oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3

[oysteilo]

@simon33 said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Aww man, I stuffed up. One of those planes didn’t have a landing space. Maybe I will just kill one as punishment?

ehhh, sorry, but I kind of think you have too. Most likely I wil return the “favour” during usa

[oysteilo]

hmmmm. I am considering to attack 41 sea sone with 1 fighter to kill your transport

I am not sure what the implications are. Can I simply just crash the fighter? Or do I have to move carrier to 57 sea zone?

For an attck to be allowed you need to have a potential landing spot. I dont think it says I have to use it

Do you know?

[simon33]

You can’t intentionally crash the fighter.

[simon33]

Pac rules, p21, 2nd last para:
“You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
range of a potential safe landing space.”

[simon33]

That’s why I asked what you wanted me to do after Japan’s turn.

[oysteilo]

i did not understand your question after japans turn

Well, so it is ok to attack a fleet with 1 sub against a bunch of defenders (say 10 destroyers, 10 carriers and 20 fighters) and assume you will win this battle and in nc move in a carrier to land a fighter exactely in this sea zone? This is a potential safe landing space, isnt it? and hence this move is legal, but in real life the fighter does not have a safe landing space

I read the rules this way: you must have a potential safe landing space for the move to be legal

I have that, but it does not say I have to land on that spot. I agree, if there is no potential safe landing landing space, then the move is not legal.

[simon33]

Ok, but even if the sub dies and CV can’t move to SZ41, the CV and fighter can still move to SZ57 and must do so. As per the rule I quoted.

Now if I had blocked SZ55 you would be under no obligation to attack it providing you attacked SZ42. In that case no NCM would be possible and you could then crash the fighter because you had no choice.

[simon33]

I’m pretty sure there’s no way you can get that TT without it costing you a CV+ftr.

[simon33]

Similarly with the SZ43 one.

[oysteilo]

@simon33 said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Ok, but even if the sub dies and CV can’t move to SZ41, the CV and fighter can still move to SZ57 and must do so. As per the rule I quoted.

Now if I had blocked SZ55 you would be under no obligation to attack it providing you attacked SZ42. In that case no NCM would be possible and you could then crash the fighter because you had no choice.

what if you had blocked all sea zones in the same way, then the attack is not legal in any way according to you?, what are the criterias then a 10% win chance or a 90% win chance?

I am not saying you are incorrect. I am just confused. I am requesting a rulig!

@Panther , can you rule this? Please look at the file and conversation from end of japan.

If I attack the transport in sumatra sea sone with a fighter, do I have to move carrier to 57?

alternatively, how does it play out if all of 42, 45 and 55 are massivly blocked for this move?

[simon33]

Ok, but the rule I quoted doesn’t clear it up for you?

If I had blocked 42, 45 and 55, you could have attacked 41 with a plane only if you attacked either SZ55 or SZ42. Attacking SZ42 if SZ55 is attacked is not needed because the CV doesn’t need to reach SZ41, only SZ57. Similarly if you attack SZ42 and SZ45, your CV can move SZ54->SZ46->SZ45->SZ42 in theory.

Similarly with SZ43. You could attack SZ45 in that scenario because the CV only needs to reach SZ44.

In the scenario in this game, you could expend a sub to attack SZ42 and attack both undefended TTs but it still costs a CV because it has to move to catch one of the planes.

I feel I’ve covered all the scenarios.

[simon33]

@simon33 said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Ok, but the rule I quoted doesn’t clear it up for you?

If I had blocked 42, 45 and 55, you could have attacked 41 with a plane only if you attacked either SZ55 or both SZ42 & SZ45. Attacking SZ42 if SZ55 is attacked is not needed because the CV doesn’t need to reach SZ41, only SZ57. Similarly if you attack SZ42 and SZ45, your CV can move SZ54->SZ46->SZ45->SZ42 in theory.

Similarly with SZ43. You could attack SZ45 in that scenario because the CV only needs to reach SZ44.

In the scenario in this game, you could expend a sub to attack SZ42 and attack both undefended TTs but it still costs a CV because it has to move to catch one of the planes.

I feel I’ve covered all the scenarios.

Slight correction in the bolded bit.

[oysteilo]

maybe I was a little unclear. (at panther and simon33)

I want to attack the transport in 41 with an american plane from 54 and do not want to sacrifice the carrier. In this scenario the potential possible landing spots are sz 57 and 42 (and some unlikely sea sones, disregard what previously mentioned)

1. Clear sea sone 42, unlikely in this situation
2. move carrier to 57 and land there

I am questioning if I have to move my carrier to 57, BECAUSE, assuming all of 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 57 and 58 (potential landing spots) were heavily blocked (like 42) then I think a legel move is to attack 52 with ONE sub and hope for a miracle because the rule says you need a potential landing spot. In any case I feel I have that, but the rule does not say it is illegal to crash a plane if you have a landing spot and choose not to use it… OR?

[oysteilo]

@oysteilo said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

I think a legel move is to attack 52 with ONE sub and hope for a miracle because the rule says you need a potential landing spot. In any case I feel I have that, but the rul

its impossible to get everything right

I think a legel move is to attack 42 with ONE sub and hope for a miracle because the rule says you need a potential landing spot. In any case I feel I have that, but the rul

[simon33]

The rule seems clear to me that you have to move the cv to sz57, regardless of whether sz42 is attacked or not.

@simon33 said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Pac rules, p21, 2nd last para:
“You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
range of a potential safe landing space.”

[oysteilo]

@simon33 said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Ok, but even if the sub dies and CV can’t move to SZ41, the CV and fighter can still move to SZ57 and must do so. As per the rule I quoted.

Now if I had blocked SZ55 you would be under no obligation to attack it providing you attacked SZ42. In that case no NCM would be possible and you could then crash the fighter because you had no choice.

I guess this is correct Simon33, but still I would like to have this verified as it puzzles me.

1. If all sea zones are blocked then crashing the plane is OK, because you lost the battle where the carrier was supposed to move and hence the carrier cant move there. This is ok even if you have no realistic chance of winning that battle
2. In this case there is no need for a sea battle to clear the way for the carrier and hence the fighter has to be picked up

Hmm, what if I had two fighters doing the same thing going in different directions and just one carrier. Can I do that? In this scenario one fighter will have to crash

I guess the quoted rule indicates that the plane must be picked up:

“You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
range of a potential safe landing space.”

Now, English is not my first language so maybe I am missing something here, I dont think this clearly says that you have to pick up the fighter, all it says is, you cant move an air unit out of range if there is no possible landing spot. I have that landing spot. Back to point 1 above, if all zones are blocked with a billion ships and you attack those billion ships with a single sub you have no realistic chance of winning, then I don’t see how you fulfill the quoted paragraph above as you have no carrier move remain in place. And i don’t see how this is any different than just crashing the plane as long as you have a carrier. You simply choose to move the carrier somewhere else

[oysteilo]

@Krieghund I am asking krieghund as well about this, although I think I know the answer… still could be good to get a rationale for why it is allowed as soon as the zones as blocked

sorry for all the mess and all the wording

[Krieghund]

It is legal to move a fighter to attack a sea zone as long as it’s possible (no matter how unlikely) that the fighter can be picked up by a carrier afterwards. (One carrier cannot be used to justify attacking two different sea zones, as it cannot be in two places at once.) If the fighter survives and a carrier can move to pick it up (either the original or another one), it must do so. The fighter may only be allowed to crash if the circumstances after all combat is complete make it impossible to pick it up. If more than one fighter has to be picked up, but there is only one carrier available, the owner may choose which fighter to pick up, if a choice is available, but one must be picked up.

[Panther]

@oysteilo Sorry for being late… any more questions on this issue?

[oysteilo]

@Panther said in oysteilo (Allies+9) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

@oysteilo Sorry for being late… any more questions on this issue?

Its all good! Thanks to everyone! and simon33 I will move saturday morning europe time