Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games
|
swarbs
|
Aircraft placementAircraft can be placed in any sector on the battle map or on the land airbase. Once an air mission is assigned to the land airbase, however, all of that player's remaining air missions are automatically sent to the land airbase. The land airbase stacking limit still applies. Aircraft cannot remain on or be assigned to Carriers.
This is a quote from the rules clarification document. For example, you will note that if you have an airbase full of re-arming aircraft, then the aircraft on you carriers must fly this turn (be assigned to a sector), by the letter of the law.
To my logic, this makes no sense. I understand that you shouldn't be allowed to place aircraft after assigning an aircraft to the land base, but why isn't a carrier a viable place to put an aircraft? Does anyone follow this rule? Can anyone tell me what sort of thing this rule is designed to prevent? Is there any reason I shouldn't go to the gleemax boards and write to thier clarifications guy?
|
afilter
|
Well, since there is not re-arming time for carrier aircraft you could just assign them to the carrier sector.
I believe the rule is in place so that in the "game" you cannot just pass your turn to see where your opponent places aircraft and react. If you lost initiative you must commit first.
First time I have run across the stacking limit for the airbase being full of re-arming aircraft though, but very possible.
We all know the "game" timeline is messed up for planes re-arming I think this is why you roll for all planes when a carrier is sunk because some planes could be returning.taking off etc.
In your example if you allowed planes to be placed on a carrier then would the planes be automatically be sunk if the carrier is destroyed? 
That is why we house rule this operation for our larger games on the large map. Planes can remain on a carrier and must re-arm and are lost if the carrier is lost while the planes are on board (more realistic look at Midway).
For basic WAS you need to keep the frame of mind that it is a "game" and this is a rule mechanic of that "game".
HTH,
|
swarbs
|
But, even assigning them to the carrier sector gives them a chance of being shot down. This is why I don't think the rule is so great, planes should just be allowed not to take off. I don't know, maybe it's not a big deal, but if in a game my opponent pointed out that I have to fly the swordfish from my carrier and then shoots them down, I think that would be dumb.
|
afilter
|
| swarbs wrote: | | But, even assigning them to the carrier sector gives them a chance of being shot down. This is why I don't think the rule is so great, planes should just be allowed not to take off. I don't know, maybe it's not a big deal, but if in a game my opponent pointed out that I have to fly the swordfish from my carrier and then shoots them down, I think that would be dumb. |
All part of the "game" tactics. Either do not take so many planes that your airbase will be full or take the chance.
Would you rather he sink your carrier and you loose all the planes?
|
swarbs
|
I've had to think about the losing all planes thing and I think my anwer is still yes. At least I'd like the ability to choose, if my carrier is in a vulnerable position the planes can take thier chance, if it's not, then keep them out of harm's way.
Do you think this is the reason the rule was worded this way? Just so they didn't have to write a line saying 'all planes that are assigned to a carrier for thier air mission are lost if that carrier is sunk'. I don't know, just couldn't really figure out the rational behind the rule.
|
afilter
|
| swarbs wrote: | I've had to think about the losing all planes thing and I think my anwer is still yes. At least I'd like the ability to choose, if my carrier is in a vulnerable position the planes can take thier chance, if it's not, then keep them out of harm's way.
Do you think this is the reason the rule was worded this way? Just so they didn't have to write a line saying 'all planes that are assigned to a carrier for thier air mission are lost if that carrier is sunk'. I don't know, just couldn't really figure out the rational behind the rule. |
Yeah I think it just fits the game mechanics that all aircraft get placed every turn as part of the alternating placement.
Honestly it has been a long time since we have played a standard 100pt WAS game on the paper maps. Since I built the board and 3d terrain that is all my kids want to do is large fleet actions and we have extensive house rules that include aircraft range and movement.
For "game" purposes the rules work as they are. For home play house rule what you want as long as all agree.
|
Demotox
|
Re: Aircraft placement | swarbs wrote: | Aircraft can be placed in any sector on the battle map or on the land airbase. Once an air mission is assigned to the land airbase, however, all of that player's remaining air missions are automatically sent to the land airbase. The land airbase stacking limit still applies. Aircraft cannot remain on or be assigned to Carriers.
This is a quote from the rules clarification document. For example, you will note that if you have an airbase full of re-arming aircraft, then the aircraft on you carriers must fly this turn (be assigned to a sector), by the letter of the law.
To my logic, this makes no sense. I understand that you shouldn't be allowed to place aircraft after assigning an aircraft to the land base, but why isn't a carrier a viable place to put an aircraft? Does anyone follow this rule? Can anyone tell me what sort of thing this rule is designed to prevent? Is there any reason I shouldn't go to the gleemax boards and write to thier clarifications guy? |
When I first read it I thought it was about retarded myself... When I just read it I still thought it was pretty retarded myself.
|
|