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.
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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:25 pm

Well, as I've seen you post before regarding artillery firing into adjacent land zones, Territories are just too large. Britain didn't scramble planes to intercept the luftwaffe over france (about the same distance between as many territories would be from their "center"). Tthey scrambled to catch planes crossing the Channel,
Unfortunately, The sea zones are MUCH larger than alot of the land areas and yet the game allows fighters to scramble in them.

A once space rule for all areas is more consistent than to restrict the scrambling from AB to just islands and the surrounding sea zone. Their is no other reason why the AB should apply to some cases and not others.

The rule would allow the British to intercept ships in the channel. If UK got radar technology, then the fighters would also protect parts of France. It only takes fighters about 45 minutes to reach France from UK. When Germany attacked UK their fighters had 30 minutes of flight time to dogfight.

With an early warning system like radar, a player can extent his few planes a bit farther and they become very important. For the most part Tactical bombers took some of the luster off of fighters and they will help balance out the buy.

Also, Air Base becomes very important since it is where you can only launch airborne attacks. They can be behind the lines and protect aircraft from front line land battles.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

kcdzim
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:07 pm

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

Post by kcdzim » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:01 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Unfortunately, The sea zones are MUCH larger than alot of the land areas and yet the game allows fighters to scramble in them.
Right. But they scramble to the seazone around the island, which would be where the defending ships could be reasoned to be as well (literally AROUND or NEAR the island), which would be where the action is - likely within sight of the contested islands. Personally, if I see a naval battle in the seazone of the solomans, I envision as a battle for the solomans, not the battle for SZ 49. Not a battle many hundreds of miles away at the border of that seazone. Sure, that occured, as with Midway, but the boardgame is an abstraction and allows island airbases to contribute, as they for sudden naval attacks in the immediate area.

Fighters from West Germany would not reach Poland in time to meet the first wave of an enemy offensive, even with Radar as you described (which I don't care for at all). I guess I could see it if you could add more "realism" that they're delayed a round of combat in order to get there, but that's more complexity and it completely alters the nature of the game.

But disregarding time or scale or anything like that (because bringing time into this game just doesn't work). Just for the standpoint of the way the game plays: Planes in general aren't on the defenders side at the contested front. they're on the offensive with a combat move. Change that and it changes alot. The defender already has the advantage with infantry and fighters actually in that territory. I think this will just make the Russian front that much harder to get through and require setup revisions AGAIN.

Look, I'm right there with you on airbases that are adjacent to seazones, but even with Radar, the British based fighters were NOT intercepting german planes en route to London OVER normandy. That's what combat moves are for.

And that's why it's called scrambling, not CAP. There's an implication of NOT having warning, and NOT having time as the battle is coming to the shores of the airbase.

I also propose that the airbase should scramble 6 fighters max, and for each point of damage it drops by 2 fighters (not just 1), so after 3 points of damage the airbase can't do anything at all. Otherwise there's little incentive to SBR the airbase. There rarely is anyway, but if factories and naval bases are effected to double damage, airbases should remain that way as well.

Feel free to disagree, I know there are very valid "realistic" and "historic" points and if it's officially adopted, I'll run with it, but right now I feel there's justification to keep the airbases abilities limited to seazones (but not only island seazones). This isn't a historic simulation with distance and range, some things MUST be abstracted and simplified (and I like that abstraction - it's a game)

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:54 pm

Right. But they scramble to the seazone around the island, which would be where the defending ships could be reasoned to be as well (literally AROUND or NEAR the island), which would be where the action is - likely within sight of the contested islands.

If you can assume everything in terms of the island group and the immediate areas adjacent to the islands, the same can be said in terms of border air bases in Germany flying over to Poland to assist in defense.

The game turns have been established at 6 month turns ( sorry eagle), so these battles are over a long period and so the air units are really an extension of support of local air forces along a front.

