That territory is considered full-friendly after you captured it during your turn.
So now that its after your turn, its defiantly friendly to the point where you can land planes there.
tl:dr Yes
I think you meant to say “definitely”
Carriers
-
It seems unlikely that this would ever happen as the only way to end with a hit and two fighters aboard would mean you would have had to attack with a carrier with two friendly aircraft on board. As in the above example, with two US fighters. But I cannot think of an instance where you would WANT to do that unless it was a massive fleet attack and you couldn’t leave the carrier behind (but why not wait for the non combat move as the 1 soaker hit probably wouldn’t help with the attack all that much.
The example points out that the 2 hit carrier does not improve the carriers position because it now costs 2 more IPC and the ‘so called’ free hit can cause alot of problems if taken. So basically the carrier went up 2 IPC for nothing. That was my point.
Who would ever take that hit on the carrier. Now the other naval units are cheaper than the carrier. 2 hit carrier was supposed to be an added benefit but it is useless.
-
I should clarify my earlier statement. Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked, unless the carrier was previously damaged. Any planes on a damaged carrier would not launch in defense. As kcdzim pointed out, planes trapped on a damaged carrier should be a pretty rare occurrence.
I think that once you’ve tried a few games the benefits of the two-hit carrier will become apparent, especially for the defender.
-
Its not totally useless. If you are attacked or make an attack in a sea zone next to your own naval base (NB), then you can soak up the hit and land your planes on the ground. Then on your turn the a/c is auto fixed (next to NB). Not ideal but it won’t cost you a unit, unless another enemy can attack you before your turn. It won’t even cost you movement for your ftrs if you also have an airbase(AB) there. You can then continue out to sea or plot your next move. It is going to change some of the mechanics of the game on weather you take a/c into battle or not. In many cases the a/c would be left behind at a safe distance anyway so it won’t have much of an effect. How often do you take the carrier in when you attack Pearl Harbor, you don’t because you don’t want to leave much for a counter attack. Now that a/c has no attack value leaving it behind will become even more predominant.
I didn’t like the whole 2 hit carrier thing when I first heard about restrictions to planes. I’m still not to sure about it. I personally think when hit, you should only loose 1/2 your capacity for air units, but that would have probably raised the price even more.
Where 2 hit carriers will help more is when you have larger battles with multiple carriers and you plan on loosing a few planes. Then you might take in a carrier just to keep higher rolls in play in later rounds of the battle. Use it more for an expensive shield.
I can’t wait to test it out. The Pacific is huge and the new bases will make naval war much more interesting. There will be much more planning involved for all the seas. When attacking, battles will reflect what really happened, as carriers wouldn’t be going into the fight normally, only there air units would. The 2 hits (although restricting) will show the difficultly involved in attacking/sinking those floating fortresses.
-
I think the naval rules and system established in AA 50 Anniversary ed. is the most perfect, and it was not neccessary to change the system again. This new two-hit carrier will make combat resolving a lot more complicated, and that is not good. Remember that this game will be played by average people, and not only some Einstein-playtesters that love challenges and like to develope new rules. Most of the players want a mainstream combat system, so we can pay attention to strategies and play. So more smites to Kev and Craig.
-
You make a good point, Razor. In many cases, simpler is better. However, Larry’s purpose in making these '40 games is to give something new to players who’ve always wanted a “meatier” A&A experience. If simple is your thing, you may be better off sticking to AA42 or AA50. The good thing is that there’s something for everyone.
-
You make a good point, Razor.
You are my buddy, Kev, so you may call me “Raz”. And I do want the level of complexity that AA40 will offer, I’m just complaining that the new two-hit carrier is silly. Thats all. You could not make a game with Blockhouses, butt a two-hit carrier that are real confusing and certainly will make a lot of problems when resolving combat, yes that you could make. Terrain ? Nooo, too complex. A two-hit carrier ? yes of course. You already made ports, airfields, minor IC and major IC, so why not a two-hit carrier ? Now Razor must go figure.
-
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Game design isn’t an easy process, Raz. You can’t please everyone.
-
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Game design isn’t an easy process, Raz. You can’t please everyone.
….that is right, Kev, butt I can mail Larry tonight and tell him my opinion of the two-hit carrier.
Ohh, Raz may even mail Greg Leeds and tell him how the silly two-hit carrier will destroy the game.
-
Krieg, I know you already went through this, could you clarify one more time about subs/kami’s only attacking a lone carrier w/planes on it. My confusion originates from djensens post on rules.
Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked. It doesn’t matter what the attacking force consists of. If your lone carrier is attacked by subs and hit, whether damaged or sunk, your planes will have one space of movement to land. If they can’t, they’re lost. The moral of the story is, don’t leave your fleets without destroyer escorts when there are enemy subs around.
quote from djensen from his posting on the rules re carriers:
“If aircraft are stuck on an damaged aircraft carrier (either because of a kamikaze attack or sub hit), they cannot take off from the aircraft carrier until the carrier is repaired. In this case, if the carrier is lost the aircraft are lost too.”
So is djensen wrong in his rule posting, or is it a misprint in the rules. As I see it both kami’s and subs would be sneak attacks.
It can’t be referring to friendly’s as cargo on an attacking a/c because any hit would trap them not just kami’s/subs.PS: Your moral of the story is two fold.
- DD escort allows your planes to fight enemy subs.
- DD’s can take hits so your a/c can still land planes.
DD’s just got a more important role, they will be even more like the inf or the sea.
-
most likely the sub part should not have been included as a possible reason for being stuck on a damaged carrier.
But the kamikaze question is a good one. What happens when a Kamikaze targets a loaded AC?
-
Think not only about AAP, think about AAE and global game. Germany, UK and Italy can abuse of that 2-hit AC in Atlantic and Mediterranean. However, it’s going to be annoying having back to bases to repair, may of us will forget that :|
Another thing with ACs is the use of tactical bombers … a fig+tac combo can be good if you want both attack and defense in Pacific, and the potential menace for D-Day and axis attacks at Egypt (supplied by tanks) can be good. However, with D-Day it has less use because a bomber can easily attack from England anyway. Same for Barbarossa, a bomber is always better for offense and a fighter is always better for defense. Only real good use for tacticals is in Pacific and only because bombers cannot land at ACs
Proper would be having tacticals with movement of 5. That would do people think a bit more what they want to buy. With 4 move tacts, figs are better for USSR and bombers are better for Germany (if you conserve initial figs). Or just make tacticals cost 10, with 11 are too expensive
-
@WILD:
Krieg, I know you already went through this, could you clarify one more time about subs/kami’s only attacking a lone carrier w/planes on it. My confusion originates from djensens post on rules.
Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked. It doesn’t matter what the attacking force consists of. If your lone carrier is attacked by subs and hit, whether damaged or sunk, your planes will have one space of movement to land. If they can’t, they’re lost. The moral of the story is, don’t leave your fleets without destroyer escorts when there are enemy subs around.
quote from djensen from his posting on the rules re carriers:
“If aircraft are stuck on an damaged aircraft carrier (either because of a kamikaze attack or sub hit), they cannot take off from the aircraft carrier until the carrier is repaired. In this case, if the carrier is lost the aircraft are lost too.”
So is djensen wrong in his rule posting, or is it a misprint in the rules. As I see it both kami’s and subs would be sneak attacks.Sneak attack or not, when a carrier is attacked, its planes are defending in the air. He may have just been trying to come up with a circumstance under which planes could be trapped on a damaged carrier, but this isn’t it. The only way that it can happen is if a plane belonging to an ally is on an attacking carrier as cargo.
@WILD:
It can’t be referring to friendly’s as cargo on an attacking a/c because any hit would trap them not just kami’s/subs.
That’s correct. Any hit would trap them.
-
@Imperious:
Who would ever take that hit on the carrier. Now the other naval units are cheaper than the carrier. 2 hit carrier was supposed to be an added benefit but it is useless.
You’d take the hit on the carrier when attacking a seazone within range of freindly territory. In revised, 1942, or AA50 '42 this might be the the japanese/british naval battle off india on the first turn. The planes are all in range of burma/french indochina, and I often reinforce there with the planes anyway leaving the navy to itself (no significant planes or navy in range to attack them). Now the carrier soaks a hit (assuming the BB also took one of course) and doesn’t die.
I’d say the 2 hit carrier can be helpful, but you’ll always need to plan for it. If you leave it to the enemy to exploit, well, buhbye planes. Still , with the downgrade in defense from revised to 50, and the further downgrade in offense now, even with the soaker hit, I’m with you IL. I’m not sure the price bump was warranted.
