Great topic Gargantua. Everyone reading this please refer to a thread i just posted in house rules under revising defense against aircraft. lets all put our heads together and make something better than whats been given us. and yes fighters should be able to scramble to ANY ajacent TT.
Keeping in mind that I do not have the power of telepathy and even if I did, that power would probably not be strong enough to read Larry’s mind from Chicagoland, here’s how I see it:
Fighters/Bombers launched to defend warships off the coast of your territories are actually aircraft flying over your warships in the World War II standard operating proceedure of “Cover Air Patrol” or CAP.
So, for instance, Virginia and Florida might be flying CAP for the USS Enterprise and USS Arizona.
But you can CAP over nothing vs amphibious assault?
And you can CAP over subs?
But you can’t CAP over land???
So, abstractly, the scramble and battle isn’t in the massive expanse of ocean - it’s actually within 50 miles of shore or so
I’m not buying that. Even abstractly.
For example… if Norway is getting invaded, you can scramble from West Germany… England from Belgium, Manchuria from Korea! So on and so forth.
HELL, An Air Base in Soviet Far East could scramble to defend Amur!
And that’s not the same as a territorial battle hundreds to thousands of miles away
Apparently it is, by the SFE example… Infact, in many instances it makes MORE sense than the naval equivelants.
That’s an excellent explanation of the scrambling philosophy, kcdzim. I have nothing to add.
KH may have nothing to add… but there must be other… BETTER explanations?
I hope they fix this for beta. It is such a long wait. Larry Harris needs to just figure stuff out, stop talking to this community about adjusting tanks etc, because popular vote is irrelevant till people give things a try. honestly 5 ipc tanks means more small battles between germany and russia instead of 1 - 3 giant battles.
But yeah scrambling should work for adjacent territories, but same max # scrambled inside.
I am just trying to explain the rules that probably had no rationale when they were developed.
I know there were coastal patrols even without their being fleets in port. Â I mean when the main fleets were in the South Pacific, you don’t think America ignored patrolling Hawaii, Midway, Guam, California, Oregon, Alaska, etc - right? Â There were probably coast guard ships there as well, so maybe ships with no combat value, no defense value, no monetary value and no damage soaking ability (relative to everything else on the board) are present and can radio in saying “Hey! Â There’s more Japanese zeroes flying over my head right now than I can count! Â Get those planes in the air ASAP!!!”
Just for example…I mean some fishing trollies (with a few officers of Naval Intelligence) had to have been floating around off the coast somewhere. Â I know there were rinky dink patrol boats that conducted submarine sweeps as well, neither of these are on par with a Battleship token (which I take to represent more than just the USS Arizona, it probably includes the Arizona + 2 or 3 escorts + fuel ships + supply boats + …).
Except AA tries to use rationale to justify their rules… isn’t that what all the fluff is about in the rule book?
I just want more dynamic gameplay for global, it is pretty sad.
@Cow:
I hope they fix this for beta. It is such a long wait. Larry Harris needs to just figure stuff out, stop talking to this community about adjusting tanks etc, because popular vote is irrelevant till people give things a try. honestly 5 ipc tanks means more small battles between germany and russia instead of 1 - 3 giant battles.
But yeah scrambling should work for adjacent territories, but same max # scrambled inside.
Classic: 147 possible IPC
Global: 484 possible IPC
I think there’s enough of an increase in income, possible, that increasing the cost of a tank from 5 to 6 isn’t too much of an issue. Â Considering there’s more than 3 times as much money on the board. Â
I’d like to see a few things changed, money wise:
Bombers- 15 IPC
Fighters - 12 IPC
Tacticals - 14 IPC
Carriers - 20 IPC
Battleships - 18 IPC
Cruisers - 9 IPC
Destroyers - 7 IPC
Transports - 5 IPC
Artillery - 5 IPC
Infantry - 4 IPC
Armor (as now) - 6 IPC
Airbases - 12 IPC
Naval Bases - 12 IPC
Minor Complexes - 15 IPC
Major Complexes - 50 IPC
Upgrade Minor to Major - 15 IPC (yes, buying a complex and upgrading it is cheaper than buying a major, since it’s not a rush job, you have less overhead costs, you can shop around for materials, you don’t need as many bonuses, you can provide better security, etc.)
All nations can keep fighting if their capitols are lost, but they only collect half of what they would have originally for territories they control. Â (Taking a capitol you get the treasury + VC and negate half their income until the capitol is liberated.) Â
ABs: Â Increase defense power of all aircraft by 1, no longer extend aircraft range
NBs: Â no longer increase transport range
But you can CAP over nothing vs amphibious assault?
how is it nothing? �it’s a bloody invasion that’s undefended.
And you can CAP over subs?
Yeah, but there’s no reason to unless there’s something the plane can actually hit (like a transport)
But you can’t CAP over land???
KH may have nothing to add…� but there must be other… BETTER explanations?
