Air Supremacy

Thing is, if you let the enemy gain air supremacy by building just one fighter you feel such a fool when he rolls all those 4s with artillery. So you buy one too. And then he buys another, and you think you might need one on the other front, and so it goes on…

Air supremacy (i.e. investing in fighters) is certainly worthwhile: not only does it give you a possibility to strafe the enemy with your remaining fighters, more importnatly each fighter ALSO gives a bonus to each matching artillery! This will make them into very potent units!

No, only only one fighter is needed to give artillery support - you don’t get extra support with extra fighters.

@Koningstiger:

Air supremacy (i.e. investing in fighters) is certainly worthwhile: not only does it give you a possibility to strafe the enemy with your remaining fighters, more importnatly each fighter ALSO gives a bonus to each matching artillery! This will make them into very potent units!

Hmm, I’ve just read that ALL  defending artillery units are promoted (i.e. hit on a 4 or less) in case their side has air supermacy. That makes it even more desirable, obviously! (p. 14 FAQ)

@BJCard:

It definitely can change the nature of the game.

One big battle I had in the Western Front was a German attack on joint British/French Belgium.

4 German fighters vs. 3 french/1 British

1 German fighter survived giving the 16 German artillery attack @4!

Needless to say, the Germans won that round!

Yes, that’s what I’m a bit afraid of too: in WW2 it was undoubtedly true that air superiority could and did make all the difference (Battle for France, NNormandy, Battle of the Bulge, Barbarossa etc. etc.). However, I’m not convinced the same was true for WW1. Certainly, having air supermacy was importatant as it allowed for much better reconnaisance, but would this make all this much of a difference??? Perhaps each matching artillery should have an increased attack value, but then it probably wouldn’t be worthwhile to invest in fighters anymore…

I have wondered since the first glimps of the rules why the air supremacy and naval battles are played to the death but not the land battles.

It would obviously decrease the importance of fighters, but you still couldnt allow your opponents air force to attack with no defending fighters.

However it would mean that your carefully built airforce isnt smashed in seconds, and could allow you, even if only for a turn or two, to deny an enemy with an overpowering air force from achieving air superiority.

But even for the naval battles, why not with the current land battles ‘contested territory’ rule operate a similar one at sea? Deny people amphibious assaults unless they can break through the defence.

Thoughts?

Because ships and planes didn’t hide behind trenches, and Larry wanted to simulate the static condition of land warfare?

Because of amphibious assaults.

You can’t have boat loads of infantry waiting around in sea zones for the end of a naval battle that might last for months.

I still think ships should be allowed to retreat from combat, however.

Allowing planes to retreat after a round of aerial combat is another idea, but what happens to planes that withdraw and then have nowhere to land because their side has been wiped out on the ground?

You could allow them to retreat to a friendly tt, but that in effect gives them an extra movement point, and it seems to go against the game mechanics.