Discuss Task Force Opening Salvo 1

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Have at it.
Thanks for also revealing the Fairey Battle, or Blackburn Skua, or whatever that is.



Edit: Barracuda
Thanks for the thread.

USS Laffey can't sink from bombs huh? Kind of a stretch but ok...it's a game.
I like the AA SA.

Kamikazes are interesting. They'll be a pain. For the Allies if they're not repelled, and for the Japanese if they are. Gamble either way with those.
Just curious...what's the rational for the "Uncertain Arrival" SA?
Whosoever conquers others has force. Whosoever conquers himself is strong. --Lao Tzu Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Outrider Northern Contingent of the SYRACUSE-BINGHAMTON ALLIANCE
Kamikaze is certainly interesting. I would have thought maybe it would be immune to air attacks or something. I mean if Japan stole 25 British planes and deceided to fly them into a US carrier they likely would get through.
I mean if Japan stole 25 British planes and deceided to fly them into a US carrier they likely would get through.

:P :P

hehe
And shouldn't this be in the WaS forum?
Kamikaze is certainly interesting. I would have thought maybe it would be immune to air attacks or something. I mean if Japan stole 25 British planes and deceided to fly them into a US carrier they likely would get through.

Axis & Allies forumini With over 750,000 posts, the most popular forum specialised in the Axis & Allies Miniatures, War At Sea and Angels 20 games. - Download hundreds of custom cards, as well as scenarios for all nations - Super-fast clarification of rules - Play A&A online and take part in online tournaments with great prizes - Compute die roll probabilities for AAM and WAS - Trade miniatures with our 2,400 members
A6M2 Zero Kamikaze:
This unit seems decent enough. You don't know when exactly it's going to come out, but barring bad rolls it should be there around turn 3. Since it's vital is equal to its armour, there is no aborting it; you either shoot it down or you don't. It's a fighter so doesn't benefit from Expert Bomber nor does it get Expert Fighter since that only affects AA rolls. It does however still benefit from the tone. Suicide Attack seems like a negligable drawback; unless you've gone very heavy on aircraft and lose a carrier or two it shouldn't come into play often. It seems much more likely the Kamikazes will just be shot down.

Compared to the Val it's less than 1/3 the cost (3:10), and has one more Bomb value. While it doesn't benefit from Expert Bomber, it still means only if a Val is getting Expert Bomber 2 from the Shokaku will it exceed the Kamikaze's attack. The downside is that the Allies, and US in particular, have plentiful AA to throw up - between Atlantas and now the Laffey it's going to be very difficult for Axis aircraft to get through.


USS Laffey (DD 724):
It's stats are comparable to the FR Gloire or UK HMS Javelin for the same cost, though obviously with the increased range and firepower on AA. It effectively gives a Fighter unlimited CAP range, though thankfully only once per game (annoyingly another you need to track).

As for Uniquely tough... the fact that it's flat out immune to being sunk by bombs is silly. I know for house rules we'll just be making that a D6 roll (5+ or some such). Of course they can still simply be straffed by gunnery attacks from Zeroes (non-kamikaze of course) ships, or even torpedoes.

The Heavy AA is what helps break this unit; not only do the US/Allies already have the Atlanta now you can have adjacent Laffeys to rip apart enemy aircraft; they still have high ASW (5; only the Samuel B Roberts has more) and gunnery attacks (for a destroyer 5/5/4 is as high as it gets). Additionally it has range 2 torpedoes, unlike all other current US units.

In the end though it's only a destroyer, so even if your bombs bounce off its force field your ships should be able to rip it apart.
You don't know when exactly it's going to come out, but barring bad rolls it should be there around turn 3.

Which makes it strategically useless.

"Oooo! I've got eight of these on my airstrip!!
Oh darn, they all come online randomly, at random times."

If it was possible to hammer a ship with four of these at the same time, at will, at the start, I'd consider using them. As is, no. Not even close.
Which makes it strategically useless.

"Oooo! I've got eight of these on my airstrip!!
Oh darn, they all come online randomly, at random times."

If it was possible to hammer a ship with four of these at the same time, at will, at the start, I'd consider using them. As is, no. Not even close.

Due to the randomness; and not being out until at the very least the second turn, I wouldn't rely on them as your main airforce, but they would be nice to suppliment yours; by turn 3 or so you'll probably have lost some so the Kamikazees make for nice replacements.

