Updated FAQ Posted

[TimTheEnchanter]

Trying to understand the driver for the interceptor/escort rule.  I understand it from a historical standpoint, but not sure about a gameplay perspective.

Figs that serve as escorts can not participate in any other battles, and stand only a 55% chance of survival (1/6 chance of being shot down by AA, then 1/3 chance of being shot by fig) if there are equal numbers of interceptors and escorts.

So unless you can afford to load up on tons of fighters to go with your bombers, you just killed SBRs with a single fighter per IC  However, the one power who can probably afford to do this is the US, who can potentially overwhelm Germany with airpower instead of land troops and either wipe out token interceptors, encourage germany to leave its figs out of IC defense, allowing relatively free shots at the SBRs, or force them to amass figs in germany rather than participate in french defense, eastern front activity etc.

Basically you seem to be encouraging a heavy allied air campaign.  Is that the intent?  Maybe I’m looking at this too simplistically since I haven’t played this version much.  I guess it allows germany a chance take out russian air if they go with a mass air raid on moscow from 2 terrritories away?    How much did you gametest this optional rule?

With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?

[Krieghund]

@TimTheEnchanter:

How much did you gametest this optional rule?

These are the same rules used in Europe and Pacific.  My group did playtest them in several games.  They did discourage SBRs when Germany kept a couple of fighters at home, but only when there were no escorts available.  This made an air campaign more of a committed choice rather than the occassional pot-shot.  The cost of losing escorts was offset by the chance to inflict hits on the defenders and keep some of Germany’s fighters tied up.

@TimTheEnchanter:

With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?

There’s no way to open it.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Interesting.  Thanks.

[captainjack]

@Krieghund:

@TimTheEnchanter:

With the black sea rule, is there any way to open it, or does it essentially become a lake?

There’s no way to open it.

So who’s going to start the new Yahoo Group “Black Sea Sub”?

[Telamon]

@Krieghund:

They did discourage SBRs when Germany kept a couple of fighters at home, but only when there were no escorts available.  This made an air campaign more of a committed choice rather than the occassional pot-shot.

I love the concept of the new interceptor rules.  Only, the mechanics do not seem well thought through/tested.  SBRs become totally unattractive as soon as there is a defending interceptor there.  It would require committing at least two fighters on offence for every one on defence and ALSO your fighters get akak hits.  I’ve done the math in a range of scenarios and basically as soon as there is a defending interceptor its not economical to bother SBRing.

The cost of losing escorts was offset by the chance to inflict hits on the defenders and keep some of Germany’s fighters tied up.

This doesn’t really hold too well.  If your fighters are defending they are not really tied up - they are just parking.  It only really restricts their range (and I do note the point that the map is now larger).  The attacker on the other hand has to spend the combat move of the bombers and double the number of fighters on a dodgy SBR with a negative pay-off and huge capital expense/opportunity cost.  That fleet of planes could be doing something more useful… like taking the darn complex!!  :-P

And if the defender is concerned they might lose their fighters because the escort stack would shred them - they can let the bomber(s) through to the keeper and they have wasted the opportunity of the escorts to do something better.  And the fighters still suffer akak fire, for no gain. I note that the akak fire against each fighter exactly equals the damage it will do to the defending fighters (a roll of 1 against each fighter and also by each fighter).

Again, the idea is good but it doesn’t work in its current form.  I think I remember Jenn making a comment somewhere about how interceptors/escorts could work, that seemed fun.  Why not have the defenders at 4, the fighters at 3 and the bombers at 1 + SBR.  Now that would be an exciting air raid for both sides! As it is, there is no point in SBR unless you get a lucky opportunity to take a potshot at a fighter-less IC.

Oh, and the akak fire should definitely go after the interceptor fire.  This makes better logical sense and makes for better game balance.

The rule seems designed to tone down SBR, but it basically disables SBR unless your enemy is silly enough to leave her IC unguarded.  Kreig, I think the concept is awesome but it might deserve rethinking before it goes into the offical FAQ.  Hope you can work some magic to save it!

PS. first post! I love this forum and decided to finally contribute  :-)  Long time player of AA, been reading here (in detail) since AA50 came out and sporadically before that.

[Jennifer]

All this chatter about this and that and no one mentioned to Krieg some form of congradulations for getting props from the man, Larry, himself?

Wow.

Cruel heartless world we live in, Krieg!  Anyway, congrates on getting props from the man!

---

Hostile zones include naval zones in regards for Paratroopers I am guessing? (obviously that would be a surface WARSHIP, not a pissant little submarine or transport.)

[captainjack]

What do you mean?  Props for what?

[Krieghund]

Welcome to the discussion, Telamon!

I think you’re being a bit too hard on this rule.  Escort fighters bring more to the party than their firepower.  Their ability to take a hit from an interceptor and save a bomber saves 2 IPCs for the attacker plus the bomber still gets to SBR, so you don’t really have to bring twice as many fighters as the defender has in order to gain a benefit.

I also don’t think that leaving defending fighters idle is a good use for them just because the attacker has escorts.  Germany is a long way from the front in this game, and the German player needs to make sure that each piece is contributing to the war effort every turn.

As far as the expense of an SBR campaign goes, the use of bombers for SBRs has always been less efficient than using them in normal combat.  Many people use them only when normal combat isn’t an option at the time.

I don’t think that this rule “disables” SBRs.  It just makes “casual” SBRs a less attractive option.  Strategic bombing will need to be more deliberate and committed with this optional rule in place.

@Cmdr:

All this chatter about this and that and no one mentioned to Krieg some form of congradulations for getting props from the man, Larry, himself?

Wow.

Cruel heartless world we live in, Krieg!  Anyway, congrates on getting props from the man!

Thanks, Jennifer!

@Cmdr:

Hostile zones include naval zones in regards for Paratroopers I am guessing? (obviously that would be a surface WARSHIP, not a pissant little submarine or transport.)

No, sea zones aren’t included, just territories.

[Jennifer]

Okay, so if the entire Royal Navy is sitting in the Baltic/North Seas (SZ 5), and we’re talking 40 aircraft carriers, 80 fighters, 100 battleships/cruisers a few dozen destroyers and a submarine (just to “represent”) Germany can still take her bomber and one infantry over SZ 5 and drop them on England taking out the undefended land there?

[TimTheEnchanter]

@Telamon:

And if the defender is concerned they might lose their fighters because the escort stack would shred them - they can let the bomber(s) through to the keeper and they have wasted the opportunity of the escorts to do something better.  And the fighters still suffer akak fire, for no gain.

Wow, I completely missed this part the first time I read it.  Yuck!  You can’t even use your escorts to try to overwhelm a token interceptor?  They can just sit safely on the ground if you send enough figs?  Goodness. That takes away the incentive for sending a major airstrike.

[Funcioneta]

I don’t like the new SBR rules. Allies need the power of their starting bombers to try balance their starting massive disadvantage in 1941. I would buy one bomber to replace loses, but not fighters for escorting SBRs (better used in Pacific theater or as defense in atlantic ACs). I would not risk a soviet fighter to defend from SBR, by the way  :-P

The Black Sea … not sure. It means Caucasus will be safe from sneaky italians, but it will focus Italy in Africa, a thing I don’t like playing UK.  :|

Make a fixed setup and/or make China a full power. This is much more needed. But I said that before  :wink:

[Krieghund]

@Cmdr:

Okay, so if the entire Royal Navy is sitting in the Baltic/North Seas (SZ 5), and we’re talking 40 aircraft carriers, 80 fighters, 100 battleships/cruisers a few dozen destroyers and a submarine (just to “represent”) Germany can still take her bomber and one infantry over SZ 5 and drop them on England taking out the undefended land there?

Yup.

[atarihuana]

if you close the black sea, you might as well forbid Amphibious Assaults on norway from sz 3 and 6…  :roll:

[Krieghund]

The FAQ has been updated with several new questions and clarifications.  The new information is in bright red.

[Lynxes]

I like the optional rules since they can be added to affect the balance of the game without bids which are too random for my taste (yes, I’m a bit obsessive-compulsive…).

The Dardenelles rule of course really helps the Allies, and could go some way to counteract the economic advantages of the easy-to-get Axis NOs. It’s also in line with Larry Harris ambition to lessen the attractiveness of JTDTM strats, since Caucasus will be easier to defend for the Russkies.

The interceptor rule helps the Axis, since Germany and Italy are the worst hit by SBR usually. Especially Italy needs SBR defence, they are really sitting ducks to SBR now. So, if we get the Allied strats right we might arrive at the fact that the interceptor rule is needed together with the Dardanelles rule.

Since I also like historicality, I love both rules and will be arguing for both to be included I think! Thanks Krieghund!  :-)

[DY]

I’d almost go far as to say SBR is “broken” in no tech games.

I all my games as the Axis, the Allies are constantly throwing cheap $12 bombers into Rome and Berlin and there is nothing I can do about it (other than get lucky and roll heaps of “1’s”).

Tech addresses this as 2 techs help counter the economic benefit of SBR, while only 1 tech directly aids it.

[DY]

Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???

This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.

I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!

Or was this always Larry’s intention and it was omitted from OOB rules?

[Krieghund]

There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:

• Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.

• One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).

Rather than make complicated rules for the effect of IFP on low-IPC territories, Larry just set a lower limit on the IPC value of the affected territories.  All factories still get the reduced cost of SBR damage removal, though.

[DY]

Well, TBH I personally don’t think Aus makes a good IC locations anyway.

I’ve seen Saf in plenty of non-tech games anyway, so it shouldn’t affect that decision massively, plus it’s generally built on UK1, at which time you generally can’t rely on achieving that tech anytime soon.

Building 4 in Kar as Germany would be kinda cool though!  :mrgreen:

[Unknown Soldier]

Wow, the errata on increased factory production is huge.

There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.

True, but how is this really a “problem”? :?

One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).

Ok, this makes some sense, but then why not make the minimum 2 IPC territories? You can still apply 4 damage, thereby shutting it down. What’s special about 3 IPC territories?

Having 3 as the minimum detracts from factories in Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Karelia, Burma, FIC, and Kiangsu, all of which are fairly common sites for ICs and will now be less attractive. On the other hand, it’s not like anyone really builds ICs in 1 IPC territories unless they already have the tech. It just seems like having 3 IPC territories as the minimum is a kinda arbitrary and affects gameplay more than have a minimum of 2 would (maybe this was the goal?).