The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.
The need for aircraft to have a landing spot.
-
I believe I reviewed a game (and I just did it) in which a player sent one sub against a large fleet and sent the planes in to do some dirty work. They eliminated the ground units but because the sub lost the actual battle had to ditch into the sea. And it was all legal. Did I understand that correctly?
-
@crockett36 page 29, 30. Seems clear AND extremely sneaky!
-
Yes, that’s a nice tactic, and its legal. The sub has a chance bigger than 0% to destroy the fleet, even if chancesare only 0.000033%. A carrier could then move in during non-combat, and a theoretical landing spot could be proven before the battle.
The above is void if there was indeed no carrier nearby who could move in to have the planes land. So if there is no landing spot, not even a highly unlikely one, the move is indeed illegal. I hope I could make myself understood 🙂
-
@Martin You did. Agree.
Suggested Topics