For non-standard games Turn 3(+/-) isn't quite as bad.

I think theyre nice units for casual play, for a more competitive environment.. well it depends on how much you want to rely on that die roll; games, or at least the ones I've been in/watched tend to go quickly
You simply have to wait until you have enough Kamis ready. 4+ means that each turn around half of the "not ready ones" will come available.

So if you have 8 (24 points ;)) you should be able to use 4 on turn 2!
...,... and Rock'n Roll - but Minis are fun too...
Which makes it strategically useless.

"Oooo! I've got eight of these on my airstrip!!
Oh darn, they all come online randomly, at random times."

If it was possible to hammer a ship with four of these at the same time, at will, at the start, I'd consider using them. As is, no. Not even close.

The rule just says remove the counter, you don't have to play the thing the same turn this is accomplished, I'm thinking not a really big deal.

I do wonder, though, why a kamikaze shouldn't benefit from fighter escort. Perhaps that is a rule clarification to come, it would certainly be nice, especially considering the hellcat's rumoured prowess.
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash!
In the matter of asthetics, both card's art looks to be a literal interpretation of the miniature (most notably with the aircraft). I guess its so that players could more easily match the two, but it is pretty unattractive, as compared to the base set's art.

I also think the "bomb immunity" should be a 2+ save on a D6. "Historical happenstance" SA's are fun, but I think this one takes it too far.

Also, though they are trying to reuse molds as much as possible, I would rather te kamikaze be represented by a single plane, since they didn't opperate like squadrons anyway. Be easier to tell from 'normal' zeros then, for sure.

Still, I am glad to finally recieve my OS fix. I was jonesin', baby!
The rule just says remove the counter, you don't have to play the thing the same turn this is accomplished, I'm thinking not a really big deal.

They can stay there and wait for the rest to go online, yes. However, when will that be?

I should bail on this game (AANM) anyway. All the "clarifications" document accomplished was making the game about a dozen times more complicated, crippling sub strategy, and making pretty much all aggressive aircraft operations suicidal.
The entire thing should have just said "Play boats, dammit!" and nothing else.
First, I like both units and their SA's. They will work, they won't break the game, and they provide some much needed new diversity.

It occurs to me the Kamikaze is very specific in the overstacking SA about allowing 3 of them in addition to the 5 standard planes allowed. A five plane land base capacity is specific to a 100 pt game. I think there should be a scaling up of the number of overstacked kamikaze's for 200 pt, 300 pt, and 500 pt games just like there is for aircraft. I realize this would be complicated to put on the card. Would it be possible to add this to the clarifications document?
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/ah_weedsrock2/3312ea8b685a0ad5ac1554bc35fbf33d.jpg?v=50000)
In the matter of asthetics, both card's art looks to be a literal interpretation of the miniature (most notably with the aircraft). I guess its so that players could more easily match the two, but it is pretty unattractive, as compared to the base set's art.

Would be much better if the illustrator was the one of AAM North Africa.
Axis & Allies forumini With over 750,000 posts, the most popular forum specialised in the Axis & Allies Miniatures, War At Sea and Angels 20 games. - Download hundreds of custom cards, as well as scenarios for all nations - Super-fast clarification of rules - Play A&A online and take part in online tournaments with great prizes - Compute die roll probabilities for AAM and WAS - Trade miniatures with our 2,400 members
I think there should be a scaling up of the number of overstacked kamikaze's for 200 pt, 300 pt, and 500 pt games just like there is for aircraft.

Wouldn't it make sense to assume each 100 point increment includes an additional airstrip instead of merely a bigger one?
Wouldn't it make sense to assume each 100 point increment includes an additional airstrip instead of merely a bigger one?

I am just following the "Major Engagement Scenario" rules on page 35 of the 'Advanced Rules.'

"The capacity of your land base increases to 7, 9, or 13 aircraft units for a 200, 300, or 500 pt game."

So scaling the same way for kamikazes would allow 4, 5, or 7 kamikazes on the land base for a 200, 300, or 500 pt game.

Hey Richard! What do you think?
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/ah_weedsrock2/3312ea8b685a0ad5ac1554bc35fbf33d.jpg?v=50000)
In the matter of asthetics, both card's art looks to be a literal interpretation of the miniature (most notably with the aircraft). I guess its so that players could more easily match the two, but it is pretty unattractive, as compared to the base set's art.

