Topics created by SouthsideCH

@SouthsideCH:

It seems every time we play there are certain things we just don’t understand. While we understand the rules sometimes they just do not seem rational.

Does anyone have house rules addressing the following?

Artillery supporting infantry during an amphibious assault.

If I move a sub or a destroyer-less navy into a convoy sea zone, forcing the enemy to submerge, why can they convoy me?

It does not make much sense that scramblers are defenders, especially in some cases involving tac bombers.

I get that Kamikaze attacks have to choose their target. But if I bring in 3 cruisers, 2 battleships and a carrier and they choose to hit the battleships, shouldn’t the cruisers get to bombard? They can’t take part in the defense against the Kamikaze.

Convoy Disruption seems easy. There are no ill effects to the disruptor. If you can intercept when facilities are being attacked it makes sense a navy in that sea zone should be able to do the same.

I would love to hear some input on these as well as any house rules ideas.

In terms of house rules, are you looking for balance or realism?

I always argue realism before balance so.

1:No, Artillery should not be able to support infantry during sea invasion, that’s why battleships should be used.

2:I argue they should. The sea territory is vase and submarines are loved during WWII because they are a pain to track down, they are basically the naval sniper.

3: I am not sure the exact issue. Fighters and Tacts can be used offensively and scramble protects your navy. I personally think all allied aircraft should scramble regardless of what nations navy is being attack as long as the nations allows it.

4: Kamikaze wings traditionally went after Battleships and Aircraft Carriers first because taking those out would give the IJN fairness as the IJN had a lot of smaller ships. I personally think Kamikaze wings should also be allowed to target transports.

5: So what’s the issue with Convoy Raids then? It makes you force yourself to deal with an enemy navy.

Thanks so much!!

@Arthur:

You might as well issue an R1 DoW against Japan; at our gaming group we generally assume that Russia is at war unless stated otherwise.  So far I haven’t seen any reason in non-BM games to not opt for immediate war.

This makes perfect sense with experienced players, but I do remember a game where I, playing Russia, managed to delay a Japanese attack for quite a few turns by claiming that we had always been on good terms and that I had never done anything at all to damage Japan’s interests.  😄

@SouthsideCH:

As far as taking over friendly neutrals, why is Anzac not allowed to? Is this a error in the rulebook?
…
So it is an error of omission?

There is no exception for ANZAC regarding non-combat-moving into friendly neutrals.

What do you have in mind?

(ANZAC is not part of the Europe ruleset, so they are not listed in the Europe only rules. They are of course part of the Pacific (and Global) ruleset.)

I think there is one point worth adding to the answers you already have Southside:

If India has fallen, whichever allied power captures UK Pacific territories gets the ipcs until such time as India is liberated. As you realise, China can only capture Kwangtung and Burma. China would get the ipcs if they capture these territories.

That was probably already clear, but just in case ……

Cheers!

@Marshmallow:

I would do it on round one if I could take out all of Japan’s transports. If, for instance, Japan parked all transports with a very light escort in sea zone 36. I would then hit sea zone 36 with everything I had to paralyze Japan’s ability to transport troops for an entire turn, and collect my NOs in the process. Then the UK and ANZAC could collect NOs for two rounds with no Japanese answer taking NOs away.

Obviously that is a very specific situation for Japan to let the transports be killed like that.

Marsh

very true marsh, but I am assuming that Japan is not retarded.  If Japan empties all their carriers and put them in range of my SZ39 fleet and my India air force then I might UK1 DOW in that situation as well.

The Germans have no destroyer present, therefore the defending air units can not hit the sub, and of course the sub can never hit planes. Think of it in terms of the combined arms rule, air units can only hit subs if they are combined with at least 1 participating destroyer, the difference with this particular combined arms is that it works while attacking and defending. In the scenario that you described, the sub would destroy the remaining transport without rolling and the defending fighters can do nothing.

Selection of casualties could also come into play if AAA and/or air units controlled by another player have moved into the territory.

Gallipoli is also an excellent Mel Gibson movie before Mel Gibson went nutso.  Great movie about a terrible operation.  I blame Churchill.

Narvik touched on this briefly.

I think that part of the problem with amphib assault is more the inability to defend the coastal territories efficiently. Lets face it the Germans don’t build an Atlantic Wall to def Normandy or S France because it is too costly and inefficient. They station in Paris, let the allies land and attempt a counter attack to push them back into the sea. The only time we see a coastal territory being defended heavily is if it is a capital, major production territory or a VC.

So is the problem the attacking force is too strong able to use its bombardment then art, tanks and air units in the first round of battle; or that the def coastal force maybe should get a boost like be able to get a per-empt kill strike with its art to make it harder for the enemy to land on the beaches?  Or maybe a combination?

I also like that victims of bombardment get to fire back (as others have posted). It might seem like dead men are shooting back, but in reality bombardment wouldn’t take out the entire force that a single inf represents. The greater remainder would be firing at the guys invading the beaches w/o a doubt.

@SouthsideCH:

@ColonelCarter:

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.

You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:

@rulebook:

If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
levels.

While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.

There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.

So better avoid confusion.
HTH 🙂

We have also revised the event and espionage section from what is posted after we playtested a few times. There was some imbalance and it was revised to reflect that. The events and espionage sections could be omitted if only tech section was desired.

Herr KaLeun and ColonelCarter,

Thank you also for the added answer and explanation answers for transports offload ( Sorry Chris for diverging your sub topic ).
BH

@simon33:

Airbases with 3 or more damage are not operational. Presumably this applies to rockets too.

I also read that they fire independently.

You are correct on both issues.

🙂

@ColonelCarter:

@Shin:

I don’t know why HBs would even matter.  Your bombers effectively attack on 5 rather than four now.

yay?

He’s talking about old heavy bombers. The ones that rolled 2 dice @4 and kept both results. Those were pretty much game over.

Actually, the Old HB rolled 3 dice and kept ALL of the results. They only changed it to 2 dice in revised edition, and even that where overpowered.
They also did kept all of the results when stratbombing, AND there where no upper limit on how much damage you could do.

So, effectivly, if you get HB on round 1 with UK. You will build 2 HB as UK for round 1. UK round 2, you will hit germany with 3 HB and 9 dice doing an average of 31.5 IPC of damage (if all bombers get though). That is more or less the entire german economy (which starts at 32) gone from G3 and until the game is over.

So, HB in round 1 and it doesn’t matter if russia falls, bc germany will have zero production for the rest of the game.