• Sponsor

    My opinion on bombardments is this…

    1. Sea combat is always resolved before troops are able to storm the shores… So any surviving cruisers and/or battleships should be able to switch their roles. A presedent would be the way Strategic bombers can engage in air combat with interceptors, and then immediately switch to their SBR roles.

    2. The problems our group is having are not related to strategic sea zone blocking of bombardments, it’s more about stray empty transports creating sea combat, or scrambling a single fighter in a battle that can only be described as suicide just to negate the many bombardments available. With the latter, wouldn’t battleships be able to engage air units with AAA fire while still preparing their guns for bombardment?

    3. I agree now with DK’s argument that bombardments every combat round is unrealistic, as per my reasoning above when talking about bombardments after sea combat and during landing; I would think that the bombardments can hit enemy placements while landed units are still on the beach. Therefore, a first round bombardment only… is sufficient if the casualty from such a bombardment hit is immediately removed from the board.

    On the topic of Cruiser + Carrier + Battleship = 3@1 Anti Aircraft Fire… is this 1st combat round only, or every combat round that the combination is in place?

  • '17 '16

    I never think about something else than the usual first round single preemptive roll.
    Exactly as AAA is working OOB.
    Did you want something more powerful?

  • '17 '16

    About #2.
    It seems a gamey tactics.
    When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
    Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
    Never been a problem.
    Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
    So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.


  • @Baron:

    About #2.
    It seems a gamey tactics.
    When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
    Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
    Never been a problem.
    Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
    So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.

    Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.

    Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.


  • Have you considered, that improved shore bombardment helps the allies a lot more than the axis?

  • Sponsor

    I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.


  • @Young:

    I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.

    I absolutely agree - cruisers need to be better - just throwing up a gauntlet so only your best ideas will get through. No harm meant to any.

  • Sponsor

    @Der:

    @Young:

    I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.

    I absolutely agree - cruisers need to be better - just throwing up a gauntlet so only your best ideas will get through. No harm meant to any.

    No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.

    Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.

    I agree with you on that point:
    and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea.
    I don’t think YG was implementing this particular point.
    Shore bombardment cannot be a preemptive strike, unless you have some way to do the same with reasonable occasions in the game against amphibious invaders.

    Toblerone77 suggested that Shorebombard is play OOB (cannot do it if Sea Combat happen) but
    Cruiser also gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
    Battleship also gives a +1A (as improved Artillery) to 2 Inf/MechInf.
    For the duration of the land combat.

    I believe this can work, since there is no additional hits outside the attacking ground units.

    So imagine 1 Cruiser with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 12+7+6= 25 IPCs
    Shorebombard @3, once
    1 Inf A1+1=2
    1 Inf A1

    1 Battleship with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 20+7+6= 33 IPCs
    Shorebombard @4, once
    1 Inf A1+1=2
    1 Inf A1+1=2

    So, making an Amphibious assault with a Battleship is like having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs):
    1 Inf A1+1=2
    1 Art A2

    So, for every transport with a BB, you get a small reduction of 1 IPC for the same attack value.

    With Cruiser, it is not exactly as having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs) because there is only one Infantry which get the Attack @2.
    @toblerone77:

    I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of
    Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults.
    1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.

    Or
    Cruiser and Battleship gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
    And
    Battleship is also able to move 1 Marines-Infantry unit on board.
    1 Battleship with 1 Infantry on it. Cost 20+3= 23 IPCs
    Shorebombard @4, once
    1 Inf A1+1=2

    And it solves the Marines unit at 3 IPCs case because it can Attack 2 Defend 2 in any Amphibious Assault supported by Battleship unit.

    It fits the description of Marines, since they need less equipment, have smaller divisions and can be deployed in a short notice.
    Hence, no need of Transport, just the Battleship unit (with a few support ships, as it is always the case, not represented but easily imagined.)


  • @Young:

    No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.

    Well erm, the costs of specific units changed like about 10 times in the past editions. Therefore I can’t see a problem with changing some of them once more.
    Changing the gameplay rules of units is more of a problem, as it changes the setup. You get completely new possibilities to open the game (however, even if it sounds interesting, the more conservative players would never accept it). If you change for example the battleship rules from for “bad” to “good”, those battleships will totally turn around the first turns of the game. Maybe you will even change the overall balance of the game.
    The charming thing with only changing unit’s costs, is that it will in no way ever change anything with the starting setup of the game.

    Well, I’m not totally against changing the rules, but i like it as simple as possible, and I simply can’t understand your opinion on changing costs. Imho costs is the first thing one should consider to change, and only if this can’t give the specific unit its own niche, one should consider changing the rules.

  • '17 '16

    As far as I understand the defender of a firm “12 IPCs”, is also about first round set-up and placements at the end of the opening turn.
    Some Powers will be able to put a 10 IPCs Cruiser in the water instead of a Destroyer and this can change some forthcoming battle in the next turn.
    Just an example.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Just real quick, to CWO’s question about whether every unit necessarily needs to be a good or desireable purchase? I don’t think so. As long as there are at least some specialized cases where players have a reason to buy it. Having somekind of unique special ability would be helpful. I guess you could make the case that it’s bombardment is special, but in my experience this hasn’t been enough to get them on the board. That’s why the triple combo Anti Air idea seems like it might work, in conjunction with a carrier and battleship. I could see the anti air umbrella as a dedecent incentive. Right now though their cost at 12 seems prohibitive compared with 2 subs on attack or 1.5 destroyers on defense for the pips.

    I don’t have a problem with lowering the cost, since unit costs have changed pretty frequently over the past few boards. Still I think a unique ability would be more fun for the gameplay, to cement it in the roster as something other than a nerfed Revised Destroyer with no ASW
    :-D

  • Sponsor

    I’ve been playing global 1940 exclusively with the same 5 people for the last 5 years, and the cost of units have never changed even throughout the Alpha play tests. So for me, it would be difficult changing something so habitual, that… and it’s printed right on the map that cruisers are 12 IPCs are my humble reasons for not wanting to lower it. Anyway, to tell you the truth, the fact that no one is buying cruisers is not that big of a problem in our games, there are plenty in the setup, and more pressing issues to solve.

  • Sponsor

    @arwaker:

    @Young:

    No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.

    Well erm, the costs of specific units changed like about 10 times in the past editions. Therefore I can’t see a problem with changing some of them once more.
    Changing the gameplay rules of units is more of a problem, as it changes the setup. You get completely new possibilities to open the game (however, even if it sounds interesting, the more conservative players would never accept it). If you change for example the battleship rules from for “bad” to “good”, those battleships will totally turn around the first turns of the game. Maybe you will even change the overall balance of the game.
    The charming thing with only changing unit’s costs, is that it will in no way ever change anything with the starting setup of the game.

    Well, I’m not totally against changing the rules, but i like it as simple as possible, and I simply can’t understand your opinion on changing costs. Imho costs is the first thing one should consider to change, and only if this can’t give the specific unit its own niche, one should consider changing the rules.

    In the house rules forum… we like to change the gameplay rules of units.


  • Changing the costs of units are house rules afaik.
    The easiest “house rule” to get them on board would be: Cruiser 10 IPC, Battleship 18 IPC.

  • '17 '16

    @arwaker:

    Changing the costs of units are house rules afaik.
    The easiest “house rule” to get them on board would be: Cruiser 10 IPC, Battleship 18 IPC.

    I agree but still flashed on the Black Elk Marines &BB.
    It can be cool to increase action in PTO.
    And it doesn’t exclude the above costs.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @Baron:

    I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
    After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
    IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
    Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones.
    Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

    @Black_Elk:

    Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

    Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
    Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
    I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

    It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

    Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

    So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

    All this!  :-D

    I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

    Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.

    I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Way Cool Baron!

    Don’t know if it’s your’s alone but the idea of getting rid of limitless AA shots for infrastructure is a good one! Let them have a normal 3 shot limit and if you want more buy a AA gun.
    Sorry to sidetrack on the cruiser thing but I really like this idea. :)

  • '17 '16

    @barney:

    Way Cool Baron!

    Don’t know if it’s your’s alone but the idea of getting rid of limitless AA shots for infrastructure is a good one! Let them have a normal 3 shot limit and if you want more buy a AA gun.
    Sorry to sidetrack on the cruiser thing but I really like this idea. :)

    You overread my ambiguous sentence.
    I was only thinking about a naval context.
    So it is entirely your idea to limit IC’s AAA to up to three shots.
    That can give a little incentive to buy more AAA units.

  • Sponsor

    @Baron:

    @barney:

    Way Cool Baron!

    Don’t know if it’s your’s alone but the idea of getting rid of limitless AA shots for infrastructure is a good one! Let them have a normal 3 shot limit and if you want more buy a AA gun.
    Sorry to sidetrack on the cruiser thing but I really like this idea. :)

    You overread my ambiguous sentence.
    I was only thinking about a naval context.
    So it is entirely your idea to limit IC’s AAA to up to three shots.
    That can give a little incentive to buy more AAA units.

    IC guns are built in, so buying more will require physical units.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 129
  • 39
  • 1
  • 8
  • 5
  • 9
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts