2015 League General Discussion Thread

[Soulblighter]

@Karl7:

Ironically it was cheaper to build fighters than tanks, to wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Air_forces

I suppose the reality was that strafing and bombing could degrade/hamper ground formations, but not totally eliminate them, except when you could trap them in a concentrated spot like Falaise.

This would be difficult to work into A&A given the “total elimination” dynamic where the defender is killed entirely without ability to retreat.

Although, didn’t A&A D-Day have some mechanic like that?

It is different in D-Day, but the game dynamics are different as well.

[gamerman01]

Yes, we’re dangerously close to going off the rails…. starting to talk about the realism of A&A, of which there is LITTLE  :-D

Cost is in fact an important aspect of the issue.  Pretty sure if you played with 15 IPC bombers you’ll see less bombers.

While really horribly unrealistic, 6 IPC subs and 12 IPC bombers that can engage all units (except subs at planes) is really fun, and I think that’s the point.  :-)

[gamerman01]

You know what else would be fun?  Lowering the cost of battleships (and, hate to open this can of worms - cruisers) to the point that it is reasonable to buy them once in a while  :-o

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

You know what else would be fun?  Lowering the cost of battleships (and, hate to open this can of worms - cruisers) to the point that it is reasonable to buy them once in a while  :-o

you are the king of opening cans of worms!  :-P

[gamerman01]

Battleship-hater!

(Reference point - Joe McCarthy)

[rgp44]

strats should attack at 3 unless paired with a fighter (cover) then they attack at 4.  Also, old strat bombing rules where defending fighters hit on 2 needs to come back.

[boldfresh]

Let’s give all facilities RADAR too while we are at it!!!

I’m so scared of bombers!!! :x :-P

[Soulblighter]

Bombers seem to keep people awake at night. They did that during WWII as well. How is that for realism. :-D

[boldfresh]

@Soulblighter:

Bombers seem to keep people awake at night. They did that during WWII as well. How is that for realism. :-D

You are on to something there blighter and That Is The Key To Defeating The strat

[baron Münchhausen]

@axis-dominion:

ok, new house rule in effect for any league game i play going forward:

*fighter planes in a territory with a major factory and airbase will intercept at 2
*escorting fighters also attack at 2 in this particular SBR

cyanight is proving without any doubt how inadequate the current intercepting rules are…he’ll go in with like 10 total against say 13 or 15 of my interceptors and still come out ahead, way ahead…we’ll each kill off a plane or two, and then he’ll demolish my economy…how realistic is that?? with overwhelming air defense, how can bombers be so damn effective, and WW2 bombers at that? no way

probably more needs to be done, but i wanna start out with a small change and then go from there.

I’m working on a summary thread which bring some comparison about the odds of various OOB SBR (Triple A, G40.2, 1942.2).
A few quotes leads to some discussion about this issue on the Fighter defending @1 in the Triple A and G40.2 SBR.
Which I believe is the specific issue on SBR balance.
For an optimized play (there are calculations which prove it), StBs never need to bring any Fgs escort.
Just throw all StBs only in the raid, after all, they have the same attack value than escorting Fighter and can defending Fg are no better.

I even made a suggestion to use the 1942.2 SBR instead but keeping Strat Bombers with D6+2 damage.

[JuanSpain]

Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:

1. I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.

2. The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
   2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
   2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).

Are the examples correct?

Thank you

Juan

[axis-dominion]

as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.

@JuanSpain:

Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:

1. I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.

2. The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
   2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
   2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).

Are the examples correct?

Thank you

Juan

[boldfresh]

@axis-dominion:

as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.

@JuanSpain:

Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:

1. I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.

2. The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
   2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
   2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).

Are the examples correct?

Thank you

Juan

Not correct axis.  I thought juan already asked this recently and it was answered.  Gamer can set the record straight.

[axis-dominion]

yah but i like my rule better. it’s simpler, and it helps the allies, which need whatever help they can get

@Boldfresh:

@axis-dominion:

as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.

@JuanSpain:

Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:

1. I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.

2. The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
   2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
   2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).

Are the examples correct?

Thank you

Juan

Not correct axis.  I thought juan already asked this recently and it was answered.  Gamer can set the record straight.

[axis-dominion]

the real rule is that you cannot fly over a neutral territory (whether friendly, unfriendly, or strict). if your planes attacked a neutral, then of course they are free to move to whatever friendly territory during ncm in order to land. once a neutral territory is controlled by a power, then the rules of neutrality no longer apply, and planes can fly over it during cm or ncm.

@Boldfresh:

@axis-dominion:

as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.

@JuanSpain:

Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:

1. I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.

2. The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
   2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
   2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).

Are the examples correct?

Thank you

Juan

Not correct axis.  I thought juan already asked this recently and it was answered.  Gamer can set the record straight.

[JuanSpain]

Thank you Axis, I read that rule in the rulebook, however my 2 questions are not yet answered, they are a bit more specific on the precise moment in which things can happen, and also referring to attacked but not controlled neutrals.

I don´t think we went to this detail in my previous question that Gamer answered Bold.

Thank you!

[gamerman01]

You can fly over a territory in the noncombat movement phase of the turn that you attacked it in the combat movement phase.
So USA can attack Afghanistan with a single unit, then fly air over Afghanistan during the non-combat movement phase.  Afghanistan is no longer a neutral once the combat movement/combat phases are complete - it has joined the Axis.  Therefore USA planes can fly over Afghanistan in the non-combat movement phase just like any other non-neutral territory.

[JuanSpain]

Ok Gamer, I had doubts because planes cannot land in NCM in territories conquered in Combat phase by the same power, and I assumed this had to do with not using Combat info for the NCM plans (just for planes and not for land units), but this is a different situation then.

Many thanks for the clarification!! It is much appreciatted like always.

Juan

[axis-dominion]

i have a rule question:

if a land unit is aboard an allied transport (e.g., russian tank loaded on a UK transport), and it tries to unload onto a territory with fighters scrambling, will the scrambling have any effect? Seems to me they should be able to scramble and thwart the attack, but TripleA isn’t doing anything with the scramble. I mean, it allows the scrambling, but then it doesn’t have any effect and the tank happily unloads to attack (in this case takes an Italian island). someone please clarify the rule on this.

[Adam514]

Euh I thought triplea just killed the tp, but scrambling does of course block an undefended tp from unloading ;)