Posts made by lnmajor

Advanced Fighter Design. Great Idea in air combat, but your making a fighter stronger than your med. bomber in ground attack and as strong as a regular bomber in ground attack. Fighters should not have the same ability to inflict damage to ground and naval targets as a strat bomber or tac bomber, IMO

Love the transports defending @ 1 with destroyer escort present. Great idea.

Gamers Paradise escort rules. unit is  1-2-2-8 .  Special ability: The convoy rule; escorts defend @3.                         
when there is at least one friendly transport for the first escort, and thereafter at least two friendy transports for every other escort defending in the same seazone. in other words, if you have 5 friendly transports and two friendly escorts defending in the same seazone, you can apply the convoy rule.
1)  Transports defending against naval vessels- All navel vessels must try to sink all transports in first round of combat, then transports escape, except with aircraft.
2)Transports with escorts can not escape from naval vessels, and escorts defend until all escorts and transports are sunk, or naval vessels retreat. transports must be used as casulties first before escorts.
UNESCORTED TRANSPORTS RULE;  Subs and Battleships attacking unescorted transports attack with 1 die @ 4 for each transport, maximum 2 die per sub.

What about giving it the ability to fire first in battle, defender removes casulties, then normal combat begins. Or what about being able to fire from ajacent territory. Also can it be used as AA and land combat at the same time or do you have to designate in defense.

Your idea sounds great for entrentchment. But your example of the 20 stack infantry on Japan to defend homeland as a reason not to use my idea for amphib. assault makes even more sense to do it my way. That is exactly why we dropped atomic bombs on them to force surrender instead of invasion. Its a mute point anyway cause if Japan has lost its navy to the point that the U.S. player can bring amphib. assualt across pacific into homeland waters and Japan is turtling on home island game is inevitably lost to Allies anyway. Maybe this concept can be applied to Pacific theater only? Cause Jap troops defended to last man. Not same mind set as in Europe, i.e. Italy. Bottom line for me is everthing comming off landing craft was not rolling off guns blazing. especially artillery and tanks. Infantry came off firing only cause the poor 3 or 4 guys in front on them absorbed the bullets. not to include that they were sitting ducks in their landing craft. In actuality if you use your entrenchment rules with my amphib. assault rules combined you dont need that 20 stack of infantry to defend. Ultimately playtest will tell. I do like the concept of the defender having options for defensive strategy. leaves outcome not as predictable for attacker can keep things fresh. Over the years the only thing that can get dull with this game is the predictability SOMETIMES. Thank GOD for the dice.

I said that this is a new concept for AA. Most ideas can be traced back to some other game or application somewhere. I have playtested this many times and it works well for me. I suggest you try it before shooting it down so quick. And yes IMO, sealion should be harder. Another thing is if you are expending 20 Jap infantry to protect 1 island my strategy as U.S. player is going to be to bypass that island and use naval blockade to leave all those 20 infantry which represents IPCs and resources much more well spent in other areas than defending an island worth like 2 ipcs for the entire game. Oh yea, and please dont tell me your going to put 20 infantry on every pacific island cause that aint happening. All im saying is try it before you flag it. Never said it was perfect. this game is not perfect. Look at how many times the rules and setups have been revised. Just be open minded, try it! maybe YOU can come up with a way to tweek this and make it work better. That would be awesome.

Played Zeno exclusively thru out most of the 1990s. They were cutting edge and developed most of the advanced rules that are now considered OOB 15 yrs ago. Their World @ War map was vastly superior to anything MB or Wizards were doing. I also highly recommend using Paradise Games Naval expanition rules. I still use alot of these today.

I have be using this proceedure; After shore bombardment, DEFENDER fires first with one round of fire from all units,  attacker removes causilties, now battle procedes as normal. This simulates all the attacking forces hitting the beach under fire. Let me go one further, Let the defender have the choice of using this variation OR just using higher defense bonus for entire battle.This is part of a completely new idea for Axis and Allies that i am developing. The concept being the defender now has 2 options to choose from in defending from a amphib. assault.                  What do you think? GAR? Anyone?

Tried this many times in the past. Really slows the game down. U.S. and Japan resorts to flooding the pacific with all subs. Great idea in theory, just not practical. Try this instead. Destroyers and planes must make a detection roll of dice before subs can be attacked. On roll of 1 or 2 sub or subs are detected and can be attacked. If sub attacks  first, defending destroyers must make succsesful detection roll on 1-3 becouse sub fired shot so defending ships already know sub is in area and maybe what direction torpedeo came from. If subs are not detected or as i refer to as “pinned” be sonar, sub is considered to have slipped away. Seems complicated, but after one or two games it becomes standard proceedure and is not a big deal. Just like escorts and interceptors were introduced into SBRs. I have found that this will simulate what your looking for without having to track subs on seperate pieces of paper the whole nite.

Now that im thinking about it, this is the outcome i have experienced many times over. exellent observation and strategy if out numbered.

Drop fighters to 6 ipc. Sounds crazy but is more realistic. People will use them more. They would use their combat values if opponent has planes in combat. if opponent doesnt have planes present fighters attack @2, defend @2 against land and sea targets.

Like It! :wink:

Great idea. Probably only something Germany could use thou.

in real war mistakes and miscalculations happen all the time. thats what makes the game exciting.its called the fog of war.

Jennifer, no im not talking about SBRs. im also not talking about 1 bomber being able to take out 40 inf. and 20 tanks. thats insane. maybe limit the bomber attack to 1 round of combat? if no fighters are present.

By the way, gargantua, if you attacked the same TT with inf, tanks, etc. AND a bomber, the bomber is basically emmune to defensive fire becouse u would never take it as a causualty first. or leave it in long enough to become one. see what i mean?

Ok, maybe im misunderstood here. what im saying is how can this work better. i know that each piece represents a division or sqaudron and all that. im saying like jennifer is thinking, fighter interseptors against bombers. And like Gargantuwa was saying in another thread about scrambling over land. not trying to make the bomber the allmighty piece thats invincible. one idea for example is i think bombers should only be allowed to operate from air bases. maybe fighters should be cheaper in order to place more on the board to protect against bombers. another thing is can a squadron of fighters sink a battleship 50% of the time? i dont know. i thought if i got the subject started good ideas would start popping up. :?

Great topic Gargantua. Everyone reading this please refer to a thread i just posted in house rules under revising defense against aircraft. lets all put our heads together and make something better than whats been given us. and yes fighters should be able to scramble to ANY ajacent TT.

OK, the post started on revising unit values is turning out very good and has motivated me to open up a can of worms and address a topic that has bothered me for quite some time.
I think the rules for AA guns at facilities is fine. the rules for AA gun unit are fine.
heres what doesnt make sense to me. Strat Bomber(s) attacks  infantry or tanks in a territory, attacker is sure to lose all Bombers in defense fire. ground units do not have the fire power to down a strat bomber. no way ,no how.
example 2) should 1 or 2 fighters be able to sink an aircraft carrier or battleship with very good odds? Tac bombers yes, but fighters?i think this is very unrealistic.
Looking for suggestions from everyone on how to fix these issues and make a more balanced and realistic approach to these type of situations.

keep falling back with main armies,but leave inf. to block blitzs. Draw Germany in deep. Take advantage and attack hit and run territories where Germany might leave alot of tanks and little infantry. take out tanks where ever possible. always retreat from attack before you take territory. dont give Germany oppertunities to counter attack and kill a large amount of your army in one shot.
Choose your battles wisely. You probably are not going to be able to defend the entire Russian front sucsessfully. you will have to give up either the north or southern front to save Moscow anyway. by making germany commit all their resources to take moscow. hopefully russia can hold it long enough for the allies to start landing troops in western or southern Europe. It will be quite a few turns for Germany to turn her tanks back to defend the motherland. As soon as Germany turns her tanks, pull the trigger and use you main army out of moscow, which should include a good amount of offence( tanks and artillery) and go nuts. May the dice be with you. :wink: