RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/4/2019 7:31:44 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

X on disorganized French CL. If it survives, D too.

If it sinks, other weak CL takes D.

Allies stay.

Aborted French ships this round to Beirut.

< Message edited by Mayhemizer -- 4/4/2019 7:35:54 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 241

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/4/2019 7:36:58 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

This looks very dangerous... But I need to get to bed after naval combat.

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 242

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/4/2019 7:50:25 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Nov/Dec 1939
Impulse: 13 (Axis)

The Axis threw a 9 and 10
The Allies threw 5,10,7,3 and 7

The Italians receive damage to Duca D'Aosta and the French abort the damaged Marseillaisesiesisies

The remaining Italians withdraw.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/5/2019 2:53:11 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 243

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 2:54:05 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Nov/Dec 1939
Impulse: 13 (Axis)

Strategic Bombing:
Germany

I will call it a halt there. I want to try and do a bombing raid but want to check rules on interception.

So how does interception work? Does the starting hex count? How do we force the program into any air to air combat? Do carrier air get to intercept?

Possible routes

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/5/2019 3:10:42 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 244

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 4:07:32 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

Starting hex does not count. And Spitfire in Denmark does not have factory in range, so it can�t intercept. Same thing for Hurricane in Belgium, UK factories are out of range, but Brussels factory is in range. So if German planes fly 2 hexes away from Hurricane, it can call intercept and German bomber attacks Brussels.

The only plane that can intercept is CVP. We did not plan how play that...

Maybe good rule is, that you tell which bombers are flying and to which targets. If CVP intercepts, it intercepts some hex in range. If there are no valid hexes, attacker changes target so that CVP can intercept (because it would be able to intercept over sea), but land based fighter are not allowed to join combat if they were out range of original target. If there is no valid targets in CVP range, CVP can�t intercept.

So you can send best A2A bomber to London and others out of CVP range and ask if I want to intercept London.

< Message edited by Mayhemizer -- 4/5/2019 5:01:09 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 245

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 6:31:52 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Starting hex does not count. And Spitfire in Denmark does not have factory in range, so it can�t intercept. Same thing for Hurricane in Belgium, UK factories are out of range, but Brussels factory is in range. So if German planes fly 2 hexes away from Hurricane, it can call intercept and German bomber attacks Brussels.

The only plane that can intercept is CVP. We did not plan how play that...

Maybe good rule is, that you tell which bombers are flying and to which targets. If CVP intercepts, it intercepts some hex in range. If there are no valid hexes, attacker changes target so that CVP can intercept (because it would be able to intercept over sea), but land based fighter are not allowed to join combat if they were out range of original target. If there is no valid targets in CVP range, CVP can�t intercept.

So you can send best A2A bomber to London and others out of CVP range and ask if I want to intercept London.

warspite1

I thought we were employing some whizzy interception rule but all we are doing is ensuring bombers don't fly into interception range en route - is that right?

Why can't my bombers reach the UK factories? The French used extended range so what is different about the Germans? Is it the carrier planes?

If so then I think Carrier planes are a problem with this work around. As these make the UK largely invulnerable so long as one CV is in the North Sea.

For the avoidance of doubt (and subject to a ruling on the carrier planes) is the purpose of showing the route to show that a bomber can't be (theoretically) intercepted en route - and if it can be (other than within range of the factory) then it can't fly the mission?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/5/2019 6:42:56 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 246

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 7:03:20 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Starting hex does not count. And Spitfire in Denmark does not have factory in range, so it can�t intercept. Same thing for Hurricane in Belgium, UK factories are out of range, but Brussels factory is in range. So if German planes fly 2 hexes away from Hurricane, it can call intercept and German bomber attacks Brussels.

The only plane that can intercept is CVP. We did not plan how play that...

Maybe good rule is, that you tell which bombers are flying and to which targets. If CVP intercepts, it intercepts some hex in range. If there are no valid hexes, attacker changes target so that CVP can intercept (because it would be able to intercept over sea), but land based fighter are not allowed to join combat if they were out range of original target. If there is no valid targets in CVP range, CVP can�t intercept.

So you can send best A2A bomber to London and others out of CVP range and ask if I want to intercept London.

warspite1

I thought we were employing some whizzy interception rule but all we are doing is ensuring bombers don't fly into interception range en route - is that right?

Why can't my bombers reach the UK factories? The French used extended range so what is different about the Germans? Is it the carrier planes?

If so then I think Carrier planes are a problem with this work around. As these make the UK largely invulnerable so long as one CV is in the North Sea.

For the avoidance of doubt (and subject to a ruling on the carrier planes) is the purpose of showing the route to show that a bomber can't be (theoretically) intercepted en route - and if it can be (other than within range of the factory) then it can't fly the mission?

I ment that if you avoid fighter in Belgium you can fly to UK. I tried to say that if Germany attacks UK factories, CVP can intercept and force (at least) one bomber attack coastal city.

We can agree that CVPs can intercept only, if attacker chooses such a target that CVP can reach there normally. This makes house rule easier to use. And same thing will come up later with Japan.

< Message edited by Mayhemizer -- 4/5/2019 7:06:29 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 247

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 4:01:35 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Starting hex does not count. And Spitfire in Denmark does not have factory in range, so it can�t intercept. Same thing for Hurricane in Belgium, UK factories are out of range, but Brussels factory is in range. So if German planes fly 2 hexes away from Hurricane, it can call intercept and German bomber attacks Brussels.

The only plane that can intercept is CVP. We did not plan how play that...

Maybe good rule is, that you tell which bombers are flying and to which targets. If CVP intercepts, it intercepts some hex in range. If there are no valid hexes, attacker changes target so that CVP can intercept (because it would be able to intercept over sea), but land based fighter are not allowed to join combat if they were out range of original target. If there is no valid targets in CVP range, CVP can�t intercept.

So you can send best A2A bomber to London and others out of CVP range and ask if I want to intercept London.

warspite1

I thought we were employing some whizzy interception rule but all we are doing is ensuring bombers don't fly into interception range en route - is that right?

Why can't my bombers reach the UK factories? The French used extended range so what is different about the Germans? Is it the carrier planes?

If so then I think Carrier planes are a problem with this work around. As these make the UK largely invulnerable so long as one CV is in the North Sea.

For the avoidance of doubt (and subject to a ruling on the carrier planes) is the purpose of showing the route to show that a bomber can't be (theoretically) intercepted en route - and if it can be (other than within range of the factory) then it can't fly the mission?

I ment that if you avoid fighter in Belgium you can fly to UK. I tried to say that if Germany attacks UK factories, CVP can intercept and force (at least) one bomber attack coastal city.

We can agree that CVPs can intercept only, if attacker chooses such a target that CVP can reach there normally. This makes house rule easier to use. And same thing will come up later with Japan.

warspite1

I'll do some examples to make sure I understand this correctly. Meantime I think using CVP is just rubbish. I'd be interested in knowing if this is how the actual optional rule is intended to work - I'll have a read of RAC. If so then literally a handful of FAA aircraft - and I mean a handful - can cover from the south coast to Scotland?

I'll come back to this once I've had a chance to read more.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 248

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 4:41:23 PM

Courtenay

Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite

I'll do some examples to make sure I understand this correctly. Meantime I think using CVP is just rubbish. I'd be interested in knowing if this is how the actual optional rule is intended to work - I'll have a read of RAC. If so then literally a handful of FAA aircraft - and I mean a handful - can cover from the south coast to Scotland?

I'll come back to this once I've had a chance to read more.

