Land fighters on a bid carrier?

[Argothair]

If you play with a bid for the Allies, would you allow a player to land fighters on a carrier that was purchased using the bid money? The example I have in mind is to protect the starting USA Atlantic fleet. If the US uses bid money to build a carrier in SZ 11 (to join the 1 DD and 2 transports there), would you allow the USA to reposition the fighter that starts in the Eastern US to land on the new carrier in SZ 11 before the start of the game? Why or why not?

[Witt]

I would say no. But then you do not need it to move, as you can scramble from the AB in Eastern US. Better to get a Destroyer anyway.
The Germans can only hit you with Subs and your Fighters are useless against them, having no defence roll).

[Argothair]

Thanks for trying to help, but you do know that the entire site isn’t devoted to 1940 Global, right? This is the 1942.2 forum, so there’s no airbase and no scrambling. There is a DD in the Atlantic at setup, though, so I’m pretty sure the fighter can pair with the DD to hit attacking subs.

[Witt]

My apologies. Typed while at work.
You are right and I totally see why you would want a Carrier bid, as losing the two TTs on R1 is almost a given and really stalls the US Atlantic efforts.
I like throwing in .a Cruiser or a second DD to ensure you have some semblance of a fleet left.

I would, however, not allow the US player to place his Ft on a Carrier bid, If I were the other side. Seems wrong to change the set up like that, is my only reason.
I wonder what others here think.

[DCWhat]

Why not bid a DD and sub for 14 IPC’s? I too wouldn’t allow t if I were the axis player. It seems to me from being one step away from making your own set up

[innohub]

Um…I personally like Argothair’s idea of proposing a carrier with fighter’s landing - it brings a bigger impact to later game then buying a destroyer and sub - since carrier provides better defense once pairing with fighters, and it helps shorten the flying distance which is a big deal in Atlantic. But then it is not a norm in Bid (from what I understand Bid usually does not someone to change the starting position of existing piece) so I guess it depends on another player’s willingness to do this.

[baron Münchhausen]

@innohub:

Um…I personally like Argothair’s idea of proposing a carrier with fighter’s landing - it brings a bigger impact to later game then buying a destroyer and sub - since carrier provides better defense once pairing with fighters, and it helps shorten the flying distance which is a big deal in Atlantic. But then it is not a norm in Bid (from what I understand Bid usually does not someone to change the starting position of existing piece) so I guess it depends on another player’s willingness to do this.

If Axis does not like it, you can sweetened the bid by allowing a third u-boats mid-Atlantic while you move on bid Carrier the East Coast US Fighter.
It gives more opening options to both players, to recreate battle of Atlantic.
HTH

I also used to play HR with 1 scrambled plane allowed on any Victory City.

[taamvan]

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.