@andrewaagamer Thanks!
Scramble clarification [Alpha+.2]
-
4. Scramble rules have been changed. They now read:
….
“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious assaults from adjoining sea zones, whether or not the territory being assaulted is the territory containing the airbase.”
So say the AB in Tokyo can scramble units to sz17 to protect from either attack on the sea zone or amphibious assault, is that legal? -
No that is not legal.
It can only scramble against an attacking fleet in SZ6 or it can scramble against an amphibious assualt on japan and/or korea.
The UK on the other hand is adjacent/adjoining to 2 seazones.
-
No AIR BASE is needed?
-
No AIR BASE is needed?
The TT your planes are scrambling from still needs an AB.
As long as the TT with an AB is adjacent to the SZ from where your enmey is assaulting, whether or not the assualt is on the TT with the AB, your planes can scramble.–-
Btw…wasn’t that already the case in the original rules?
-
No AIR BASE is needed?
The TT your planes are scrambling from still needs an AB.
As long as the TT with an AB is adjacent to the SZ from where your enmey is assaulting, whether or not the assualt is on the TT with the AB, your planes can scramble.–-
@Woodstock:Btw…wasn’t that already the case in the original rules?
Yes and no. Coastal territories can now scramble. But when the coastal change was made (Alpha +1) originally only the territory that was being amphibiously assaulted could scramble to that seazone. For example, if the US tried landing in Korea, the airbase on Japan could not respond but an airbase in Korea COULD.
However, now it has been changed back, so that Japan could scramble to the seazone in response to an amphib assault on Korea.
This is gives much more flexibility to airbases (now that they’re restricted to a max of 3 scrambled aircraft). For example Germany can now scramble from West Germany to protect amphib assaults hitting the territories of Denmark, Norway, and Germany.
-
I have a question about when the scramble planes are moved into position.
Here is my scenario. Japan decides to take the Philippines. Japan has 1 carrier with a fighter and tac bomber and two transports with four infantry. On the Philippines, the USA has 2 infantry, 1 fighter and 1 ANZAC fighter with an air base and naval base. There are no Allied ships around the Philippines. Japan lands the infantry and sends the fighter and tac to support them. Now, since there is an air base, the US and ANZAC fighters can scramble to defend against the amphibious assault.
Now here is my question. If the US and ANZAC planes scramble, then it will be 2 defending fighters against an attacking carrier and two transports, right? Are the Japanese planes COMMITTED to the action on the Philippines or can they be withdrawn to fight with the US and ANZAC fighters? If not, then doesn’t the Japanese force have to retreat since the carrier and transports have no attack value? In that case, there would be no landing of Japanese troops and I would end up with a battle on the Philippines between a Japanese fighter & tac and 2 US infantry, right? -
If the US and ANZAC planes scramble, then it will be 2 defending fighters against an attacking carrier and two transports, right?
Yes.
Are the Japanese planes COMMITTED to the action on the Philippines or can they be withdrawn to fight with the US and ANZAC fighters?
They are committed to the land battle.
If not, then doesn’t the Japanese force have to retreat since the carrier and transports have no attack value? In that case, there would be no landing of Japanese troops and I would end up with a battle on the Philippines between a Japanese fighter & tac and 2 US infantry, right?
Correct.
-
Thank you Krieghund. You are always there with the quick answer to clear things up. It’s really appreciated.
I didn’t realize just how critical the scramble ability was. It’s really a great tool for defense and prevents a lot of cheap and easy land grabbing by aggressors.
-
per alpha 2 rules, fighters can now scramble from a land territoriy with an air base, and adjacent to SZ being attacked. the operative phrase here is SEA ZONE BEING ATTACKED. so if Japan attacks phillipines w/ AC + 2 fighters, 1 tranny + 2 INF, and the sea zone around the phillipines is empty of allied ships, then US cannot scramble fighters, since there is no attack on the sea zone. am I correct? or can fighers be scrambled against Japan navy anyway. even though the sea zone isn’t being attacked?
-
It may not be attacking the sea zone, but the amphibious assault is enough incentive to launch a scramble. The fact that the units are being unloaded unto your territory qualifies as an attack.
-
thx Minor Threat for the clarification. Now, same scenario. If the Japanese kill off the US scrambled planes, can they then continue with the amph assault? (assuming of course the tranny survived.)
-
thx Minor Threat for the clarification. Now, same scenario. If the Japanese kill off the US scrambled planes, can they then continue with the amph assault? (assuming of course the tranny survived.)
Yes. However, in your example it was unclear whether you were using the japanese fighters to attack the Philippines or remain in the seazone with the carrier. They cannot do both. the Attacker must anticipate that the defender will scramble in response to a combat move. If the attacker tasks his planes to attack the island, the carrier in your example is the only unit with a defense roll. In your case, the attacker must balance the risk of having a lightly defended fleet if the defender scrambles, or a heavily defended island if the defender chooses not to scramble. And since the attacker must decide how to allocate aircraft BEFORE the defender chooses to scramble, it may be a gamble one way or another.
-
If the attacker tasks his planes to attack the island, the carrier in your example is the only unit with a defense roll.
I should point out that the carrier’s defense roll doesn’t matter, as it is attacking. Since carriers have no attack value, if the attacker uses both fighters to attack the island, the fleet will have no units with an attack value. In such case, the defender can effectively block the amphibious assault by scrambling a single plane, as the attacker would have no way of clearing it. The defender would then get one round of defensive fire before the attacker could retreat, and the attacker would then have to fight one round with his planes on the island before retreating.
-
Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I want to clarify.
The rules say that an “allied” destroyer in the same sea zone that you attack will not cancel the abilities of enemy subs since any force attacks alone, Allied forces can only defend together. I assume this applies to scrambling as well. Here’s my situation:
The US has a large fleet occupying SZ 6. Japan has fighters on it’s airbase. ANZAC wants to amphibiously assault Korea. If the Japanese fighters scramble, will they only be fighting the ANZAC ships?
Even though the US and ANZAC are Allies, since ANZAC is on the attack, the US ships are basically idle during this action, is that correct?
Suggested Topics