Actually, that is a good point. At any point in the whole war did a carrier based plane intercept a strategic bombing mission? Of course, Allied strategic bombing in Europe is not a useful indicator, as there were no European Axis CVs, but Britain and Japan both could have had CVPs intercept strategic bombing. I don't believe either ever did. And Japan certainly had a lot of opportunities.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 249

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/5/2019 4:53:15 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

If so then literally a handful of FAA aircraft - and I mean a handful - can cover from the south coast to Scotland?

Good point and not very realistic. Playing so that CVPs can't intercept strategic bombing is fine for me.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 250

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 7:40:08 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Right so there is nothing in the rules to suggest a carrier plane can't be used to intercept a bomber. I think that, as a rule, is total and utter cobblers, but its the game and - as much as I hate the absurdity of it - I don't think we should be changing WIF rules without exceptional reason.

So my vote is that we keep the (M)WIF rule on interception - but when we are looking at routes taken by bombers, Carrier planes and Sea Areas do not count.

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/6/2019 9:34:17 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 251

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 7:52:03 AM

Courtenay

Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

I'm curious how your interception rule works. Suppose the 109 east of Lubeck was in Lubeck instead. Could it counter intercept the British FTR one hex west of Hamburg?

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 252

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 7:54:17 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

-Red route is OK, Spitfire can't intercept. Fighter must be placed so that if it intercepts, there is a factory in range where enemy can attack.
-all correct on second.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 253

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 7:58:33 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I'm curious how your interception rule works. Suppose the 109 east of Lubeck was in Lubeck instead. Could it counter intercept the British FTR one hex west of Hamburg?

I guess we have not stress tested this house rule

Counter intercept...

Our house rule

1) Attacker announces all bombers (and escorting fighters) going for strategic bombing. Attacker announces route for each bomber (or bomber squadron if several bombers fly together to same target) to the point they are safe from defending fighters or to target hex if that hex is inside intercept range.

2) Defending fighters can intercept if bombers fly inside their intercept range. Defender announces which fighters will intercept and which bombers are intercepted.

3) Attacker chooses factory inside fighters intercept range for intercepted bombers.

I would say, if target hex in inside attackers fighter's range, fighter can counter intercept.

(in reply to Courtenay)

Post #: 254

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 8:13:13 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

-Red route is OK, Spitfire can't intercept. Fighter must be placed so that if it intercepts, there is a factory in range where enemy can attack.
-all correct on second.

warspite1

Sorry for being thick. If the Red route is okay - even though the Spitfire could (theoretically) intercept west of Hamburg - then I don't understand what the point is of having to specify a route and why we made this house rule in the first place.

I thought we were trying to get round the lack of en route interception by a phasing player having to prove his bomber's route to a factory was incapable of interception - and that if it could be intercepted (EXCEPT of course when over the factory) then the mission couldn't be flown.

Sorry but - not for the first time - I appear to have totally missed the point

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 255

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 8:19:52 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

-Red route is OK, Spitfire can't intercept. Fighter must be placed so that if it intercepts, there is a factory in range where enemy can attack.
-all correct on second.

warspite1

Sorry for being thick. If the Red route is okay - even though the Spitfire could (theoretically) intercept west of Hamburg - then I don't understand what the point is of having to specify a route and why we made this house rule in the first place.

I thought we were trying to get round the lack of en route interception by a phasing player having to prove his bomber's route to a factory was incapable of interception - and that if it could be intercepted (EXCEPT of course when over the factory) then the mission couldn't be flown.

Sorry but - not for the first time - I appear to have totally missed the point

The real reason for this rule was, that if Germany places fighters to western Europe they can intercept bombers. So that long range bombers don't teleport to Berlin.

Bombing raid can always be done. Defender must place their fighters so that they cover area they want to defend AND they have factory in range where attacker can attack if they are intercepted. Bomber can say "I fly this route to Berlin". But if fighter near Essen says "I intercept" then attacker can bomb Essen.

I think it would be very defender friendly that fighter can say "I intercept you" and there is no valid hex in range and there is no bomb raid at all.

