Sub vs carrier and plane

Well on the board you generaly move stuff 1 at the time.
So the wording is a bit weird but what they try to say is that you only have to move the carrier if not moving it would cause planes to have no landing zone.

So its not earlier as in an earliers phase but earlier as in earlier in the NCB phase.

The game is already weird in that imo all movement should be simultanious. You cant start moving later and still expect to arive at the same time.
If you first await a combat resolution and then move your going to be later then if you are moving immediately.

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.

Lesson: bring a DD along when there are Subs around and you are serious about landing!
Brilliant scenario though.

But it does cost you the 10 IPC NO, so until your planning to go to war with the US consider the IPC value of FIC to be -8

@Graunie:

The USS Lexington took two torpedo hits and 3 bombs during the Battle of the Coral Sea and continued flight operations until the battle was over.  Some explosions later sunk it, but that’s pretty impressive.  That was before they started putting torpedo hulls on the carriers.

The USS Yorktown dodged 8 torpedos in that battle.  Got all busted up with bombs and scrambled back for the defense of Midway after a few days worth of repairs.

If they were so easy to kill why didn’t they just kill them before they did so much damage to the Japanese fleet?  When the reality is every ship and plane is pretty much focused on taking out said carriers.

They are two hit pieces for sure.

Amen.

I also like Gargantua’s idea of having both carrier types available to purchase.  You could consider one an escourt carrier and the other the main battle carrier.  I am guessing Imperious Leader can tell us what their abreviations should be (CV, CVE, ABCD, etc.).

Get more Axis ships into the open waters of the Atlantic to at least stall the Americans.  Tighten the noose on England and hope that Japan is threatening the USA enough that they can’t afford tons of units for the Europe half.  Italy has always been the weak point to the Axis, hence why we took them out first in the real war.

@Natasin:

@zooooma:

I recal a concern about this that if UK is at war with Japan but Russia is not at war in Europe, Russia can land a fighter in Egypt, forcing Italy to ignore it or attack Russia.  This only really works if UK declares war on turn one or two, and Germany has not attacked Russia by turn two or three.  I don’t see this as a problem for the Axis:

Japan would love a DoW by UK

Germany tends to attack Russia anyway

UK can generally hold Egypt by turn two without the Russians

If it’s the ahistoric nature of the situation that bothers you, how do you feel about Japan helping Italy in the Med, or America ignoring a Japanese occupation of Hawaii?

I’ve seen it noted before ( I believe by Krieg) that the attacker can choose to not attack units that it is not at war with. So technically Italy could still attack and Russia would just watch from the sidelines. Because it isn’t a combat turn of Russia, then I doubt they could choose to go to war at that one moment especially if it’s before turn 4.

That only applies to sea zones. If Italy takes the territory, and the Russian plane remains, what happens?

@GrayBlaZe:

Yes and I have even a bigger color difference between the two European boards.  So much so that when I show it off so far to three different people the first thing thay say is wow the size is impressive, the second thing is, “look how different the blue is in the sea between these two boards.” stands out big time.  Not a big deal to me but I can see how obvious it is when it keeps getting pointed out…

Ours also has quite a color difference. There’s more yellow in the blue of the Pacific board - or the other way around, can’t check, don’t have the board here. It shows less in the land areas since abit more yellow in brownish colors won’t show that much.

Also it shows so hard because there happens to be a LOT of ocean there. :)

Doesn’t really bother me, though.