AA50 Optional rule question: Fighter interception SBR

@allboxcars:

OK so two questions actually:

1. “Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex…. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory…”

OK the second line - and the text that follows - makes it sound like the interceptors came from another territory which is clearly not the case in the first line.
Is the first line’s limitation incorrect?
Or is the second line’s use of the word “return” essentially meaning that they land?

You can have a bombing run and an attack upon the same territory.

You’re reading too much into this.  Based on the fact that only fighters in the IC’s territory may defend it, “return to” can only mean “land in”.

@allboxcars:

2. “Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn.”

So, if we’re looking at German and Italian fighters located in Germany defending against a UK SBR then neither fighters can participate in defending against another attack during that UK turn but when the Italian turn comes around after that, his fighters can participate in combat… correct?

As Squirecam pointed out, this applies only when the same territory is attacked with both an SBR and a land attack.  Fighter interceptors can attack normally on their own turn, just as any defending unit can.

@allboxcars:

So, if we’re looking at German and Italian fighters located in Germany defending against a UK SBR then neither fighters can participate in defending against another attack during that UK turn but when the Italian turn comes around after that, his fighters can participate in combat… correct?

Does this mean that friendly aircraft can function as interceptors in addition to or in place of nationals aircraft against a SBR ?

While we’re on the topic, I just want to doublecheck something that was up on another thread. Since the defender designates interceptors after the attacker makes his combat move but before combat, if the defender decides not to intercept, attacking escorting fighters are not subject to AA fire and just use up their combat move participating as potential escorts, i.e. returning to base?

@Battlingmaxo:

Does this mean that friendly aircraft can function as interceptors in addition to or in place of nationals aircraft against a SBR ?

Yes.

@Lynxes:

While we’re on the topic, I just want to doublecheck something that was up on another thread. Since the defender designates interceptors after the attacker makes his combat move but before combat, if the defender decides not to intercept, attacking escorting fighters are not subject to AA fire and just use up their combat move participating as potential escorts, i.e. returning to base?

Escorting fighters are always subject to AA fire, whether there are defending interceptors or not.  They don’t know whether or not there will be interceptors until they get there, so they must go all the way to the target.

Escorting fighters are always subject to AA fire, whether there are defending interceptors or not.  They don’t know whether or not there will be interceptors until they get there, so they must go all the way to the target.

Really ?  :?  This seems counterintuitive, in every other part of the game units gets fired at only if they have a chance to harm the enemy. The only other example is subs against navies without destroyers, but here it’s a question of strategy since if you see the enemy building navy you can build destroyers. Am I the only one finding escorts flying over AA-guns for no use strange?

It’s not “for no use”.  If there are defending fighters but no escorts, the defender takes no risk by sending interceptors up.  If the defender decides not to send up interceptors because of the escorts, the escorts are still protecting the bombers by suppressing the interceptors.  If there are no defending fighters, you don’t need to send escorts in the first place.

@squirecam:

Fighter Escort rule worked very well at Origins.

That’s good to know.  I’ll pass it along.

I’m confused… I’m new here, but in the A&A50 rule book there’s no mention of allowing you to use escorting fighters or to use fighters around your I.C. to defend against incoming bombers. It clearly just says ‘after resolving any anti-aircraft fire, surviving bombers each roll one die’.

@squirecam:

Fighter Escort rule worked very well at Origins. Some bombing was still done, but it wasnt the overall “strategy” it is without the rule.

Well put. It’s only logical that fighters should be able to defend against SBRs and it fixes a problem that needs fixing. The fighter interceptors rule, or a variation of it, should be made standard in my opinion.

That said, I feel the official fighter interceptors rule may deter SBRs a little too much. Say for example the Allies conduct an SBR over Germany with 2 escort fighters and 2 bombers and the Germans send up 2 fighters to intercept. Under the official optional rules the Germans would have 4 rolls at 1, and 2 rolls at 2 or less against the Allied planes. Chances are decent the Germans are going to score a hit costing the Allies 10 IPCs (the cost of one fighter). Meanwhile the chances are not so good the Allies are going to do 10 IPCs worth of damage to the Germans with 2 SBR dice rolls and 2 escort fighter rolls at 1. Thus, in this particular example the SBR becomes too unattractive for the Allies!

A slightly more balanced variation (perhaps) of the fighter escort rule I prefer is as follows:

1. Defending fighters intercept incoming bombers and escort fighters. Escorts have an attack value of 1* and interceptors have a defense value of 2. Bombers cannot fire. One round only. Remove casualties.
2. AA fires at the remaining bombers only, not on the fighter-escorts**. Remove casualties.
3. If any bomber is left, conduct strategic bombing.

• Jet fighters have an attack value of 2.
  ** In the event that escorts are present and the defender chooses not to send up interceptors then the AA fires at both bombers and escorts.

The logic behind this is that if interceptors are present they are going to engage the enemy before they get to the target while AA guns engage the enemy only when they’re directly over the target. In this scenario the escorts engage the interceptors before actually making over to the target and therefore should not be subject to AA fire. If no interceptors are present the escorts must protect the bombers all the way to the target (due to uncertainty of potential interception as Krieghund stated) and are therefore subject to AA fire.

My variation is a tad more complex but I think it’s more balanced.

@WOPR:

@squirecam:

Fighter Escort rule worked very well at Origins. Some bombing was still done, but it wasnt the overall “strategy” it is without the rule.

Well put. It’s only logical that fighters should be able to defend against SBRs and it fixes a problem that needs fixing. The fighter escort rule, or a variation of it, should be made standard in my opinion.

That said, I feel the official fighter escort rule may deter SBRs a little too much. Say for example the Allies conduct an SBR over Germany with 2 escort fighters and 2 bombers and the Germans send up 2 fighters to intercept. Under the official optional rules the Germans would have 4 rolls at 1, and 2 rolls at 2 or less against the Allied planes. Chances are decent the Germans are going to score a hit costing the Allies 10 IPCs (the cost of one fighter). Meanwhile the chances are not so good the Allies are going to do 10 IPCs worth of damage to the Germans with 2 SBR dice rolls and 2 escort fighter rolls at 1. Thus, in this example the SBR becomes too unattractive for the Allies!

A more balanced variation of the fighter escort rule I prefer is as follows:

1. Defending fighters intercept incoming bombers and escort fighters. Escorts have an attack value of 1* and interceptors have a defense value of 2. Bombers cannot fire. One round only. Remove casualties.
2. AA fires at the remaining bombers only, not on the fighter-escorts**. Remove casualties.
3. If any bomber is left, conduct strategic bombing.

• Jet fighters have an attack value of 2.
  ** In the event that escorts are present and the defender chooses not to send up interceptors then the AA fires at both bombers and escorts. The logic behind this is that if interceptors are present they are going to engage the enemy before they get to the target while AA guns engage the enemy only when they’re directly over the target. In this scenario the escorts engage the interceptors before actually making over to the target and therefore should not be subject to AA fire. If no interceptors are present the escorts must protect the bombers all the way to the target (due to uncertainty of potential interception) and are therefore subject to AA fire.

My variation is a tad more complex but I think it’s more balanced.

WOPR, I can understand where you are coming from.  However, with the escort rule in effect you must choose the right time to do your SBR’s.  If you are closing in and you really need to limit production then losing a fighter just might be well worth it.

Your variation would work well as a house rule but not an oob rule because, as you stated above, it is more complex.  I bit too complex for an oob rule IMO.

@Captain:

WOPR, I can understand where you are coming from.  However, with the escort rule in effect you must choose the right time to do your SBR’s.  If you are closing in and you really need to limit production then losing a fighter just might be well worth it.

Well I think the existing interceptor rule is better than none so if that’s what it’s going to be, I vote it should be standard. What I’m saying is that I think the interceptor rule can be better. Right now, I feel it marginalizes SBRs a little too much. Without the interceptor rule SBRs are too effective and with the interceptor rule (in it’s current form) SBRs are a little too ineffective.

@Captain:

Your variation would work well as a house rule but not an oob rule because, as you stated above, it is more complex.  I bit too complex for an oob rule IMO.

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

@WOPR:

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. It just switches the order of the steps and adds one exception. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

That is exactly the point, ‘we can handle those’ because we are already familiar with the game as it is.  New comers to the game trying to decipher all the rules and exceptions could make it very stressful to learn.  Otional rule in the game for SBR is interceptor……attacking fighters do this, defending fighters do this, but if fighters don’t defend then they do this, bombers can’t do this…and so on and so on.  Larry has made the optional rule very easy to understand and implement.  You also have to remember that a power would have to leave fighters close enough to home in order to defend against the SBR.  This means they are not in a battle elsewhere.  It is not all bad.

@Captain:

@WOPR:

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. It just switches the order of the steps and adds one exception. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

That is exactly the point, ‘we can handle those’ because we are already familiar with the game as it is.  New comers to the game trying to decipher all the rules and exceptions could make it very stressful to learn.  Otional rule in the game for SBR is interceptor……attacking fighters do this, defending fighters do this, but if fighters don’t defend then they do this, bombers can’t do this…and so on and so on.  Larry has made the optional rule very easy to understand and implement.  You also have to remember that a power would have to leave fighters close enough to home in order to defend against the SBR.  This means they are not in a battle elsewhere.  It is not all bad.

I agree, it’s not all bad. Like I said, I think the existing intercept rule is better than nothing. It can be better in terms of balance however.

Perhaps a simpler but slightly less balanced variation than the one I already proposed would be this: AA guns fire at both escorts and bombers if interceptors are sent up. If no interceptors are sent up, AA guns fire at bombers only. That’s the same as it is now only that AA guns don’t fire at escorts if the defender chooses not to send up interceptors.