If this sounds too complicated, we can play without this rule

< Message edited by Mayhemizer -- 4/6/2019 8:21:04 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 256

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 8:41:50 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

-Red route is OK, Spitfire can't intercept. Fighter must be placed so that if it intercepts, there is a factory in range where enemy can attack.
-all correct on second.

warspite1

Sorry for being thick. If the Red route is okay - even though the Spitfire could (theoretically) intercept west of Hamburg - then I don't understand what the point is of having to specify a route and why we made this house rule in the first place.

I thought we were trying to get round the lack of en route interception by a phasing player having to prove his bomber's route to a factory was incapable of interception - and that if it could be intercepted (EXCEPT of course when over the factory) then the mission couldn't be flown.

Sorry but - not for the first time - I appear to have totally missed the point

The real reason for this rule was, that if Germany places fighters to western Europe they can intercept bombers. So that long range bombers don't teleport to Berlin.

Bombing raid can always be done. Defender must place their fighters so that they cover area they want to defend AND they have factory in range where attacker can attack if they are intercepted. Bomber can say "I fly this route to Berlin". But if fighter near Essen says "I intercept" then attacker can bomb Essen.

I think it would be very defender friendly that fighter can say "I intercept you" and there is no valid hex in range and there is no bomb raid at all.

If this sounds too complicated, we can play without this rule

warpite1

So using the example of your bombing attack last impulse, why was it necessary to show the routes? Why not just fly the four bombers to Essen, the two oil fields and Leipzig and ask which (if any) I wanted to intercept with my Bf-110? I then had one option from three possibles. But what was the relevance of the route? Why, for example, does the French aircraft head southwest initially? - what is it avoiding? In fact why did all three CW bombers perform an arc rather than just flying straight to the hex?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/6/2019 8:44:06 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 257

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 8:47:03 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

So can you confirm my understanding in the example below:
- the bomber can't take the red route because of the Spitfire in Denmark intercepting the hex west of Hamburg (you've confirmed the starting hex does not count)
- Both the red and blue routes are possible. The CVP is ignored for working out interception both in the sea and land areas - BUT the CVP does count in the usual (M)WIF way for intercepting over factories. So the CVP can intercept the bomber over London but not the bomber in Coventry (or Manchester if the bomber could have reached).

-Red route is OK, Spitfire can't intercept. Fighter must be placed so that if it intercepts, there is a factory in range where enemy can attack.
-all correct on second.

warspite1

Sorry for being thick. If the Red route is okay - even though the Spitfire could (theoretically) intercept west of Hamburg - then I don't understand what the point is of having to specify a route and why we made this house rule in the first place.

I thought we were trying to get round the lack of en route interception by a phasing player having to prove his bomber's route to a factory was incapable of interception - and that if it could be intercepted (EXCEPT of course when over the factory) then the mission couldn't be flown.

Sorry but - not for the first time - I appear to have totally missed the point

The real reason for this rule was, that if Germany places fighters to western Europe they can intercept bombers. So that long range bombers don't teleport to Berlin.

Bombing raid can always be done. Defender must place their fighters so that they cover area they want to defend AND they have factory in range where attacker can attack if they are intercepted. Bomber can say "I fly this route to Berlin". But if fighter near Essen says "I intercept" then attacker can bomb Essen.

I think it would be very defender friendly that fighter can say "I intercept you" and there is no valid hex in range and there is no bomb raid at all.

If this sounds too complicated, we can play without this rule

warpite1

So using the example of your bombing attack last impulse, why was it necessary to show the routes? Why not just fly the four bombers to Essen, the two oil fields and Leipzig and ask which (if any) I wanted to intercept with my Bf-110? I then had one option from three possibles. But what was the relevance of the route? Why, for example, does the French aircraft head southwest initially? - what is it avoiding? In fact why did all three CW bombers perform an arc rather than just flying straight to the hex?

Germany has fighters east of Brussels and east of Lubeck. I wanted to show they can�t intercept.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 258

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 8:57:00 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Germany has fighters east of Brussels and east of Lubeck. I wanted to show they can�t intercept.

warspite1

But why the need?

As you've said. the Spitfire could intercept the red route - but that does not stop that route being used. So if that is the case, why the need to show fighters can't intercept if there is no consequence of being able to intercept?

There is a fundamental point here I just don't get I'm afraid.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 259

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 9:02:29 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Germany has fighters east of Brussels and east of Lubeck. I wanted to show they can�t intercept.

warspite1

But why the need?

As you've said. the Spitfire could intercept the red route - but that does not stop that route being used. So if that is the case, why the need to show fighters can't intercept if there is no consequence of being able to intercept?

There is a fundamental point here I just don't get I'm afraid.

Maybe we should play without this rule? It�s too complicated. And it gets worse with counter intercepts.

I wanted that only one of the German fighters can intercept and 3 bombers gets +1 to roll. Also I wanted to bomb oil fields, if I fly near German fighters and they intercept, I have to attack any factory in those fighter�s range.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 260

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 9:32:26 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Germany has fighters east of Brussels and east of Lubeck. I wanted to show they can�t intercept.

warspite1

But why the need?

As you've said. the Spitfire could intercept the red route - but that does not stop that route being used. So if that is the case, why the need to show fighters can't intercept if there is no consequence of being able to intercept?

There is a fundamental point here I just don't get I'm afraid.

Maybe we should play without this rule? It�s too complicated. And it gets worse with counter intercepts.

I wanted that only one of the German fighters can intercept and 3 bombers gets +1 to roll. Also I wanted to bomb oil fields, if I fly near German fighters and they intercept, I have to attack any factory in those fighter�s range.

warspite1

Well we have this rule in all four of our 4-player games I think and the two current 2-player. So I don't want to make any unilateral decision (even if I could) I just wanted to understand what we are doing (which I don't).

Hopefully Ormster and AllenK can give their thoughts too and then we can decide as a group what's what?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 261

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 10:20:49 AM

AllenK

Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline

I think the spirit of our rule is sound. The idea is to prevent bombers being able to teleport through fighter defences that would almost certainly intercept in real life (or have the choice at least). If a bomber has the range to be able to plot a route avoiding all fighters, then fair enough, also reflects actual practice.

Counter-interception is tricky because the alternate target may bring counter-interceptors in range that weren�t previously. I think that�s something we�ll have to live with. Seems more unrealistic to forbid the counter intercept on the grounds it wouldn�t have been possible had the original target been selected. The target has changed.

Where there are multiple targets, declaring them in advance seems appropriate to give the defender reasonable choice of interceptions.

I don�t have a problem with CVP interception if the bombers route has taken them over the sea zone the CV is in. I think there�s a case for not allowing if the bombers flew across a different sea-zone. We don�t usually play CAP but a CV standing off (in a sea zone away from the bombers) and providing long range CAP isn�t without precedent. The onus is on the player to declare it.

Overall my guide would be what is reasonable and fits best with the spirit.

Hope the helps

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 262

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 10:23:46 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

This is my, simplified, understanding of the house. That I tried to follow as Western Allies in game 1.

1) If a enemy fighter can be intercepted en-route to a factory, then a alternative factory must be selected instead if such a factory is available. If no such factory is available, then the original factory is allowed to be bombed. (possible interception can never stop a bomber from flying a mission)

2) A bomber that take a longer route to avoid a fighter might be forced to use extended range.

For example. The bomber has an range of 5, extended 10, and the target is 5 hexes away. However, in order to avoid interception the "factual" route the bomber takes is 7 hexes and thus should be extended. MWIF does not count the "factual" route and has the bomber on "normal" range. Therefore the bomber must be force to fly on extended range and this is changed manually.

3) Try to keep it simple. Do not abuse the house rule by overly complicate things.

4) And remember that AA should be ignored in a hex that has a "replacement" target due to interception (if the original, intended, target has no AA).

5) And that if there is no interception, then you continue to the original target.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 263

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 10:26:46 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

And I think that CVP should not be allowed en-route interception. Only at "original" target hex. Not even over replacement targets if other aircraft intercepts.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 264

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 10:32:27 AM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

And I think that CVP should not be allowed en-route interception. Only at "original" target hex. Not even over replacement targets if other aircraft intercepts.

Sounds good to me.

Edit: also all in posts above.

< Message edited by Mayhemizer -- 4/6/2019 10:35:16 AM >

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 265

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 1:44:53 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Okay so let�s try and work some examples into this so I can try and understand. Looking at the last Strategic Bombing attack I try and apply the rules:

If an enemy fighter [I assume this should be bomber] can be intercepted en-route to a factory, then an alternative factory must be selected instead if such a factory is available.

1. The French Bomber. The French bomber is trying to reach the oil resource hex in Austria. However it can�t without being intercepted by the Me-110. The same applies for attacking Munich and Stuttgart. If the bomber flies further south to avoid interception then it can�t reach the oil. There are alternative targets that can be reached � a resource in Saarbrucken or a factory at Cologne. By this rule do the French have to take the non-interceptible factory/resource instead?

2. The Blenheim targeted Leipzig � also within range of the Me-110. Are we saying that because the Germans chose to intercept the French, the British aircraft is free to choose Leipzig i.e. an aircraft has to pick one interception where more than one is possible?

3. Similarly is this the case for the second Blenheim flying from Denmark. It too can be intercepted by the Me-110 � but are we saying that the bomber is free to choose the German oil hex because the Me-110 has already announced a target?

4. The Whitley targeted Essen and could not be intercepted.

Comments:

If we adopt this approach all Strategic Bombing targets are announced ahead of interception (but the phase not moved on because � depending on the interception chosen � a secondary target may need to be picked.

Is a fighter allowed more than one (theoretical) interception [I suspect not]

Mention has been made of factories but there are also resource hexes � oil and non-oil. So in the case of the French bomber, the Austrian oil can�t be reached without interception � and so the bomber has to choose another target. But does it have to choose a factory or resource or is the rule, there is no other oil resource so it can go for the original target?

This raises a question in my mind � is all this worth the aggravation or should we just stick to the MWIF rules?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 266

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 2:20:24 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

I can play without this rule.

I don�t think non-oil recourses can be bombed.

If bomber announces to attack oil field, it tells which route it is flying. All other bombers do the same. Then defender calls any interceptions they want to do. Let�s say French bomber attacks oil field but there is a fighter in Munich (no range to oil field) and bomber does not have enough range to avoid it. If fighter intercepts, them bomber chooses any valid target inside fighter�s range. If that would allow other fighters to intercept they are not allowed, only those who were able to intercept the original route.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 267

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 2:36:01 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Okay let's play without this in this game - it's making my head hurt - and we can all decide individually what we want to do with the other games as we play next.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 268

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 2:53:01 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay let's play without this in this game - it's making my head hurt - and we can all decide individually what we want to do with the other games as we play next.

Sounds like a plan. My head hurts too. I edit first post of this game.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 269

RE: Minor Conflict: Warspite1 vs Mayhemizer AAR - 4/6/2019 3:03:01 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Nov/Dec 1939
Impulse: 13 (Axis)

Strategic Bombing: None. As we've changed a rule part way through a turn I won't make the European Strategic Bombing attacks I was going to. The option for the EuroAxis to make Strategic Bombing attacks will commence from next turn after the the Allies have had two impulses to make any changes to their fighter basing.

Japan

I don't put this limit on the Japanese as the Chinese fighter is well to the south. The throw was a 4.