• This was already discussed in another thread:

    In nearly all my A&A games against experienced A&A gamers, a direct amphibious assault of the territory containing Berlin is what happens sooner or later, bypassing France and/or North-Western Europe altogether.This is something which continuously annoys me. Even though in Europe '40 and Global '40 this is somewhat addressed by means of requiring possession of Denmark, I still feel such a course of action on the part of the Allies would have been highly unlikely. After all, in such an event:

    • Allied supply lines would be enormously overstretched
    • Allied fighter support would be a lot more difficult to sustain than was the case in the actual invasion of Normandy
    • Any Allied forces directly invading Berlin would in reality be squeezed between German forces to the West, East and South (in A&A those areas are then often as good as empty)
    • German supply lines would be incredibly short
    • Unlike in France where the resistance severely hampered German reinforcements, this would not be the case if Germany were invaded directly
    • Mines etc. would undoubtedly put the Allied invasion fleet at great risk
    • German subs would also be perilous to any such an invasion fleet

    Possible solutions:

    • Make certain coasts off-limits for amphibious invasion (Europe Engulfed does this, as well as, for instance, Victory in Europe)
    • Introduce supply rules of some sort
    • Make possession of Denmark (and Norway) a prerequisite for being allowed to enter/leave the Baltic in A&A 42 as well (as in Europe and Global '40)

    Then again, of course “Berlin” did maintain a large garrison throughout the war for reasons of domestic security as well as the fear of airborne invasion, I believe. If the force concentrated there in A&A is large enough (and the one in France smaller) perhaps this will encourage the Allies for the historical alternative instead…


  • Hmm. So apparently after 70+ views, no one else seems to have a problem with it.

    In the game World War II in Europe (also to be found here in the “variants” category) they “solved” it by not being able to pass through the Kattegat (Danish Straits) unless you control Western Germany (Hamburg/Kiel’Lübeck). Guess that’s the best solution yet. Think that that’s what would have been required historically too to get “safe” passage. Anyone have more information to share on that? Would appreciate it!

    In A@A that would also work, i mean if you take (Western) Germany, well yeah, then you dersve to pass freely  8-)

  • '17 '16

    The issue is when Allies have a large fleet of protected transports near UK, Germany have to scatter Infantry units on every territory’s in the Dead-Zone.
    When it reaches a critical point, instead of going to a secondary target, all the fleet goes for the kill on Germany, taking inexperienced player off-guard.
    Germany can never put too much units outside Berlin in this situation. Making it easier to Allies to get ground in Europe.

    @Black_Elk:

    I don’t see a major problem with the potential for Germany to stack defend with mass inf, so long as they are forced to split this inf over several target territories at the same time. This actually mirrors the historical reality. The problem with stack defense in the current game arises because Allies don’t have a way to effectively attack such stacks. Instead they are forced into a stack defense game of their own. Pushing with joint forces either from the West or the East (though east is often more effective since it allows all 3 allies to co-locate instead of just UK/USA.) I think this happens because the only coastal territory that truly matters is Berlin. The dynamic is such that, as Allies, you need to drop a large enough stack to both take a territory neighboring Berlin and then hold it against an overwhelming counter attack out of G… or baiting a counter attack strafe at odds, while retaining the option to assault Berlin on amphibious afterwards (if G takes too many hits.) This is basically how you establish a landing in the current game, and its much the same as its always been.

    The problem is that G doesn’t have enough incentive to hold coastal territory outside Berlin, and every incentive to lightly trade it, fold into the Berlin ball and maintain income parity through constant trading light while stacking the core. UK and USA basically do the same, to maintain income parity, trading over and over until one side or the other breaks apart, or makes a critical error, at which point the game ends. Even in Global, with all the different things that were tried, Eastern Germany still plays much the same.

    Put the question like this, say you did locate Berlin outside the threat of direct amphibious… In a game at the scale of 1942, which changes do you think would need to occur to accommodate it?

    Black_Elk suggested to revised the Map by making Berlin with no SZ around.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33755.msg1293376#msg1293376
    Maybe the Designers never do that because of the duration of play. Axis naturally inflate, then deflate until Allies get enough victories and units to change the balance of things.
    Allies victory usually happens much later. Maybe it was make to shorten the Allies Victory at this point.

    A Houserule which make harder for direct amphibious assault on Capital can also be use.
    It will make Sea Lion and Japan invasion more difficult also.
    Gives all Artillery units and any paired Infantry unit a preemptive strike against amphibious assault on Capital for the duration of the whole combat.
    In any other amphibious assault (against non-capital territory), this preemptive strike for all Artillery and each paired Infantry apply for a single combat round only.

    When Berlin is crippled, it relies mostly on Infantry and Artillery anyway.
    This can provides an incentive to not make a direct amphibious assault on a Capital.

    @Koningstiger:

    Possible solutions:

    • Make possession of Denmark (and Norway) a prerequisite for being allowed to enter/leave the Baltic in A&A 42 as well (as in Europe and Global '40)

    This one certainly worth a try, but it isn’t easy to test such rule in a real game.
    You meant Northwestern Europe? and Norway? Exactly like this one?
    @Heinz:

    I think a very simple solution is as follows: In order for surface ships to access the Baltic Sea, one must have control of both Norway & Denmark/Northwestern Europe from the start of ones turn. Similar to 1940 Global.

    So, what do you think of this rule instead?
    Germany cannot be invaded by amphibious assault until Northwestern Europe is captured a whole game round by Western Allies (UK or USA).
    It is still allowed to put an Allies fleet into Baltic Sea to drop units in any other territory (Baltic States, Karelia S.S.R., Finland, Norway and Northwestern Europe) except Germany.
    Can this be right to your taste?
    This imply that you cannot invade Berlin in a one-two punch with 1-UK taking Northwestern Europe and 2-USA attacking directly Germany by amphibious assault.
    USA would have to either reinforcing NWE-Denmark or invading elsewhere (like landing in France, a Victory City, after all). But as long as Germany retake NWE-Denmark, it is safe from amphibious assault.

    This way, even if NWE worths only 2 IPCs, it becomes a key territory to succesfully invade Germany.
    The German player will fight for it and trade it as long as he could. But surrendering it to Allies will probably means a very large offensive on Germany.
    Even if Allies makes a direct debarkment via Baltic Sea, this can be seen at this strategic-level game as if the line of communications have been secured along the Western-Europe Northern shore (a succesful Market Garden Operation).

    Maybe, if it becomes a long time battle between Allies and the conquest of Germany going turtle, it will becomes more interesting to finish the game by capturing other VCs while keeping Germany at bay.
    A 10 VCs for the Allies will makes more sense then.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Koningstiger:

    Hmm. So apparently after 70+ views, no one else seems to have a problem with it.

    I recall that the subject was discussed at length in that other thread you mentioned, but I don’t remember what the outcome of the discussion was.  My opinion at the time was that such a scenario was completely implausible from a historical point of view, but that the game map and the game’s overall area-based movement system created a situation in which it did look plausible.


  • @CWO:

    @Koningstiger:

    Hmm. So apparently after 70+ views, no one else seems to have a problem with it.

    I recall that the subject was discussed at length in that other thread you mentioned, but I don’t remember what the outcome of the discussion was.  My opinion at the time was that such a scenario was completely implausible from a historical point of view, but that the game map and the game’s overall area-based movement system created a situation in which it did look plausible.

    Yeah. As i said, some other games require possession of the North German ports in order to be allowed to pass freely into and out of the Baltic; which seems more historically accurate. Guess I may try this as a houserule for AA Europe and Global '40. It of course does take away from the Allies’options…

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 18
  • 5
  • 3
  • 7
  • 11
  • 7
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts