A UK fighter flies from Moscow to attack German forces in Persia then flies over Japenese controlled India to land in UK occupied FIC. Is the fighter subject AA fire as it flies over India?
yes
Yes for OOB rules. No for LHTR. The LHTR changed things so that AA guns no longer fire during non-combat movement. So it depends on the ruleset you are using.
Most folks play with LHTR (at least that I have observed online). And James is correct that in LHTR, any and ALL aircraft movement over AA guns is ignored by the AA in NON-combat movement.
So… if UK were to fly over Western and into Germany during Combat, they get 2 AA shots. But when they fly back out AFTER the battle, or if they are just NCMing from UK to Ukraine perhaps via Western and Southern, they get NO AA shot no matter how many AA guns they fly over.
Any idea on the logic behind the rule change. It seems counter-intuitive (was the japanese gunner sleeping when the UK flew over India?)  :?
Got me on that one. While I like many of the LHTR changes, this is not one of them. AA guns were not overpowered IMHO and did not need to be downgraded.Â
Though this change isn’t as bad as the TERRIBLE way they changed the way existing fighters are placed on newly purchased ACs. :x
I suppose that makes sense from a consistency standpoint; “all combat is taken care of in the conduct combat phase” is a pretty consistent rule. But then again a rule of “any time a plane flies over an enemy AA gun it is attacked by the AA gun” would be an equally consistent position. And it has the advantage of not straining believability by implying that all AA gun crews take a nap in the non combat phase.
Bringing things back in line with 2nd Ed is not a compelling reason for changing it at all, IMHO. Why don’t we go back to tanks defending at 2 if bringing things back in line with 2nd Ed was a goal.
Let’s see if I have this straight. 1st the AA guns fired in the Original, then didn’t in 2nd Ed., then did in AAR OOB, then didn’t in AAR LHTR. The only reason I can think of for constant changes is there must have been some concern that the AA gun was too powerful. Frankly I don’t see it, even if they do get to fire there’s is no guarantee of a hit. A 1/6 chance, you can’t get any worse odds with a 6 sided dice.
It goes to the desire to move the game away from the Infantry Mechanic that controls the earlier versions.
If you let AA guns fire every time they are overflown, then central europe becomes an AF dead zone, reliant purely on ground troops to push and push back. It takes AF out of the equation for offensive purposes, and still more expensive than INF for defensive purposes, thus FIGs would nto get bought.
So, by limitting AA to combat overflights only, it makes aircraft slightly more attractive for purchase, making the game more diverse. It also makes it more histroically accurate since it allows for waves of aircraft, allied and axis, to fly again and again, with only minimal losses to AA fire.
I see the logic now (well maybe 80%), the earlier version always boiled down to huge stacks of infantry in Central Europe. The team that designed AAR did an excellent job of addressing that (lower cost fighters, more powerful tanks, and a revised map). I still think some tweaking of the AA gun could be accomplished. Maybe letting them fire whenever a plane flies over but increase the cost (7-8 ipc), any thoughts?
@ncscswitch:
If you let AA guns fire every time they are overflown, then central europe becomes an AF dead zone, reliant purely on ground troops to push and push back. It takes AF out of the equation for offensive purposes, and still more expensive than INF for defensive purposes, thus FIGs would nto get bought.
So, by limitting AA to combat overflights only, it makes aircraft slightly more attractive for purchase, making the game more diverse.
I think you GREATLY overstate the effects of “always on” AA guns. How often do you really think planes are going to overfly multiple AA guns, even in Europe? Most air strikes are launched from behind your front lines, and the planes are flying over friendly territory until they get to combat, and then friendly territory to get back. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant that planes should suffer AA fire on the way in and out of the territory being attacked by an AA gun in that territory? No, that is not what I meant, I could see that making AA guns a bit too powerful.
I play in the TripleA WarClub which uses always on AA guns and believe me, in my limited experience, PLENTY of Fighters are bought.
It also makes it more histroically accurate since it allows for waves of aircraft, allied and axis, to fly again and again, with only minimal losses to AA fire.
As you may recall from previous discussions, I’m less concerned with “historical accuracy” than with game play and balance. IMHO, AA guns are a fairly weak unit and could use the oomph that “always on” gives them. Even then, nobody buys them for the most part.
