Attacking Power of Units
-
I clearly have not played the game yet and can not truly judge any of the rules of the game but, I question a some of the attacking power stats of units. Overall I think it is a good system and I am impressed with the game but, a few things I am not sure on.
Air Sea Land
Infantry 0 0 1 - These stats seem good.Air Sea Land
Artillery 0 1 1 - I don’t know about these though. Shouldn’t artillery have more punch than infantry? The only advantage for it is that it can attack the sea as well. How much field artillery was used against naval ships?Air Sea Land
Anti-Air 3 0 0 - I think that this might be too much. Shouldn’t fighters be more effective in destroying air units than Anti-Air Guns?Air Sea Land
Bomber 1 2 2 - These seem to be okAir Sea Land
Fighter 2 1 1 - Shouldn’t maybe the fighter be more effective against naval units? It seems low.Air Sea Land
Transports 0 0 0 - I like this. No more Transports destroying Battleships or destroyers like they can in regular A&A.Air Sea Land
Subs 0 0 0 - I like the idea of the speacial attack that the sub can choose the target but, shouldn’t there be a way to sometime negate this effect? Similiar to destroyers in regular A&A? Maybe there is a way?Air Sea Land
Destroyer 1 1 0 - I think this works for the most part. Maybe the ability to bombard the land as well but, maybe not needed.Air Sea Land
Cruiser 1 2 1 - It is good. Maybe more anti-air power maybe not.Air Sea Land
Battleship 1 3 2 - Once again good but needs more anti-air. Battleships often bristled with Anti-air because they where vunerable to fighters. Battleships should be more effective at this than destroyers.Air Sea Land
Carrier 0 0 0 - No anti Air? Carriers carried many anti-air batteries didn’t they?Maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe the game works best this way and I am trying to apply to much real world stuff to a board game. I am sure this will be debated once the game comes out. There will be house rules as well. What do you think?
-
Well I haven’t played yet either and think you pose some very good questions and points. Trying to work within the limits of six sided dice seems to be a pretty serious constraint and then trying to keep it a “roll low” game as well.
Giving the Art a naval attack value seems odd to me too. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but I don’t know that there is a field piece that can dent any ship.
My impression has always been that you need some pretty serious emplacements to attack ships from land (at least metal ones.) Maybe I’m too “Guns of Navorone” and thinking too much of the bunkers in Normandy about it.
Maybe one of our more dedicated historians could help us out.
I don’t know that the land value is too low but then I don’t know how dug in units managed to get. Also if the land value is low because the pieces were small that also lends more weight that the Naval value is off. Do the ART give a bonus to INF?
I’m a bit skeptical of this game after seeing the combat system. I’m wondering if they didn’t try to compromise to much between tactical and strategic and will fail at both. I didn’t find the BOTB system confusing at all and when this ‘Dreamblade’ guy characterized it as such my doubts really went up. I guess BOTB went to far away from traditional A&A. I do find myself saying “Forget the other A&A combat systems when you play BOTB” often.
I will reserve judgment till I get my set and a chance to play.
-
I agree with Frimmel that you have to reserve judgement until you play. I am not trying to be pessimistic. I am more excited than the next guy about this game. I just thought a few of the stats seemed odd.
Possibly the first house rules for A&A Guadalcanal?
Air Sea Land - Proposed Air Sea Land - Real Stats from Game
Inf. 0 0 1 0 0 1Art. 1 0 2 0 1 1
AntiAir 2 0 0 3 0 0
Bomber 1 2 3 1 2 2
Fighter 3 2 2 2 1 1
Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subs 0 0 0 - Destroyers have a rule to find subs
Destroyer 1 1 1 1 1 0
Cruiser 1 2 2 1 2 2
Carrier 2 0 0 0 0 0
Battleship 2 3 3 2 3 2
Does this seem more accurate to these combat units?
-
I wouldn’t care to make a guess without playing some games first. It seems odd sure but who is to say if it works or not yet?
Your values don’t seem unrealistic but again I’m not willing to decide before playing.
Soon. Our new toys come soon.
Then we will know.
-
Yes, we must play first. I love toys!!!
-
If destroyers are as plentiful in this game as theyve been in other A&A games, subs would never get to use their special ability, I say leave them how they are, just limit the number of subs floating around. I would perfer to see them actually useful.
Historically, in 1942 subs were pretty good at what they did, pretty close to the height of their power no?
-
All the more I join in any discussion of sub rules is to say leave me out of it. Big messy can of worms submarines. Pick something and I’ll play it.
-
So my comments are with respect to game play and not historical accuracy.
If you increase the land attack of artillery, then they also need to be re-costed. They essentially become as powerful as bombers but more expendable and then why do you even need bombers. The current spirit of the game has a good balance of all the types of units. Aircraft might be a bit too powerful but that is minimized by the anti-aircraft. Basically, a land attack of 2 for artillery could break the game.
Using artillery to attack naval units is where their utility comes into play. This can actually be crucial to defending islands that are not close to you home base. I didn’t immediately see their importance but in the begining of the game, you need to get those artillery out of the comfort zone and into a spot where they can blast away at ships. Remember, sea battles occur before land battles, you’re going to get 2 attacks with that unit.
-
And djensen eloquently makes the point that we need to play the game first.
I wouldn’t mind your opinion on this: Do you think the game would have been better served with the d12 system from BOTB? Or would that just not work because you need to destroy Capital ships to win?
-
I agree as I have said before that you can’t judge anything unless you have played the game but I was just pointing out things that I thought seemed a little funny. Yes, if Artillery had 2 land power it would make bombers less useful unless you made bombers land power 3 like I did. Yes, things might be different prices with different stats but I am just speculating. I just thought artillery attacking ships seemed weird and having them have more power on land seemed more fitting. Maybe I am wrong. I don’t know how the game really plays because I won’t have it until Friday. I just thing some of the stats are questionable at first glance. Air Craft carriers with no anti-air? I don’t see how that could be. Anti-Air guns more effective at destroying fighters than opposing fighters? Battleship anti-air power just as effective as destroyers? Clearly Battleships had way more AA guns than Destroyers.
Suggested Topics
