Quick rule question

You can buy a vinyl printout of the board from office max or staples, no idea how it works but I know its been done. Check out the axis and allies Facebook group and ask a question there, someone will definitely get back to you.

@Charles:

4.  If your planes have any movement points left, they must try to land elsewhere.  If the planes have used their full movements and their carriers have been damaged, the planes are destroyed.  Ouch!

That’s in the case USA attacks.

If USA was on the defensive side (Japan attacks USA fleet in sz6) the planes are allowed 1 step to find a safe landing space, not 4. That can be an Allied-controlled territory 1 step away or an undamaged carrier with room to spare 1 step away. In this particular case : Korea or Japan (if Allies control it) or a carrier in sz5/7/16/17/18/19.

@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 :-)

@simon33:

Airbases with 3 or more damage are not operational. Presumably this applies to rockets too.

I also read that they fire independently.

You are correct on both issues.

:-)

As I thought (and feared).
Thank you for answering. Seems a bit rough, but it is a rule, so fine.

I think what also helped the USA in the Pacific was the type of war it was; wasn’t the majority of the Japanese land forces fighting in China? The USA could use their wealth of equipment and air-power to good use this way.

I like the idea of the different start-ups and scenarios and maybe more victory conditions for the Global Games.

I don’t think WW2 Axis & Allies games are dead either; I like the idea of more Theater type games as well like:
Eastern Front (have lots of territories; maybe make good use of rail-roads and blitzkrieg tactics etc… have extra "special infantry to represent the SS and other stuff)
Stalingrad would be cool…
Kursk would be cool…

Maybe some form of Atlantic Battles (subs vs convoys etc…)
Maybe some form of Battle of Britain (air battles) or some form of Bombing strategy game of the allies vs Germany (air battles).

I think there’s lots of games and ways they could still go.

@Cmdr:

You cannot kill them all, if you do, how will you gloat?

Oh yeah.  You have to leave some of them alive so you can point and say “Nyah, nyah, we beat you.”

Before you know it, every territory will have a Airbase / Minor / Navalbase,  There will be more political rules than ever, and victory conditions will be reduced to “play until someone else gives up.”
I couldnt agree with you more.