Blocker Question

@barnee Thank you!

@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.

An interesting variation on the point;  but nothing got paired multiple times at once.  Good call.

I refer to both TAC+FIG and ART+MAN as a “combat pair” (or if confusing, “air pair”) when I roll–but that pairing concept 1:1 is the key I think.

Thank you all for the replies! I was the USSR and France in an Allied Victory. The Axis player waited to attack all of the major powers until round three and by that time we were too built up for him to push very far into one area.

Thanks for your answers they both helped!

Yes, I was referring to leaving from an island.

@kcdzim:

In addition to what was already stated by Moralecheck -

While the game engine may sometimes allow it, you are not technically allowed per the game rules to load during the combat phase if those units cannot or will not be used for an amphibious assault during that combat phase.

Yes, I understand. I was assuming that they could be offloaded at some point that turn, but either way it would have ended up being the same if I loaded them in combat move or non-combat, since they could do nothing either way.

The Russian NO deals with originally pro-Axis territories, so true neutrals that switch do not count.

Japan sitting off of Hawaii is fine; there is a sea zone between SZ 26 and SZ 10.

At the end of each power’s turn they check to see if there are any enemy warships in convoy zones that border territories controlled by the power in question.  So, in your example, at the end of Italy’s turn, they would deduct up to 2 IPC from their income for the US sub present in z97.  They cannot lose more income than the total value of territories that Italy controls that border z97.  If Italy is under Allies control, the convoy disruption is irrelevant, because Italy does not collect income while it is enemy-controlled.  And the new controller would not lose income to a friendly unit (the US sub).

Then, on Germany’s turn, they would lose up to 2 IPC income for the US sub in z97.  Again, they can’t lose more than the total value of German controlled territories bordering z97.

So, essentially, the US sub is doing convoy disruption to BOTH Italy and Germany as long as they both control territories that border z97.