BattleshipOverkill
|
Initiative and Aircraft placement.Lets say Player A has 3 aircraft and Player B has 4 aircraft. Player A wins the initiative. According to the rules Player B will place one aircraft then Player A until there are no aircraft to place. My questions is if Player A places all of his aircraft and Player B has 1 aircraft left to place last doesn't that negate Player A's initiative?
|
NeuralDream
|
If you don't place a plane when it is your turn, then you stop placing planes for this turn. You cannot hold it and place it later.
|
BattleshipOverkill
|
Let me clarify. If Player B lost the initiative but gets to put out the last plane doesn't that negate some of Player A's initiative. Would it not make sense for Player A to put out his first 2 aircraft normally and then place his last aircraft after Player B has placed out his last aircraft?
|
Okie
|
No!
You have to follow the sequince. If you want to place last aircraft you have to have the most.
|
Captain Morevo
|
| BattleshipOverkill wrote: | | Let me clarify. If Player B lost the initiative but gets to put out the last plane doesn't that negate some of Player A's initiative. Would it not make sense for Player A to put out his first 2 aircraft normally and then place his last aircraft after Player B has placed out his last aircraft? |
Further clarification, Player A cannot "hold onto his aircraft" if you don't place your aircraft in the assigned order, you sacrifice the rest of your air mission phase. It doesn't negate his initiative, it just means Player A didn't bring enough of an Air Wing 
|
BattleshipOverkill
|
Thank you for the clarification. 
|
Delta Echo
|
I understand what you are saying.
According to the rules with alterating aircraft placement, what you are saying is true. "He who brings the most aircraft" will always be able to place the last aircraft on the board (regardless of who wins initiative). My play group noticed this early on and house-ruled that winning initiative allows you to place the last aircraft.
Example:
Player A has 3 aircraft.
Player B has 2 aircraft.
Player B wins initiative.
Player A places 1 aircraft
Player B places 1 aircraft and informs Player A that he has only one more to place.
Player A places his remaining 2 aircraft.
Player B places his last aircraft.
Our house rule isn't perfect, but it does rightously grant the initiative winner with a tangible "initiative advantage". And keeps the game from turning into an airfleet building contest, ie: "War in Air" oh yeah, and some ships to shoot at too.
Having that final aircraft placement is vital with certain ASW and "stand-off" attack aircraft like Kondors, Catalinas, Mitchells, Halifax, and to a lesser extent weaker units like Swordfish.
Another plus is that so far, this has worked wonders to cut down on heavy Carrier + heavy Air Cheese Builds in my group.
|
BattleshipOverkill
|
That was our conclusion as well. Thank you for your insight, Delta Echo.
|
NjCo
|
| Delta Echo wrote: |
Our house rule isn't perfect, but it does rightously grant the initiative winner with a tangible "initiative advantage". |
This is actually a really good point. Nice house rule to 'fix' this. Just the way house rules should be, simple and quick. The person who has initiative should have an advantage regardless of their build. And since winning initiative only grants you the advantage of being able to see where your opponent moves/places (which is a nice advantage) a player shouldn't be able to negate that advantage just by bringing more aircraft to the table.
|
NeuralDream
|
To be honest, I don't think that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The one who wins the initiative already has a big advantage. Why make it even bigger?
Consider the following situation:
Player A has 6 fighters. Player B has 1 feeble bomber. Player B wins initiative. With your houserule, player B's feeble bomber is safe despite the 6 fighters of player A.
|
jfkziegler
|
I would tend to agree with ND here. It seems to me that bringing a large air wing, which is a strategic decision, should mean more than winning initiative, which is often luck based.
|
Delta Echo
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | Consider the following situation:
Player A has 6 fighters. Player B has 1 feeble bomber. Player B wins initiative. With your houserule, player B's feeble bomber is safe despite the 6 fighters of player A. |
Thats exactly my point...
Kinda like Pearl Harbor, although the ratios are a little off. IJN had initiative/surprise, made their strike (unopposed for the most part) and took relatively few losses. USN could have had 100s of planes on the ground, but initiative/surprise will trump numbers and they would have been strafed and left burning on the ground. Advantage Japan
The same goes for Midway. IJN had substantially more aircraft and ships in play, but USN had initiative and caught the IJN aircraft reloading/fueling on many of the IJN Carriers. Advantage U.S.
Initiative (be it luck, superior leadership or argueably even intel), not numbers was the key factor in both engagements. These are not isolated examples either.
Now if I was Player A in your example I would try and defend my ships (using CAP if available) by placing my fighters on the most valuable of your ships and still have a pretty good chance of shooting the feeble bomber down.
I'm not saying that it should be a WoTC canon rule or anything, it is just a option that my play-group came up because we like how it plays out.
|
EvilKobra
|
[Rant]
Initiative is hopelessly broken, in this and pretty much every single other game which involves it. It's a necessity borne from marrying simultaneous resolution with the traditional turn-based rulesets, but not a credible attempt at simulating any real-life behaviour.
The "initiative" DE is describing is operational, as opposed to tactical, and has little resemblance to the mangled tug-of-war that results from the game mechanics.
[/Rant]
That said, ND's interpretation of the rules-as-written is of course correct. Many of us try to clean up the mess with a variety of houserules, but it's still a mess no matter what.
|
Delta Echo
|
| EvilKobra wrote: | | ND's interpretation of the rules-as-written is of course correct. Many of us try to clean up the mess with a variety of houserules, but it's still a mess no matter what. |
I completely agree on both counts. ND is spot on.
And I apologize if my post created any confusion of the rules-as-written.
My intention was just to offer up an alternative option for interested parties.
It is just that of late, I find myself frustrated at times with the rules system. While relatively simple and easy to learn, they sometimes appear inconsistant (winning initiative grants you last ship placement, but not aircraft), or poorly worded (see Special Abilities clarification/ruling section).
From what I hear, the A&A Land Version Mini rules are considerably worse, so I guess I should just shut up and be thankful its not worse.
Happy Friday! 
|
NjCo
|
| Delta Echo wrote: |
From what I hear, the A&A Land Version Mini rules are considerably worse, so I guess I should just shut up and be thankful its not worse.
|
You wouldn't believe how much of an understatement that is!! "Considerably worse" is mild compared to some of the things I've heard and a few things I've said myself! 
|
BattleshipOverkill
|
We played the land version for about 2 months and gave up. Thank God ships can't be "disrupted"! 
|
EvilKobra
|
| Delta Echo wrote: | | And I apologize if my post created any confusion of the rules-as-written. |
Not at all - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to correct you. It's just that every time the subject of initiative comes up I have to try hard not to start barking... and this time I failed
You make some valid points, and I think I'm just as frustrated as you are with the limitations of the ruleset. Eventually I'll get around to rewriting the whole thing, but until then... I gotta make do with what we have.
|