It seems like your gripe isn’t that they can’t scramble over land but they can scramble over attacks on adjoining territories.
unfortunately, (or fortunately), scale has NEVER been accurately described in the games. �They’re simplified to indicate states and territories, and some concessions have been made with regard to scale to standardize mechanics, so that yes, in REALITY, some territories would not logistically be able to defend others - SFE scrambling to Amur or West Germany to Norway. �Making exceptions for territories would be ridiculous
So, if you have a problem with it, then don’t allow scrambling to amphibious assaults not hitting the country with the airbase (alpha 1 rules). �Or, just deal with the fact that for balance sake (because that will likely punish the Axis more than the allies). �
Otherwise, don’t complain about scale (it’s the same distance to travel from Berlin to Paris as it is to travel from West US to East US). �Go play a hex game. �
Scrambling as a mechanic was created to address smaller islands, and it’s been transmuted to address the UK and other seazones as well. �That brought with it other issues (the ones you’ve noted conflicting with scale), but scrambling as a mechanic has never been about defending adjoining land spaces (and the mechanics of the game have ALWAYS made it so that aircraft can’t defend newly captured territories - that’s not going to change).
Scrambling in adjacent land territories would require the entire setup to be revised. For example, a J1 airbase on KWA would make it impossible for China to retake Yunnan.
Western Europe would become far easier to defend.
It would also help the Soviet Union to a certain extent (no blitzing or walk-ins on many territories).
But overall, I don’t think it would balance out.
maybe you are right, 5 ipc tank would lead to strait tank buys especially from japan, but the german rush to russia would be seen more and if germany does london, russia would be cracking down europe possibly.
So it has merit to give it a go if LH wants it. There maybe more more IPC available on the map, but there are more countries so you have to take that into account.
kc has a point.
Your fighters ARE scrambling over land, they just happen to be scrambling from D.C. to cover New York, they don’t have the flight time to get to Toronto.
Hey Jen, I like your idea of nations still being able to collect half their income and build units after losing their capital. Perhaps say they have to still control a Victory City? I was going to say they still need to have a factory, but if they are still collecting money, I suppose they could buy an IC and put it somewhere. But what if they only have 1 IPC territories or islands left?
I don’t care for your new price list. I think prices should remain as they are now, including tanks. Also, your ideas on air and naval bases is just crazy. No range increase from airbases? Sometimes we really need that. Not allowing an extra movement for transports from naval bases? But all other ships still get the extra movement? I’m sorry, that’s just silly and you are adding even more complexity.
I had reasons for what I did on NB/AB/Unit Prices, but we can talk about them another time.
In regards to continuing to fight after losing your capitol, perhaps to expound on the idea:
I think you should still be limited to using complexes you own, unless you want to use China placement rules but limit a fallen nation to infantry only like China is. One could say the infantry are insurgents and resistance fighters, perhaps?
oh god, counting territories throughout the board including brazil. don’t traumatize us jenn!
@Cow:
oh god, counting territories throughout the board including brazil. don’t traumatize us jenn!
I didnt say count. You don’t count territories! This is not Anniversary, lol.
@Cmdr:
In regards to continuing to fight after losing your capitol, perhaps to expound on the idea:
I think you should still be limited to using complexes you own, unless you want to use China placement rules but limit a fallen nation to infantry only like China is. One could say the infantry are insurgents and resistance fighters, perhaps?
So no purchasing new ICs at all? Well, that makes sense. An IC is a really big commitment, even a Minor. A nation that has lost it’s capital and half it’s income probably couldn’t put up a whole new factory.
I would say they could use any existing facotries they still own, AND can repair damage to the factory if needed like normal. If they have NO factories left, then they should be limited to purchasing only infantry.
Another idea: perhaps the types of units they can place at ICs should also be limited.
LAND = Infantry, Artillery, Mechs, and AA Guns. NO TANKS.
AIR = Fighters and Tac Bombers only. NO STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
SEA = Transports, Submarines, Destroyers and Cruisers. NO BATTLESHIPS OR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Not sure if Cruisers should be allowed or not. What do you think?
Do you think they should be allowed to build air or naval bases?
Well, if we get to limiting types of units, we’re basically making a complicated rule again, right?
Perhaps:
No Capitol: Build warships at your own Naval Base, if you have one.
No Capitol: Build airplanes at your own Air Base, if you have one.
No Capitol: Build armies at your own Industrial Complex, if you have one.
I don’t have anything against limiting what units you can buy, intrinsically. I have no problem, personally, with no capitol no capitol ships, high level bombers or armored units. Was just thinking of KISS.
Making exceptions for territories would be ridiculous
Exactly my point, I’m glad you agree. Being able to Scramble over neighbouring Sea Zones, but NOT over Land terriories is a ridiculous exception.
I hope you also realize that I DO NOT WANT a hex game. I get the Axis and Allies standard as it is. and I get that scale doesn’t apply. Which is EXACTLY why the rule makes no sense! Because there is no scale! Negating the whole concept that these battles are coastal.
I think you are making a larger mistake than you realize.
A) Warships are generally in port if they are getting CAP. So your airbase is probably located in or near the same city the port is in. Let’s say Jacksonville, FL which actually has both a naval base and an air base. In this case, scrambling “Alert 5” aircraft for “Cover Air Patrol” gets them on station in what, about 7 minutes maximum?
B) These same fighters from Jacksonville, FL can go defend New York, NY (about 935 miles north) to defend against an invasion from Canada as well.
I submit, they ARE scrambling over land, they are just limited to scrambling over the land they are currently in!
