Can I move more fighters to a SZ for a fight than your carriers have capacity?

@chickenwire said in Aircraft Landing After Carrier Destroyed Question:

Welcome to the forum.

For your scenario only this quote is relevant for defending Japan, as the other quotes address the active player (whose turn it currently is):

“A fighter based on a defending carrier must land on the same carrier if possible after the battle. If that carrier is destroyed in combat, it must try to land elsewhere. It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory, island, or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs during the Noncombat Move phase, before the acting player makes any noncombat movements.”

Now the Japanese fighters (on US NCM phase) can move to an at that time friendly territory/island.

They may also put in affect of the amount of water distance in a sea zone where subs are not around.

I agree with u Wolf. If you don’t want to add Barons rule to game, I like the idea of 1 d6 roll and if sub rolls a 2 or less transport has to stop combat or non combat move.

It seems pretty clear that you can’t just move the fighter onto the sea zone, since the bid has nothing to do with changing the initial setup.  The fighter could fly out and land during the US turn, if the carrier survives.

If you permitted it in this case, why wouldn’t you allow the UK to bid a carrier (with the BB and tran off Scotland) then just randomly move any two fighters onto it at the beginning of the game and change the entire setup thereby?

Just because you are only moving the fighter one square (from EUS to SZ) it still alters the setup dramatically.

and as other people pointed out, even if you protect this critical DD+2TT with the bid, they can still attack the UK one just north of it leaving UK with nothing at sea.

Hi zebeth357

The carrier does not need to move in combat so can reserve its commitment to move to land the fighters until non combat.

If the fighters are both dead then that commitment is no longer required, allowing the carrier can go elsewhere in non-combat.

Cheers
PP

Thanks.

Makes total sense to me. Not odd at all IMO.

I thought since a destroyer nullifies a subs specials that meant it could see the sub and would have to engage in battle since the sub would not have an option to submerge.

I guess it comes down to the choice of the destroyer.

Thanks again wittmann.

My friends and I games this weekend should go much more smoothly with all this additional “verified” info.

Yeah its a good point. The only advantage for a Trans play is if you want to give Germany a headache with the destroyer in 17 (they can still send the bomber after it, regardless), or if you want to move ships into the Med immediately. Otherwise you can nix the battleship with air. There aren’t any places other than 14 to park the German battleship and have it be safe. Even then if UK buys a bomber in the first round and holds Egypt to land, they can cover every zone in the Med. Unless G wants to build ships. I think sz16 open or closed might weigh on my decision.