Aircraft Retreating

[shadowguidex]

Yes I’km aware of the kamikaze rules and those didn’t com into play here…they in fact could not be applied since none of the requisite islands had been captured/recaptured (I avoided Iwo Jima the previous turn for this reason).

So it looks like the previous two responders are in disagreement, but by my reading of the rules, it appears the move was legal - does anyone see language anywhere which specifically states that an aircraft with no remaining movement cannot retreat?

[shadowguidex]

@taamvan:

that’s when knowing all the rules can be a big advantage, its not all that realistic that you can land on a newly fitted out carrier in a hostile zone, but its a devastating combo

Yeah I’ve been playing this game for a long long time and I know the rules by heart, and have in fact played every edition of Axis and Allies since the original MB (which I still own two of). I have just never had this specific combination of events all happen simultaneously in one attack…all have happened individually many times.

1. Fighters attack at max range.
2. CV builds in the sea zone for them to land on.
3. Aircraft retreat.

[taamvan]

Understood, there are many times I mess things up or miss something and get blasted for it.  I too have a battered copy of the 1985 game, a torn in half copy of 1941, an ash and beer stained 42.2, and a custom printed Global board on vinyl!

I don’t think we are disagreeing that the move was legal;  the buy CV land planes after noncom is legit.

Panther’s quote of “retreating planes remain in the space temporarily…” is the other piece

[Panther]

@shadowguidex:

So it looks like the previous two responders are in disagreement, but by my reading of the rules, it appears the move was legal - does anyone see language anywhere which specifically states that an aircraft with no remaining movement cannot retreat?

No disagreement on the rules, for sure, just a different understanding of the scenario you have posted. Everything that has been said is legit (from the understanding of the scenario).

Be again assured that the move was legal. :-)

[Private-Panic]

@shadowguidex:

So it looks like the previous two responders are in disagreement …

Do you mean P@nther and I? I read our posts to say that they are in agreement.

[shadowguidex]

Yeah I think we’ve reached a consensus…the move was totally legally, quite brilliant, and devastating to my war effort (which I had been winning).

[simon33]

Did you dent all 3 CVs before sinking any of them? Sounds like a major mistake to me. You also should have lost fighters to non sub hits (if any). I’m guessing Korea wasn’t available as a landing site because it could have been retaken overland. Well worthwhile to take Korea in most situations where you are occupying SZ6 as USA.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

That was a brilliant move on the part of the Japanese player. This is what I found was the problem with the rulebook, you have to search the whole thing just to learn how to do or defend against a move like this. People were bugging me about making a 2-1/2 video on naval warfare because it’s too long and nobody would want to watch it. If you include everything to do with naval warfare including the units, facilities, and special rules such as the one that shadowguidex listed in this scenario it literally takes 2-1/2 hours to explain in detail.

Thanks for sharing this, shadowguidex. Considering how the rolls went in the attack by the Japanese player, a scenario like this happens so seldom that I felt it was worth making a video to share with the community. I hope that I got it right from your description (or some close facsimile).
https://youtu.be/ZYh4Wt_cmSM

[GeneralHandGrenade]

There is also placing ships in hostile sea zones and moving aircraft to sea zones in anticipation of placing carriers in that sea zone, both of which are located elsewhere in the rulebook. There is also the defender choosing his casualties before the rest of the first round of combat continued. He could have chosen to take 2 hits on one of the carriers instead of 1 hit on each carrier, also in a different part of the rulebook. If he did not hit on all 3 subs, he may have wanted to continue the attack with the other units to take the carriers and fighters out. But yeah, other than those things all of it is in the back in the unit profiles.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I have to disagree with you. You’re thinking in terms of someone who is an expert in the game and not someone who is still unsure of every rule in the book. I get a lot of questions on YouTube from players who ask me why I made this move or that move and how can that be legal? There are many situations in naval combat which are not the same as land combat and that’s where the confusion comes from. I characterized those as “special” on this thread because they are unique to naval warfare. If you don’t like that word then fine, let’s call them unique.
At no time could you leave attacking aircraft in a land territory regardless of whether you won that battle or lost it unlike the situation in this thread. It would not be possible to place new land units in a territory that you no longer own, unlike what happened in this thread. There are no Capital Units on the land. You can’t submerge an AAA like you can a submarine.
The OP of this thread started this because he was unsure, even as an experienced player, if everything that happened in this particular battle was legal. You don’t have to look very far in this section of the forum to find several threads dealing with naval movement, combat, scrambling, and so on that players want to find clarification in the rules from others.
In order to resolve the situation in this thread you would have to find the rules on pages 19, 20, 23, 31, and 32 of the Europe rulebook. That is the point that I was trying to make, that you can’t just open up the book to a unit profile and resolve this battle. And yes, if you have been paying attention to the threads created here, naval combat is confusing to many players.

[Private-Panic]

I remember how hard I had to work to understand the rules when I got my first A&A game - 1941 - Christmas 2014. During the course of 2015 I started a number of rule and strategy conversations in the forum and very much appreciated all the help and advice I received.

I am therefore always pleased to help when new players ask questions which I think I can answer. Sometimes even new players ask questions that allow me to learn from the answers they get. When you are new you don’t necessarily know which questions are the clever ones and a fear of asking a stupid question can hold back many an insight.

Let’s not discourage new players from joining the forum and becoming part of our community. Instead let’s encourage them with the warmth of our responses and willingness to help.

Cheers
PP :-)

[simon33]

I agree that the rules about mobilising into a hostile SZ and landing an existing fighter on a newly mobilised carrier are not exactly intuitive, but the game is richer for them.

In classic you couldn’t do that and it allowed naval blockades of places like London which was not good for the game because you could only sink a navy with an existing navy or an air force. Never a newly mobilised navy.