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
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 9:42 am

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 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.

Well said- agree fully.

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 9:49 am

Larry wrote: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.
In light of what Kreighund just said, I'm gonna have to throw the flag on you for this one. You need to make a decision on this one right away.

If this rule changes even in the slightest, it affects most of the strategies studied so far. All playtesting on ALPHA or any setup needs to cease until you make a call on this. It would be a complete waste of time playtesting ALPHA if a rule like this changes and everything is thrown off.

I personally would like the change, but I really think it would complicate things a lot more and more adjustments would have to be made. We are trying to get the best balanced game as possible and end this process, not extend it.

So what is your call??? :? :? :?

Jak o' the Shadows
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:33 pm

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

Post by Jak o' the Shadows » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:02 am

Hmmmm. I like the idea of scrambling from any coastal airbase into a SZ.

I agree with Larry, restricting the number of planse that can scramble from an airbase would cripple Japan in the late game.

Every game so far that I have played in person has come down to a huge showdown in the pacific with Japan defending SZ6 from the US......the last game my friend lost Japan to the US to horrible rolls, such a shame Germany was owning Russia. With limited scramle fighters, that battle would have been a complete slaughter.....and not even close.

Limiting those fighters would really have an effect on the gameplay.

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

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

Post by turner » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:28 am

Larry wrote: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.

The first game I played of PAC40 my thoughts were "Wow, the new rules (TAC Bombers, combined Arms, Air Bases, Two-hit carriers) really put air power in the forefront. I think that this is realistic. In modern warfare (ww2-present) air superiority has consistantly been the most important element of war. With unlimited scrambling this may push it into the unrealistly devestating range.

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

To tell you the truth I never understood why an island's air base is so much better than one on the mainland. I also never understood why an island with the ipc level to support one could not have a factory. Either way if you have a limit on the number of planes that can scramble from an airbase a territory should be able to contain more than one air base, perhaps a number up to the ipc level of the territory.

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.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:23 pm

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. 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. So I think it is to our best to deny a territory more than one Airbase, one Port or one Factory. Unless you said that a territory with IPC value up to 2 can have one Airbase, and a territory with IPC value 3 or more can have two Airbases. This will look like the minor and major IC cap.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:29 pm

questioneer wrote:Scrambling from a territory with an airbase is also an interesting idea.
I personally would like the change, but I really think it would complicate things a lot more and more adjustments would have to be made. We are trying to get the best balanced game as possible and end this process, not extend it.

So what is your call??? :? :? :?
The process of making the ultimate A&A game has been going back and forth since 1984 when Larry released his Nova edition, so yes, lets rush Larry to make the final call this week. And if some rocketscientist come up with some bright ideas next year, then sorry Mack, too late.

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 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:46 pm

I am thinking outside the box now, but what if an Airbase was allowed to scramble like 6 fighters each round of combat ? So if Japan has a total of 30 fighters on the island, he can only scramble 6 fighters for the first round of combat, but if this fighters are killed, then Japan can scramble 6 new fighters for the second round of combat, and so on, until Japan is short of fighters. This would not be overkill, and it would even make some sense, man.

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 1:32 pm

No artificial limits on scrambling and no limits on scrambling from an air base to ANY adjacent territory even if its land.

To limit the number of planes is totally against KISS, just allow them by type if anything... only fighters can do this.

Ports main purpose is to protect ships and in wartime this is no difference. No ships in port should be able to be attacked because they employ nets, sea mines, etc.

This makes them ripe for aerial attack, but the new rule will protect them with air cover as long as an air base is in the territory or adjacent ( option)

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.

This is an optional rule anyway.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests