Question about aircraft attack from carriers

@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.

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@Gargantua:

The rulebook is half clear.  It states that all combat moves must end in combat on Page #13
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious
assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or
air units that may be needed to support it in the case that
defending air units are scrambled (see �Scramble,� page16).

My interpretation of that is scramble or no scramble, or even no airbase, I can move whatever I want in the combat phase to a friendly seazone to support that invasion.

Your interpretation is incorrect.  You may only move units that will participate in or support the amphibious assault into a friendly sea zone.  Air and sea units that will participate in the assault include transports offloading land units, battleships and/or cruisers bombarding, and possibly a warship to escort the transports (if needed because of an enemy sub that will be ignored - bombarding battleships and/or cruisers can fulfill this role).  Supporting units can include any type of air or sea unit desired, but can only be moved there if necessary due to the possibility of a defending scramble - there being both an operative enemy air base and eligible air units present.

As others have pointed out, the same criteria apply when determining whether units beginning the turn in the sea zone may move out of it during combat movement.  Such units restricted from moving out in noncombat movement are those that were actually involved in combat and transports that offloaded.

They’re are three territories in USSR far worth a total of 3 ICP that Japan and take over and still not piss of Mongolia. I have only ever seen a player do this once but Japan and USSR not going to war is usually very useful for Japan as it keeps a front close and 9/10 times, USSR will be the one to invade which turns Mongolia into a strict neutral.

@ColonelCarter:

@Shin:

I don’t know why HBs would even matter.  Your bombers effectively attack on 5 rather than four now.

yay?

He’s talking about old heavy bombers. The ones that rolled 2 dice @4 and kept both results. Those were pretty much game over.

Actually, the Old HB rolled 3 dice and kept ALL of the results. They only changed it to 2 dice in revised edition, and even that where overpowered.
They also did kept all of the results when stratbombing, AND there where no upper limit on how much damage you could do.

So, effectivly, if you get HB on round 1 with UK. You will build 2 HB as UK for round 1. UK round 2, you will hit germany with 3 HB and 9 dice doing an average of 31.5 IPC of damage (if all bombers get though). That is more or less the entire german economy (which starts at 32) gone from G3 and until the game is over.

So, HB in round 1 and it doesn’t matter if russia falls, bc germany will have zero production for the rest of the game.

Thanks everyone. This helped clear up stuff.

@Cmdr:

I like bizarre moves.  For non-regulation games (non-tournament, non-league) because it puts the other player off and might show you something neat that you can use for regulation play.

I’ve seen MANY players land Germany in Brazil and put a complex there.  Good way to annoy the crud out of America (Italy would be better, but sometimes they’re not in a position too.)

Seen invasions of Canada as well (in Alpha 3.9 no less!) with mixed effects.  What happened there, once, was that the landing happened, America went full ground forces and japan sunk the American navy - it was a suicide move, but it worked.  Germany lost like 200IPC worth of ground units, but AMerica lost at least that much in naval units, probably more.

So bizarre moves have their purpose.  Canadian shield was bizarre, then mainstream, then bizarre again.  (And yes, I’ve been known to pull it out once or twice in a “classic” game since nO ONE sees it coming anymore!)

The US navy could not sneak out of the Pacific?