Just for clarification, is the “in port” a separate sz, or is it part of the same sz.
Example: To attack ships in port in Japan, do your air units just have to reach sz 6, or do you have to go one more space to reach ships in port?
Posts made by WILD BILL
-
RE: Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules
-
RE: Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules
What blockade, how do you think the Americans will get stronger (they’re along way from home). They won’t be able to occupy the sz surrounding Jap, because they have no air cover (scramble). It would simply be a stall tactic for Jap to bring in more air units for def, or to get an attack advantage (which it will get quickly). If the US does move in then Japs magic fleet appears w/its own air units and destroys the American fleet (no air cover). If you try to attack the Jap fleet in port, you would most likely lose your air force and just cause minor damage to the Jap capital ships (which auto repair on Japs turn) along with some other fodder. The US fleet would be compromised, because even if it retreated it wouldn’t have the support of its lost air units.
I don’t mind adding what basically is an extra sz to the map (at virtually every NB), but lets face it, it will be a major boost to fleet def in a game that is already very def minded (especially with the new scramble rules). I think this will prolong the game. At the very least you should be able to bring in subs. I think it might also be warranted to allow the subs/air units to pick their targets (as they would) so it is worth attacking ships in harbor. Just allowing the enemy to soak up hits w/ capital ships and cheap fodder is something you said you wanted to avoid.
-
RE: Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules
@Imperious:
Ports must be able if anything to protect ships from naval combat. One of the major problems is this idea of sending in a token fleet and all your air units to entirely destroy the enemy navy in one turn using cheap ships as fodder. Of course by air anything goes, but fighters British fighters didn’t have the range to escort bombers from England to Kiel canal.
I hope this will be the case in AAE40, because the global games always had this issue about them.
The idea that Germany entirely destroys or mostly wipes out the British fleet in 1942 on its first turn is also bogus concept and was never solved.
The game is not supposed to play scripted to history, but at the same time these concepts are always replayed in these games because its the best move. It sucks that AAP40 didn’t add these ideas.
The vanquished axis powers still had parts of their naval intact at the end of the war. In AA they are lucky to have anything even near the end.
I just don’t like when you can say my entire navy is in port, and you can’t touch them unless you wipe out your air force. Air supremacy is always key. Plus any of your surviving capital ships will auto fix next on your turn because your in a port. There should be consequences for entering a hostel harbor with ships. Maybe the shore gun should be able to roll at 3 every round vs surface ships. Even if you take in a token force of SS and DD along with air power you are still loosing valuable units. Subs are much more important now w/new rules and convoy’s, and you never seem to have enough DD’s. You will be weakening other forces to go into a harbor w/fodder.
I hear what your saying about the Germans being able to keep a navy longer. In AA40E and global they should be able to. In one of Larry’s last Q & A he did say that the German navy in the Baltic would be out of range for the RAF to attack from the UK and return to UK. He alluded to the fact that UK would need some place else to land, or a closer base (maybe Norway). There will also be a straight rule (control of Denmark) to help def the Baltic (this will more or less be Germany’s harbor). If you also allow coastal AB to scramble to protect your fleet, I’m not even sure why you think we need a ships in port rule. How much help do you think the Germans will need.
I would like to avoid a scenario like if the US comes over with an equal size fleet to Jap, and Jap declares its in port. The US doesn’t have the air power to do the job w/o its ships. Now the US is a sitting duck if it comes over. We would have to rename the game AA Air Force, because that’s all anyone will buy. They can’t attack the enemy w/o major air power, and because of the scramble rules you need air power to def. Why would you ever buy a ship, other then a carrier?
-
RE: Axis and Allies Pacific and Europe: 1940 House Rules
I like the way this is going, but some limits should be in place so things don’t get out of hand.
- I agree air bases should be allowed to scramble to adjacent land tt or sz. If you allow unlimited scramble, you may be creating super stacks. How hard would it be to take Moscow if Russia and UK had 10 ftrs each protecting just 10 inf in front of them in multiple tt. Maybe only allow 3 air units (maybe even 6 w/upgrade or tech) to scramble from such tt. Instead of one AB being able to scramble say a dozen air units into multiple tt, you would need to invest in bases to get more air units into the air. If each ftr/tac represents say 50 units, that would be 150 planes, how many could they actually get up to def from one AB.
I’ve not liked the unlimited scramble from island bases (not realistic to be able to put that many units in the air IMO) but I could live w/2x the units for islands then for coastal/land AB. If you use some kind of cap then SBR could be worked in similar to minor IC’s and production.
- Going back to UK/USA being allowed to move units onto Russian soil, I would like to see some kind of lend lease instead. Maybe allow limited allied air units to come and go to attack Euro axis or to def AB (maybe they must land only on tt w/AB), but no allied ground units on orig Red tt. You could either send ipc’s or do limited ground unit conversions. I prefer send $ or build red units at home (not from newly built IC) then send them.
3a) I don’t think you should give mech a +1 when paired with a tank. You already get tacs +1 paired with tanks or ftrs. I like the Mech can tow an art 2 spaces. That would give both units more meaning (but shouldn’t be allowed w/def retreat).
3b) I would be on board w/art getting a pre-empt strike @ 2 against amphib, every round that it is paired with an inf. (enemy casualty doesn’t fire back) Many people like this house rule.
- Def retreat is very intriguing. I hear some say only 2 move units or air should be allowed to retreat after the 1st round, and it makes sense. I also hear the plea that some inf could get out as well, but art would have a tough time. I’m not sure if I like the fact that the enemy (defender) could always save his more valuable units to set up a counter strike. If you allow these 2 move units to def ret, then you should allow the aggressor to retreat them (or attack on) from the front as well (maybe only if they still have one move point left).
For def ret why not role dice after the 1st round to see which units are eligible for def ret based on there def roles. Bmr would need a 1, mech inf, inf & art would need 2 or less (roll all at once, retreat in that order starting w/all mech etc…), tanks would need 3 or less (50/50), other air units would just be able to retreat or stay (no roll). I know it doesn’t save time, but at least you would not be allowed to save your $ units every time. You could roll just your 2 move units (rd#1), any inf or art would not get the option until rd #2 if they are still alive.
5a) I have not used any in port rules before. Your really talking about a sz (harbor) w/in a sz. I would think that ships considered in port would spend a movement point by coming out of port, but not going into port? If you need to repair a ship you just need to reach the sz w/port and declare you are now in port (maybe move the ship(s) to a named port card to distinguish). When you decide to leave the harbor you then use 1 movement point to get back to the (outer) sz w/port (on the playing board) so you can only move 2 more sz once you leave port in your turn. Of coarse if you are dislodged on your enemies turn, you should still get your 2 moves, unless one of your allies liberated the tt w/port before your turn comes around, then you would get your full 3 moves I would think.
5b) I would think that enemy ships should be allowed to come into your (inner) harbor sz and attack ships in port along w/air units, as long as they clear the (outer) part of the sz 1st. It would normally take two turns to do this if the power going into port left a DD in the (outer) sz, unless the enemy could arrange a can opener. Even then with allowing scramble from any AB you could still def yourself in both turns. I also think that if ships are attacked in port then the port itself should be allowed to fire at enemy ships each round at 2 (1 shot each round) shore gun. Any AA gun on the tt w/NB should also be able to fire at planes attacking ships in harbor (inner sz). The AA gun could not be used for both naval def & def of the land tt ground troops however. (maybe w2 AA guns you could do both?)
Edit: I see you have given NB ports AA cover in your orig post to cover your navy in port IL, so you have covered the last part of my post. I would still like to be able to attack ships in port w/navy once you have have cleared the outer part of the sz, in your next turn. You would still be able to def your self a little better in port if you allow shore guns. I know some would argue that ships in port would not be able to def them selves as well and should get their def rolls modified down. I could live with that I suppose. On the other side of the coin there should be a price to pay for enemy ships coming into your harbor as well, so maybe your ships def shouldn’t be nerfed?
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
I’ve seen games where Jap places 10-15 air units on Phil or Caroline + fully loaded carriers. There is no way you could attack it. The only good thing is they aren’t using them to destroy you in Asia.
As far SBR, does anyone attack facilities/IC in this game anymore. We don’t see much.
-
RE: Do you want europe NAs like in AAR??
As the game has matured, many of the old NA’s have fueled new units, techs or bases. Non aggression could be handled in the new political rules. Every one can now get radar. The french will defiantly resist in E40. Col Gar-you get an IC on India, and Aus. U-boat Interdiction is handled w/convoy’s (for all). Jap now gets Kami’s. Marines & Banzai can be done w/art. You now have island bases for all. China is now a minor power. Mech inf is in the game. You also have tac bmr to represent some peoples variations for jet ftrs (higher attack rolls).
Some times in AA50 we would allow each power to pick from a list of possible improvement geared to their specific country, but would limit it so things don’t get out of hand. It added some flavor to the game, as long as all agree.
I think as time goes on you might see some more of the old NA’s come to light (some of the German ones were cool). We could use a Fortress Europe type def against amphib. Wolf packs would be cool for all powers. Some kind of limited combined attack for both sides (Germ/Ital; Anz/US etc…) I would like DD’s to move one inf, most powers did this at one time or another. We have Kami’s, why not Kaiten’s.
I think that if at some point Larry put out a list of optional rules that included a limited number of NA’s (2-3 per power/side) it would be pretty cool. That list grows shorter though with every new game produced.
-
RE: Convoy question
Say the Japs had DEI & Phil, and its main force is at Carol Is. Ideally if you could get 5 allied subs in range you could spread them out in 5 different sz all at once costing Jap $ (8-10 ipc) and forcing them to buy more DD’s to go after you. At the very least it could be a stall tactic or weaken the Jap force. Jap would need to make a choice to attack your main force w/o DD’s (cheap causalities), or leave the convoy raids in place. If Jap goes after the subs, you may have created targets of opportunity to go after.
-
RE: China not being able to enter Korea
Gharen, I’m not necessarily an advocate for changing the rules for China, or of allowing the Chinese out of China in AA40. Hell they get to go into 20 tt. I would have liked to see a Chinese AA gun just to show the p40 ftr wasn’t just a paper tiger and the Japs took heavy air losses. I did think that China was much to weak in AA50, especially 41. I also think that China’s roll will be much different in the 40 global game. The UK/Russian powers will play a much bigger role in the Chinese arena (its kinda like an arena-they can’t leave-he he couldn’t resist :-D). Anyway I for one will hold judgment until I’ve actually had a chance to play the global game. I don’t foresee any real problems here. I also like the fact that China is a very minor mostly def ally that is going to need a lot of help to stay in the game.
edit: I would like to see some Russian restrictions when it comes to its allies in Russian tt, and vice-versa. The Russians didn’t play nice w/allies. Any Russians going into China should maybe represent communist (MIO), and became red Chinese. They would at the point of entry have the same restrictions as the Chinese, and could not return to Russian soil. This would make Russia think twice about placing units in china. I don’t think any of this will be part of the game, but makes for an interesting scenario.
-
RE: The 40 IPC Myth
I have noticed its much harder to take the UK down if you wait for J3. If left alone UK gets about 25 ipc rd #1. It can take all DEI rd #2 and get like a 37 ipc pay day. That’s a lot of inf (and normally 2 more ftr) on India. Then Anz brings over a couple more ftrs, now you have a problem. Yea Jap will take the DEI fairly easy, and take the Brits down to around 9 ipc’s rd #3, but the damage is already done. With 15+ inf, and 6-8 ftrs on India or Burma, it can be a real bitch. Then of course the British fleet will be parked in Sidney, or maybe even Hawaii, along with some of the US Phil units.
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
In many games we have played, the unlimited scramble seems to promote super stacks. I agree w/Razor. Only minor IC can only produce 3 units, and take 6 points of damage (2X). I propose the same ratio for scramble. Only 3 units can scramble, and take 6 points of damage. If you have 3 damage markers, then you can’t scramble, just like you can’t produce units in minor IC. With these limits in mind you could possibly allow scramble in any AB, coastal or even land locked AB (land tt). I don’t think it would be to over bearing w/limits.
-
RE: China not being able to enter Korea
The solution then would be let chinamen attack any axis controled territories or hostile szs but not letting them enter allied territory in NCMs phase
This I could go along with (other then Burma & Kwang of coarse). It would keep China’s interests in Asia or Siberia mostly. It could be weird though say Jap makes the long trek through Siberia to Moscow, just to have China following them to take back vacant Russian tt. The same could hold true all the way through the Mid East into Africa. At least these would be conquest, not retreats.
I don’t know, maybe keeping the Chinese in China is the best. Maybe just allow them to attack just 1 tt/sz beyond their boarders would be better.
If there is a soviet NO as the one in AA50 or if there is some rule that prevents allies enter USSR in NCMs, that is solved as well
I am starting to wonder if Russia (or its allies with Russia in mind) will have more restrictions then before. What kind of political arrangement will there be between Rus, Jap, and China.
-
RE: China not being able to enter Korea
If you allow China to go into any tt it would not be good for game play. You could end up w/China def India, The Mid East, or Russian soil once they were pushed out of China. They will at some point be pushed out of China if allowed to retreat elsewhere. Hell in rare occasions you might even see them track all the way into German/Italian tt or Africa. So watch what you ask for. As it is now you can keep China in the game (or bring them back) with help of the allies depending on what Jap does. In the global game you should be able to bring in Russian (Communist) units to aid in China’s def. Personally I hope that if Russian ground units are brought in that they can’t leave Chinese soil. That would make Russia think twice about committing a large force to China. IMO China will play out much better in the global game. Its already a major improvement over AA50.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
I think that it’s 6 spaces from NZ to Java. The move into the NZ sea zone counts as 1.
You fly over the top (north) of Australia. 1-sz63, 2-sz54, 3-sz55, 4-sz42, 5-Java.
-
RE: Carolinas
The game I’m playing now (I’m allies), Jap vacated the Car Is and took his entire fleet towards Asian coast and DEI (was kinda strange). Jap waited til 3rd turn to attack. 3rd round US was able to move into Car Is with its entire force. Then next turn I planned on bringing in my air units. J4 Jap got board w/Asian land battle, it left enough to take out China. UK is backed up but holding out ok (w/help from Anz ftrs). Jap put his entire fleet (a lot of boats) & air force (15 planes) on Phil which he took J3. I had no choice but to retreat to Wake w/fleet & air (where I built a NB for mobility). I really don’t have enough to attack Jap its self (its def pretty good) + I can’t just leave the central Pacific. I’m not sure if he’s going after a fairly weak Aus, or retuning to the Car Is. If he does either he will lose the cover of his air force (scramble) and I might stand a chance if I attack his navy only. Even if I get the chance at an even fight and we lose both navies, he will still have that freak-n air force. The good news is I was able to take out most of his transports when he went for the DEI, he only has 2 tpts w/fleet so an Aus invasion won’t be to easy.
-
RE: Neutrals
This came from Larry in a Q&A Feb 4th, I thought that’s what this topic started with.
[Q1]: What is the ‘pro-axis’ and ‘pro-ally’ mechanic for neutrals and how does it work?
Let me say this… rules related to Pro this or pro that will be consistent with AAP40. However, neutrals will play a MUCH greater role in Europe than Pacific.[Q3]: Will there be any nation-specific ‘boosts’ in Europe (like Kamikazes are for the Japanese in Pacific '40)? No. I did not see the need.
I probably should point out that when a power enters a friendly neutral during a NCM the neutrals standing army converts and the actual units are placed on the board. This can make for some interesting developments in Greece and Finland as just two examples.The true neutrals being linked together (or some of them) and all going pro the other side if one is attacked was mentioned by Larry very early on, but he didn’t confirm it to be the case for sure. I think they were still working it out back then. He hasn’t said anything more about true neutrals as far as I know
-
RE: What will be wrong with AAAE: 1940?
Who are you kidding BD, you know your going to buy it. Maybe you don’t pre-order it, so you’ll pay more. I didn’t pre-order Pac 40, because I like to give my $ to the local hobby shops. As it turned out I got Pac 40 a day early, and they knock off $20.00 because one of the box corners had a tiny dent, so we paid about what they were going for online. Well my son paid, because it was an X-mas gift. Any way come August you’ll be getting the Euro side one way or another. Your just as passionate as rest of us and can’t wait to combine those 2 boards.
-
RE: What will be wrong with AAAE: 1940?
I think there were more play testers brought in for the Euro/global games. Some of the changes we are getting from the Errata concerning political rules and such may be a result of how they want things to progress in the up coming game(s). Remember its been said we are part of the working progress. I just hope the rule book(s) for these up coming games was held up long enough to incorporate the changes that the Pac 40 Errata has put forth, so we get a fairly clean rule book that will override the Pac 40 rules for the most part. I heard the release date got pushed from June to August, that could be why. I would think that the % of people that bought Pac 40, and will also buy Euro 40 would be very high (over 80%). As far as the game board & unit placements issues, those are minor IMO, and easily put to rest w/Errata.
It is unfortunate though for those who bought Pac 40 and don’t know about these changes. There should be a brief note placed in the Euro game regarding the changes to Pac 40 with a reference to the AH web sight now that the Errata is official and posted.
-
RE: Why are there Canadian roundels? A new rule perhaps?
I don’t agree with ANZAC being a separate power. Militarily Aus & NZ were entirely subordinate to the UK, then from 1942 to the USA. South Africa was, if anything, more independent - it was after all a Republic.
Flash, for game play having the Anz as a separate power supports the fact that the US had control of the Pacific Theater. It forces the UK to spend $ there, that it might not do if there was no Anz (like past games). The Anz/US will work well together. In the global game w/Anz going before the US, it will be very dangerous for Jap . The US will definitely run the show, and its little brother will be very helpful. I think they will have the same level of cooperation in the global game as Italy/Germany did in AA50.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
Yea that’s what I was thinking regarding an Anz AB on West, or N Ter Aus. At some point the allies might not have control of any of the E Indies, and it would be nice to still be able to send Anz/US ftrs to India later in the game if you need to. All depends on what Jap does of course.
I also noticed your N Zealand ftrs can make it to Java in the first turn. If Jap wasn’t able to attack it, or you could get enough ground cover, I would consider going that route early on. That way those Anz ftrs could be in India round #2 to. Then you could build an AB on the Aussie coast latter to bring in more reinforcements from Anz/US. I like at lot of mobility w/allies.
-
RE: Guam & Naval Base on Wake?
I wouldn’t go to house rules as an option. Its a tough time for the allies, but you have to counter. If they build carriers, try building a bunch of subs. Their cheap to take hits, almost 3 to 1 cost of a carrier to dodge bullets. If you attack chances are you can ding the carriers and take out DD’s, and your allies can finish the job before Jap can fix them. Try to set up 3 fleets, all similar so if they attack one, you can counter a weakened Jap fleet with the other 2 before they repair. As for the Asian ground battle 3 IC would be tough. I’ve seen 2 and that was a bitch. It is easier for the UK if Jap has air, because its hard for them to protect newly taken tt. If they are dropping that much $ in tanks though ($6 a pop) like $40-$50 ipc they can’t be putting to many DD’ or other cheap ships into their navy making it more vulnerable IMO.