Re: having a carrier in the atlantic or med. It won’t be easily abused, as the carrier has to wait a full round to be repaired. But that will mean that one ally will need to make the first attack on it to leave it crippled, and then the next ally will have to attack it to finish it off, preventing them from attacking somewhere else. It’s helpful. Just not super helpful.
-
Not sure how two hit carriers can be as bad a thing as everyone is making them out to be.
The changes made to carriers from AA50 are now that they cost two IPC more, and their attack value went from 1 to 0. In exchange they get a second hit except that the hit comes with the price of not being able to carry ftrs and has to be repaired. They also can now carry Tac bombers so they can send out a little more offensive punch (though not much).
The second hit is certainly not as nice as the free hit to BB in AA50 that didnt make any sense in which a BB got absorb hit after hit without penalty and then magically repair itself after each turn (meaning a US BB could take a hit from germany, a hit from Japan, and a hit from italy, and then engage in combat and take another hit and still be 100% functional and ready to do it again) That certainly didnt make sense and I think we should all be glad to see that their is a price to pay for assigning a hit to a capital ship.
Probably some ppl would like to have AA50 rules for carriers but how is that any better. Does anyone really count on AC’s for their awesome attack value of 1? What about kamikazes. The ftrs would be just as vulnerable in either case two hits or not. But now instead of losing the AC completely you can send it back to base and get it repaired for free compared to buying a new one for 14 IPCs. I think two IPCs is a worthwhile price for a little extra durability.
All these scenarios saying that people can abuse the AC by crippling it with a hit and now the ftrs are lost only makes sense when comparing it to the imaginary AC that gets free hits. The old AC would be even worse off after absorbing a hit (sunk).
-
Re: having a carrier in the atlantic or med. It won’t be easily abused, as the carrier has to wait a full round to be repaired. But that will mean that one ally will need to make the first attack on it to leave it crippled, and then the next ally will have to attack it to finish it off, preventing them from attacking somewhere else. It’s helpful. Just not super helpful.
You will need at least one more unit to attack the stack, and that can be a world of difference in attacking the whole stack or not. Now the carrier+planes combo gives you 4 hits instead of 3
However I must agree with the cost, 14 would be better … or at least let them attack at 1s or defend at 3s. We are getting too much units with 0 attack values: trannies, aa guns and now ACs … or ignore those odd bases and autorepair as always …
-
You will need at least one more unit to attack the stack, and that can be a world of difference in attacking the whole stack or not. Now the carrier+planes combo gives you 4 hits instead of 3
However I must agree with the cost, 14 would be better … or at least let them attack at 1s or defend at 3s. We are getting too much units with 0 attack values: trannies, aa guns and now ACs … or ignore those odd bases and autorepair as always …
Except you can retreat if they choose the hit on the carrier, leaving them in a weaker position when your ally attacks. And if they choose planes as casualties, each subsequent round is easier to win.
I know that if I attacked and they chose to hit the carrier, I’d probably immediately retreat if my partner could finish them off. Damage done.
-
What about kamikazes.
Good old kamikazes … they are nice, a historical bonus to Japan … and we also get some ahistorical irreal ACME wall that also benefits Japan aswell. Just let’s hope they add at least the soviet-jap non-agression pact in the global game so we have at least one special rule that punishes Japan instead of aiding them
-
Except you can retreat if they choose the hit on the carrier, leaving them in a weaker position when your ally attacks. And if they choose planes as casualties, each subsequent round is easier to win.
I know that if I attacked and they chose to hit the carrier, I’d probably immediately retreat if my partner could finish them off. Damage done.
That’s totally true, but there are some cases where only one ally has enough power or range to attack, specially round 1 or 2 when USA and USSR are not at war yet :wink:
Man, I had a extrange sight: a UK+France one-two punch … ugly! :lol:
-
Well at least the French will be able to leave France lol.
-
As far as carriers go I agree with ksm. The way it played out in AA50 is once your carrier was hit it sunk, your planes had to find an alternate place to land. Its the same now except you have a chance to limp the carrier back and keep it.
The 2 hit units are going to be bitter/sweat. This along with other changes/additions will make the naval battles much better and more realistic. Its adding a degree of logistics AA has been missing.
Suggested Topics
