Multinational Scrambling

Thank you Panther

@barney:

“Bids and Scramble”
sounds like a good name for a board game   :lol:

IDK “Chutes and Ladders” just came to mind lol

Correct, but no interpretation is needed.

At the moment the decision where to land has to be made, the scrambled fighters are in the seazone where they scrambled to.
So it is one move from there.

@rulebook:

After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled air unit must return to the territory from which it was scrambled. If
the enemy has captured that territory, the unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier.
If no such landing space is available, the unit is lost.

If you don’t want UK to scramble during your amphibious assault, you need some Italian Bombers to raid the Airfield, and now UK have no change to repair it before Germany attack.

The rules are made this gamey way because the designer love the idea of teamwork.

Yes, if there is a possible scramble there. Is probably a good idea sometimes.
If you are landing a unit amphibiously, yes it would take the territory unopposed. But you have too clear the Sea Zone first, of course. You fail and the unit stays on board.

Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action.
Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel.
Never made that mistake again.

@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).

Still, doesn’t this seem logical to you guys? That an occupation force would call for air cover from a carrier or air base if counter-attacked?

Here is the HR I can probably use:
An adjacent operational Air Base provides up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
Each carrier can provide 1 plane in an adjacent land territory (Fg or TcB).
An adjacent territory can provide 1 plane (Fg or TcB).

In any situation, keep this limitation:
it is up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB) max which can be scrambled into an adjacent territory under attack.

In addition:
any territory under attack can allow an aerial retreat for 1 single plane (Fg, TcB or StB) or up to 3 planes (Fg, TcB or StB) if there is an operational AB, the range is only 1 territory or SZ move.

Does anyone see some specific drawback to this limited two ways: inward air-support/ outward air retreat?

If the rule is kept within the same limit as the scramble rule in a SZ, players are already taking account of this special air reinforcement, it shouldn’t be difficult to watch it even if it is applied on land territories. What do you think?

Thank you!

Prior to these changes I saw no reason for Japan to NOT attack Hawaii.