Beat you to it!

http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/sutra44646.php#44646
[b]
As for Uniquely tough... the fact that it's flat out immune to being sunk by bombs is silly. I know for house rules we'll just be making that a D6 roll (5+ or some such). Of course they can still simply be straffed by gunnery attacks from Zeroes (non-kamikaze of course) ships, or even torpedoes.

The Heavy AA is what helps break this unit; not only do the US/Allies already have the Atlanta now you can have adjacent Laffeys to rip apart enemy aircraft; they still have high ASW (5; only the Samuel B Roberts has more) and gunnery attacks (for a destroyer 5/5/4 is as high as it gets). Additionally it has range 2 torpedoes, unlike all other current US units.

In the end though it's only a destroyer, so even if your bombs bounce off its force field your ships should be able to rip it apart.

Hmm, I sold my WAS collection half a year ago or so. I didn't have enough money to invest heavily in both AAM and WAS, so I had to make a choice. I have to admit I wasn't even going to start collecting WAS but the nice looking miniatures from the previews convinced me to do so anyway. However, after having played a few games I was quite disappointed with the game. It still seemed broken at that point ( despite the lessons learned (???) by AAM ; e.g. unsinkable heavy battleships), although I hear things have changed somehwat now.

It's sad to see WoTC still haven't learned their lesson as far as silly SA's are concerned: Uniquely togh, C'mon you've got to be kidding me! More difficult to sink? Sure, but IMPOSSIBLE? Also- and I suppose this is no coincidence- it once more happens to be an AMERICAN unit with such an SA....

I'm glad I stopped buying WAS. AAM - with the houserules we use- is my all time favourite game, despite its flaws. I'm still hopeful the most blatant of these will be solved by the upcoming rules revision, but once again, it's SOOOOOOOOO sad to see they still haven't learned their lesson from past mistakes....
Hmm, I sold my WAS collection half a year ago or so. I didn't have enough money to invest heavily in both AAM and WAS, so I had to make a choice. I have to admit I wasn't even going to start collecting WAS but the nice looking miniatures from the previews convinced me to do so anyway. However, after having played a few games I was quite disappointed with the game. It still seemed broken at that point ( despite the lessons learned (???) by AAM ; e.g. unsinkable heavy battleships), although I hear things have changed somehwat now.

It's sad to see WoTC still haven't learned their lesson as far as silly SA's are concerned: Uniquely togh, C'mon you've got to be kidding me! More difficult to sink? Sure, but IMPOSSIBLE? Also- and I suppose this is no coincidence- it once more happens to be an AMERICAN unit with such an SA....

I'm glad I stopped buying WAS. AAM - with the houserules we use- is my all time favourite game, despite its flaws. I'm still hopeful the most blatant of these will be solved by the upcoming rules revision, but once again, it's SOOOOOOOOO sad to see they still haven't learned their lesson from past mistakes....

This part gets me... Unique on a ship that is a Common.

Someone at Wotc please look up the definition of unique and the definition of common. Seriously... look those words up.

This ship could have been made as an uncommon. The fact that I could float out 4 of these in a 100-point game is kind of absurd. It is almost as bad as the "heroes" thing after they released the D-day set. Sure there were heroes... but I don't want my game board cluttered with them.
Oh, don't worry.

I'm sure someone will get soundly stomped by them, refuse to adapt and/or play with better units, then scream and whine and scream until his "fix" houserule gets codified.

"I want to play what I want to play! I shouldn't have to adjust to what beats my build - his build should be neutered instead so I don't lose all the time!"
I don't think they are that overpowered for the cost. I don't mind the unit so much. It's the fact that a destroyer cannot be bombed part that is so odd. I mean... it should be a once in a fleet kind of thing. Now every ship of the class is going to have it.

It won't hurt the game. Everythings is fine. But taking the extreme case and making every ship act like that is wierd. If some destroyer somewhere had a bad problem that was way below the normal performance for its class and hurt it's performance should we make it a common and all the destroyers of the class will be crap and sink without putting up a fight?

Unique:

1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities
5. not typical; unusual
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind

Common:

1. widespread; general; ordinary
2. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar
3. lacking rank, station, distinction, etc.; unexceptional; ordinary

etc...
In the matter of asthetics, both card's art looks to be a literal interpretation of the miniature (most notably with the aircraft). I guess its so that players could more easily match the two, but it is pretty unattractive, as compared to the base set's art.

You are right. The art seems to have dropped a notch. But at least they appear to have matched the colors. It sounds kind of petty but it was annoying to get "Contested Skies" and "D-day" and find the cards were all sorts of different colors which didn't match the previous sets.
This part gets me... Unique on a ship that is a Common.

AFAIG more than 50 were made of the Sumners... they were NOT unique, so common is OK...
...,... and Rock'n Roll - but Minis are fun too...
AFAIG more than 50 were made of the Sumners... they were NOT unique, so common is OK...

Right. And 49 of them did not demonstrate such amazing abilities to avoid being sunk. But that is the card we have.

When I use the term "Unique" I am talking about the special abilitiy given to the entire class. Read the card.
So... if I'm reading the vibes right, all of the moaning about BB+subs last year is merely going to transmute into moaning about BB+DDs this year?
Peace brother!

I admit I think its a bit weird that its bomb proof, but I (will) houserule it : the first bomb hit that would sing this unit will instead cripple it.
...,... and Rock'n Roll - but Minis are fun too...
I know I would be right ****** if I brought a build of, i dunno a Richelieu and five Laffeys, and my opponent insisted my boats don't 'really' do what the card clearly says they do and the latest 'clarifications' PDFs don't mention anything of the sort.
Unique, uncommon, and common are clearly based on the size of the miniature (mostly) and the number of actual ships made (somewhat). I am sure there will be at least one more Sumner class destroyer as a reprint if the game goes through at least four sets.

The game was getting stale after 17 months without new units. It needed new units and the main way to add diversity to game play is to come up with creative SA's. I don't need another generic destroyer with the same old SA's.

It is impossible to come out with more miniatures in these types of games and have them all be 'perfect.' I have never seen perfection in any of these types of games. If Richard goes too conservative on units and SA's the game will be criticized for being 'more of the same' and boring. If he get's too creative everyone screams it is crazy. I prefer to let his team get creative. There are bound to be a few units or stats that get off-track a bit. If that turns out to be case after some game play they can be adjusted with house rules. But I am not even close to being convinced there is anything wrong with the Laffey at this point from a game play perspective. It adds new dimensions to strategy for playing with it and against it. That is what new units are supposed to do in a game like this. Upset the apple cart and force everyone to come up with new strategies.

Keep an open mind. I think we have just been stuck with the original 64 units for too long.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/ah_weedsrock2/3312ea8b685a0ad5ac1554bc35fbf33d.jpg?v=50000)
I know I would be right ****** if I brought a build of, i dunno a Richelieu and five Laffeys, and my opponent insisted my boats don't 'really' do what the card clearly says they do and the latest 'clarifications' PDFs don't mention anything of the sort.

Houserules! man its Houserules - I do not expect that my houserules will be used in other enviroments than my HOUSE ;)

If you play at my place you play my rules ;9 If I play at yours I play your rules...

99.9% it will be "as written", but occasionally a fix is necessary.

II reread most USN ship cards (even the unused ones) amnd considering all that is known now, I came to the onclusion that soon the Sumners will collect dust in the tackle box, because the Fletcher is still more cost effective and IIRC in the last games I (or opponents) used Fletchers they were only fillers with a good ASW ;) - I do not expect the Sumners to fill that role equally well.

Javelins OTOH are quite battle worn ;)
...,... and Rock'n Roll - but Minis are fun too...
The game was getting stale after 17 months without new units. It needed new units and the main way to add diversity to game play is to come up with creative SA's. I don't need another generic destroyer with the same old SA's.

It is impossible to come out with more miniatures in these types of games and have them all be 'perfect.' I have never seen perfection in any of these types of games. If Richard goes too conservative on units and SA's the game will be criticized for being 'more of the same' and boring. If he get's too creative everyone screams it is crazy. I prefer to let his team get creative. There are bound to be a few units or stats that get off-track a bit. If that turns out to be case after some game play they can be adjusted with house rules. But I am not even close to being convinced there is anything wrong with the Laffey at this point from a game play perspective. It adds new dimensions to strategy for playing with it and against it. That is what new units are supposed to do in a game like this. Upset the apple cart and force everyone to come up with new strategies.

Keep an open mind. I think we have just been stuck with the original 64 units for too long.

I don't know if you also play AAM, but the thing is with very SIMPLE changes the SA's could have been much more logical. E.g. what they did to overwatch ( long range defensive fire attack) is say that all units having relocate 2 can make such attacks. This meant that mortars can make such attacks and the 88 mm Flak and Machine guns cannot...Do you see the logic behind that? ( The former they corrected, though, albeit that yet another one of those famous PDF files was needed for it). What they actually meant the ability to be is: All units can make long ranged defensive fire attacks but only against vehicles ( so never against soldier type units). Personally I still find it strange that machine guns cannot be put on overwatch against soldiers, but at least then you would have had a consistent ruling that also makes more sense than what the rule currently states.

In the case of " uniquely tough" they could have made the ability sth like: ignores the first bomb hit or it becomes crippled when otherwise it would have been destroyed. It still makes it a tough unit, but NOT indistructible.
I don't play the land game, but I have played Mechwarrior for the last four years or so. That game has a virtual book of errata! I think the more expansions a game has, and the quicker they come out the more likely 'out of balance' units will be created - either over-powered or so-called 'filler' (of little use). It is like anything done in large volume - some things will be better than others.

As I have said before, I am not prepared to declare the Laffey 'broken' until 1) I have had a chance to play it and most important 2) the rest of Set II is released so we can see what the Axis get in return.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/ah_weedsrock2/3312ea8b685a0ad5ac1554bc35fbf33d.jpg?v=50000)
I think the 20/20 hindsight will come into play here. All we've seen on stats is these two units thus far (out of 60) - we don't know how the rest of the set will shape up. We do know, just like all other minis for A&A, there's the game balance and historical aspects (with a nice twist since WaS has unique units). As Rich Baker stated earlier, there's always the "puzzle of balancing rarity, nation mix, 'real-world' records of the various ships, game requirements and, oh yeah, try to economize on the number of new sculpts...while keeping an eye out for what might be coming in a possible Set IV someday."

After collecting Star Wars and A&A land minis for years now and seeing how they've changed SAs and point values over time (more complex and making earlier pieces useless, esp. Star Wars), I hope they keep the "entire game" in perspective and have balance between the various sets (hoping for more than two). Time will tell. Until then, I'll keep collecting and playing.
"I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." WaS Base: 64/64 (632) WaS TF: 60/60 (518) WaS FS: 40/40 (339) WaS 2010 Starter: 8/8 (32) WaS CZ: 40/40 (220) WaS V: 40/40 (200) WaS SA: 40/40 (120) TOTAL: 2061 AH defender390's Trade List IMAGE(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z18/dfender_photos/WarSea/WaS%20Avatars/SigLine1.jpg)
...As I have said before, I am not prepared to declare the Laffey 'broken' until 1) I have had a chance to play it and most important 2) the rest of Set II is released so we can see what the Axis get in return.

Broken? In it's own sense...maybe not in a game sense. It will still be easily destroyed, but just not by planes unless they get lucky and strafe it into the depths.

Frankly, the "bomb immunity" thing bugs me. They've introduced an absolute that doesn't make sense. It takes away an element of choice that was possible in reality. Now yes, before all the angry voices come out, it's a game and I know it. But if WoTC makes a destroyer that cannot be sunk by bombs (when a BB can), then anything goes. That's a game...but it isn't WWII naval battle (outside of fantasy).

A friend of mine explained that the AA would drive planes away, thus the bombs. This doesn't make sense because the bombs can cripple the vessel...and after that they meet the impregnable hull. Keep in mind that a crippled ship shoots its AA worse than an undamaged vessel.

Nope. The Laffey won't kill a win for any opponent on its own...just the historical sensibility of the unit itself.
Whosoever conquers others has force. Whosoever conquers himself is strong. --Lao Tzu Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Outrider Northern Contingent of the SYRACUSE-BINGHAMTON ALLIANCE
It's a game and you know it!

Oh, wait... damn.



Methinks the real point of this unit was to discourage then-competitive 'planes & subs' builds that obliterated the opponent before that third white dot could be had. Apparently, this unit must have been designed before the "Clarifications" neutered planes and subs, and made it possible to "win" after being decisively eliminated.
Wow, I have to say the USS Laffey is under cost for what it does. I have to agree with the consensus that Uniquely Tough is a bit too much. They should’ve made it like USS Enterprise’s SA Survivor except for Bombs. If I’m reading the text right it looks like air torpedo and gunnery attacks still can sink it. If strafing can sink it while bombs can’t, it makes all the sense in the world.

For me the Radar Ploket can make this ship kinda nasty. Granted it has one use, but if you have a couple of them it can make a difference in game. In any event, with all its stats and SAs at preliminary it looks like the Laffey is going to be the destroyer of choice to field.
It's a game and you know it!

Oh, wait... damn.

...

Hah! You are duly foiled. :P

I'll probably play one or two...and chuckle.
Whosoever conquers others has force. Whosoever conquers himself is strong. --Lao Tzu Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Outrider Northern Contingent of the SYRACUSE-BINGHAMTON ALLIANCE
Broken? In it's own sense...maybe not in a game sense. ...

Frankly, the "bomb immunity" thing bugs me. They've introduced an absolute that doesn't make sense. It takes away an element of choice that was possible in reality. Now yes, before all the angry voices come out, it's a game and I know it. But if WoTC makes a destroyer that cannot be sunk by bombs (when a BB can), then anything goes. That's a game...but it isn't WWII naval battle (outside of fantasy).

A friend of mine explained that the AA would drive planes away, thus the bombs. This doesn't make sense because the bombs can cripple the vessel...and after that they meet the impregnable hull. Keep in mind that a crippled ship shoots its AA worse than an undamaged vessel.

Nope. The Laffey won't kill a win for any opponent on its own...just the historical sensibility of the unit itself.

You clearly have the right to feel any way you like about it. It does not disturb my historical sensibility at all. I think the 'bomb immunity' SA is a very clever one that ties in nicely with the historical experience of the USS Laffey. It is just one unit and there are plenty of other ways to destroy it. And I think from a game play perspective it adds a nice twist to strategy.

It has been clearly demonstrated on these boards that the borderline between 'what if' and 'fantasy' is in a different place for everyone. I don't even know where I would kick back. I haven't seen anything (official) yet that causes me alarm. I have certainly seen posts with ideas that would cause me alarm though!

Tomorrow is a new Opening Salvo and new chance to start a flame war. Oh boy! :D
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/ah_weedsrock2/3312ea8b685a0ad5ac1554bc35fbf33d.jpg?v=50000)
This game stnds on several feet. one is that the design team wnated to include some "real" world records into the units. But how to do that? Including the "bad" experiences is one possible way (HOOD!), but who wants to play bad units ;)

So using the "best" feat as base is the way to go. As the Allies and especially the US had more units than the Axis - its easier to find some lucky ones and include them in the game ;)

i reread some flavor text on the cards and i found out a disturbing tendency. Great feats of US ships were used to construct the units, while feats of axis ships were largely ignored.

some examples:

I-19 - this sub damaged/sunk 2 capital US ships with one torpedo spread - I bet if it was an US sub it would have a SA like: Lucky spread. If this unit scores a hit on a ship, then it can make another attack on another ship in the same sector as the hit ship.

Bismarck. could also have "lucky hit" if this units attacks another BB and scores 4 (5,6,...) sixes on the attack roll the other ship is destroyed immediately (what it did on Hood) - one could argue that it was bad design on the Hood, but it could also be a lucky hit that could have happened on all contemporary BBs...

I assume this "preferring" of the Allies and US is the product of an (unconscious) patriotism which lets the designers select good traits more easily when dealing with friendly ships.

But actually I believe this real world traits make the game attractive, but they should be balanced. Letting the ship roll a save - OK, making it immune - NO - NEver. The Laffey rides a small fence, its immune to one attack, but it can be destroyed by other means (and its not difficult).

Also there are other SAs out there that are quite nice, but I believe so far none is breaking the game. A bit more evenly distributed bit more evenly between axis and allies (for example IOWA/Richelieu being the ones with longest range - are the most difficult to kill - IOWA is another fence rider :D)

Giving Tirpitz the same ER and AA capability will definitly help ;)

So my plead - Keep the laffey, but do not put mnore cheese into the sandwich than this :D
...,... and Rock'n Roll - but Minis are fun too...
So my plead - Keep the laffey, but do not put mnore cheese into the sandwich than this :D

Hehe, you're in for a treat.

By the way, will AAM host all WAS opening salvoes? :D
Axis & Allies forumini With over 750,000 posts, the most popular forum specialised in the Axis & Allies Miniatures, War At Sea and Angels 20 games. - Download hundreds of custom cards, as well as scenarios for all nations - Super-fast clarification of rules - Play A&A online and take part in online tournaments with great prizes - Compute die roll probabilities for AAM and WAS - Trade miniatures with our 2,400 members
Sign In to post comments