The issue that the defender can move his air elements to adjacent areas or sea zones only represents his deployment of air resources to defend in the campaign of the enemy. I am assuming that the air units are really not 'STATIC' forces just sitting around until deployed in their own offensives.

This is the same issue as how the land or sea unit is considered to occupy the entire area if attacked, the air is safe to assume its range in terms of reaction is much greater than any other units since it moves at 500 MPH and the tank or battleship is going 30 MPH.

Air Force projects its power much further and by this extrapolation it can be argued that they can have some effect over greater areas.

The requirement is the air base, which is the establishment of all the support mechanisms you might expect to sustain the air force operations over the period of a turn. Planes defending in just a normal space are considered ad hoc and not adequate enough for all the different missions possible.

Here is another solution:

NO radar: you must wait one turn before entering the battle with adjacent planes

With radar: your planes immediately help defend adjacent areas of any type.

both require a air base.

nothing more than allowing planes
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 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:54 am

I don't think we should be talking about radar extending an AB's range for the purpose of scrambling air units for def of a tt/sz 2 spaces away. Radar doesn't have that ability for island AB's and I don't see that changing. I think we should keep radar out of this general discussion because many people don't use tech. I wouldn't want to rely on getting radar to have a continental AB have the same basic abilities that an island AB has in deploying air def to an adjacent sz (or land tt). Nor do I want to work in a rule that delays scramble a round based on radar.

I did read something in IL's post that made sense. If you consider that all land tt can have air units on them (no AB needed). You have to assume that those tt have air strips for that purpose. Its also a given that the ftrs/tacs in that tt can/will def that particular tt if attacked. Now if you look at what an AB does for the game one could think, well an AB represents multiple air strips for that tt, not just a couple. The tt would have a more sophisticated network of air strips, early detection and better communication. It could be assumed that some of those airstrips would be near the boarders of the tt giving it the range to patrol beyond its own boarder. So if a tt w/o an AB can scramble air units to protect itself, its not such a stretch to think a tt w/AB should have the capability to deploy into adjacent sz, or land tt's to defend (especially when island AB's can).

I still take the stance that all AB should have a limit. For island AB's I don't think we can go from unlimited to just 2-3 units, that's why I think 6 units should be looked at as a base line (maybe more for Japan itself). For the continental AB's we are looking at going the other way. Going from 0 to 6 per adjacent sz (or land tt) would be to drastic of a change IMO. If you keep it at a total of 6 units can scramble from a continental AB, but only 2 units per adjacent zone it will have an easier transition for game play IMO. Two units was also chosen for the paratrooper tech for a tt w/AB. Any more would have been to many and game play would have suffered. The same principal applies here.

I like the scrambling ability that you get on the Pac side (just not unlimited). The Euro side has very few options to scramble, and most of them would require building an AB for an island. I think if continental AB's had some limited scramble the two boards/rules would seem to mesh better. Right now the scramble scale tips way to the Pac side, lets even it out w/o getting to crazy.

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 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:34 am

Ok

limitations are based on the number of undamaged air base points remaining.

You can scramble up to 6 fighters, or if you got 3 damage points, you can only scramble 3.


These small island groups do not have the capability of landing 10 planes which would be something like 15,000 planes.


The new radar idea removed the 2 space influence and replaced it with:

ANY PLANE EVEN IF NOT AT AN AIRBASE gets to defend any adjacent land or sea area.

Before it was you need an air base to be able to defend the adjacent area.

Alternately, you can say if you have radar you can scramble immediately,
if you don't you must wait one combat round.


I prefer the options in bold
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

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

Post by Caractacus » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:33 am

WILD BILL wrote:Now if the Germans would have tried a Sea Lion bringing in a bunch of slow moving barges and landing craft w/naval support, that's another story. It would have been more from air recon and/or spotters that would have given them time to react though IMO. It's for this reason I think the RAF should be able to scramble to defend against an amphib assault. I don't think it should be a special rule for only UK though, because that would be a heavy allied advantage, plus the Luftwaffe had similar warning systems of its own. So any coastal AB should be able to def against an amphib IMO.

The other part of scramble (ability to defend your ships if they're attacked), should also be considered. Its given to island AB's, so should also carry over to the proposed Continental AB coastal defense. I think of how desperately the Germans tried to get the Bismark within range of the Luftwaffe (French coast line) for cover vs the resources the UK used to sink it before it got there. I also think of the umbrella the Luftwaffe had over the Baltic. The starting AB in W Germany would give them cover, and others could be built. Then of coarse the Italians used their AB's on the boot like an over size carrier (yea you could argue that didn't work out to good), but for game play it could help keeping the Italian fleet a float at least early on.


Sounds like one sensible solution.
WILD BILL wrote:In the Pacific even Larry has acknowledge that unlimited scramble from island AB's may be getting abused, hence the need to look at a limit on how many units may do so. Its not much different then a limit assigned to IC builds, or a transport can only carry 2 units IMO (its for game play). Could you imagine if a transport could carry an unlimited # of ground units. Six (6) units is being tossed around as a good # to start at for testing the island AB's. There is also the concern that limiting Japans ability to scramble just 6 units will cause game play issues, as they heavily rely on scramble for def of the Home Island. I agree, but instead of allowing multiple AB's you could just give them more Kami's. The extra Kami's would have to be deployed only to def Japan itself. Another option (that I favor) is just allow Japan the ability to scramble twice as many units as the only island capital on the board by rule (it already is a special case being the only island that can have an IC). I don't think I would like a rule that allows for like the Phil to have 2 AB's, it kinda defeats the purpose of a limit (although they would at least have to spend the $ to get it). Plus if we allow some kind of coastal def from continental AB's as proposed it could really create an unintended problem in Europe.

I think that if an optional rule is adopted to allow Continental AB's (C-AB) to def adjacent sz's there should be a limit placed on them as well, but lower and here's why. Say we decide 6 is the limit (like proposed for island AB's). In Europe most coastal sz's have multiple land tt attached. If say Germany builds an AB on Denmark you now could deploy 12 units to sz 112 or 113. That creates the same problem that we are talking about in Pacific (unlimited scramble). It will reek havoc w/game play.

Its already a given that C-AB's will have an effect on game play with just 2 units able to be deployed per sz, lets not push it. I think a good start would be that a coastal AB to have the same max of 6 total units that can deploy, but only 2 units per sz (there are several tt that have 3 or more sz's attached). You could call it coastal patrol. Lets see what just 2 units will do for now. Like I said before it is my intention to have your air be an aid to you to defend against amphib assault, or to protect your fleet along the coast, not to be the overwhelming strength that will make you impregnable./quote]

The 'wreak havoc with game play' point does require that Germany commit an enormous amount of IPCs - the Airbase for Denmark and then leave more than 6 Ftrs permanently there (if less than 7 there's no need for a second Airbase). That's quite a commitment. Especially if the US/UK/Canadian invasion fleet lands in France somewhere instead.
WILD BILL wrote:As for AB's able to deploy air units to land tt, I think that is possible to work out as well. Again though it should have a limit (maybe the same 6 units per AB, but only 2 units to any one tt or sz if applicable). Again you could have a tt with multiple AB's attached to it. I wouldn't want say 6-10 air units able to jump over to def a couple tanks. I wouldn't want to discourage smaller battles or stalemates (super stacking).
Hmm... It sounds interesting...
Imperious leader wrote:And along my concept you elucidate [sic] to, why can't planes that fly to assist adjacent sea zones also scramble to adjacent land territories?
IL, I wasn't referring to your idea. However, I agree with your idea - we have the same idea in many respects, but I did not read yours and then adopt it. I was alluding not to your idea, but specifically referring to mine.

