Why can't you scramble over neighbouring ground territory?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Now don’t get me wrong here… I know the rules, and the game.  But this came up the other day when playing with some new players…

    Why can you scramble over neighbouring Sea Zones, but not over adjacent territories?  I get that for balance, it could be brutal if airbases contributed to local  grounddefense… but isn’t that the point of being able to scramble?

    Can anyone tell me why this is?

    Why you can scramble over a massive ocean, but not the neighbouring territory?


  • Customizer

    You know, I asked that once.  For example, W Germany has an air base.  Why couldn’t planes scramble to defend Holland/Belgium or Denmark?  The only answer I got was if you want planes to defend those territories, you should land planes there.  Not a particularly good answer, but understandable.

    Personally, I agree with you.  Air bases should permit scrambling to ANY adjacent territory, whether it be land or sea.

    Perhaps this might be a good House Rule?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Despite what IL is going to think, this SHOULDN’T be put in House Rules, Because I’m not requesting a house rule.

    This is just a discussion about understanding a legitimate rule of the game.

    Thanks for your support KNP, perhaps we should hit up Kreighund, and have him post his thoughts here?



  • @Gargantua:

    Can anyone tell me why this is?

    Why you can scramble over a massive ocean, but not the neighbouring territory?

    I can’t speak for anyone, but the way I personally have always justified this is:

    Obviously, the game mechanic was created to serve only islands when only the pacific game was in mind as that’s the only map that would have many many islands or an island hopping campaign.  In addition, this ability far more accurately emulated the Pacific war, where island air bases and CAP patrols were how battles in and around the solomans/carolines/etc took place.  And, when there were naval battles around these islands, they were often close to the islands - hence despite the fact that the seazone is huge, the battle seems to be implied as close to shore.

    But, because of how it was worded with a definition of islands, along comes Europe and hey oh, nutters, the UK can’t scramble and the Battle of Britain can’t even be sort of approximated without a defensive scramble over the Channel.  So for balance and plain ol fun mechanics, the scramble rule was adjusted.  But in my eye, that doesn’t mean the way the naval battles next to territories changed.

    So, abstractly, the scramble and battle isn’t in the massive expanse of ocean - it’s actually within 50 miles of shore or so - the distance the plane can quickly cover to scramble against anything.  And that’s not the same as a territorial battle hundreds to thousands of miles away, so I think of this as a base providing a quick response to a series of engagements, in and around the airbase - not sortees to neighboring states.



  • hmmmm… better to be japan than england?
    should be pacific 1940 scrambling and europe 1940 no england scrambling =global 1940?



  • Why can’t subs attack aircraft (done a thousand times in WW2) and why can Infantry fire at Strategic bombers…???


  • Official Q&A

    That’s an excellent explanation of the scrambling philosophy, kcdzim.  I have nothing to add.

    Andi, the answers to both of your questions are related.  A&A is a strategic level game.  As such, units represent something larger than their literal representation.  A sub unit represents many subs and a fighter unit represents squadrons of fighters.  While individual subs did indeed shoot down individual planes in real life, nothing of that nature ever occurred on a large scale.  A sub unit shooting down a fighter unit would be the equivalent of a large group of subs massing their firepower to destroy an air wing, and that sort of thing just didn’t happen.

    Similarly, an infantry piece represents one or more infantry divisions.  Such divisions (as well as artillery and armored divisions) included some antiaircraft capability to defend themselves.  This is represented in the game through their ability to hit air units.  The fact that AA guns eliminate air units before they can even fire indicates that they are specialized units with a unique capability.



  • That’s a very satisfying explanation, Krieghund. Thank you!



  • 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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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?


  • TripleA

    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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.  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?  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!  There’s more Japanese zeroes flying over my head right now than I can count!  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.  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 + …).


  • TripleA

    Except AA tries to use rationale to justify their rules… isn’t that what all the fluff is about in the rule book?


  • TripleA

    I just want more dynamic gameplay for global, it is pretty sad.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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.  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.  (Taking a capitol you get the treasury + VC and negate half their income until the capitol is liberated.) Â

    ABs:  Increase defense power of all aircraft by 1, no longer extend aircraft range
    NBs:  no longer increase transport range



  • @Gargantua:

    But you can CAP over nothing vs amphibious assault?

    how is it nothing? �it’s a bloody invasion that’s undefended.

    @Gargantua:

    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)

    @Gargantua:

    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).


  • 2017

    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.


  • TripleA

    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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • Customizer

    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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    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?


  • TripleA

    oh god, counting territories throughout the board including brazil. don’t traumatize us jenn!


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @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.


  • Customizer

    @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?


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 48
  • 5
  • 7
  • 21
  • 5
  • 7
  • 4
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts