Carrier Mobilization

@Panther Thanks for clarifying. It may be best not to even include a carrier with a guest fighter when attacking.

@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.

@taamvan

True.

@ShadowHAwk said in The Taranto Raid Fighter/Carrier Question:

Ofcourse if you take less then 2 hits in that combat its not the worst thing.

certainly not!

The carrier is simply something to help give your fleet a backbone and protects everything in 112 and means you don’t have to land a t bomber in Holland (from Germany).  It protects your transports if you are threatening sea lion and can be used to protect sea units at Gibraltar or 127 (Archangel).  If you can get it to the Mediterranean Sea it can really help Italy too.  The only con is that it does virtually nothing against Russia. 
So basically, do you think being in 112 is useful?  Do you like to threaten (not take) Sea Lion to help Itake?  Do you like hoping Italy in the Med?  Do you like taking Gibraltar? Maybe getting South Africa every ten games?  Do you like feigning Sea Lion then hitting Leningrad? If you answered yes to any of these, a carrier can be useful.

@ShadowHAwk:

@aequitas:

90 % of the time I would attack a lone BB or a loaded/empty Carrier.

6 ipc’s vs 16 to 20?
Yeah I’m in!

It depends a lot where the BB or carrier is as well. Near a friendly naval base no point you damage the BB and then what. If it is not then you also force it to retreat.

Chances of a sub vs a BB are not that great, VS the carrier it is pretty ok ish.

Exactly, this is where I got my 90% from. It should be a good opportunity and not a suicide run.
The possibility to cause damage and not to drop water on a hot plate!

@aequitas:

90 % of the time I would attack a lone BB or a loaded/empty Carrier.

And sometimes the dices got their own way.

Never tell me the Odds! :-)

@oysteilo:

Does this work? and it is worth the spending of a minor, carrier and transport?

yes, it might work somehow.
And No, it is miles away from being worth those 35 IPCs. Against a good Allies player that move brings Axis to the certain road of defeat.

Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc.  However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter.  Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters.  At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.