Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look at

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.
WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look at

Post by WILD BILL » Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:59 pm

Larry, do you think you could get behind an optional rule that limits the scrambling of air units from islands, but gives coastal tt some scrambling ability.

At times (especially in the Pacific) we end up with a relatively small navy (3-4 ships) protected by 8-10 air units on an island air base. I'm not sure if it was you intention for the scramble ability to make up the larger portion of a battle force defensively, or to just be an aid to your navy (I'm thinking the later). Sometimes it seems to promote super stacks (although it is better now with the reduction of air units w/Alpha). I like the additions of the air base & scramble abilities to the game, but think because its unlimited that it is abused.

I also can't get around that fact that Japan can have unlimited scramble, where the UK gets none. I know for game play Japan must be hard to take down, but its air force shouldn't be its only source in defense of its waters.


I would like to see an optional rule to cap how many air units you can scramble from a single island (3 to 6). If one ftr unit represents say 50-100 air units then 3 ftr would be 150 to 300 air units. What is the capacity for such a base? Now as far as Japan, it would have multiple bases (more units). Maybe have island AB max at 3 units, but double it for VC (6 units). That gives Japan, Philippines, and Hawaii more protection. I would be happy with 6 units for all island bases.

I would also like to see coastal tt w/AB able to scramble at least one unit into each sz that it connects to (would be self limiting). Many have complained about UK loosing its entire home based navy G1. If the RAF could scramble just one ftr into sz 109 & 110, Germany would have to bring in more units to counter that possibility. Part of the UK navy has a chance to survive (which it should). On the other hand, if Italy is able to scramble just one ftr off the boot into sz 95 (and/or 97) , the Taranto Raid is also more risky for the UK. Germany would be able to send a ftr or tac into the Baltic/North sea (112/113) to protect its navy and/or def an amphib. I think sz def from a coastal AB would help both sides. There are a lot of possibilities and even more when you consider building new AB's. Would be fun to test.

**On a side note, could you incorporate scramble one unit into any land tt attached to a tt w/AB, or would that be to radical. In case like Novgorod you could scramble one air unit into each of the 5 attached land tt + the 2 sz if all were attacked, and you had the air force.

Eagle
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by Eagle » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:53 pm

I think the Airbases should work similar like the IC's. As we know, an IC cant mobilize unlimited of units, and neither should an Airbase. Lets say an Airbase can scramble max 6 units, and one less for each damage point, just like an IC can mobilize one less unit for each damage point.

What is the correct limit ? Since a carrier cost 16 IPC, take two hits and carry 2 planes, an Airbase that cost 15 IPC must scramble more than 3 planes, or nobody will buy it. I think 6 is the most beautiful number, since the current rules let an Airbase take a max of 6 damage points, so it will be easy to remember that it can only scramble 6 planes as max.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:32 pm

Air bases should as i have always maintained operate the same way they do when in islands as they should on land.

So if you got AB the planes ( not bombers however) can immediacy assist any adjacent area in defense. If you attack both the TT with AB and the adjacent area, these planes can divide the defense as they please allowing some to defend in the original area and others can assist in the adjacent area.

If you install a proper Technology like Radar, and remove the bogus so called "Advanced Artillery", the range of the assist could be increased to two territories, and the AA gun hits on 1-2.

Now the Battle of France is a bit more fun for the allies and Germany will stop all these G1 attacks of which is was not capable in the summer of 1940.

Also, remove the movement advantage from AB and replace it with this new rule:

You may place new air units in any air base ( dont need a factory)
You may move from any air base at double range in NCM Only
Airborne drops are required to be launched from air base ( both bomber and infantry must start from the AB)
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

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

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by Larry » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:37 pm

Ok… I think I see the need for a limited number of scrambled aircraft.
I think that number should be between 3 and 6 max. This will put a practical limitation on this mechanic - thus cutting down on excessive abuses as well.

Scrambling from a territory with an airbase is also an interesting idea.

Talk me into it and give your reasons or give me your reasons for leaving the rules as they are. These games are becoming too intricate and complicated for me to simply make sudden rule changes. It’s a bit too much for one person. I’ll need to know about some of your ideas, both pro and con on this issue.

Thanks.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:07 pm

The issue is your rule applies to some cases but not others. It applies to ships passing into the adjacent sea zone, but does not apply to air bases on land areas surrounded by other land areas. It is not a consistent rule.

Air base is not simply an air base, but a hub of movement of air units like a train station. Their is no reason why planes travel faster if they leave an air base, but it can be inferred that some advantage of reaction to a combat threat could be afforded to the air bases.

Radar technology could also benefit the design be adding a realistic benefit to players

the range to react would be 2 spaces, rather than one.

You could make perhaps airborne a standard rule in all games, and add in radar

or remove "war bonds" or "advanced artillery" one is not a tech, the other didn't exist in any way that effected infantry in that manner.

Radar on the other hand was a major advantage for the British and also Americans.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by WILD BILL » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:18 pm

Thanks for your comments Larry.
It seems like you think there may be a need to tweak this a bit (at least in the form of an optional rule). I tend to agree w/Eagle on this one, 6 unit max seems like a good number to start with for island bases (3 might not be enough). The damage could equate to 2 units less per damage marker (3 damage = no scramble how it is now). Or you could just leave that part alone.

As for sz next to a coastal AB (could include land tt) you could keep the 6 max units for the AB, but only 2 units max can scramble to each sz (or land tt). I think that any more then 1-2 units per sz (or land tt) might be to radical of a change to the mechanics. You could end up with more aircraft able to scramble into a sz (or land tt) if there are 2 AB's adjacent to it.

I'm not lobbing against the +1 movement that AB & NB gives. I rather like that mechanic and with the larger map and many more sz/tt I think it is needed (sorry IL).

I'm not trying to re-wright the rules for AB's. Just looking at some practical limits, and expanding it to include sz of coastal AB (and maybe land tt) as an optional rule. This would help to quite those of us that think UK should have some scramble ability. I also think it would come in handy to Italy when the US comes over. It would make Gib very interesting.

Thanks again Larry for being so approachable.

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

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by questioneer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:40 am

WILD BILL wrote:Thanks for your comments Larry.
It seems like you think there may be a need to tweak this a bit (at least in the form of an optional rule). I tend to agree w/Eagle on this one, 6 unit max seems like a good number to start with for island bases (3 might not be enough). The damage could equate to 2 units less per damage marker (3 damage = no scramble how it is now). Or you could just leave that part alone.

I like 6max for islands, 2max for coastal. Keep damage the same.

As for sz next to a coastal AB (could include land tt) you could keep the 6 max units for the AB, but only 2 units max can scramble to each sz (or land tt). I think that any more then 1-2 units per sz (or land tt) might be to radical of a change to the mechanics. You could end up with more aircraft able to scramble into a sz (or land tt) if there are 2 AB's adjacent to it.

I don't mind really mind this issue. I mean if this happens, that means that they spent the money to have airbase there- so I say more power to them- let them send double the amount of planes in the seazone if they have 2 bases attached to it from 2 different tt. By the way, there is no situation like this in the starting setup- so someone would have to build another AB to get this advantage. But, either way, this is not a big issue for me.

I'm not lobbing against the +1 movement that AB & NB gives. I rather like that mechanic and with the larger map and many more sz/tt I think it is needed (sorry IL).

DEFINITELY, keep the +1 movement, don't touch this.

I'm not trying to re-wright the rules for AB's. Just looking at some practical limits, and expanding it to include sz of coastal AB (and maybe land tt) as an optional rule. This would help to quite those of us that think UK should have some scramble ability. I also think it would come in handy to Italy when the US comes over. It would make Gib very interesting.

Thanks again Larry for being so approachable.

Comments from me in red, I'm with ya on this one WildBill

Larry, you may wanna make this call before anymore setup changes as it does change some strategies in the game.

Ex. If you apply this, you may not need to add 2subs to the Italian navy setup as the planes would be able to defend against Taranto.

Sealion could possibly be stopped (as least on G3), by building a navy and then having the planes scramble to protect.

Some things to consider. I guess the question is do you want to allow this change if it only creates imbalances elsewhere???

Hard to playtest a setup when a rule like this changes...ex ALPHA :?

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Optional rule for scrambling air units for Larry to look

Post by Krieghund » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:21 am

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting scrambling from airbases in theory. However, if it is limited some consideration should be given to the idea of lifting the restriction of one airbase per territory.

Japan depends heavily on the protection of scrambled air units for its defense. Reducing this capability would force it to retain more ships in its home waters, decreasing its ability to project force and threaten the Allies. While I am not opposed to such a change from a "realism" point of view, it would have a pronounced effect on game balance, which would need to be addressed.

Allowing even limited scrambling from coastal territories would be a real game-changer. The entire dynamic of the game would be affected. Also, from a "realism" point of view, I'm not sure how limited scrambling is much different from no scrambling. What's the justification for the limit? How do you justify excluding scrambling to adjacent territories as well as sea zones? Again, this is not something I oppose in principle, but I am concerned about the far-reaching impact it would have on game play.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests