Hey lord BTW the 8/8 and 8/6 means it rolls a secondary attack. German Jet fighters have this because they were able to use their speed to attack a fighter two times in the time it would take that prop plane to get a good look at a Me-262. They were able to even ignore fighters and strike at bombers and then get a pass at the fighters again.
Battleships get a secondary attack that is not preemtive. The first (highter number) is a preemtive attack.
The carriers take 2 hits
german Type XX1 is preemtive even against destroyers and cruisers
Katyuskas are preemtive
self propelled artillery hits go against tanks first
armor hits go against artillery or armor
infantry must go on infantry first
Artillery attack preemtively in the first round only
Tanks +1 attack with matching plane 1/1
Infantry +1 attack with matching artillery 1/1
Artillery +1 movement with matching armor 1/1
many other rules make the numbers look more understandable. Many ask why does a battleship etc. attack twice… but if you look at the other rules as a whole the values are perfect.
If you were posting in a thread here and that thread is gone, check elsewhere on the site.
If it was about finding a game, look there. If it became political or non-game, look in those areas.
just keeping the boards ordered…
Interesting results this far:
There’s a sizable ‘rookie’ class (3 or less years of experience), 19 poll participants
and a group of grizzled veterans (over 15 years of experience), 13 poll participants
I am glad to see the new comers. I guess Revised was a good thing.
I was thinking about this the other day and I thought it would be pretty cool just to make the game look nicer. With AAM: WaS coming out next year, every piece in AAR could be replaced with minis on a board. Theyll look way better than the regular pieces. Of course some of the rare miniatures are a bit too large for the regular sized boardgame, but you can fix this problem by making a bigger board at Staples or something. The only major problem I see is planes, since the War at Sea planes are going to be very small and the AAM planes are fairly large. Anyways, what do you guys think about it?
You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…
**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**Â …
Go ahead, play test it a few times.Â You will quickly see what I mean.
Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to â€œsinkâ€ IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territoryâ€s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).