Does anyone have the link to the aircraft range counters?

@Olmate
Welcome to the forum.

The rulebook should be clarification enough (1940 Pac.2nd ed., page 15):
“A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and/or tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories.”

As you correctly stated this wording clearly doesn’t include fighters located on carriers in seazones.

Why should something not being part of the rules be explicitly stated in the rulebook? Or in any FAQ/Errata when the wording of the rule is clear enough? There are hundreds of House Rules that might fill what people are missing being included in game rules / rulebooks.

There of course exist player created variants of Global1940 that have scrambling from carriers included.

which brings up the fun option of sending in fighters to attack with an unlikely landing spot. For example, lets say Japan has 8 transports in the Sea of Japan, but a massive fleet stationed a zone away making it hard for your Allied fleet to create a valid landing spot. You can attack the massive IJN fleet with a single sub which “in theory” could win the battle, and send a fighter to attack the transports with the potential option to land back in the zone that the sub opened up.

The transports are sunk, the allied sub is lost, and sadly there is no valid landing zone so the fighter crashes after the not-completely kamikaze mission. TripleA handles this correctly.

That happened in the actual war at one point, intentionally rather than because the CV was sunk I mean. USS Enterprise had a broken (front?) elevator and couldn’t land planes rapidly enough so they landed on Henderson Field in the Solomons campaign.

should qualify the above statement with the caveat that you must still fulfill the kamikaze conditions…think that requires a sea combat be declared (1 japanese destroyer should work)

Oh, it is, because all the bombers raises the stakes and risks

You can make the dice work for you - if the ships miss and the AA misses, no amount of strategy and tactical ability can stop that.

spendo is right.

Anyone up for a game if so go to 2vs2 games and its labeled A&A Global Game

@molinar13:

Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.