• Btw, just as a side note on the bombers (which everyone seems to be bashing price-wise), IMO they’re an option for the allies because frankly they’re the only ones who can seem to afford the price vs. effect with them. Also, bombers were a different kind of buy back in the day when the rules were a little more… how shall we say, skewed to favour such craft? I still think that they hold some value for the allies as far as SBR’s and giving added support to invasions. Let’s be honest: you’re never going to buy bombers like you buy fighters, if only because although the firepower is slightly better the defense is regrettably lacking.

    Now, if one were to up the bombers to an attack of 5, say, that might influence things differently as they could become more of a threat offensively.


  • I would consider buying bombers if they attack at 6. If bombers had att.def.mov.cost: 5-1-6-15, fighters are still the better choice.
    Or if bombers cost 12. Wouldn’t buy them at 14, but with cheaper bombers then u have the SBR problem…


  • @Lucifer:

    DD’s are too expensive.
    Subs are better because numbers are important.
    And only subs get to fire back if hit by attacking subs.
    Best buy to protect fleet is AC+ftrs * 2.
    U don’t really want to buy any naval units, but to get the land units to their destination, transports need
    protection.
    Remember, all capitals in A&A are placed on land, not sea……Atlantis anyone, Waterworld?  :lol:
    And DD’s are too pricey to give value for money.
    Same goes for bombers.
    But if u are a good player, then u will win a lot of games even if u don’t buy the most cost-effectice units all the time.
    Buying is important, but not the most important issue in A&A.

    Indeed I thing that a good naval task force in A&A have a Carrier, with two fighter, 1 DD and as many SUB and TRN you may afford.
    It depends from your necessities from increasing punch against ships, then you need more SUBs, otherways, if you have necessities to transport troops and your enemy use more fighters than ships, then TRN are a better investiment.

    Regarding Buying units. A&A needs a carefully planning of the buying. Buying the right units and bringing them to the front (logistic) is fundamental as the strategy. I think that buying planning is fundamental as the startegy is, in A&A.


  • @nuno:

    @axis_roll:

    Your way of thinking how things are related is skewed.

    That’s what the (republican) group that controls AAMC it’s been saying since last century,
    but we saw who unstoppably went up in the ranks and who was right on the mark about how Events unfolded…
    Of course much of (my) unconfortable posts/“prophecies”  foreseeing such things were already deleted by that group to prevent further embarrassment.

    @axis_roll:

    Sorry, they are in NO WAY related.

    They are,
    I do undertand if you don’t see it though, since you’re likely in the same bandwagon mobilized by Dictator Carico’s group
    to support my ilegitim “2-years” ban in the Fall of 2004.
    But those who know AAMC long enough also know that when it happened I had already quited long ago(since Jan/Feb 2004) any participation in AAMC’s Message Boards  because of biased Midlands censorship against me in them.
    Afterall it was an Elections year and they couldn’t afford such blatant humilliation of “superior” (republican) Generals in the 2003 CLI final.

    @axis_roll:

    You have a history of not following this protocol.

    Therefore is explained why that group likes to pass this idea you just passed(for defamation/discredit/manipultion purposes)…

    You’re a nut job.  This is my reply to you since you just won’t stop with your dribble.

    There absolutely no connection between a persons political beliefs and how they play A&A.

    Period.

    End of Story

    Now stop posting such crap… and get back to the threads discussion

    and have a nice day.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    Now just add in DST’s have PRE-opening fire against enemy SUBs (only), and naval combat may just be worth some effort!

    Oooh, me likey, me likey!!!  If no enemy subs are present, the destroyer fires normally, if submarines are present, destroyers get to target them first in opening fire!  Then submarines fire in their opening fire. Then Battleships get to fire at any aircraft present. Then everyone else gets to shoot!!!

    A rule we played with in classic (with destroyer pieces, add on set from Gamer’s Paradise) was that destroyers or fighters had to FIND submarines before they could be shot at.  This allowed Submarines to sink entire fleets without getting shot at if the dice were bad.

    Once found, however, the submarine could only submerge if it survived ending combat, if it survived.

    Procedure was thus:

    Submarine attacks and gets a free shot
    Destroyers and Fighters rolled 1d6 each.  If the result was 1, 2, 3 or 4 the submarine was “found” by that craft.
    Submarine attacks and gets another shot
    Any destroyer or fighter that “found” a submarine got to fire back.
    Submarine then had to disengage (except submarines not yet found.)

    It was tedious, but I think worth it.

    At the least, it made submarines more useful then as fodder for battleships in classic!


  • @Jennifer:

    2)  Keep the cost 12, but give all destroyers combined bombardment without needing the technology.

    excellent idea, so far when buyin des it wasnt a very good move,( unless needed against subs ),subs/ACs, figs are simply better ,
    this how it can be worth a lot if you are able to destroy land units whit it, it wouldnt be strong in the sea, but strong against land units
    and that would force you opponent to think on strikin your navy
    so Japans 100+ IPC worth navy wouldnt walkin around, as it is in many games


  • Here is a good time to buy BOMs as the Axis…

    Japan has an INF stack plus ART and ARM poised for a strike on Moscow.  You ALMOST have enough force to launch the battle, you just need to get the last ARM and INF into position this turn.

    NOTHING you buy in Japan (or FIC or Manch or India) is going to be able to impact that battle except one thing… BOMBERS bought this turn CAN reach Moscow for your attack next turn.

    I have had that situation come up more than once.  And adding 3 or 4 BOMs to the Japan strike force that Russia was not expecting can be VERY advantageous to the Axis.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I will say generally that I’m not hugely in favour of changes to the combat system, such as the DST rules suggested here, because the rules are already convoluted enough for my little brain to try to work them into a dicey without writing 3 million lines of code (slight exaggeration)

    I agree with that use on Bombers. But it’s only good as a finishing move, because after that buy you’ll have no follow through in terms of ground units.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Here is a good time to buy BOMs as the Axis…

    Japan has an INF stack plus ART and ARM poised for a strike on Moscow.  You ALMOST have enough force to launch the battle, you just need to get the last ARM and INF into position this turn.

    NOTHING you buy in Japan (or FIC or Manch or India) is going to be able to impact that battle except one thing… BOMBERS bought this turn CAN reach Moscow for your attack next turn.

    I have had that situation come up more than once.  And adding 3 or 4 BOMs to the Japan strike force that Russia was not expecting can be VERY advantageous to the Axis.

    i ve done it, at least once :wink:

    but still switch its an exception, an excpetion which confirmes the standings, and the standings are that bombers simply arent economic


  • @ncscswitch:

    Now just add in DST’s have PRE-opening fire against enemy SUBs (only), and naval combat may just be worth some effort!

    Yeah. A more dynamic naval game.
    In revised we have 2-hit battleships and submarine can’t hit air units.

    Adding your mentioned destroyer preemptive-fire to submarine fire and battleship preemptive-fire to aircraft fire might just complete it.

    However then makes the destroyer shoot twice. Which could be weird when Jap destroyer attacks US destroyer+submarine.
    I would tune it so submarine always shoot in opening-fire. That means destroyer’s preemptive-fire to submarine fire replaces destroyer’s ability to negative submarine’s opening-fire.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Somebody should create an all-naval A&A. I guess Pacific would be more that way.


  • @nuno:

    @newpaintbrush:

    i should like have my own TV talk show and stuff.

    :)
    Where are you from newpaintbrush ?

    My mommy says I come from heaven.

    You wouldn’t believe the stuff my dad comes up with though!


  • No, DST’s would still shoot only once, they would just get to fire BEFORE all others, and then ONLY if targeting enemy SUBs (thus making the DST a true sub hunter, which seemed to be the point of adding them to Revised in the first place).

    The ONLY unit that would “fire twice” would be BB’s firing an “AA Shot” at all incoming aircraft as opening fire, THEN having their normal roll of 4 for Round 1 and all subsequent combat.

    Or, if you want to eliminate double firing, just have the BB’s able to fire in “Opening fire” but only against incoming aircraft…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You’ll never get bombers to attack at 6.  That would mean they never miss.

    However, if you had to keep the price at 15, for some ungodly reason, why not just raise their defense to 2?  One would expect the bomber crews, support crews, air base crews, etc to be able to defend at least as good as an infantry unit.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I don’t know if that logic works. I think of an infantry division being like 10,000 guys, but a bomber unit having maybe 500 planes?


  • My personal view is Soviet Union is communist. everything is provided by the government. therefore soviet pieces should be free like in comminusim.  :wink:


  • @ncscswitch:

    No, DST’s would still shoot only once, they would just get to fire BEFORE all others, and then ONLY if targeting enemy SUBs (thus making the DST a true sub hunter, which seemed to be the point of adding them to Revised in the first place).

    Oh I see it now. So destroyers can now either combat normally or perform as sub hunter.

    Or, if you want to eliminate double firing, just have the BB’s able to fire in “Opening fire” but only against incoming aircraft…

    Oh, would that make it battleship can either combat normally or perform as antiair?


  • @Frood:

    I don’t know if that logic works. I think of an infantry division being like 10,000 guys, but a bomber unit having maybe 500 planes?

    Yeah. I think of approx. INF as 10,000 guys, ARM as 1000 tanks, FTR as 100 planes, SS as 10 submarines.

    But then an Aircraft Carrier piece can hold two FTR pieces which throws it totally off.
    While we are talking about units I might as well bring up the implicit-naval-fighter in aircraft carrier piece rule.


  • Actually the BB would fire BOTH ways.

    A BB in a fleet would be just like having an AA gun there, but the BB would conduct normal combat on round 1 also.

    Boosts up the BB a bit and might encourage their purchase a bit more for $24 also :-)


  • @Jennifer:

    You’ll never get bombers to attack at 6.  That would mean they never miss.

    However, if you had to keep the price at 15, for some ungodly reason, why not just raise their defense to 2?  One would expect the bomber crews, support crews, air base crews, etc to be able to defend at least as good as an infantry unit.

    If you’re an infantryman, you get an assault rifle.

    If you’re bomber/support crew, you get a pistol.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

25

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts