Scramble vs. Carrier question

@Herr:

Related to the original question, I’m wondering whether it’s allowed to protect transports with planes only during an amphibious attack and without any sea combat. For example, suppose there’s a German amphibious attack on Novgorod from sea zone 115 by unloading transports alone, is it allowed to fly fighters from Germany into sea zone 115 in order to protect the transports from scrambling?
The rules say that accompanying sea units can move with the transports when moving into an uncontested sea zone. Can air units do the same? It would be counter-intuitive if they couldn’t, because in the above example they definitely could if there were, say, a Russian destroyer in sea zone 115, just because it would be combat.

I am pretty sure I remember krieghund saying you could move planes into a seazone even if there are no enemy units in anticipation of a scramble.

ya, the correct move for this russian player would have been to leave a single fighter behind with his carrier + transports, in order to defend against the possible scramble.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Young:

All I ask is that players (including myself) don’t make combat movements after they declare that their combat movement phase is done, how is that being a rule Nazi?

If they haven’t rolled any dice, what’s the big deal? If you’re in a friendly game and your opponent is about to get 5 trns burned in his attack because he doesn’t realize you can scramble, it’s just being sportsmanlike to say "wait are you SURE you are done with combat move, and then coyly point at the scramblable fighter. If they still don’t get it, then it’s time for a rules lesson.

I always ask if they are sure their combat movement phase is done, and everyone is given plenty of time during their turn. Our whole group of 6 plays this way, and we have a very friendly gaming experience. Strategic bombing raids are first, if there are none, amphibious assults are next, that’s when a plane can scramble to destroy defenceless transports before any dice are thrown. so in our groups we specify that combat movements are done when you declare that they are done, and not when “dice are rolled”.

I believe in giving leeway every once in a while.  If it becomes a feaking habbit, then I’ll corner him to the wall and make good and darn sure he doesn’t get away with it.  In friendly games.  I mean, what’s the harm in, once, out of 12 game rounds, someone forgets to do a walk in?  Let him have it, you were probably expecting it and expecting to have to counter attack or whatever anyway.

In other words, I’d rather play a game with friends, then alienate a friend over a 1 IPC territory.  Except in league/tournament.  You die then.  And I watch you scream and giggle softly to myself while I do it.

Wittmann, Von Lettow Vorbeck: thanks for the clarification.

@Young:

I always ask if they are sure their combat movement phase is done, and everyone is given plenty of time during their turn. Our whole group of 6 plays this way, and we have a very friendly gaming experience. Strategic bombing raids are first, if there are none, amphibious assults are next, that’s when a plane can scramble to destroy defenceless transports before any dice are thrown. so in our groups we specify that combat movements are done when you declare that they are done, and not when “dice are rolled”.

You missed what I wrote. I asked what the big deal is if they haven’t rolled any dice. I never said that TECHNICALLY they could by the rules go back and change something, but honestly, if no dice have been rolled and you are playing a friendly game, what difference does it really make if a player wants to go back and change something once they happened to say that they are ready for combat.

You missed what I wrote as well, the difference is that it would be possible to reneg on an amphibious assault because a plane was scramble… that’s not fair in my books. It’s upto the attacker to assign enough forces to deal with the land and the sea during an amphibious assault. Besides, sinking loaded transports makes the game go faster.

@Young:

You missed what I wrote as well, the difference is that it would be possible to reneg on an amphibious assault because a plane was scramble… that’s not fair in my books. It’s upto the attacker to assign enough forces to deal with the land and the sea during an amphibious assault. Besides, sinking loaded transports makes the game go faster.

It would always be on a case by case basis.  Scrambling a plane is a bit different than “oh shit, I accidentally spent 1 IPC more than I could, can I downgrade that artillery to an infantry?” or “crap, I was going to blitz N. Ukraine because it was empty, but in all the confusion of hitting your capitol and all the excitement of the plunder, it just slipped my mind - do you mind if I fix that?”  Etc.  (note, probably NOT with a capitol attack, but you get the drift.)

Unacceptable would be “shit, my calculator was wrong, can I bring in another bomber?”  Uhm, screw you!  My calculator is not perfect, but it’s mostly reliable, you should be using MINE!  No, wait, you should be using yours, die you American imperialist PIG DOG!  wink

:lol:

I just typed a lengthy reponse that somehow didn’t post. Rather than recreate it, the tone was as such:

I think it’s fair and generous to allow any changes to my opponent right up until the point where I change the game with an action (like saying “I’m scrambling there”) or anybody changes the game with a roll of the die. I might even give an obnoxious throat-clear with a raised eyebrow if they’re done with their combat move and if they’re doing something where it’s clear to me that they’ve overlooked something vital.

I’ll even include doing NCM on the place units and collect income phase. No problem. It doesn’t change the game. Along those lines, in forum games, if somebody wanted to edit NCM on my turn and I hadn’t shown them any of my moves yet, knock yourself out. FTF is a little trickier. If somebody wants to adjust NCM when they see my purchase or my combat moves… eh, sorry Charlie, you’re gonna have to wear that one.

As such, I’m with YG partially – you can’t go changing the allocations of units once I say I’m scrambling; there’s too much opportunity for abuse and hurt feelings. But I’m also not as firm on things where changing things isn’t impacted nor impacts other things. If nobody else has acted, go for it.

And that’s my third of a half-shilling.

@Fortress:

I just typed a lengthy reponse that somehow didn’t post. Rather than recreate it, the tone was as such:

I think it’s fair and generous to allow any changes to my opponent right up until the point where I change the game with an action (like saying “I’m scrambling there”) or anybody changes the game with a roll of the die. I might even give an obnoxious throat-clear with a raised eyebrow if they’re done with their combat move and if they’re doing something where it’s clear to me that they’ve overlooked something vital.

I’ll even include doing NCM on the place units and collect income phase. No problem. It doesn’t change the game. Along those lines, in forum games, if somebody wanted to edit NCM on my turn and I hadn’t shown them any of my moves yet, knock yourself out. FTF is a little trickier. If somebody wants to adjust NCM when they see my purchase or my combat moves… eh, sorry Charlie, you’re gonna have to wear that one.

As such, I’m with YG partially – you can’t go changing the allocations of units once I say I’m scrambling; there’s too much opportunity for abuse and hurt feelings. But I’m also not as firm on things where changing things isn’t impacted nor impacts other things. If nobody else has acted, go for it.

And that’s my third of a half-shilling.
100%

@Fortress:

As such, I’m with YG partially – you can’t go changing the allocations of units once I say I’m scrambling; there’s too much opportunity for abuse and hurt feelings. But I’m also not as firm on things where changing things isn’t impacted nor impacts other things. If nobody else has acted, go for it.

I would still have to stick to a  free killing of the attacker’s transports with no battle to be a rather unique situation, because there is ABSOLUTELY no way they would have sent the transports in if they knew that there was a fighter that could do that. There’s a difference between going into a battle where you have slim odds and a battle where you have a 0% chance of success.

I am trying to think of the ways this rather unique situation could happen. I got to go to work, so here’s my quick list:

1. The attacker sees the fighter and the airbase and does not know the rules well enough to know that that fighter can scramble.
2. The attacker does not see the fighter or the airbase, although he does know the rule.

I am of the opinion that it is my resposibility to take reasonable effort to make the contents of a territory reasonably clear to other players. For example, I once  (ONLY once, you’ll see why) played against a guy who refused to use discs and would pile units together so that I would have to spread out the units to see what what there, and I am pretty sure he tried to hide fighters under bombers on purpose. I consider it bad sportsmanship to not keep you territories reasonably neat; otherwise your opponent has the choice of slowing the game down by needing to verify the contents of numerous territories constantly, or risk missing what’s there.

There’s another situation. The hail mary. You don’t have enough pieces. You can cover the potential scramble, but come up short on the land battle if he doesn’t scramble. Or you can have enough to win the land battle but not cover the scramble.

So you push everything to the land, hoping he doesn’t see the scramble opportunity. If he doesn’t,you win the land battle. If he does, you feign ignorance and ask to have the move back and not lose anything.

If you can retreat the trannies and they’re unescorted, you only lose one. And some air probably in the first combat round before they can retreat. And you’ve learned a lesson.

If it’s somebody’s first time playing, obviously we should be helping them. But if you’re playing an equal, there’s really no excuse. Where do you draw the line? I’ve J3’ed Calcutta a bunch. Need to remember that destroyer block, though. If I miss it, should somebody point it out? If I attack with bombers and the only place they can land is a place where they can get all wiped out by a couple of tanks, should I point it out? If somebody leaves Denmark undefended and Germany empty with British and American transports within range, should I point it out? C’mon. If you’re gonna be a big boy you gotta play by big boy rules.

Will I drop an “um…are you sure?” in ftf? Sure. But it’s insulting if somebody’s always pointing out your mistakes. Make em. Learn from em. Have fun and move on.

@Fortress:

There’s another situation. The hail mary. You don’t have enough pieces. You can cover the potential scramble, but come up short on the land battle if he doesn’t scramble. Or you can have enough to win the land battle but not cover the scramble.

So you push everything to the land, hoping he doesn’t see the scramble opportunity. If he doesn’t,you win the land battle. If he does, you feign ignorance and ask to have the move back and not lose anything.

I guess that might work LOL.  You won’t be taking London or Novgorod that way, but you might get away with it when amphibiously attacking one of the kamikaze spots in the Pacific.  Most people would not miss the scramble opportunity from an airbase because that’s obvious, but a lot of people forget about the kamikazes.

@Fortress:

There’s another situation. The hail mary. You don’t have enough pieces. You can cover the potential scramble, but come up short on the land battle if he doesn’t scramble. Or you can have enough to win the land battle but not cover the scramble.

So you push everything to the land, hoping he doesn’t see the scramble opportunity. If he doesn’t,you win the land battle. If he does, you feign ignorance and ask to have the move back and not lose anything.

If you can retreat the trannies and they’re unescorted, you only lose one. And some air probably in the first combat round before they can retreat. And you’ve learned a lesson.

If it’s somebody’s first time playing, obviously we should be helping them. But if you’re playing an equal, there’s really no excuse. Where do you draw the line? I’ve J3’ed Calcutta a bunch. Need to remember that destroyer block, though. If I miss it, should somebody point it out? If I attack with bombers and the only place they can land is a place where they can get all wiped out by a couple of tanks, should I point it out? If somebody leaves Denmark undefended and Germany empty with British and American transports within range, should I point it out? C’mon. If you’re gonna be a big boy you gotta play by big boy rules.

Will I drop an “um…are you sure?” in ftf? Sure. But it’s insulting if somebody’s always pointing out your mistakes. Make em. Learn from em. Have fun and move on.

I would consider a destroyer block different since someone forgot to do something STRATEGIC, instead of being ignorant of a RULE.

Besides, you do realize that your situation involves someone LYING about not knowing a rule? You are equating all of these situations that have major differences. I stand by my above post.

What’s really insulting is suggesting that someone CAN’T learn the lesson if their mistake is forgiven rather than carried out.

can you change your attack after your opponent declares his intent to scramble? I don’t think so, but am not sure.

@Global-commander:

can you change your attack after your opponent declares his intent to scramble? I don’t think so, but am not sure.

No.  Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed.

@kcdzim:

@Global-commander:

can you change your attack after your opponent declares his intent to scramble? I don’t think so, but am not sure.

No.  Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed. that’s what I thought.