Rules and Objectives

I think if anything, it actually gives you reason to be aggressive because you want to stop what they are going to make and you know that your damage will not effect the other player until the 2nd turn from when you captured.

@Zarito:

I was just wondering if it is allowed to send more than two planes to a battle in a seazone when only one carrier could be there at the end of turn. The motivation would be that some of the aircraft would die in the battle and each individual aircraft can land on the carrier. Did not find an answer in the rulebook but probably didn’t look thoroughly enough.

Look here:

@rulebook:

Air Units
…
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It
could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.

In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate
a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have
been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example,
aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after
combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat movement
and new unit mobilization, you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all combats are resolved.
…

HTH :-)

@Gamerman01:

Yes, knp, and this is why you also should not assume that your opponent will take off AAA first, if there is a potential for hit and run, unless you are an underhanded type of player

Correct Gamerman01.
A defending AA gun is sometimes a pain…
and can change the outcome of battle.

@Cmdr:

And if Germany attacks Russian territories bordering Mongolia, Japan can reinforce without triggering the war with Mongolia.

yep

mongolia is only triggered if the Japanese attack any Soviet territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory.

@Boyardee:

Is Mr Harris suppose to publish an up to date version on the rulebook in pdf?

WotC (Wizards of the Coast) generally publishes a pdf available to download some months after the release of the game.  I would look there, but not until the release of the 2nd addition.  Until then, you’ll have to use to the OOB rulebook in conjunction with official FAQ/Errata and the Alpha 3 rules.

@creeping-deth87:

I’m surprised there isn’t a more definitive answer. I CAN’T be the first person to think of doing this.

I’m not seeing anything in the rules that would disallow it. A carrier is a valid landing space for any fighter or tac bomber, the rules don’t mention ensuring sufficient capacity for landings.

It is pretty much definitive. It says you can’t send them on suicide missions (or some wording akin to that).

As the others have mentioned. You need to have a potential landing spot to send aircraft to fight. If only having 2 potential landing spots (assuming perfect rolls), you can only dedicate two air planes.

The rules make it a challenge, but like anything else, it has it’s time and place in the game. Wait for your opponent to leave a factory undefended with aircraft, or to slow down their economy when they need it most. IMO, Germany should have 2-3 bombers by G6 or G7 and should use them to make Russia spend precious dollars to repair ICs, while simultaneously combining with original Luftwaffe/methodical small naval purchases to keep the Allied fleets at bay.

But… losing a bomber sucks.  :oops:

@johnathanpb:

To sum up then, although the sub is a combat vessel, it cannot control an occupied sea zone on its own.

Correct.  Subs alone may nearly always be ignored.  The only exception is that unaccompanied transports may not conduct an amphibious assault if there are enemy subs in the sea zone.

@johnathanpb:

A german destroyer in the water here, however, would need to be engaged as entering the sea zone would then be a combat move. Do I have this right?

Yes.