I do not understand the new anti aircraft guns rules

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@krieghund Thanks again!

I’ve used Google Translate for many things, including learning entire languages. I was also just kind of teasing.

Either way, the TEXT of the rules creates alot of problems for regular english speakers. The RULES and the TEXT that tell you what the rules are are two different things. If someone can just explain how to play, then all those annoying and carefully worded RULES TEXT can be avoided.

I’ve noted that most of the AXA playing world is english speaking–that is to say that most of the people are from english speaking countries, and the handful of the rest are from countries like denmark, holland and norway, where many people learn english in high school.

Would caution that the sender’s perception of what “worked well” will differ from the recipient, and you’ll quickly find that for all the talking, little communicating is going on.

LOL - The past 3 years, we have played under the assumption, that the answer to all of the above questions was no. :-o  :-o  :-o

It is gonna be very interesting game next time  :mrgreen:

Thanks for the responses and welcome, guys!  I love the game and am glad to be here.

Welcome, stenb!

1. It should be Egypt.

2. Sahara is a neutral territory.  See page 9 of the Rulebook.

@UrJohn:

I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

Here’s what I came up with:
–The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
–That last VC means everything.
–Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
–Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

VCs on the 1st Edition of the game were useless, no one plays for the all-VC victory and the Axis could only get the 9 VC by conquering Russia, which pretty much meant game over since the Allies would concede at that point.
But on 2nd Edition, with Honolulu as VC the scenario completely changes for Axis. If the Axis retain Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila, while conquering Honolulu, Calcutta and Leningrad at the end of the US turn, they win without having to conquer Moscow. This makes the 9 VC scenario a lot more attractive for Axis - specially when the Allies go KGF and leave Honolulu up for Japan to grab.
And you need to worry about all the VCs - otherwise the US can land and liberate one for a single turn and deny the Axis victory.

@knp7765:

In the latest Alpha+3 rules, Larry changed the SBR rules for escorts and interceptors.

This game came out 10 months after that 10/10/11 post on his site, so it has changed again. That’s one thing that makes this game frustrating - it’s not like chess where the rules have been around for hundreds of years. The rules are still fluid and keep changing.

@UrJohn:

I was just rounding to 1.

Agreed!