Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games
|
DaJudge
|
If my math is correct, New Jersey and Tenn both go down, Missouri has 2 damage now.
I plan on banning smoke from any online games I play. It's to annoying. lol I'd rather the games be quicker, if a ship gets hit, it gets hit and if you get sunk you move on to the next game. This slows it down to much and is annoying, it's like the cover rolls in the land game where a single guy on the objective, in forest, makes 7 cover rolls in a row, it's so annoying.
Anyway, with those 2 going down, I take Objective 1 and will have a terrible time trying to finish off your fleet with my air force down to 2 bombers so I am going to wave the white flag and take the rest of my fleet back to base. It was a good game but against 9 submarines, it's a little ridiculous I think, that's to many.
Good game, we'll do it again soon but I need to take a break from it and concentrate on work. i'll probably have some time next week as I will be on vacation but at home, we'll do a different game then.
|
packertim
|
I personally would suport a revision, ban on smoke. The difference between this game and last 1) I got my subs there 1 turn earlier. 2) You used your avenngers against my ships. Last game I had lost a third of my subs before they were in the battle. Plus you lost 2 Avengers. 3) Last game my subs went 0/14 the first turn they were in the mix. I would support a % ceiling on subs.
|
packertim
|
one last Q: You said something at beginning about taking 4 BB being wrong. Could you explain? Our gaming group does it as long as you take a Bismarck before taking a second Tirpitz. That goes for any sister ships Yamato/Musashi etc...
|
DaJudge
|
| packertim wrote: | | one last Q: You said something at beginning about taking 4 BB being wrong. Could you explain? Our gaming group does it as long as you take a Bismarck before taking a second Tirpitz. That goes for any sister ships Yamato/Musashi etc... |
I almost always stick to historical limits for fleet building. There was only one Bismarck, 1 Tirpitz, 1 Yamato, 1 Musashi, etc and my group are sticklers for accuracy as well.
4 battleships is NEVER wrong  but having 2 Tirpitz and 2 Bismarck is not realistic. It's just a game though, some people don't mind doing that.
If it were me doing the 500 point German/Italian fleet, my 4 battleships would be Tirpitz, Bismarck, Littorio, and Cesare or Vittorio Veneto, I just don't believe in running 2 of the same exact ship in a game. That's me though.
Smoke is ok in live games because things happen a lot faster, it's a good strategy to employ and requires more tactical thinking, not just move and shoot. In online games though, it gets really aggravating because it slows the game down a lot and it's already slow.
A percentage of your fleet would be good for submarines, never more than 10 or 15% I'd say. A 500 point fleet with 10% allowed for subs would have 4 subs and that's plenty, in my opinion and a little more realistic when you consider a naval battle didn't have submarines right in the middle of it, they were on the outside of the battle, deployed, like we do in our games, further away, towards the enemy base and they attack as the fleet goes by. There is not nearly enough movement in this game to avoid them, especially if there are 7 or 8 of them on the board. Just my opinion, subs are really powerful and SHOULD be part of the game but to a lesser degree, having a limit is good. The most I've used is 6 in a game and felt bad for doing it. lol
Anyway, we'll try and do another game next week, I'll be British or something different.
|
packertim
|
Random thoughts:
stacking limits in smoke should be reduced due to decreased manuever ability
but that would involve rule changes, which is not a good idea therefore, the best way to approach any inequities is through limitations in fleet construction
a limit should be put on number of subs based on a percentage of fleet points.
a limit should be made on the number of units of smoke layers used
I think your "number of units" idea worked very well in curbing US airpower, but I think the number of points should be the first criteria. If a fleet got to spend 50 points on air, and he chose to spend 30 points on Hellcats leaving 20 pts for offensive planes, you probably would see some difficult choices being made.
The airpower points should include cost of carriers. While WWII was a carrier war in the Pacific, their dominance was not nearly of that magnitude in the Med. or around Northern France.
Even if we go to an English vs ? I think the same basic Truths to hold.
|
|
