Stupid question concerning Minor ICs which I cannot find an answer to…

@andrewaagamer said in Quick question about airplanes:

@zbox said in Quick question about airplanes:

@panther

So a follow up question on this topic that we have debated in our games.

If you have a carrier carrying two fighters along with two fighters on land, in range of your sea zone battle, can the two fighters from your carrier land safely elsewhere(non-combat movement) while the two fighters from land end up on the carrier? A Swaperoo if you will. Is that legal?

Yes

Swapping fighters is a key battle tactic for success. So is utilizing additional carriers, as you can move a carrier 2-3 spaces away to pick up those fighters (but in truth intend not to do so because the fighters will be the first losses).

This gets more airforce in a battle than you otherwise would be allowed. As an example, you could do the Taranto raid, not bring in the carrier, take the london fighter as a loss, and then move the carrier through the canal.

@rjkesq82:

A&APlayer - that would be awesome! (PBEM) I am very interested. Thank you for such wonderful insight as well!

After playing a few more times, we have seen Axis 3 wins Allies 3 Wins…lol…

I think being the allies is soooooooooooo much harder simply because of execution. It’s easy to SAY what to do and KNOW what to do…but man, with 3 people all needing to work 100% in sync and not much room for error; that is easier said than done.

That being said, I have now seen Japan play VERY good games, but because of a misplayed Germany, the axis still fall. Kinda stinks for Japan…that they can play near flawless but if Germany collapses or plays bad, it won’t even matter. Lol.

The allies have several advantages over the axis countries, but you hit the nail on the head  . . . they have to mesh well together in order to win. And that seems to be a major hurdle for Japan. It’s very rare to see a Pacific win for the axis. I don’t know how much of it’s because the allies usually target Japan first or because there’s just a natural plateau once they get too spread out.

Usually it’s either both axis sides are rocking early and the allies surrender in the first couple of rounds or Germany is the one that gets the win. Japan just seems to reach that point where they just can’t quite get there. Too easy for the allies to stop Japan, even if India falls. A strong Japan might not win the game, but they can do wonders for taking the heat off Germany.

Shoot me a PM and I can help you get started on a PBEM game.

AA guns can’t load in Combat Phase.

Believe me…

You can load them in NCM a turn before, and choose NOT to unload, then choose to unload in a future non combat.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

Thanks very much.

@Krieghund:

Yes.

thanks!

Keplar galvin is correct.

Krieg is such a life saver, thanks for being here for us to pick your brain.