You’re saying that if the combat move phase didn’t move anything - the ships simply remain in place in the seazone, that a defending power cannot scramble to the seazone full of hostiles.
It has nothing to do with combat movement, and everything to do with combat. The defender may only scramble if there is an attack, either in the sea zone or an amphibious assault from it.
It does makes sense, but I’m struggling to remember the thread I’m confusing this with. I’m thinking the example I’m remembering had an amphibious assault in it - not a simple strafing run.
I believe it did.
But lets say there’s a strafing run from SZ6 - Japan can’t scramble in response to the strafing run to hit the UK carriers in that seazone (I assume the planes came from carriers, not land bound)?
Nope.
Just to be sure… bad memory, sorry :oops:
Situation
4 planes (3Italian, 1 German) and nothing else is guarding Egypt with an operational airbase.
Axis DD+Sub+3Tr are in z98, no Axis fleet in z81
The Attacks
A. 2 Inf walking from Sudan plus 2 Inf amphibious along BB from z81
B. DD+2Ftr attacking z98.
If I understand right…
1. Maximum of 3 planes (regardless of nations) can scramble, splitted between z98 and z81 at axis’(defender) choice
2. Planes assigned to scramble will not battle in Egypt’s land combat.
3. Obviously, if scramble succeed to beat z81, the 2Inf from Sudan still have to do (at least) 1 round of combat in Egypt by themselves.
4. Say the defender choose to scramble to z98, wins battle B… but looses Egypt due to battle A. Are Axis’ places lost or they can land in Alexandria, for instance (giving Axis hold Alexandria).
5. Say, for z98’s (no scramble) round 2 example Axis(Sub+Transport) face Alliance (2Ftr), i.e. both DD are gone… then Axis sub will remain but Alliance’s Ftr will still sink Transport before flying back to landing spot.
1-3 are correct
4 - When planes lose their original base (TT or Carrier), they can fly one space to land or they splash. Alx is one space so yes they can go there.
5 - Yes, if in round 2 of the battle you have 2 fighters vs. sub and transport, the sub is out of the battle and the transport will be sunk.
Undefeated in Alpha2?! We might have to play sometime!
Undefeated in Alpha2?! We might have to play sometime!
Yep, I’m flawless (1vs1) here. Anytime! :-)
I’m afraid I have too many matches in progress right now, but I’ll write your name down and talk to you later
I attack a territory with a fighter, the only place for the fighter to land is in an adjacent seazone where an aircraftcarrier must pick it up during noncombat move, the fighter survives the battle and the aircraft carrier has a clear path to pick up said fighter. However i choose not to pick up the fighter and let it splash instead.
Is this a legal move? Or must the aircraftcarrier move to the seazone where the fighter can land on it?
No it is not a legal move. You must move your AC to “pick up” the fighter.
Right - not legal
Fighters only splash when it is impossible to pick them up during noncombat movement
No I believe you can only let planes splash if there’s no way to save them.
Right - not legal
Fighters only splash when it is impossible to pick them up during noncombat movement
No I believe you can only let planes splash if there’s no way to save them.
And to clarify that is only in the case of the aircraft carriers being destroyed during that combat phase.
Or damaged, or a blocker not being cleared.
@Uncrustable:
I attack a territory with a fighter, the only place for the fighter to land is in an adjacent seazone where an aircraftcarrier must pick it up during noncombat move, the fighter survives the battle and the aircraft carrier has a clear path to pick up said fighter. However i choose not to pick up the fighter and let it splash instead.
Is this a legal move? Or must the aircraftcarrier move to the seazone where the fighter can land on it?
I tend to disagree that this is an illegal move.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that you must pick up aircraft. It only states that each plane must have a place to land before takeoff (no matter how remote). So my fighter did have a place to land, but the rules do not say that you have to land it, and i chose not to.
In 1942 version on gametableonline this is an entirely legal move (or a bug) which i often use as japan to kill unescorted loaded transports or on my sz52 attack i always send 2 fighters and one bomber, if both fighters survive then one is going to die anyhow because i refuse to pick it up.
Id like to know Kreighund’s take on this ?
@Uncrustable:
I tend to disagree that this is an illegal move.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that you must pick up aircraft. It only states that each plane must have a place to land before takeoff (no matter how remote). So my fighter did have a place to land, but the rules do not say that you have to land it, and i chose not to.
In 1942 version on gametableonline this is an entirely legal move (or a bug) which i often use as japan to kill unescorted loaded transports or on my sz52 attack i always send 2 fighters and one bomber, if both fighters survive then one is going to die anyhow because i refuse to pick it up.
Actually it is stated in the rules. See for example Europe 1940-rulebook, page 28, last clause: “…In fact, a carrier must move if it’s able, or remain in place, in order to provide a landing space for an air unit that would not otherwise have one. …”
Same in 1942 btw., see page 28 AC - unit characteristics - first clause, last sentence “…(and in fact, it must do so if it is able)”.
Krieghund’s take on it is that it is illegal. :lol:
Page 28, under aircraft carriers:
“In fact, a carrier must move if it’s able, or remain in place, in order to provide a landing space for an air unit that would not otherwise have one.”
Not sure how else you could interpret this. :-) I guess you found a bug at GTO.
Dang, Panther beat me by 56 seconds!
I feel dirty :(
ALL THESE YEARS! lol
Yes it must be a bug on GTO
:-)
But you could purposely not clear a blocker by attacking and retreating, and thus not have to pick up the fighter
