Question about aircraft attack from carriers

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.

You can buy a vinyl printout of the board from office max or staples, no idea how it works but I know its been done. Check out the axis and allies Facebook group and ask a question there, someone will definitely get back to you.

which brings up the fun option of sending in fighters to attack with an unlikely landing spot. For example, lets say Japan has 8 transports in the Sea of Japan, but a massive fleet stationed a zone away making it hard for your Allied fleet to create a valid landing spot. You can attack the massive IJN fleet with a single sub which “in theory” could win the battle, and send a fighter to attack the transports with the potential option to land back in the zone that the sub opened up.

The transports are sunk, the allied sub is lost, and sadly there is no valid landing zone so the fighter crashes after the not-completely kamikaze mission. TripleA handles this correctly.

@simon33 Yes and I pointed out that you just had a foolish engagement of limping a carrier if the enemy scored a hit which it will statically would.

Hi alecug,

Hey, we were all new once.  ;)

A list of acronyms that are thrown around this site quite a bit can be found here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27430.0

I hope you find that info useful, and welcome!

Ok miss read Krieg’s clarification on my highlighted section

@Commando:

You can land Anzac or UK air on Dutch territories w/out putting land units there first I believe. As well as Fic…

Correct.  Cow- Dutch territories are not neutral.  Holland is not a neutral no player power.  It is an Allied non player power.  A non neutral Ally is ALWAYS free to land planes there while the territory is still dutch

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@knp7765:

If two US carriers were attacked by a Japanese submarine, and there were no US destroyers present, the fighters on the carrier that got damaged would not be lost in the air.  They would be stuck on the deck of the carrier until the carrier could get to a friendly naval base for repairs. 
Since planes can not hit submarines without a friendly destroyer present, if a submarine attacks a carrier there is no reason for the planes to take off from the carrier.  They would simply have to withstand the attack aboard the carrier like cargo on transports in hopes that the carrier’s own anti-sub defenses can get the sub or the sub breaks off the attack.
Therefore, you would not lose your planes if the carrier only took one hit. 
However, say your carrier is next to a friendly island or coast and gets attacked by a pack of subs that gets two hits on that carrier.  Then you would lose your planes even though they are just 1 space away because they never took off from the carrier because planes can’t hit submarines.  That part sucks.

All of that is wrong. The planes are always in the air and thus if the CV is damaged, they have to land within 1 space or die.

Calvin is correct.  The only times planes are considered in Cargo on a CV is when they are your allies planes, at which point they are not in the air until that players turn.

To clarify that, allied planes are only cargo if the carrier is attacking. If the carrier is defending, allied planes can still try to land within one space.

My mistake guys.  I just went back and reread the rules regarding carriers and defending aircraft and see now that ANY attack on the carrier has the planes defending in the air, even if the attack is by subs.  I guess I missed that part before.  Thanks for the correction.