In addition, I have said before that I like planes scrambling to land areas, and it has been done in our heavily-adapted game for many years. We didn't call it 'Scrambling' though, but Strategic Air Cover. It requires that you designate aircraft on this in your Combat Move and your Ftrs then cannot be used in Combat in your turn. So it is not a game breaker as it means that if you put too many Ftrs on SAC, you lose attacking potential.
Last edited by Caractacus on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Caractacus.

jcroft
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:11 am

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

Post by jcroft » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:51 am

Try this.
Limit 1 AB per tt.

Fighters may scramble from any AB on the map to an adjacent sz or tt.

The max num. able to scramble is the IPC value of AB tt plus 1.

Per std. rules an AB with 3 or more damage points may not scramble any fighters.

Thus, Japan could scramble 9 planes, 13 if Korea has an AB.
Wake, Guam, Midway, and Gibralter; 1 each.
Novgorod 3, England 7.
and so on.

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 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:50 am

jcroft wrote:Try this.
Limit 1 AB per tt.

Fighters may scramble from any AB on the map to an adjacent sz or tt.

The max num. able to scramble is the IPC value of AB tt plus 1.

Per std. rules an AB with 3 or more damage points may not scramble any fighters.

Thus, Japan could scramble 9 planes, 13 if Korea has an AB.
Wake, Guam, Midway, and Gibralter; 1 each.
Novgorod 3, England 7.
and so on.
That's an interesting thought. I think it might work for the continental AB's (self limiting), but not for islands AB's. I don't think you can go from unlimited to just 1 in most cases.
Imperious leader wrote:Ok

limitations are based on the number of undamaged air base points remaining.

You can scramble up to 6 fighters, or if you got 3 damage points, you can only scramble 3.
The way the game is now the damage for an AB works like it does for a minor IC. It can take up to 6 damage points, but 3 damage points shuts it down. If we are allowing 6 planes, have each damage point take 2 planes out of commission. That way you really didn't change the original system much, and 3 damage pts still shuts it down (at least for island AB's). For continental AB's maybe the total number of air scramble for the AB should be 6 units, but only 3 units max (revised from just 2) can scramble per adjacent zone. Each damage point removes 1/3 of your scramble ability (as above). That way each damage pt would remove 1 unit from each zone. If you have 1 damage pt the max total units would be 4 (2 max per zone), if you have 2 damage pts your down to two total units (one per zone). When you get to 3 damage no units could scramble (just like now).

Edit: You could also just leave the damaged system simplistic like it is now w/o damage pts being linked to units at all. 3 points of damage no scramble (end of story).
Imperious leader wrote: These small island groups do not have the capability of landing 10 planes which would be something like 15,000 planes.
Agreed, that's why we have been tossing around a limit of 6 units for these island bases. Its probably still a little high, but its more manageable.
Imperious leader wrote: The new radar idea removed the 2 space influence and replaced it with:
At least that's dead (for now), we're going to have an uphill battle just getting to adjacent zones.
Imperious leader wrote: ANY PLANE EVEN IF NOT AT AN AIRBASE gets to defend any adjacent land or sea area.

Before it was you need an air base to be able to defend the adjacent area.

Alternately, you can say if you have radar you can scramble immediately,
if you don't you must wait one combat round.


I prefer the options in bold
I would not get behind a rule that allowed any air unit w/o an AB to def adjacent zones. In my mind those tt would barely have the resources to def their own tt. The whole idea behind the AB is that it upgrades what you have in those tt. In that upgrade package your getting more air strips, better communication, and oh yea radar.

I'm not saying that advanced radar wouldn't make a difference, I think it would. I actually like your proposal to delay a round of combat unless you have advanced radar when defending adjacent tt's. I just don't think you can sell it to the masses, especially when radar itself is in an optional rule package (and at this point most are not using it). I don't think you could get the support to not only cut down the amount of units allowed to scramble from an island AB (to 6), and then say oh yea, by the way now you can't engage in the first round of the battle w/o radar either. It would never fly.
Last edited by WILD BILL on Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests