Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation…
But I thought that Air combat moves requires the safe return of the aircraft to a landing spot to be 100% guaranteed in order to make the move. I thought that having a landing spot become available based on the outcome of a secondary battle during the same combat phase rendered the move illegal regardless of the odds for the secondary battle (ie. even if a victory is assured [only possible using Low Luck]). Otherwise you are considered to be potentially making a Kamikaze attack that is strictly prohibited within the game.
hi hepps.
you understand the situation. but you misunderstand the rule.
Just read the actual G40 rules. Yah my bad. Sorry
Pretty weak rule IMHO.
Yeah. That situation in the game I posted is really weird. In my opinion it feels wrong, it feels like a glitch.
I mean, he sent a single submarine into a gigantic fleet, just to create a battle. And that was the only possible way for him, to send a plane to ANOTHER place with the intention of crashing into the ocean afterwards. Because he lost that “Battle” cough, so his carrier wasnt able to move to that seazone.
Can somebody really tell me, that this is a good rule?
Yah, I agree with you. Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success. The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.
To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land. Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports that would otherwise be out of range. This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.
Just my opinion though.
I love this rule personally.
You just have to demonstrate that it is “possible” to land aircraft. Whether or not it happens is irrelevant.
To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase
Moving carriers in the combat move phase has some other significant disadvantages.
If the path of the carrier is blocked by an enemy ship, it could not reach the desired seazone to catch planes. Right now, you can leave the carrier and clear the path in the combat move. Move the carrier afterwards as a NCM to catch the planes.
Maybe your suggestion to always move the carriers in the combat move phase would be a simpler solution (I really think so, actually), however this would weaken carriers quite a lot, since you can block them too easily. Air-only attacks would be impossible in many situations. Maybe tweak the IPC cost of the carriers to reflect this weakness could work. That’s all speculation though, I’ve not thought this through a lot.
One plus in this situation for the owner of the transport. The owner of the fighter just traded his/her 10 IPC unit for a 7 IPC unit. Or was there more than one transport?
It was a Sub too Knp, for the loss of two TTs.
I suppose it is all about the threat the TTs caused and who had the upper hand economically.
Also, no one likes to lose a TT without first using it.
As I cannot see the map as discussed, I am presuming that there was an enemy fleet initially blocking the carrier from reaching the spot for the aircraft to land on?
To play by the rules, the attacker sent a sub against a fleet it had no chance of winning against to create the “opportunity” for the carrier to move into position during NCM for the fighter to land on?
Its a genius move. Shady, but genius.
Was it for a single TT or two? It’s a bit pricey to trade 16 IPC for 7, but 16 for 14 and sinking TT before they can be used is a big win.
The map is in the opening post.
I don’t argue that it was a very clever move. And I definitely don’t criticize my opponent for doing it. I criticize the rule, although I have no other solution to word the rule, since carrier movement is very, very special.
There were two TT’s. Although it’s 16 for 14 IPC, it was an important move for him.
Having transporters with a big fleet for uk PAC is kinda threatening. Without the TT’s the fleet is worth half as much.
Roboto,
It seems you have advanced from the days of moving two blobs around, one in the Pacific and one in Europe.
Congratulations. :)
Yeah thank you very much. I really feel my skill has doubled from like 2 months ago.
Yah, I agree with you. Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success. The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.
To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land. Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports that would otherwise be out of range. This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.
Just my opinion though.
From an emotional point of view I am with you here and as a fun fact in a current game I face exactly the ugly site of that move as he has Carrier plus sub in place which creates theoretical threats for all my transports. He can sac just a sub and then theoretically kill TTs in many seazones (for the price of saccing the Air of course).
However I like this rule because it gives the game some more dynamics and makes blocking a bit less powerful which I think is good for the game and does make you a bit less dependent on can openers and gives a power to overcome blocking at least a bit better without an allied power.
