Playtesting and Feedback - Atlantic Wall

Page 2

Solo Said: Post Reply with quote

While we should be somewhat cognizant of scenario games, we should be careful not to cost units high or low because of these optional rules / house scenarios. Playing a no air or no sub or no battleship or no carrier or island invasion etc scenario always makes some units more or less valuable.



No air means low AA ships that have a cheaper cost become more valuable. Small ship means HSB is more valuable as are most cruisers. No sub means battleships without TD are a better buy. Convoy means any unit with an Aux SA (attack or defense) becomes more valuable.



This unit should not be cost as if only playing versus destroyers and light cruisers.



I look at expected return on investment. If you have this w/in range 3 of enemy ships on turn one, with nothing else to shoot at it is going to be a prime target and probably sink within one or two turns. With a 4 or 5 dice shot then a 5 or 6 dice shot, it may cripple (3-5 points) or sink a destoyer (6-10 points). No guarantees though.



If you have it back, it won't get to attack until turns 2 or 3. Again it will probably get only a a couple to a few low dice shots. It can't contest or take objectives, even if immune to torps.



The units it can target successfully (destroyers and cruisers) usually have enough other low dice gunnery attacks against them unless you are facing a swarm you will run out of targets for low mains, seconds and Atlantic Wall gunnery attacks anyway.


W@S4 Replied to Weed(pg1): Don't know if this is were the Team wants to go; found this little bit of info





Two 21 cm (8.3 in) guns at Prinz Heinrich Battery just outside Calais

Two 21 cm (8.3 in) guns at Oldenburg Battery in Calais



Better suited for use against naval targets were the four heavy naval batteries installed by mid-September: Friedrich August, Prinz Heinrich, Oldenburg and Siegfried (later renamed Todt) – a total of eleven guns, with the firepower of a battlecruiser.



Perhaps the most remarkable gun was the 21 cm (8.3 in) Kanone 12 in Eisenbahnlafette, which had an effective range of 45 km (28 mi). Designed as a successor to the World War I Paris gun, it is claimed to have had a maximum range of 115 km (71 mi). Shell fragments from the gun were found near Chatham, Kent, 88 km (55 mi) from the nearest point on the French coast. There were two of these guns, operated by Artillerie-Batterie 701 (E) and they remained on the Channel Coast for the rest of the war.

Ticat Replied to W@S4: Todt Battery was one of the ones that got statted and was eventually taken out of contention because we were looking ahead and thinking it would be a good strong unit for Germany on the next deck. Since did Scharnhorst this time around we wanted to save some meat for the future



Todt is a great candidate because it shot at ships in harbour... IN ENGLAND.



overall, for this one, were were looking for the generic Atlantik Wall installation. The Stats are based on Longues-Sur-Mer, which, when compared to the far more established batteries on the Norwegian length, are very prototypical.



It's also worth noting that the Wall was manned mostly by and considered part of the Kreigsmarine and counted as their third later of naval defense. Though the guns along Normandy were mostly old models from WW1, they were all scheduled to be updated. This is what set Normandy apart from the rest: it was the least defended and weakest part of the Wall

W@S4 Said: Personally after looking it at it a while i like the whole concept as i see it.



Positives



One; I love the way the Team went with the SA's, new and unique, to me designing with-in the idea of a Wall playable with other installations.

Two; We have other installations; but this one takes a smaller view of them; again more with what the Atlantic Wall was, mostly smaller guns with the Allies trying at best to knock them out; but in the end most were swarmed.

Three; Adding greatly to what these units really are, Scenario Pieces; yes they are all interchangeable;; but this one is Great for Atlantic Theater play especially for the purists; The rarely used units you'll probably use.

Four; AA value and Defensive line; i think you have values with in reason; nice target for Hi level Bombers; Good smaller ship play Cruisers and Destroyers [can we bring the Halifax back into play]; want a surer thing pay for the DB's or big guns your still going to have to chip away.



Negatives



1 Probably not a great unit for core play

2 I think SOLO covered the rest



I believe Weeds is right, hard to lower the cost with that Defensive line; cost may seem high for the MG's but i think for what it is and its uses, players will try it and come up with some unique play.


JuggernautJ Said; What if...



The sectors are huge and this "section" of the Atlantic Wall is small so what if you allowed more than one "wall section" per island/shore sector?

This might increase their value without changing anything on the now existing card.


12-7 Replied to juggenautJ : Are you suggesting a limit of two per sector, like the ship limit?

Swizz Said: Very interesting question ... !


NARsear Said ; Is there a rule that limits installations to one per sector? The way I've always played (which may be wrong) was that you could do two per sector like ships.

W@S4 Said : Personally I think stacking this units defeats the Teams intent for it.

I don't see play for it that way!!

Stacking makes the sector harder to knock out true; probably to hard; but what offensive value do you gain for cost.

Wasting resources on a sector you're opponent probably bypass's; or spending halve you're build cost on a rare opportunity to run a string of them. Don't see it.

This is just a good addition to the Scenario building part of the game. Working with other Fortress's and as per the Team, possible future Atlantic Wall larger batteries filling some missing SB pieces;

Hope the Team leaves it as is and builds on it in the future.

JuggernautJ Said : By design, the Atlantic Wall (the unit) works best with other installations.

Atlantic Wall (the SA). like Wolfpack, requires another unit with this same SA. Overlapping fire requires another installation capable of a gunnery attack.



If a weakness (as described by Solo) of this proposed unit is that it might be difficult to effectively place because islands are not always close then allowing two installations/sector would counter that problem.

Certainly, if both were in the sector it would be no problem to overlap fire.



Often walls are built to defend something important... a tactical or strategic... objective.

Two Atlantic Wall units on an island adjacent to an objective might be historically appropriate.

However, like Solo said, I don't know what the advantage of two such pieces would be over a HSB or ships of the same cost.



Mechanically I was thinking the "extra installation/sector" SA might be worded similar to Close Escort to be consistent within the game.

Flakstruk Said : What if you could place it adjacent to another installation, even if that was a sea sector?

Solo Replied to Flakstruk: That would help the use, but probably not the cost issue, especially since I am guessing another SA would have to go?

Swizz Replied to NASear : RB intended for "Installations" to be one per sector. Allowing 2 of these to one sector would be a big change, and may not be worth it. If we can keep these one to a sector AND make it worthwhile, that would be better as a solution. There are plenty of gunnery-boosting SA's (Rapid Fire, Radar Fire Control, etc.) that could be used instead.


12-7 Replied to Flakstruk : That would basically be a ship, wouldn't it? I'm not crazy about that idea for an installation.

W@S4 Said ; Really can't see the complaints of this unit or is SA's;



Cost effectiveness; What DD in the game is going to give you that MG line [range 3] its the games smaller CL type units at similar cost;

Its defensive line [4 hull]is better than any Cruiser except the VD Tann and Alaska;

Two are better than one; if you want to use one HSB instead of two AW's isn't the Team giving you an option with a different type of installation; Going either way will have its advantages and disadvantages.

Two ship instead of an AW; Apples and Oranges; why go any deeper Installations are a different game concept with different uses, just gives you choice.

Now we want to put a Boom Chain across the WAS map

Been of a bit of a rough go for the Team on some units i think they are do their do on this one.


Commander Sam replied to NARsear ;  It's only one installation per sector (as subs). I have to peruse through rules/Clarification to find the exact reference.


Solo Said : It certainly has decent defense, but not so much as to stand up to much ER fire from battleships or heavy cruisers turn 1. If it isn't in ER4/5 range on turn 1, then it probably is not going to be near the objective line, meaning it is going to be limited in its use throughout the game (both in targets and gunnery dice).



Z32 (for 9 points) has the same gunnery score, but is a ship and benefits form all its shippiness, including torps and DD features.



Oscarsborg is 3 more points than this proposal. It has R3 mains and seconds, Opening Salvo 2, a R1 torp attack, same armor, but 14 vital. Granted it has 4 AA and a potential concealment SA, but otherwise look at what you get for that 3 point upgrade. And Oscarsborg is doing anything but blowing up games.



I don't see this thing averaging 13 points of damage scored a game (and without the objective taking/contesting) or diverting enough attacks to protect other units. It will be largely ignored for the minimal threat it is. Give it a cost of 11, and you may have a playable piece. I'd still take a Leipzig or Koln though (better AA, better guns, torps, a ship, only 1 less hull, etc.).










Heavygear Said ; I do think AA6 is bit short for a 1944 entry and should be 7

Ticat has a giggle about solo's Shippiness comment


Page 2

Hey guys, i've transferred the discussion from the old forum to here as were currently working intently on this one.

question has come up, with regard to replacing overlapping fire with Drive Off(ie Garabaldi) -or- retaining overlapping fire with tweaks in wording and/or cost


please note these discussion predate RBs clarifications on installations. Please consider your previous comments with that in mind

To answer Flakstruk--The original unit was overcost. RB's clarifications do not change that, because compared to the other installations it was still overcost and all installations are subject to RB. So I do not think any of the original analysis changes at all.

--------------------------------

To respond to au64--I do like your SA idea of Protective Facility, but I don't think you should drop the vital or HP. With little else to aim at, this will be ER4 bait on turn 1, with no chance of firing back unless there are some advanced deployed, establish screen, or HSR units.

It would need some additional screening though, because it does present a unique challenge to speed fleets (which typically rely on lots of small and weakly armed/armored units). This may justify the 13 point price or it might even increase it. At 13, while 39 points contests every objective, that's a lot of points to be tied into three relatively weak gunnery attacks (even with 12 torpedo proof hull points).

waratsea4 - The reason that the wheel isn't squeaking is because it wasn't turning or moving. The initial Atlantic Wall installation as proposed from the playtests that I've done on it runs into a variety of issues including:
1) The points being too high for what it can do
2) Placement issues to even be able to use Overlapping fire on some maps
3) Not having range to have any kind of reasonable impact on the game due to possible placement issues
I don't take anything said on here personally (please don't take anything I say personally), I'm honestly trying to drum up some discussion and seeing other peoples playtest results.

Solomiranthius - I think that with more playtesting we'll be better able to determine the A/V/H line depending on where the unit can be placed. Something important to remember is that if you have two or more of these units in play they will get a cover save and that vital from an ER4 Battleship can be avoided 1/3 of the time.

I want to see a balanced unit that we can possibly build off of in the future. A unit where people don't groan when it hits the table. As several people know, I am paranoid about HSBs as it is (to the extent that I've specifically used ships with Landing abilities and Ju52s just to try and destroy them), the last two things I want to see is an overpowered Atlantic Wall and a wasted slot in the deck.

Perhaps we need to see what the development team thinks on this and await a second version?