Airfields in 1942



  • I was looking at some of the older rules for Revised and such and had an idea.
    I was thinking of adding a new generic piece type Airfields.  They would cost $8 and could only be built on islands.  They would allow the island to be treated as the same sqaure as it’s surrounding sea zone for movement purposes what do you guys think?


  • Customizer

    That actually sounds like a good idea.
    I had pondered the idea of air bases for the 1942 map, but thought the movement bonus on the smaller map was too powerful and gave planes too much range. However your idea to restrict them ONLY to island territories makes that better.
    I assume no scramble abilities for these airfields. Just the extra movement bonus to disregard the island’s actual border for friendly aircraft coming to or leaving these airfields, right?



  • Yes, the airfield is only there to basically make islands and the surrounding sea zones count as a single territory.

    And because of the 1942 map layout, this would not effect Japan, Great Britian or Australia

    Im on the fence, but not totally against the airfield allowing ONE fighter to scramble for the surrounding sea zone only.

    I recently watched the Hell in the Pacific dvd series about WW2 and how important the islands where to the war because of the airfirleds.  That got me to thinking of ways to bring that into the game.


  • 2017 2016

    We played 1942.2 and use this house rule.

    We gave starting Airbase to Hawaii and Caroline Islands (as historically accurate).
    It allows to scramble (max 3 fgts as in 1940) from Hawaii 1 fighter and japanese bomber a landing field after the attack of the hawaiian sea-zone.

    It also enable the hawaiin fighter to land in russian territory: Soviet Far East.
    So, it provides a much better protection to the infantry stationned there.

    Once in Carolines Islands, the Strat Bomber was able to reach almost any sea-zone from the USW coast to the Alaskian’s sea-zones and return base.

    I think the balance was kept.
    But no other airfield were needed nor built (cost 10 IPCs) in PTO during the game.
    It was an all-out Kill Germany First.

    Thanks for the idea, it will be probably interesting in a KJF scenario.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @americancyco:

    I was thinking of adding a new generic piece type Airfields.Â

    As a marker for these pieces, you could use these ones from HBG:

    http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Airfield-Marker-Acrylic_p_733.html

    I own a bunch of them – they look very good, and they’re nicely sized too.


  • 2017 2016

    @Baron:

    We played 1942.2 and use this house rule.

    We gave starting Airbase to Hawaii and Caroline Islans (as historically accurate).
    It allows scramble from Hawaii fighter and japanese bomber a landing field after the attack of the hawaiian sea-zone.

    It also enable the hawaiin fighter to land in russian territory: Soviet Far East. So, it provides a much better protection to the infantry stationned there.

    Once in Carolines Islands, the Strat Bomber was able to reach almost any sea-zone from the USW coast to the Alaskian’s sea-zones and return base.

    I think the balance was kept.

    Now that I spelled it out, I’m not quite sure.

    It is more acceptable to use airfield this way with Fighters because it allows them to attack the other island next door. Nevertheless giving like M6 for fighter.
    But for the bomber at M6 which started from the airfield and return to it, it’s also giving them 2 additionnal moves. They cover a very large area.
    It seems a bit inaccurate because you can start from Hawaiin Islands, SBR Japan and go to Manchuria or Buryatia SSSR (Doolittle would be jealous).
    Isn’t too much since you can attack the japanese sea-zone near Tokyo and come back to Hawaii.
    Or even have an airfield on Midway and be able to SBR Japan and Tokyo without the need to capture japanese islands.
    Maybe it should only give +1 move to Strat Bombers either in or out of the airfield to better reflects the real range of the B-26 and B-29 bombers.
    It is still ok for Fighters:

    They would allow the island to be treated as the same square as it’s surrounding sea zone for movement purposes

    of any fighter but not of Strat. Bombers.

    In this manner, USA must still capture Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Philipines Islands to built an airfield and be able to escort Strat Bomb with fighters on SBR against Japan.
    This wasn’t the case without this limitation above.



  • I find that the house rule
    Victory Cities can scramble one fighter
    Is much better

    US can protect its fleet off the eastern seaboard
    UK can protect its fleets in home waters
    Germany can protect ships in the Baltic
    Germany can protect ships near Italy
    UK can protect ships at India
    Japan can protect ships in home waters, and around the Philippines
    US can protect ships at Hawaii and at the west coast

    We also play that carriers can take 2 hits, and battleships and carriers have to repair at a VC or Factory


  • 2017 2016

    @oztea:

    I find that the house rule
    Victory Cities can scramble one fighter  🙂 "I like it"
    Is much better

    US can protect its fleet off the eastern seaboard
    UK can protect its fleets in home waters
    Germany can protect ships in the Baltic
    Germany can protect ships near Italy
    UK can protect ships at India
    Japan can protect ships in home waters, and around the Philippines
    US can protect ships at Hawaii and at the west coast

    We also play that carriers can take 2 hits, and battleships and carriers have to repair at a VC or Factory

    You said better, but it can be complementary.
    What is the requirements to be able to scramble?
    Is it necessary that at least one aircraft attacks ships nearby a Victory City?
    Example, EUSA had 2 DD when 5 Subs attack, does Washington can scramble a fighter since it is only a sea battle?

    How does the obligation to repair Capital ships affects your game in favor of Allies?
    Explanation:
    Uk & USA vs Germany / USA & UK vs Japan, both get a chance for two turns to destroy Axis damaged BB and CV. (One turn to bring it near a VC and another waiting to get repaired.)
    And only one turn for Germany or Japan because at their second turn, Allies CapShips will be repaired.

    Does this rule slow too much the navies in Pacific Theater of Operation? IJN? USN?

    What is the cost and stats of your 2 hits carrier?
    We played it at CV A1 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits and repairs at the end of the player’s turn. If damaged, only one aircraft can land on the carrier.
    So no Naval Base, VC or IC repair.



  • We just port the rules directly from AA40
    Since we feel the axis has a slight advantage, the capital ship repairs and scrambling offset it slightly.


  • 2017 2016

    Thanks for the infos.

    CV A0 D2 M2 C16, 2 hits, no aircraft operation if damaged?
    Repair at the end of one’s turn when in a sea-zone near IC or VC (and NBase).

    Scramble only against attacking aircraft.

    Is it correct?



  • Repairs at the start of your next turn…but the rest is accurate.


  • 2017 2016

    OK.
    Thanks.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 15
  • 10
  • 14
  • 32
  • 5
  • 29
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

38
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts