E7.22 AERIAL COMBAT:

[Ed Caswell]

I have read numerous threads/comments re this topic. None, as I understand them, explain the sequence, IAW this rule, of setting up the aerial combats in the CCPh. If the first player (I assume the ATTACKER) places his aircraft in a manner that covers all the enemy aircraft, how does the opposing player (DEFENDER) place any of his aircraft.

 

[jrv]

I don't believe the rules here are clear. My suggestion: the ATTACKER may place one or more of his planes on one or more unmarked enemy planes and mark the stack with a CC marker. The ATTACKER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. The DEFENDER may then place one or more of his unmarked planes on one or more unmarked ATTACKER planes. The DEFENDER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. Once in a dogfight a plane may not leave that dogfight until recalled or until all enemy aircraft are recalled/eliminated. Once that happens the dogfight ends and the CC/Melee marker is removed. Just my thoughts.

In my rules for your example, if the ATTACKER engages all the DEFENDER aircraft, the DEFENDER has no unmarked aircraft and so can't initiate any dogfights himself.

The problem with the existing rules is that it's not clear whether both sides can attempt to form the dogfights, and how to resolve a conflict. For instance if the ATTACKER has A1 & A2 engage D1 and A3 engage D2 & D3 while the DEFENDER declares that D1 is engaging A2 & A3, while D2 & D3 engage A1, various planes will end up under multiple CC counters. Because there is no way to resolve that, my rules are laid out so that any plane can be under at most one CC/Melee counter. But there is no indication in the official rules on how the difficulties that might arise should be resolved.

JR

 

[Ed Caswell]

I don't believe the rules here are clear. My suggestion: the ATTACKER may place one or more of his planes on one or more unmarked enemy planes and mark the stack with a CC marker. The ATTACKER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. The DEFENDER may then place one or more of his unmarked planes on one or more unmarked ATTACKER planes. The DEFENDER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. Once in a dogfight a plane may not leave that dogfight until recalled or until all enemy aircraft are recalled/eliminated. Once that happens the dogfight ends and the CC/Melee marker is removed. Just my thoughts.

In my rules for your example, if the ATTACKER engages all the DEFENDER aircraft, the DEFENDER has no unmarked aircraft and so can't initiate any dogfights himself.

The problem with the existing rules is that it's not clear whether both sides can attempt to form the dogfights, and how to resolve a conflict. For instance if the ATTACKER has A1 & A2 engage D1 and A3 engage D2 & D3 while the DEFENDER declares that D1 is engaging A2 & A3, while D2 & D3 engage A1, various planes will end up under multiple CC counters. Because there is no way to resolve that, my rules are laid out so that any plane can be under at most one CC/Melee counter. But there is no indication in the official rules on how the difficulties that might arise should be resolved.

JR

I don't believe the rules here are clear. My suggestion: the ATTACKER may place one or more of his planes on one or more unmarked enemy planes and mark the stack with a CC marker. The ATTACKER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. The DEFENDER may then place one or more of his unmarked planes on one or more unmarked ATTACKER planes. The DEFENDER may also add an unmarked plane to an existing dogfight. Once in a dogfight a plane may not leave that dogfight until recalled or until all enemy aircraft are recalled/eliminated. Once that happens the dogfight ends and the CC/Melee marker is removed. Just my thoughts.

In my rules for your example, if the ATTACKER engages all the DEFENDER aircraft, the DEFENDER has no unmarked aircraft and so can't initiate any dogfights himself.

The problem with the existing rules is that it's not clear whether both sides can attempt to form the dogfights, and how to resolve a conflict. For instance if the ATTACKER has A1 & A2 engage D1 and A3 engage D2 & D3 while the DEFENDER declares that D1 is engaging A2 & A3, while D2 & D3 engage A1, various planes will end up under multiple CC counters. Because there is no way to resolve that, my rules are laid out so that any plane can be under at most one CC/Melee counter. But there is no indication in the official rules on how the difficulties that might arise should be resolved.

JR

I agree completely with everything you stated. It seemed to me that was the only way the rule would work. Chapter E can be very confusing but this particular rule was one of the worst (for me). Thanks for your comments.
Ed

 

[jrv]

It seemed to me that was the only way the rule would work.

I think one could come up with other ways to get the rules to work. Perhaps the DEFENDER can't declare dogfights at all. Perhaps the resulting dogfights are the unions of all overlapping dogfight declarations. What I suggested had (to me) an ASL-ish feel, was clear and enforceable, and kept reasonably within what was indicated by E7.22.

JR

 

[Ed Caswell]

I think one could come up with other ways to get the rules to work. Perhaps the DEFENDER can't declare dogfights at all. Perhaps the resulting dogfights are the unions of all overlapping dogfight declarations. What I suggested had (to me) an ASL-ish feel, was clear and enforceable, and kept reasonably within what was indicated by E7.22.

JR

As much as I have thought about it, I believe the DEFENDER should not be able to declare any dogfights. If he (DEFENDER) had a plane left over [i.e., the ATTACKER did not attack all the DEFENDER's aircraft but used all his (ATTACKER) planes] the DEFENDER would be placing his one aircraft on top of an ATTACKER plane which is already on top of a DEFENDER plane(s). This doesn't feel right to me. Also, ASOP Step 8.41B always has the ATTACKER going first. I still like your first suggestion best.

Ed

 

[Hemaelstrom]

The rules are less ambiguous if only one side has FBs, as opposed to Stukas or other dive-bombers, as only undamaged FBs can voluntarily enter Aerial combat. Are there many scenarios where both sides have FBs?

 

[jrv]

The rules are less ambiguous if only one side has FBs, as opposed to Stukas or other dive-bombers, as only undamaged FBs can voluntarily enter Aerial combat. Are there many scenarios where both sides have FBs?

More than enough that it is a problem. The question can also arise in campaign games, where both sides may purchase FBs.

JR