Artillery



  • Does anyone use a house rule where artillery does not lend combined-arms support to an amphibious attack? Just seems irrational to me that this could be allowed.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    I have read something like that before, but the support was available after the first round of combat.
    I think I saw it in HBG’s Global War rulebook…

    Its a nice touch to add to a game though.



  • I would agree with such a house rule.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    It makes sense from a simulation point of view, if indeed limited to the first round. But I think the rule favors the Axis, overall. Looking at some frequent amphibious operations:

    1. Sea Lion (German naval attack on the UK). This would become next to impossible, but it’s not such a great idea anyway, so the Axis won’t lose all that much.
    2. India crush (Japan attacking India). This would be more difficult, but India still won’t have enough to stop Japan, which can also attack by land.
    3. D-day (US/UK attack on western Europe). This would become very difficult to do, because large numbers of troops on either side are typically involved. Taking that much punch out of the Allied first round makes life much easier for Germany.

    On a related note: I think that the victims of a naval bombardment shouldn’t be able to shoot back at the troops landing - they are already dead.



  • @Herr:

    It makes sense from a simulation point of view, if indeed limited to the first round. But I think the rule favors the Axis, overall. Looking at some frequent amphibious operations:

    1. Sea Lion (German naval attack on the UK). This would become next to impossible, but it’s not such a great idea anyway, so the Axis won’t lose all that much.
    2. India crush (Japan attacking India). This would be more difficult, but India still won’t have enough to stop Japan, which can also attack by land.
    3. D-day (US/UK attack on western Europe). This would become very difficult to do, because large numbers of troops on either side are typically involved. Taking that much punch out of the Allied first round makes life much easier for Germany.

    On a related note: I think that the victims of a naval bombardment shouldn’t be able to shoot back at the troops landing - they are already dead.

    If you think of the battle as the first few hours then yes it would make sense.
    But you should think in terms of months of combat, in that perspective naval bombardment would not count that heavy, sure you destroy some units but not completely and to counter that shore batteries also attack your landing forces while they cannot shoot back.

    But after the first few days basicaly it is a normal combat in ever way except that there is no real retreat option for the attacker so no point in changing it.
    It also affects the game and makes it more difficult for players to understand. There are still a lot of questions here about basic rules no point making the game more complex.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    This makes sense on many levels, and also further justifies a marine unit that specializes in amphibious assault. Of course that’s another can of worms. I still think punishing the attacker for the first round makes sense.


  • 2017 '16 Customizer

    @Herr:

    On a related note: I think that the victims of a naval bombardment shouldn’t be able to shoot back at the troops landing - they are already dead.

    Nope––just wounded & shooting from a prone position.  😄

    I am always amazed at the folks who assume that casualties (“victims”…hee-hee) from a navel bombardment do not return fire. I’ve been in a heated debate before, even after reading the rule book to him AND it would benefit him as he was the defender that could return fire! That particular exchange ended with “OK FINE! But I just don’t think it should be a rule!” to which I replied “OK then, never mind…don’t fire back.” He fired back.  😉

    Don’t people read the rule book before playing? I guess I know that answer to that question as I’m not sure I know all the rules by heart.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    The whole concept that the attacker is advantaged for doing an amphibious assault vs cross land assault does not fit with a reality simulation. Amphibious assaults should be more difficult, but that would change the game significantly, and probably not in a good way for playability.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    @ShadowHAwk:

    If you think of the battle as the first few hours then yes it would make sense.
    But you should think in terms of months of combat, in that perspective naval bombardment would not count that heavy, sure you destroy some units but not completely and to counter that shore batteries also attack your landing forces while they cannot shoot back.

    But after the first few days basicaly it is a normal combat in ever way except that there is no real retreat option for the attacker so no point in changing it.
    It also affects the game and makes it more difficult for players to understand. There are still a lot of questions here about basic rules no point making the game more complex.

    Naval bombardment never really has a big impact anyway. Buying more battleships or cruisers than you start with is not recommended, so at most there would be a few extra hits for the attacker. Shore batteries, wonderful, but then I want units for that…. add that to the capability of an AA gun perhaps? That could make three unpopular units a bit better and more interesting.

    And of course, A&A is generally just a poor simulation of what actually happened in WWII or what would happen in any variant of that war. But the way I see it, even if a whole turn would simulate a time frame of a few months, that doesn’t imply that each actual round of combat mimics a proportional period of continuous fighting. It’s more like a pitched battle that may last a few days, plus a longer time of maneuvering and stable front lines.

    @Maddog77:

    Nope––just wounded & shooting from a prone position.  😄

    Yes, I can see that… shooting back after being “wounded” by a shell from a 16" gun.  🙂

    @Maddog77:

    I am always amazed at the folks who assume that casualties (“victims”…hee-hee) from a navel bombardment do not return fire. I’ve been in a heated debate before, even after reading the rule book to him AND it would benefit him as he was the defender that could return fire! That particular exchange ended with “OK FINE! But I just don’t think it should be a rule!” to which I replied “OK then, never mind…don’t fire back.” He fired back.  😉

    Don’t people read the rule book before playing? I guess I know that answer to that question as I’m not sure I know all the rules by heart.

    Victims, yes! Poor little plastic guys being ruthlessly shoved around by armchair generals. Retirement for them means, being dumped into a big cardboard box until duty calls again……

    LOL… I like that story about your opponent. All too human.

    The way I see it, is that when an amphibious landing has not actually happened yet but is about to, battleships and cruisers start shelling the shore. They do quite some damage (if not, why spend all that ammo?), which in this game translates into killing a few enemy units. Not that many unless someone spent a ridiculous amount of IPC’s on buying more of those ships, in which case they should indeed finally reap some reward from an otherwise poor investment.
    And that constitutes “round zero” of the entire operation.

    Then, round one starts, and I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who says that realistically, there should now be a major handicap for the attacker. Maybe by not having artillery support, maybe by making it harder to kill defenders (say that their inf defends at 3), and I can think of a few other ideas (what about allowing artillery, tanks and mechs to land only on round 2 of the fight because they need more time to disembark?).

    But my main problem with any such change is that it makes life more difficult for the Allies imho, in a game that already favors the Axis. Gama balance would have to be reassessed when implementing such a rule.



  • As others just said, A&A is a strategy game, and it don’t make sense to add tactical rules.

    The Normandy campaign was a strategic operation with a million men going on for 3 months, and this is easy to model with A&A Global.

    The D-day landings was the first wave of a few divisions hitting a very narrow sector of the beach, and this happened on the first day. To make a fair model of this in A&A Global would be to have a huge stack of units in UK and a huge stack of units in Normandy, and let one lonely US infantry attack one lonely German infantry. And for every round of combat you add 2 or 3 more units from the stacks. Come to think about it, I remember the game Attack from Eagle games just to have this kind of combat mechanic, took an eternity to resolve.

    As for the Battleships shore bombardment, or Bombers preemptive carpet bombing of the beaches, this is just spice for the game, in the real war they did from no to little harm. All blockhouses and bunkers on all the beaches survived the bombing. The Bombers did destroy some bridges and railroads, making it harder for the Germans to reinforce and supply the battlefields. But they did no way kill a stack of units, like they do in this game.

    I believe that in the old game A&A Revised, the Battleships shore bombard was preemptive, so the casualties could not return fire. A classic strategy back then was to buy a stack of Battleships, land one infantry and kill tons of enemy units that was not able to defend. That was about as unhistorical correct as the lone infantry you see holding a whole country.

    Of course you can make a house rule and let the defending artillery fire preemptive against invading troops, like they do in A&A 1914, or let Battleships bombard preemptive, or don’t apply the artillery bonus when amphibious assaulting etc etc. You can make it real hard to invade from sea. In fact the actual landing on the beach did favor the defender. But in the big picture, it was the other way around, an amphibious assault will favor the attacker, because he can choose to attack a soft spot, and since the defender don’t know where the attack will hit, he has to be every where. So come to think ablout it, the OOB rules are fine to me


  • '14 Customizer

    This is kinda off topic… If you have a battle that includes air on both sides they should engage each other first before land combat begins.



  • @cyanight:

    This is kinda off topic… If you have a battle that includes air on both sides they should engage each other first before land combat begins.Â

    This whole thread is off topic and belong in the House Rule forum so your comment can hardly do it any worse. That said, I totally agree with you, it is derogatory bedlam that after a huge battle, all that is left is some aircrafts. In the real war it was the other way around. Tanks and aircrafts would get killed first, and some infantry would always survive. But with game rules that let the unit owner choose what units get killed, his cheap units will always get killed first. A player would be a real lame dumba$ if he chose his expensive aircrafts and tanks as first casualties, even if that would be historical correct.

    That said, many complex A&A clones do have some kind of air to air combat, or Dogfight as is the correct military term, before they resolve general combat. Its very difficult to make a simple system that don’t confuse the average 12 year old players, do keep in mind this is a KISS game with plastic toy soldiers and not a serious simulation, but I think the A&A 1914 rules with Dogfights between the fighters to gain air superiority is a good one.



  • @Narvik:

    I believe that in the old game A&A Revised, the Battleships shore bombard was preemptive, so the casualties could not return fire. A classic strategy back then was to buy a stack of Battleships, land one infantry and kill tons of enemy units that was not able to defend. That was about as unhistorical correct as the lone infantry you see holding a whole country.

    I remember that cheese. It was basically a demonstration that the game with the rules as written was broken.

    Of course, the same might be said today regarding 12 IPC bombers. If you’re minded to cheese some wins, just buy bombers with Germany or USA and go to town.



  • Narvik touched on this briefly.

    I think that part of the problem with amphib assault is more the inability to defend the coastal territories efficiently. Lets face it the Germans don’t build an Atlantic Wall to def Normandy or S France because it is too costly and inefficient. They station in Paris, let the allies land and attempt a counter attack to push them back into the sea. The only time we see a coastal territory being defended heavily is if it is a capital, major production territory or a VC.

    So is the problem the attacking force is too strong able to use its bombardment then art, tanks and air units in the first round of battle; or that the def coastal force maybe should get a boost like be able to get a per-empt kill strike with its art to make it harder for the enemy to land on the beaches?  Or maybe a combination?

    I also like that victims of bombardment get to fire back (as others have posted). It might seem like dead men are shooting back, but in reality bombardment wouldn’t take out the entire force that a single inf represents. The greater remainder would be firing at the guys invading the beaches w/o a doubt.



  • Well it kinda balances itself out.

    When doing an amfib assault the attacker generaly takes losses before they can fire back ( a beach does not provide much cover and sunk landing craft also dont really help a lot )
    Normaly bunkers hit by the pre combat dont get to shoot back and yes the bombardment did took out loads of forces.

    So attacking amfib land units should not be able to shoot the first round, but be taking casualties, the air can shoot so can the non amfib portion of the attack and the ships get to bombard.
    And bombardment is pre combat so the units hit dont shoot back. Except for AA guns since the planes are already overhead so they get to shoot regardles of being hit by bombardment, they are both pre combat shots. Kinda annoying rule and hard to do on the board to start with.

    But since all attacking land units get to shoot the first round of combat the defender also gets to shoot with all units the first round of combat it kinda balances itself out again.
    It just simplyfies the rules and makes it easier to handle the game. And basicaly fixes the problem, it isnt perfect might not be 100% accurate but its a game not a simulation and this game already has plenty of rules and exceptions.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

14.5k
Users

35.1k
Topics

1.4m
Posts