|
5 years ago ::
Jun 23, 2008 - 9:45AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2007
|
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 foruminiWith 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
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 23, 2008 - 12:29PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Giving Tirpitz the same ER and AA capability will definitly help 
Tirpitz should deploy right on an objective, and be forced to stay there.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 23, 2008 - 7:39PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2006
|
Tirpitz should deploy right on an objective, and be forced to stay there.
Circling, and circling, and circling...
BTW, the new Opening Salvo is up.
The HMS Illustrious looks pretty good. The Sneak Attack SA is very reasonable IMO. Decently priced, excellent AA, and Torp Def 1. Sweet ship.
The Barracuda MKII has the interesting SA of 'Mission Selection. Slightly cheaper than the Dauntless with choice of bombs (a couple less) or Torps, with Determined attack thrown in. I like this plane.
Whosoever conquers others has force. Whosoever conquers himself is strong. --Lao Tzu  Outrider Northern Contingent of the SYRACUSE-BINGHAMTON ALLIANCE
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 23, 2008 - 10:33PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2007
|
The Barracuda has ASW too. A tremendously versatile plane. I often find I need to mount a concentrated ASW attack either early in the game or late in the game. Especially if I only have a couple of attack planes remaining and cannot mount a credible attack on an AA heavy sector. It is also useful to place an ASW aircraft on a sub early and force your opponent to spread out his fighter cover before sending a bunch of aircraft into your 'real' target sector.
I'll bet the Avenger is very similar with both torpedo and bomb ability but with higher armor. Ouch for the Axis! I am almost certain Richard put at least the Judy, and maybe the Jill in Set II. Unfortunately, I don't think the Japanese ever used them for ASW. The Judy would also make an excellent kamikaze repaint for Set III with a little more punch than the Zeke version.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2008 - 3:16PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
From what I could find out on Wickpedia none of this class destroyer were lost to aircraft bombs unless you include kamikaze
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2008 - 4:20PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2007
|
From what I could find out on Wickpedia none of this class destroyer were lost to aircraft bombs unless you include kamikaze
By the time the Sumner class were being commissioned the US pretty much controlled the skies and the Japanese did not have much of a bomber force left.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2008 - 4:05PM
#47
|
|
|
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
No. Giving the Tirpitz the same AA capacity as the Iowa, or even the Richelieu (which I believe represents her post '44 refit) would be a gross overstatement of her capabilities. Most American ships have staggering AA because they really did during the war. The twin 5"/38 gun mount used as secondary armament on most American BBs and CAs was one of the heavy flak mounts of the war, especially when combined with American prox-fuzed warheads. I have no problem with giving the Bismarck and Tirpitz the capacity for long-range fire, however.
Germany and Japan have other strengths. The Germans have their U-boats, which, though seldom used in a fleet engagement, were effectively used to cut the Atlantic shipping lines. The Japanese have the extraordinarily nasty Long Lance torpedo, mounted by nearly every one of their non-BB surface combatants. I believe at least the Japanese destroyers have night-fighting capability; the non-Tone CA does too, if I recall correctly, or at least ought to.
If one wanted to be mean or perhaps perverse, one could always assign the USS San Francisco the "Atlanta-killer" SA. She shot up USS Atlanta during the First Battle of Guadalcanal, and had the USS Juneau blown up while alongside her transferring wounded. Actually, her entire class seemed to be a hard-luck run, as nearly half (Astoria, Quincy, and Vincennes) got sunk during the Battle of Savo Island.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2008 - 10:33AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The Germans have their U-boats
Which used to be a great idea until subs were whined into submission.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 1:24PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2007
|
I definately think making such a big deal of the laffey's SA is making a mountain out of a mole hill... Most secondary guns would be able to take it out in one shot once its crippled. I would agree its undpriced though, by a couple points. But weedsrock is right, with every expansion of collectible games the cards/units get more and more crazy, making older releases outdated. I was hoping with 2 years between the original release and this expansion WaS would have been a sloooow burn. But it seems they've done well in making up for lost time 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 10:20PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2007
|
Although power creep can be a definite problem I think Richard may be intentionally trying to 'beef up' destroyers, aircraft, and especially cruisers just a little in this set. Does anyone else think this? We all (mostly) know cruisers still struggle a bit to find their place in the game. Destroyers were mostly 'fixed' with the rules updates. But cruisers (other than the Atlanta) are still a little in limbo. But I mean boosting them just a little, not a lot! So it makes sense to me that Richard is very slightly (I think from my reading of the Opening Salvos) making cruisers and attack aircraft just a little more potent either with SA's or in stats or cost. It will tend to leave a FEW set I units behind for open tournament play, but I am okay with that if it is aimed at getting the overall game in balance. I think all units seen so far are still within a reasonable range of each other for scenario and historical games. So this is something I will have my eye on when I see the entire set next week. If the trend holds I think it is deliberate to make cruisers and attack planes fit a little better. Not to intentionally make older units obsolete. I don't think that is necessary or Richard's intention. The game continues to sell like hot cakes, even for Set I print runs. So there is no reason to break it. But as I said before, it is almost inevitable than one or two units will have an 'issue.' It is virtually impossible to discover everything in limited play testing. Giving it to the masses will always uncover something. Like, say, speed 2 submarines.
|
|
|
