To put it another way, the restriction applies only to placing (mobilizing) new units. It does not apply to moving existing units.
Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors
-
It reflects reality. You don’t send in a fleet of unescorted bombers when the target has a mass of fighters.
AA50 is perfectly balanced when not using NO and with this rule. If you want the bomber “strategy” then you have to work for it.
This rule is also standard at Gencon and Origins tournaments, so it’s used quite a lot.
-
@squirecam Since the bomber strategy (purchasing mostly bombers for the Americans at least during the first three rounds) is Allied and aimed at Germany, I’m not seeing how it can be a viable strategy (meaning a strategy a very good player would ever do against an other very good player) under this rule. However, I’ve no actual experience about this rule.
I’m nonetheless convinced the rule would have been fine (maybe even for bomber-strategy haters) if the escorting fighters were not subjected to any AA fire (rest being the same).
-
@cernel @squirecam I felt the same as you Cernel, until I tried it on TripleA (against a live opponent). Its ridiculous and I’m very happy this optional rule was sanctioned. The problem is that a bomber costs 12 IPC compared to the 17.5 IPC the 5 successful bombing raids inflict on an industry in exchange. Coupled with the fact that both Italy and Germany have IC that are in range of bombers based in Britain and… well… the results are what I might describe as “silly”. Italy and Germany become relatively inert and if USA simply dedicates to the bomber spam, eventually, they can invest in a Pacific fleet. A “third” order effect is that these bombers can eventually move to Libya from which they can threaten Japanese expansion, especially IJN units, while still casually flattening Italy and Germany’s IC. So they morph into this versatile blob of destruction or “Green skies”.
Conversely, if USA neglects to perform this strategy, or feels its a cheeky move and opts out, the problem is not solved. The buck merely passes to Germany which can seemingly bring the Allies to heel by buying a bomber a turn or every other turn. This “dark skies” strategy forces the UK/US players to invest more in DD/AC/FTR in order to protect their convoys of transports while simultaneously being able to inflict the same treatment described above on the USSR. A few games of this and the lack of this rule feels like a “fun drain” on this edition of AnA.
@squirecam you didn’t mention closing the Turkish straits… I am interested to hear your opinion on that with regards to balance?
-
Gencon has never used that rule during its tournaments. So I cant speak to that. Typically the 1942 bid is a single unit which really determines the side more than anything. Closing the straits might upset that balance.
-
@squirecam gotcha. I have a long resume with the '41 setup, not the '42 so I can’t speak to '42 for the same reason.
-
@the_good_captain I absolutely refuse to play just about any version (Except Classic) without the escorts/ interceptors Rule, me thinks it’s ridiculous to play otherwise and pretty much get bombed to Death with very little consequences to the attacker!!!
-
@nolimit said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@the_good_captain I absolutely refuse to play just about any version (Except Classic) without the escorts/ interceptors Rule, me thinks it’s ridiculous to play otherwise and pretty much get bombed to Death with very little consequences to the attacker!!!
You need to train you pilots better there 0 1. Lol
-
@gen-manstein
The largest problem with any AA game has been the bombers. Classic was simply luck. Buy bombers. Get heavy bomber tech as usa and you cant lose.
Revised made many great changes to the game but the initial OOB “directed” tech was an awful change. Now instead of luck, you could choose to get the broken tech. (Sigh). LHTR fixed this.
You would have thought people had learned by now. But nope. AA50 again required the optional rule. At least it was in the rulebook and Gencon adopted it for tournaments almost immediately.
If Germany wants to bomb UK into submission, then they should have to win the Battle of Britain. Which means destroying the fighters. Which means escorts. So you have to actually invest in the strategy it isnt just handed to you.
-
Ya I get that. I am going to put in my game a interceptor hit of a 1, d12 system picks the plane casualty.
But defending escorts stay same as interceptors on DF values. I know I know defender is higher but to make it at least a bomber can get picked. d6 system maybe for every 2 interceptors make 1 dice roll a 1 get bomber kill. -
@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@gen-manstein
The largest problem with any AA game has been the bombers. Classic was simply luck. Buy bombers. Get heavy bomber tech as usa and you cant lose.
I’ve heard of this strategy, but in my many, many recent games against a variety of opponents, many on this forum, I have never seen anyone actually do this. Furthermore, I don’t feel the statistics bear this out as a game breaking strategy.
You would have thought people had learned by now. But nope. AA50 again required the optional rule. At least it was in the rulebook and Gencon adopted it for tournaments almost immediately.
Technically, its not in the rule book. It’s in the errata but this is hair splitting, of course.
I feel that classic and global did the best job with regards to SBR rules.
-
@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@gen-manstein
The largest problem with any AA game has been the bombers. Classic was simply luck. Buy bombers. Get heavy bomber tech as usa and you cant lose.
I’ve heard of this strategy, but in my many, many recent games against a variety of opponents, many on this forum, I have never seen anyone actually do this. Furthermore, I don’t feel the statistics bear this out as a game breaking strategy.
You would have thought people had learned by now. But nope. AA50 again required the optional rule. At least it was in the rulebook and Gencon adopted it for tournaments almost immediately.
Technically, its not in the rule book. It’s in the errata but this is hair splitting, of course.
I feel that classic and global did the best job with regards to SBR rules.
Perhaps you should get heavy bombers in classic as USA and see how game breaking it is first hand.
I prefer the AA50 fighter interceptors rule. Anything else is simply a worse option in my opinion.
-
hard to find someone who lets me be allies. but of course, it should be tested. my hypothesis is that there stands a better than even chance that if the USA cant get them by game turn 3, the axis will win the economic victory.
(EDIT: 3/27/2021 - for my future self and any others interested. How this was arrived at statistically is as follows: If USA spends 30 IPC per turn in the first three turns, the most statistically plausible event is one breakthrough each turn. This means that by the time you finish rolling tech on turn three, there is a 50% chance that USA will have HB. By game turn four, it is more likely than not that USA will have HB (67%).
The axis will benefit from two points if the allies decide to pursue this:
-
the USA will be almost completely inert for the first three turns while in pursuit of HB tech with commensurately less pressure being placed on either Japan and especially Germany.
-
an immaculate axis player should be able to adjust his strategy slightly to maximize his early expansion to counter the HB strategy. The goal should absolutely be a “lunge” for 84 IPC as quickly and cleanly as possible. Given that USA will be low or out of ground and naval assets to recapture Japanese expansion, Japan will have a less difficult time capturing required territories adjacent to the RUS capital and Africa. (i.e. Russian recaptures don’t matter with regards to the economic victory conditions, only USA recaptures matter)
I will concede that if USA gets this tech on turn one or two, it is highly likely an allies win. However, this is statistically unlikely (33%). The interesting part of this strategy to me is wondering who would win more often if the breakthrough was secured on turn three (50% chance of HB) and/or turn four (67% chance of HB).
In summation, at the time of this writing, I don’t see a broken game through this strategy based on the above statistics. I don’t feel this approaches Spanish Harlem which has forum threads dedicated to it and really does break Classic, which is why I advocate making neutrals off limits like all the rest of the AnA games (except global).
I will repost here if I ever change my mind or thoroughly test this out in live games.
-
-
@Panther I’m watching the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16AfK2A82o
video of @The_Good_Captain, so I happened to notice that he believes antiaircraft fire is resolved in a way I doubt is correct.Reading the rules, I think there are only 3 different ways one may sensibly understand the antiaircraft fire in presence of escorting fighters is to be conducted:
- The defender rolls as many dice as the number of attacking air units and then distributes all hits as he/she wishes (likely taking fighters out first, to save bombers).
- The defender rolls as many dice as the number of escorting fighters and also, but separately, as many dice as the number of attacking bombers and then distributes all hits obtained against the fighters amongst the fighters only and all hits obtained against the bombers amongst the bombers only (rationally virtually always choosing to take the air units with less movement left first).
- The defender rolls on every attacking unit individually, taking it out if scoring a hit.
I understand that @The_Good_Captain believes it works as point 1, whereas I believe it works as point 2, yet I need an official answer to be sure.
Thanks.
@The_Good_Captain If I’m correct, let me point out that this additional rule is a pure disadvantage for the attacker, as it would not be true that this rule “improves the probability that your bomber survives”, by allowing you to take out fighters in stead of bombers.
By the way, @The_Good_Captain, in the video you said that you got @Krieghund to answer, but here I see @Panther did.
Finally, I surely disagree that, under any circumstances, strategic bombing with anyone else but the Americans (the Germans or whoever) may have a significant impact on the balance of the game (meaning that, even with bombers at 12 IPC, no National Objectives and no Interceptors, I believe it is not very good for the Germans to bomb Soviet territories).
-
@cernel Since my name was “dropped”, I’ll respond to this.
You are correct. The original question (which @Panther answered correctly) only asked whether or not escort fighters were included in AA fire. Apparently @The_Good_Captain extended that answer to cover how AA fire is conducted incorrectly. Per the rules on page 25 of the Rulebook, when there’s a mix of fighters and bombers involved, each group is rolled for separately.
-
@krieghund said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@cernel Since my name was “dropped”, I’ll respond to this.
You are correct. The original question (which @Panther answered correctly) only asked whether or not escort fighters were included in AA fire. Apparently @The_Good_Captain extended that answer to cover how AA fire is conducted incorrectly. Per the rules on page 25 of the Rulebook, when there’s a mix of fighters and bombers involved, each group is rolled for separately.
So your saying the aa gun fires at all planes on a sbr attack. So this is another way of saying with no interception rule ? But I may have missed that rule. Or is it both rules ?
-
@gen-manstein Sorry, I don’t understand your question.
-
@krieghund @Cernel I’m aware of the error and debated pulling the video and reshooting it but decided to edit that segment so that there is no mention of casualty selection and then making an annotation in the description box. I will mention that in my 12th video as well.
I had just finished re-reading the original (2000) Pacific manual and got my wires slightly crossed.
As regards that Panther answered and not krieghund, all I can say is that his answer was just after Panthers at the time of the posting of this video. It seems to have been deleted.
I appreciate your attention to detail @Cernel
-
@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.
I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.
-
@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.
I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.
The escort and interceptor rule is required for a fair game IMHO. Moreover, no bombing strategy succeeded in eliminating a country’s ability to build tanks and weapons during ww2, and certainly not without getting through fighter screens first.
-
@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:
@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.
I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.
The escort and interceptor rule is required for a fair game IMHO. Moreover, no bombing strategy succeeded in eliminating a country’s ability to build tanks and weapons during ww2, and certainly not without getting through fighter screens first.
This answered my question krieghund.
-
O Ozymandiac referenced this topic on
Suggested Topics