@Craig:
The idea being that there was no need to change something that wasn’t broken.
I agree, but from the other side. To me, nothing was broken about the Revised OOB rules on AA Guns and placing existing fighters on new carriers. So I would have prefered LHTR leave them as they were, since as you say, no reason to fix/change what isn’t broken.
Apologies if my tone seems hostile, I appreicate all that the LHTR team has done for the game. Given a choice between OOB or LHTR I’ll play LHTR every time.
PS to Switch - Given your penchant for historical realism, you must hate the LHTR rules on landing existing fighters on new carriers even more than I do. Did a group of fighters EVER return from combat and land directly on a newly built carrier in real life?
The squadron lands for a refit and flies to the new AC.
Since “turns” are about 6 months of time, I always thought it was rather silly to not be able to “load” carriers, either with new or existing FIGs. In point of fact, all of my early AA gaming allowed for this in Classic.
So no, I have no historical accuracy issues there. The South Pacific and FIGs being moved from islands to carriers and back again with combat in the cycle is enough to show that not only could it happen, but that it DID actually happen.
Lastly, if you want to talk about histroical accuracy and carriers, let me load Bombers on AC’s in friendly SZ’s and allow them to take off from Carriers (but not land on them). April 18, 1942.
That would break the no suicide flights rules unless the US still held China.
Read up on Doolittle’s raid…
They can land in Shangri La! LOL
@ncscswitch:
The squadron lands for a refit and flies to the new AC.
Since “turns” are about 6 months of time, I always thought it was rather silly to not be able to “load” carriers, either with new or existing FIGs. In point of fact, all of my early AA gaming allowed for this in Classic.
So no, I have no historical accuracy issues there. The South Pacific and FIGs being moved from islands to carriers and back again with combat in the cycle is enough to show that not only could it happen, but that it DID actually happen.
I think you misunderstand my point. The OOB Revised rules allow for newly built carriers to be loaded with either newly built fighters or existing fighters that are in the same territory as the IC that produced the AC. I think that accurately represents what you are describing.
But the LHTR changed this. No longer can you load newly built carriers with existing fighters based in the territory with the IC that produced the AC. Now existing fighters must end their movement “hovering” over the SZ that the new AC will be placed in during the mobilize phase. This is what I question. Somehow I don’t see fighters going into combat and intending to land directly on a brand new carrier on their return.
Lastly, if you want to talk about histroical accuracy and carriers, let me load Bombers on AC’s in friendly SZ’s and allow them to take off from Carriers (but not land on them). April 18, 1942.
I’ve always thought that there should be some provision in the game for carrier launched bombers ala Doolittle.
Well, I simply view the LHTR change to be a simplification of the rules, that the FIGs finish their movement and the AC then is there to land on.
Just one of those “tweeks” that makes it easier for folks to play the game but has no real impact on the actual game.
actually, this rule of making Fighters have to “hover” over a sea zone before being placed on a newly built AC keeps people from manipulating the rules and getting fighters to move 5 zones in one turn.
for example, lets say you have a german fighter in EGY, and you fly him to Germany, to be placed on a newly built AC. He flies through LIB, Southern Europe Sea zone, then Southern Europe to Germ, landing there. If he was then able to land on a new AC, he gets an extra move, into the sea zone, and then next turn he could attack a zone farther away than if he had to land in Ger (for example, sea zone 2. While the rule seems unneccesary, you know it came about because someone was manipulating it.
It also works the other way…
A FIG takes off from Ukraine to attack Archangel (2 moves in).
Under LHTR, the FIG can make it to SZ5 to land on a newly built AC (2 moves out)
Under Box rules, the FIG cannot land on the AC since it has to reach Germany (3 moves out).
It simply is clearer and easier if the FIG simply ends in the territory/sea zone that it is indeed going to END in.
You have some good points mateoo and ncscswitch.
Its still possible to have fighters move 6 spaces per round through allied carriers (7 in a freak situation where you retreat from combat and land on allied ac).
IMHO LHTR is much better than OOB rules, also regarding fighters and ACs, to me it seems like pure logic to have the fighter end where it ends.
-Daniel
