Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Post Reply
Game Master
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:17 pm

Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Game Master » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:23 am

The issue is control of the air

In World War II, pure naval firepower didn't mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk ... quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack -- though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that's hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule "Air Supremacy":

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.

I have play tested this rule for years and I found it balanced and simple, not just realistic. Larry, have you considered it and if so, what to say about it?
Last edited by Game Master on Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Larry » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:00 pm

Off the top - Great Idea. Simple too, which I like a lot. I kind of feel that air supremacy is, in a slit way for sure, already built into the game's combat system. The effectiveness and cost ratio for aircraft makes them the central combat unit type. In future games, with additioinal types of aircraft, this will become even more evident. The golden rule I live by when it comes to rules is keep it simple - not everybody is interested in many specific details... Move and Kill something seems to be the most successful set of rules.

You are doing exactly what you should be doing.. making some house rules that appeal to how you think the game could or should unfold.

Regards,
Larry

Game Master
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Game Master » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:45 pm

Larry wrote:Off the top - Great Idea. Simple too, which I like a lot...

...You are doing exactly what you should be doing.. making some house rules that appeal to how you think the game could or should unfold.

Regards,
Larry
Thanks a lot for your answer. By the way, by using this air supremacy rule AA-guns will be a better buy since they negates the air supremacy of an attacker who use airplanes.

Moreover, the Allies won battlefield air supremacy in the Pacific in 1943, and in Europe in 1944. That meant that Allied supplies and reinforcements would get through to the battlefront, but not the enemy's. It meant that the Allies air power could support land forces in their immediate combat, as a form of "flying artillery". In Europe the Allied fighter-bombers seemed everywhere, and it was difficult for the Germans to move in daylight. Close airsupport might attack the tank or artillery piece that is actively attacking friendly troops.


Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.
Last edited by Game Master on Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Game Master
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Game Master » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:22 pm

Another way to bring air supremacy into the game is by changing Jet Figther tech:

Jet Fighters
Your fighters are now immune to aniaircraft fire and fire in the opening fire step, whether on attack or defense. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counterattack.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Larry » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:43 pm

Another layer of rules... Thin ... yes but still one more thing to consider. This game is going to be too full of these kind of details if I'm not careful. Each new rule just adds another mechanic that must be delt with. I don't want the OOB game to go into this kind of detail... I do suggest and in fact recommend that you try it with your circle of players. A&A is famous for house rules and offer lots of such opportunities for some creative variants

User avatar
questioneer
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by questioneer » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:47 pm

Larry why haven't you added sharks with lasers yet- cmon!!!!
:lol:

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: Why have you not included Air Supremacy as a rule?

Post by Larry » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:03 am

Would they be Axis or Allied sharks.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests