Just found out about this game today. Super excited to see how it looks in the Kickstarter!
Is there an estimation on how long a game is supposed to take? Should I be expecting Global 1940 levels?
Just found out about this game today. Super excited to see how it looks in the Kickstarter!
Is there an estimation on how long a game is supposed to take? Should I be expecting Global 1940 levels?
I know it has been commented upon at some point that it seems somewhat silly that plane dogfights have such a significant impact for ground battles. A one on one plane duel to the finish dictates which stack of artillery gets to roll at 4, which is a big deal, especially in large scale fights on the western front.
I’m wondering if anyone has done any significant play-testing with having planes follow the same ‘one attack per turn’ rule that ground forces are limited to? Within these rules I would say that only in the case of one side having all their planes destroyed does the other side then get the artillery bonus. You could also alter it so that whomever has the most planes after one round of combat has the advantage as well. I’m also considering bumping up the die roll for a hit during these dogfights to 3 in order to speed things up perhaps. If you stick with a die roll of 2, you could have rather large forces of planes pile up without getting many hits. Although more surviving planes would make these dogfights more enjoyable during gameplay imo (and you might actually have a plane survive long enough to be considered an ace lol).
Has anyone tried out similar rules that can tell me if it messes up game balance at all? Thanks!
Things that I would hope the 2nd edition has:
-Updated rules obviously
-Enough pieces to play the game
-More chips!!
These are the major things. There are a bunch of other things that could be changed but would alter the game. Really though, shouldn’t the game at least come with enough pieces to play it? Lots of people have said this already but I’m saying it again because it’s silly. Germany uses all its infantry in the initial setup and has to improvise in its first buy. You also run out of chips way too often. I can live with not providing IPC’s or IPC charts or other cardboard accessories; it sucks, but I can live with it. Not having enough pieces to play the game you’ve bought without having to struggle for a solution annoys me. Just give me enough pieces!!
I’m in the middle of a game right now where the Germans attacked the Brit cruiser off Canada with the two subs and ignored the Brit home fleet. The effect was an arms race between Germany and Britain through round four (which is where we stand now). The other effect is that Britain has split its income between India and Britain and has made no lasting territory gains in Ottoman lands because of it. Germany spent too much money on naval (imo) and has suffered on the Western Front because of it. Russia can still be forced into a revolution if they push all out with the pieces in place between AH, Germany, and the Ottomans. I can’t say whether or not any of this is conclusive since my group, including myself, are all very new to this game, but ignoring the Brit home fleet could be a viable strat if you play your cards right…
The only time I could ever see this matter, is if you were playing World Domination, and America was all that was left of the allies, standing alone.
Then you would bankrupt them and win.
As written though… What a waste.
If you’re playing world domination however, and only America was left, what would you be convoying exactly since there is no one left for America to trade with or ship to :-P
Therefore I see no scenario where USW is viable except as an afterthought. Within the confines of the current game, how do make USW worthwhile? Making the Allies lose more IPC’s doesn’t fix the fact that the subs can’t survive long enough to do anything. How do you make the subs more survivable then? Force the use of cruisers to be present to destroy subs? Make it so battleships can’t hit subs? Have a dice roll before combat that determines whether or not the sub is discovered and therefore able to be hit? These are all ideas I’ve seen elsewhere, and the last one intrigues me the most.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.
In respect to the answer to “1”, I thought the U.S. could NEVER load transports before being at war?
Yeah, but how the heck do you actually pull it off? There are usually Allied ships blocking subs from getting to the Atlantic through the English Channel, and going around Scotland takes two turns to get anywhere. Other than the the setup subs, it seems fairly futile to me to actually try and do USW. The OOB rules make this fairly painless for Allies anyway. You have to adopt the convoy rules from Global to even consider attempting USW, and even then I still wouldn’t. Naw, my German fleet stays as a defensive force from what I’ve seen so far in my games.
Do defending artillery in an amphibious assault always hit on a three or less during their first dice roll, or is that increased to a 4 if they have air superiority?
Also, those first hits by defending artillery DO NOT get to roll dice when the attacker rolls correct? Hits by battleship bombardment DO get to roll defensive dice right?
Thanks!
- Can you load troops from a contested territory onto transports?
Yes, but they may only be offloaded into a territory that you either had units in or controlled at the beginning of the turn, or they may remain at sea.
If so, can you load troop from a contested territory and then offload them right back into the same territory to get your bombardment bonus (assuming there is at least one battleship present)?
You could put them back where they loaded from, but it would serve no purpose. Offloading into a contested territory is an amphibious reinforcement, not an amphibious assault, so there would be no bombardment.
So whenever you offload troops from transports into a territory that was contested at the beginning of the turn and then proceed to attack, you will not get a bombardment? You only get a bombardment when you amphibiously attack a territory that was previously uncontested? What if it’s contested by an ally but you have no troops present? Do you still not get a bombardment because it’s contested, even though you don’t have troops present?
Thank you to all the veterans and soldiers out there; past, present, and the fallen. You are real heroes.
A few questions about rules:
That’s all I can think of right now. Thanks in advance!
I don’t know how many games you guys have all played in person, but I still make mistakes even when I’m using the damn setup guides! I have to double check myself every time to make sure I did it right.
I just checked out the pacific edition 2 rulebook, and on page 13 it says that if only subs or transports are in the defending sea zone, as the attacker you can ignore them or choose to fight them (it’s in the little blue box on that page).
Furthermore, but more to your point, on page 15 it says that transports are not allowed to unload in a sea zone that has subs that were ignored UNLESS you have a at least one WARSHIP belonging to the attacking power. Therefore if you only have a plane you cannot go through with the amphibious assault.
To piggyback that question with another: can a transport ignore a sub if it is accompanied by only a fighter that can’t hit the sub? I believe (and I don’t have them in front of me) that the rules state that the escort has to have an attack value. That rules out a carrier-only escort. But is the fighter a valid escort? It has an attack value, but could not hit the sub if there was to be a battle. Does that matter?
I asked this same question over at HBG a little while ago. You can find the question and answer here starting with my question on top (Ryguy): http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4280&start=1032
Basically, as the attacker you need to have an attack value that can actually hit the sub. Since you aren’t attacking with a destroyer, the plane has no way to hit the sub and therefore if you go through with the attack the sub has no reason to submerge and it’s only a matter of time then before they roll a 1 and sink your transport. You need to bring a surface warship with an attack value to have any chance of killing the sub and allowing for an amphibious assault. You don’t even need to bring a destroyer since they defender can choose to submerge and you’re good to go, or he can choose to roll dice and you can destroy the sub.
Follow-up questions about retreating:
So amphibiously landed troops can not retreat ever, even if land troops also attacked overland?
Let’s say you are attacking overland from one territory to another with air units. Can the air units retreat after any round of combat while the land units keep attacking, or does this only work with amphibious assaults?
Thanks!
I’m trying to clarify retreat rules and amphibious assaults. If you attack a territory by amphibious assault with planes I know the land units can not retreat, but can the planes retreat after any round of combat? Do you have to wait until all the land units were killed before you can retreat your planes, or can they retreat after any complete round of combat regardless of whether or not ground units are still alive. If they can, do they all have to land in the same territory? Does that territory have to be one that at least one plane came from?
If you amphibious assault and attack overland to the same territory, can the amphibious units retreat if you so choose? As long as it is to a territory that overland units came from of course.
@Cmdr:
I believe it was because of sea lion. It gives England defense while not giving them offense.
Which I understand in the case of London, but in doing so AA guns are doomed to a strange existence everywhere else. More pondering to be had by me on this subject.
Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You can’t do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why can’t you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?
If we’re talking in real life terms this might seem weird (I’m not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns can’t be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. They’re just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.
I’m not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPC’s with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If they’re valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I don’t like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?
I originally started this thread because I felt that AA guns should be allowed to shoot their full loads (pun intended) at incoming planes instead of being limited to how many planes are attacking. I feel convinced now that that would make AA guns overpowered against planes.
However, that doesn’t fix the fact that no one buys AA guns. It seems like the designers are trying to involve AA guns more by changing their rules, and now each nation has AA units in their own color. Still, no one is going to buy them except in rare cases. As mentioned earlier in this thread, maybe some anti-tank rules will give them versatility. Maybe some kind of pairing scheme where they boost the attack/defense of another type of unit. Maybe lowering the cost to 4 or 3 ipc’s. Something that would make you actually consider buying them (I’m sure someone is going to say they buy them all the time).
It’s not that the current AA rules are broken; it’s just that I wish they could do more.
I fully admit that I am too scared to watch that show. Zombies scare the crap out of me so screw that. I’ll stick to re-watching Lost.
Doesn’t it make sense though that if you have multiple AA guns and one attacking plane that the AA guns should be able to saturate fire on that one plane? (or squadron or whatever you think one A&A plane represents)