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
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 2:00 pm

Eagle wrote:Sorry, Turner, but I think your idea to let the territory IPC value cap the number of Airbases, is a bad idea. With your idea, Germany can have 5 Airbases, and scramble a total of 5x6 = 30 fighters into the Baltic.
Sure , if it wants to waste nearly two turns of income and throw the game. This doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Eagle wrote:But thats not all, they can even move 10 airborne paratroopers to Leningrad every turn, and now the game mechanic is realy unbalanced for sure.
The way the paratrooper rule is worded, up to 2 infantry units in each territory with an airbase may be moved. Having more than one airbase per territory will not change this number.

Imperious leader wrote:The idea that the game changes because of an improvement in how the rule is applied is a good change. Nothing wrong with change at all.
My concern is not with change itself, but rather with its impact on game balance. Changes can rapidly snowball.
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

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 2:06 pm

Krieghund wrote:
Eagle wrote:Sorry, Turner, but I think your idea to let the territory IPC value cap the number of Airbases, is a bad idea. With your idea, Germany can have 5 Airbases, and scramble a total of 5x6 = 30 fighters into the Baltic.
Sure , if it wants to waste nearly two turns of income and throw the game. This doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Eagle wrote:But thats not all, they can even move 10 airborne paratroopers to Leningrad every turn, and now the game mechanic is realy unbalanced for sure.
The way the paratrooper rule is worded, up to 2 infantry units in each territory with an airbase may be moved. Having more than one airbase per territory will not change this number.

Imperious leader wrote:The idea that the game changes because of an improvement in how the rule is applied is a good change. Nothing wrong with change at all.
My concern is not with change itself, but rather with its impact on game balance. Changes can rapidly snowball.

Amen brotha, this rule change will only open a can of worms. I am now against the change.
:wink: :wink:

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:09 pm

I was hoping to hear from Krieghund, you always have a great prospective of these type of proposals (plus your opinion is respected).
Krieghund wrote: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 up to two AB on a tt if it meats the requirements of say a major IC (3 or more ipc's) would be a nice fix for Japan (If indeed AB are maxed out at 6 air units). Might be a problem in Europe (see below). Another thing to consider is that an AB built on Korea would also protect zs 6 if indeed you are able to scramble from a coastal tt AB (say 2 units). To help Japan out you could also increase the amount of Kami's it gets. You could also allow only Japan to have two AB's to double its capacity (I know Larry's not into special cases though).
Krieghund wrote: 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.
I think that if we do go with a limited # of units able to scramble to sz of a coastal tt w/AB, we should also include the land tt's adjacent to it. It should also include a tt w/AB that is land locked. This wasn't in the forefront of my argument, but was hinted. As far as "realism", it isn't real to allow some AB this unique ability (islands), but not others.

As I pointed out earlier I feel that the island AB's should have some practical limits. Half because of the number of aircraft that one unit represents vs how many planes a base could rally. The other half would be for game play, and abuse. The scramble is in part replacing ships in defensive positions. Using air units are more economical (rolls at a 4), plus it gives you more range. I'm seeing a trend towards just a couple ships protected by swarms of aircraft in the Pacific.


The reason I would put more of a limit (say 2 units per adjacent sz or land tt-max of 6 total units per AB) is more for game play in Europe. A sz can have 3-4 tt adjacent to it. Buying a couple of AB would give certain sz to much cover in Europe IMO (not to mention multiple AB's on inland tt). Allowing just 1-2 units to scramble from these continental AB's is going to have a pretty big impact IMO. If we unleash the same limits I proposed to island AB's allowing 6 units to go to any one adjacent sz/land tt or split up into multiple zones, I think it would be overwhelming. It would over complicate the game more when you would have to account for 6 or more aircraft coming into your battle. I think it should be an asset to aid you in your defense, but not make up the whole package.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:54 pm

My thoughts:

6 units may scramble from an Airbase = simple & clear

Each point of damage sustained reduces this by one = simple & clear

Personally, I would favour being able to scramble into land areas, too (simple & clear), but if this is not liked, keep it to sea zones, but coastal (and not solely island) Airbases can also Scramble.

This means that Japan can put an Airbase in Korea - behold it now can Scramble 12 Ftrs into the sea zone around Japan. (I wouldn't allow more than 1 Airbase per space - but i wouldn't cry for long if others decided otherwise.)

Best of all - there is the chance of a Battle of Britain!
Caractacus.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:21 pm

Personally, I would favor being able to scramble into land areas, too (simple & clear), but if this is not liked, keep it to sea zones, but coastal (and not solely island) Airbases can also Scramble.
And along my concept you elucidate to, why can't planes that fly to assist adjacent sea zones also scramble to adjacent land territories?

Also, why must anybody impose a limit on this?

If you want limits then limit the air base for use by X number of planes

Ports are also limited by Y number of ships

Just like Factories are limited to Z number of builds

It is too fiddley to impose all these exceptions for this and that in the design. It should be clean and apply to every case equally.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:37 am

Imperious leader wrote: And along my concept you elucidate to, why can't planes that fly to assist adjacent sea zones also scramble to adjacent land territories?
Well man, since a turn represent 3 months of time span, you should figure that the fighters based in your neighbourhood would find time to support you when you are attacked, and not just sit there watching the enemy tanks overrun your line, especially if they find time to fly out over the open ocean to defend some lost tranny far away.

But then again this is a game. I guess a ground attack takes a day and surprice your airforce, so they dont get time to react. But you cant surprice-attack on the sea because the planes do compat air patrol on a regulare basis, and will detect any enemy warships long time ahead. You cant hide on the ocean, man. Its not like the enemy fleet will suddenly turn up in the horizon and surprice you, oh horror, oh horror.

Come to think about it, the idea with compat air patrol from the first A&A Pacific game was not a bad idea, since they did not create this issue we discuss here, but they did bound one CAP fighter down for each turn it was on patrol. With the new Airbase and scramble rules, the fighters will see more use.

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 4:25 pm

Imperious leader wrote:
Personally, I would favor being able to scramble into land areas, too (simple & clear), but if this is not liked, keep it to sea zones, but coastal (and not solely island) Airbases can also Scramble.
And along my concept you elucidate to, why can't planes that fly to assist adjacent sea zones also scramble to adjacent land territories?
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, and even then the action was often as much over Britain as the Channel. Scrambling in the Pacific from islands follows this, as the airbases were often near the shoreline, even when on larger islands or the continents. You can't scramble to defend yourself hundreds of miles away, there's no time, and an attack against a territory is basically two borders away from the base, many many miles away.

Gameplay-wise it will defeat some of the offensive disadvantage of having to leave expensive, powerful units on the frontline after a tough fight (tanks, artillery) with the fodder killed off. It gives planes with airbases the ability to scramble into a fight (or not) from territories behind the front line, which means we'll see more all infantry pushes and fewer tank and artillery builds because now planes can effectively be considered defending a territory that you just conquered, and you no longer have to leave the expensive units, now they're sheltered at airbases.

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:28 pm

Ok lets keep in mind that this is proposed as an option rule, like how dog fights were introduced to SBR in AA50.

Maybe we should put the scrambling to land tt on the back burner for now (although I think it has application here in some form). Lets look at just scrambling to sz's for now. The ability to scramble involves ships by rule. You can't scramble your ftrs/tacs to defend the waters of an island unless the enemy is: 1) Attacking your fleet. 2) Doing an amphib assault. One side or the other (or both) must have navy.

No ships-no scramble, you can't just meet the enemy ftrs in an island sz for a dog fight w/o ships (either your side or theirs must have navy). This is backed up if you look at the battle of London. England had the best radar system of the time. It only takes like 10 min for the Luftwaffe get in the air and to cross the English Chanel. The RAF barely had the time to get up and attack the German planes as they got to the English coast.

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.

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.

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).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests