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

@Panther great thnx!

@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.

@Mrmann

yep it’s sunk or “you sunk my battleship” heh heh

welcome to the boards

@Faramir said in Cruisers vs fighters [House Rules]:

What would you say to cruisers attacking and defending on a 4 without changing anything else?

Is this question for me ? Then make battleship A5 D5

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.

@Commando:

During SBR runs, if a defending Fighter Interceptor(s) is hit during the Interception battle phase, before the SBR run is conducted, the hit Fighter Interceptor doesn’t fire back? If so, that’s a really stupid rule…

It is attacking escorting fighters which get a hit @1 preemptive. If the case, then a defending interceptor (defending @2) is immediatly removed from play.

In 1942.2 OOB SBR, this way of doing is more historically accurate but statistically less interesting from an attacker POV vs Global 1940 SBR.
Follow the link:
1942.2 Strategic Bombing Raid- SBR, Bombers and escorts, Interceptors vs G40
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33184.msg1258994#msg1258994

Thank you so much for explanation.  It is very clear now.

@empulliam:

New on the forum, just curious as to what you all think about an opening move I use with UK pretty often. On the first turn, build a factory in India. I consider the UK pacific fleet pretty much useless against Japan, I say let US deal with it since they have the money, so i abandon it in favor of a land based strategy. I’ve seen people try building a factory in India where they move the one inf over from persia and pull the plane in from the carrier and try and defend it. The problem with that strategy is that if Japan wants India bad enough on the first turn, the math says they can take it. (They will lose some fighters, but having a factory on the mainland seems like a worthwhile trade). Here are my moves (only on the Pacific side) for turn one.

1. send the carrier in India to get the unprotected transport by Kwangtung.
2. Send the Australian sub to get the Japanese sub
3. Put 2 inf from Australia onto a transport and attack New Guinea (Not a huge part of the plan, but technically the math is in my favor)
4. Move inf from Persia into India
5. (here’s where things get dicey) send everything in India, plus the fighter from the carrier, into southeast Asia. Unless the Japan player catches on to what I’m doing, the first two units he allows to be killed will be the infantry there. I don’t really care so much about getting the plane, so unless i’m doing really well I just retreat after I destroy the ground units. This way, Japan has no ground units in range to capture the factory, and next turn I can reinforce it with 3 tanks, and from there just send ground units up the coast until Japan is kicked out of mainland Asia. Then I would use the factory to reinforce Russia from the East.

On the 1st Edition of 1942 this is almost suicidal because the Japanese player should focus everything on preparing to attack India from J2 onwards and he’ll be able to do so unless you commit the Soviets to defend the IC. Which is almost suicidal as well because Germany should also be pushing hard into Russia and it will usually mean that the Soviets will lose Caucasus.
You’re also leaving Africa to Germany if you follow this.