Would it throw the game out of balance if artillery was allowed to fire back at ships that bombarded in an amphibious assault? The artillery could no longer participate in the land battle if it fired at the ships. That might make this piece more interesting and useful as a defensive piece on coastlines. Any opinions?
Latest posts made by klh
AA50 Artillery suggestion
RE: Why no US subs in 1941?
Perhaps becz the US torpedos were so poorly designed and the failure rate was so high??
You’re absolutely right that torpedo failures and incompetence in the Bureau of Ordnance hurt their effectiveness. Despite that, the US submarine was the only naval force to successfully engage the Japanese during the early months of the war. US subs sunk 6 ships in December 1941, and over 100 in the first year of the war.
From the King report…
“Our submarines, operating thousands of miles from their bases and deep within enemy-controlled waters, began their campaign of attrition on Japanese shipping immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and continued to fight with telling effectiveness until the Japanese capitulated. During the early part of 1942, while our surface forces were still weakened by the Japanese initial attack of 7 December 1941, submarines were virtually the only United States naval forces which could be risked in offensive operations.”
I’m thinking about adding a house rule to replace the transport off California with a sub or two.
Why no US subs in 1941?
I’ve been playing A&A since I got it for a graduation gift in 1984, and was excited to see the many of the changes, including Italy and a 1941 scenario.
The one thing that surprises me in the 1941 setup is that the US has no subs. The silent service was crucial in the Pacific, especially in the early months of the war. Any idea why the designers left that out? It seems to me that it could have been included in the sz with the carrier or off the west coast so it’s out of reach of the Imperial Navy for Pearl Harbor.