would plausibly have an effect on the troops in the salient.  But it’s only on the Russian front that there’s enough room for such a situation to develop, and I agree with the above comments that it’s an unlikely situation.  It wouldn’t apply in the Pacific, since the concept of front lines doesn’t apply in naval warfare as much as it does in land warfare.  (For example, the Japanese used submarines to reinforce some island garrisons which became too hazardous to resupply with surface ships as American air coverage gradually extended its reach.)


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Another way to consider this is the BOTB/D-DAY style models, were units can occupy the same territory.  With one round of ensuing combat.

    If units become totally encircled… they can’t move and operate poorly.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 1
  • 10
  • 10
  • 21
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts